[BRIEF NOTE] What gay rights are all about
Dec. 9th, 2008 12:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThis news story has gotten quite a lot of attention.
While I find the Vatican's attitude is deplorable, I also disagree with Grillini that the French resolution has nothing to do with gay marriage inasmuch as the removal of legal stigma against non-heterosexuals and non-heterosexuality is but the first step towards the removal of stigma full stop. If a society found it as normal to be (say) gay as it is to be left-handed or of the pasty pale skin persuasion, then especially--but not only--if the society actively campaigned against discriminatory behaviours the homophobe would be in as much trouble as the sexist. Such a society would complicate the lives of homophobes--for examples, see the sex counsellor in England who was fired for refusing to take same-sex couples on as client or the Saskatchewan civil marriage commissioner who was let go for refusing to marry same-sex couples.
I'm for this kind of society, simply because I don't believe I deserve to be discriminated against on the grounds of my sexual orientation, or my skin colour, or for that matter my left-handedness. I'm a person just like any other who deserves to be treated with the same dignity and respect that others demand. Separating the legal stigma from the social stigma feels to me like an arbitrary exercise, not least because the legal stigma is product of the social stigma. Others are of the same opinion about the unity of these two stigmas, but, alas, some of these hold a different opinion on the acceptability of homophobia.
Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality.
The row erupted after the Vatican's permanent observer to the United Nations told a French Catholic news agency the Holy See would oppose the resolution, which France is due to propose later this month on behalf of the 27-member European Union.
Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.
"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.
A strongly worded editorial in Italy's mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican's reasoning was "grotesque".
Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a "chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation".
Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy's leading gay rights group, said the Vatican's reasoning smacked of "total idiocy and madness".
"The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals," Grillini told Reuters.
While I find the Vatican's attitude is deplorable, I also disagree with Grillini that the French resolution has nothing to do with gay marriage inasmuch as the removal of legal stigma against non-heterosexuals and non-heterosexuality is but the first step towards the removal of stigma full stop. If a society found it as normal to be (say) gay as it is to be left-handed or of the pasty pale skin persuasion, then especially--but not only--if the society actively campaigned against discriminatory behaviours the homophobe would be in as much trouble as the sexist. Such a society would complicate the lives of homophobes--for examples, see the sex counsellor in England who was fired for refusing to take same-sex couples on as client or the Saskatchewan civil marriage commissioner who was let go for refusing to marry same-sex couples.
I'm for this kind of society, simply because I don't believe I deserve to be discriminated against on the grounds of my sexual orientation, or my skin colour, or for that matter my left-handedness. I'm a person just like any other who deserves to be treated with the same dignity and respect that others demand. Separating the legal stigma from the social stigma feels to me like an arbitrary exercise, not least because the legal stigma is product of the social stigma. Others are of the same opinion about the unity of these two stigmas, but, alas, some of these hold a different opinion on the acceptability of homophobia.
