Question for The Wall Street Journal:

Can Political Process Influenced by Evangelicals be Fair to Homosexuals?

By M.P. Prabhakaran

            “Public attitudes toward homosexuality are much different [today] than they were 20 years ago…,” says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial on November 15, 2004. Everyone will agree with that. The editorial, entitled “Gay Lessons,” also says that “The country is [now] engaged in an honest and open debate about gay marriage.” Most people will agree with that too. But the problem they have is with what the Journal says elsewhere in the editorial: “The lesson here [in the passing of referenda to ban gay marriage put on the ballot in 11 states in last month’s presidential election] for gay rights activists is to trust the democratic process, rather than use the courts to circumvent it.” The two developments the editorial has approvingly cited are the outcome of tireless work done by gay rights activists and bold decisions made by some of the courts in the country. While the democratic process in the country proved to be conducive to those developments, it did not initiate them.

            The democratic process, though it is the least defective – and hence the most acceptable – political process the world has ever known, often fails to address issues that are of vital interest to certain sections of society. The reason is that those sections are not part of the majority. As we all know, democracy is the rule of the majority. The rule of the majority can sometimes lead to tyranny of the majority when there is no mechanism built into the political process to protect the basic rights of those who can never become part of the majority. Political thinkers have pointed to this dangerous possibility from the very beginning of the evolution of the idea of democracy. The idea of liberalism evolved as a bulwark against that danger. It evolved as an integral part of the idea of democracy. The Wall Street Journal and others in America, who never tire of ridiculing ‘liberal’ as a dirty word next only to ‘commie,’ may please take note of this.

            Liberals in the country may be in the forefront of the movement to advance the cause of gays. But that doesn’t make it a liberal cause. The Journal should know that, when it comes to sexual orientation, such labels don’t stick. Vice President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter, in whose defense the paper launched a tirade against the Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (see “Outing of Mary Cheney,” editorial, October 15, 2004), would not be comfortable being a called a liberal, in the sense in which the Journal uses it.

            Societal attitudes and norms do change, especially in an open, democratic society. But, in the absence of an external stimulus, the change will be frustratingly slow. The experience of blacks in the country is a case in point. Does the Journal think that the abolition of slavery would have occurred at the time it did if the matter was left to the democratic process? It took a civil war to accomplish it. Even after the formal abolition, even after the erstwhile slave’s legal transformation from 3/5^th of a person to full person, he did not enjoy all benefits that a full white person enjoyed. It took nearly a century of struggle by social and political activists and decisions by progressive-minded courts for that to happen. This is not to say that he is now on a par with his white counterpart in all respects. The society still has a long way to go before that parity is guaranteed to him.

            The problem is gargantuan when it pertains to gays and gay marriage. In the case of gay marriage, it is one of getting the society to change the age-old definition of marriage. The Journal may please note that the advocates of gay marriage are not considering “whether the 5,000-year old institution of marriage needs to be upended.” They only want the benefits of that institution, which heterosexual married couples have been enjoying, to be extended to homosexual married couples too. Also, if being married makes them feel good, they don’t want to be denied that feel-good rite of passage simply because their marriage partner happens to be a person of the same sex. After all, God did not define marriage. Man did. The same man can now redefine it. (By the way, would the Journal care to share with its readers the ingenious way in which it determined the age of the institution of marriage as 5,000 years?)

            In every society there are disadvantaged minorities who deserve to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. The reasons for their being disadvantaged – and for their being in the minority status permanently – could be historical, ethnic, geographical, linguistic or related to sexual orientation. The important thing to bear in mind is that the reasons are not of their choosing. In an open-market society, which democracies are, they are not in a position to compete with the advantaged majority on equal terms. They need some help from somewhere to get started. They will be most comfortable to take that help from their own government rather than from individuals with vested interests. All that the liberals say is that the government in an enlightened society has an obligation to offer that help to the disadvantaged.

The Most Obnoxious Evangelical

            Today, gays are among the most disadvantaged minorities in our society. The reason for their plight is the prejudice of others in the society, especially of the religious right. The results of last month’s election indicate that the political clout of the religious right in the country is steadily increasing. Most of them treat homosexuality as an aberration. Some evangelicals go a step further and call it a sin deserving punishment from God. This is what the fattest and the most obnoxious evangelical in the country, Rev. Jerry Falwell, said just two days after 9/11:

            “I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America … I point the thing in their face and say ‘you helped this [the terrorist attack] happen.’”

            Falwell made this comment during an interview on The 700 Club, a Christian television program hosted by Rev. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson, another evangelical with the pretense of being the custodian of the key to Heaven, was in full agreement with Falwell: “I totally concur, and the problem is we’ve adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system.” Rev. Robertson’s contempt for the court system may be soothing to The Wall Street Journal.

            The problem with evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson is that they are more interested in politicking than evangelizing. The role they played in getting President Bush reelected last month is well known. Bush, himself a born-again Christian, dared not discourage their meddling in politics. He doesn’t realize that the wall that separates church and state, proudly erected by the Founding Fathers, are crumbling on his watch. Can the political process in a country, in thrall to the Christian right and influenced by self-righteous evangelicals, be fair to homosexuals? The Wall Street Journal may want to answer.