As Rod Dreher has argued, we live in a difficult time for social conservatives. The rise of the LGBTQ community as a political force has finally eliminated any pretense, in the wake of the Sexual Revolution, that we are still dealing with a Judeo-Christian society. The previous generation could pretend that even if society was sinful and full of people who had strayed from traditional values, they could be brought in line with a slight nudge. For example, if you voted Republicans into office, they could take over the Supreme Court, allow prayer back in public schools, ban abortion and the country would eventually turn itself around. Regardless of the fate of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, this will not happen.
One might have hoped to live in a world in which we social
conservatives, even if we had no influence, were left alone. This is
increasingly not the case as the Overton Window has moved from a libertarian
neutral or even oppositional tolerance regarding homosexuality where I might
have utter contempt for your personal life choices, but believe that you should
be allowed to pursue them in the privacy of your own home to a demand for
active tolerance that declares the LGBTQ lifestyle to be an active good. Social
conservatives are
quickly finding themselves treated in the same fashion as white supremacists, chased out of universities and unable to hold
down jobs in mainstream professions. It only remains to be seen if the
government will one day come for our children.
To further complicate matters, our opponents in the LGBTQ
community are not entirely wrong. As a historically oppressed group that has
often been denied even libertarian tolerance and subject to violence, it should
come as no surprise that, now that the tables are turned, they show little in
the way of tolerance in return. Also, let us be honest, many people use social
conservatism as cover for genuine hatred of LGBTQ people as opposed to
ideological opposition to that lifestyle. In that spirit, here are my
guidelines for those trying to walk a narrow line between maintaining their
credibility as social conservatives without giving our opponents plausible
cause to accuse us of hatred.
The first point is to avoid active conflict. One should not
directly attack members of the LGBTQ community as such even to make the point
that they are sinners. The fact that LGBTQs are likely to become casualties of
a conservative sexual ethic may not be avoidable but it should never be an end
in itself. This position is necessary even as it means giving up any chance of
winning the larger social conflict.
To understand why this is the case, it may be useful to consider the example of opponents of Israel. Clearly, one
can be opposed to the State of Israel without being an anti-Semite. There are
valid criticisms of Israel to be made. As an anarcho-capitalist, who opposes
all governments as the products of violence, I am hardly unsympathetic to those
who would consider Israel to be illegitimate. The problem with opponents of
Israel, even when they are right on the facts, is that they are trapped by the
existence of people using the anti-Israel cause as a Trojan Horse for
anti-Semitism. This means that anyone attacking Israel is obligated to
demonstrate clear daylight between themselves and anti-Semites.
This is the case even when that means that, under certain
circumstances, one is forced into silence. For example, one might object to
Israel's handling of Gaza but it is rather difficult to articulate those
criticisms without sounding like an apologist for Hamas. This may mean that the
people in Gaza will not receive Justice but there are many other causes not
blatantly tainted by terrorism worthy of attention. When Hamas is no longer a
factor, then we could revisit the Israeli Occupation. You can consider yourself
exempt from standing up for the Palestinians because of Hamas. It is their
fault that there is no independent Palestinian State in Gaza.
The problem with attacking the gay rights movement is simply the existence of opponents of gay rights. For example, we live in a world in which the Westboro
Baptist Church exists and is not simply a Poe Law begging satire of religious
fundamentalists. You have people like Scott Lively, who are clearly
motivated by a pathological hatred of gays and wish them physical harm. This
limits one's ability to oppose the gay rights movement without implicitly being
an apologist for them. This does not change the fact that there is no such thing
as gay rights and that the term is simply a trap to discredit opponents. One
has to conclude that there are many sins out there that are damaging society.
Focus on one that is not gay sex. If that means that promotors of homosexuality
win, the WBC and Scott Lively can answer to God for how they sacrificed traditional
marriage in this country for the sake of being on television.
There is a lesson my father has tried to teach me. Sometimes, it
is not enough to be right. There are certain battles that are not worth the
cost even when you are right. The very act of trying to defend certain things,
even when you are right, indicates that there is a larger lesson you have
failed to learn. For example, anti-BDS legislation may technically be
defendable on free-speech grounds. That being said, a true defender of civil
liberties should not want to be stuck having to defend themselves, allowing the
free speech debate to distract from the fact that BDS is part of a conspiracy
to kill Jews. Similarly, if leftist opponents of Trump were serious about
fighting racism, they would not have allowed anti-Semitism to become an issue.
For social conservatives to willingly initiate an exchange that requires them
to explain how they are not homophobic indicates something skewered in their
priorities.
A good example of this is the recent Jewish Press article on homosexuality. I have no particular
love for the Jewish "De-Pressed." That being said, I find nothing
objectionable in the article's argument per se. The fact that there was a
controversy indicates something about the state of affairs and how little the
Left is willing to tolerate deviation from their established line. That being
said, this is a battle I do not wish to fight even if I suspect that many of
the people who criticized the article would not recognize any difference
between the author and myself. At the end of the day, Irwin Benjamin shows little
empathy for why people march in pride parades. His article could have made the
same point while avoiding the implication that homosexuals are animals and
ending with something along the lines of "I wish those marching well and
understand why they are doing so even as I am constrained from joining
in." The fact that he did not do so indicates that what motivates him is
not a love of God's Torah but that he honestly sees homosexuals as animals and
is offended that they could take pride in themselves as human beings. (See
Rabbi Yakov Horowitz's pitch-perfect letter to the editor.) If this means
that gays will be able to blaspheme the Torah to their heart's content well
that is on Benjamin.
(To be continued ...)