Opposition to equal civil rights for gays comes in many forms. Religious conservatives are losing the argument that there is something necessarily wrong with homosexuality, so they appear to be turning to a new one: treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with conservatives’ religious liberty.

Since when did the preservation of religious liberty require treating members of a minority like second-class citizens? To be fair, expanding the sphere of rights that are protected can impose limitations on others. The rights of Jews to be free from discrimination means, for example, that employers can't refuse to hire someone who is Jewish. What's wrong with that, though?

The abstract from George W. Dent Jr.'s paper states:

The goals of the gay movement are not primarily economic; most gays already have above-average incomes. ...Since the gay movement's goals are not primarily economic, it cares about the law not so much for its financial impact as for its symbolic or expressive significance. Since the prize is a symbol, compromise is unacceptable except, perhaps, as a temporary tactic: anything less than full equality is inferior, second-class status, intolerable.

George W. Dent is correct that there is real symbolic importance to having the right to marry, but he is way out in left field — a field located on Mars — if he thinks that there aren't significant economic benefits to marriage. The number of benefits which a married couple can take advantage of has been calculated at well over 1,000 and most of them are either directly economic (joint tax returns) or indirectly economic (being able to take time off to care for a sick spouse without losing your job).

Look closely at George W. Dent's reason for saying that gays' interest in legal marriage is not primarily economic: gays have above-average incomes. What kind of reason is that? Imagine if all people in the "upper class" were denied the right to marry... would their resistance to this be simply for "symbolic or expressive significance"? Of course not. No one would be so dense as to suggest such a thing — inheritance issues alone should prevent people from thinking about that.

Because of the pervasive influence of religion in America, equal acceptance of homosexuality cannot be achieved unless religious groups either surrender and affirm this equality or, at least, those that do not are reduced to a despised minority forced to keep its views to itself. ...

Full legal and social equality of homosexuality, however, cannot be squared with respect for the traditional religions that disapprove of it. If government treats homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality and by nondiscrimination laws compels citizens to do likewise, then disparagement of homosexuality must be condemned and suppressed just as racial discrimination now is. In effect, government must declare traditional religion to be false and evil.

It's nice that George W. Dent is making explicit the similarity between racial discrimination and anti-gay bigotry. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have thought the connection through. Let's re-word his text slightly to see what we come up with:

Because of the pervasive influence of religion in America, equal acceptance of blacks cannot be achieved unless religious groups either surrender and affirm this equality or, at least, those that do not are reduced to a despised minority forced to keep its views to itself. ...

Full legal and social equality of blacks, however, cannot be squared with respect for the traditional religions that disapprove of racial mixing and integration. If government treats blacks as equal to whites and by nondiscrimination laws compels citizens to do likewise, then disparagement of blacks must be condemned and suppressed just as anti-Catholic discrimination now is. In effect, government must declare traditional religion to be false and evil.

How many problems can we now find with George W. Dent's argument? Moving backwards, it's just false that nondiscrimination laws must necessarily declare the traditional religion (when it supports the banned discrimination) to be "false and evil." Traditional religion in America was a forceful supporter of segregation; that religion was not declared "false and evil" by the introduction of laws that banned segregation. This is the conclusion that most moral adults have come to accept now, but that's because people have changed their attitudes towards racial minorities.

Is there any reason to think that the same won't be the case with laws banning discrimination against gays? Just the opposite: there are many places where gays may not have "full legal and social equality" because they cannot marry, but there are laws against anti-gay discrimination. Have those places declared traditional religion to be "false and evil"? No. It's unequivocally clear that George W. Dent is wrong here; the only question is why he didn't take facts into account when he wrote the above.

Let's ignore that, however, and accept for the sake of argument that his false claims are true. So what? It would be inappropriate for government to declare an entire religion "false and evil," even if it is, but what would be wrong with declaring certain beliefs and attitudes "false and evil," regardless of whether they are promoted by any religions? Can't the government declare that racism or anti-Semitism are "false and evil"? Of course it can — and the fact that some religions have traditionally promoted such ideologies is irrelevant.

Why can't the government take the position that anti-gay bigotry is "false and evil'? Many people engage in egregious special pleading with arguments to justify bigotry and discrimination towards gays which they would never accept if directed at other minorities. What are the chances that this is what George W. Dent is doing?

Finally, pay close attention to what George W. Dent is saying: it's wrong to protect the "full legal and social equality" of gays in America. By implication, he's advancing the argument that gays should have fewer legal rights and less social protection than heterosexuals — and only because of their sexual orientation. That position is nothing if not "false and evil."

I have been unable to read the full article so I don't know for sure if George W. Dent is able to muster any arguments or evidence that supports his above claims, but these claims are just so extreme and ridiculous that I'm comfortable dismissing that as too improbable to take seriously.

 

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and Religion:

• Does Equality for Gays Threaten Religious Liberty?
• Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal?
• Is Religiously Motivated Discrimination Against Gays OK?
• Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
• Catholicism & Homosexuality
• Roman Catholicism on Gay Marriages (Christianity - Catholicism)

 

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and the Law:

• Why Ban Gay Marriage?
• Arguments for Gay Marriage
• Equal Rights vs. Special Rights
• Gay Marriage vs. Divorce & Remarriage
• Four Reasons to Support Gay Marriage (Civil Liberties)
• Where Can Gays Legally Marry? (Lesbian Life)
• Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage (Lesbian Life)
• Civil Unions, Domestic Partnership & Gay Marriage (Gay Life)
• Gay Marriage 101 - Information on Gay Marriage, Civil Unions (Civil Liberties)
• 10 States that Could Legalize Gay Marriage or Civil Unions