In the quaint old days of black and white television sets, city streets clogged only with men in ties and women in skirts, and yes, enforced racial segregation in many parts of this country, at least the Left knew what it was about. The basis of social-democracy had been an attempt to better the lot of the less fortunate, and provide for civic equality of all members of society. Every major breakthrough for the left, from the 19th century to the 1960s, comported with this aim, whether it was laws establishing reasonably circumscribed work hours, creating a social safety net for the poor, or providing an old- age pension for those who had not amassed enough wealth to retire comfortably. The triumph of the Left had always been the triumph of the less fortunate; cultural matters were secondary.
How pathetic is it, then, that liberals’ unique triumph of the last 30 years has been the legalization of gay marriage. For in every other respect the traditional concerns of the left have been further and further undermined. Large multinational corporations have more power than they have ever had since the 1920s; the wages of most people have stagnated since the 1980s; labor unions are virtually non-existent; and the economy is becoming so overly weighted towards stock-speculation and financial services, that an ever larger sort of neo-rentier class has arisen of people who only make money off money.
I do not, for the purpose of this article, seek to engage in a policy debate over whether all the economic measures for which the capitalist-skeptic Left has traditionally attempted to solve these problems are advisable. But one cannot doubt that what I may perhaps call the Old Left, had at least the right priorities; they fought against injustice and often won important reforms, many of which become, with the passage of time, accepted by people of all political stripes. Yet in the present climate of uber-capitalism run amuck, why are all the liberals getting so worked up about a religious freedom law in Indiana which might, possibly, conceivably, in some odd case, or not, cause a business to refuse to do business with a openly homosexual?
Besides, the idea that a gay person, walking into a restaurant, would be denied service because of this law is absurd on many counts. Firstly, it is very rarely evident, when you first set eyes on someone, what his sexual orientation is. Secondly, no religious group that I know of objects to the homosexual condition, per say, but rather to engaging in homosexual acts. Nearly all would, if they are in fact acting out of religious zeal, and not blind bigotry, feel the same abhorrence to sexual relations among heterosexuals outside of wedlock, as they do to homosexual relations. Any unfair discrimination that could take place, in such a scenario, if it ever does, which I highly doubt, would therefore lack religious justification, and not be protected under this law.
A different scenario is one that formed the basis of a lawsuit which many say lead to the drafting of the Indian law: A photography service refuses to photograph a gay wedding on religious grounds. But, in the unlikely event of such a refusal, what is so wrong in allowing people to satisfy their consciences in this way? For there is something very different in simply serving someone, who may or may not be gay, and may or may not be practicing his gayness sexually, and participating in and helping to commemorate an event which, because of your religion, you feel should not take place. What if a photographer refuses to shoot a playboy party, a political rally for fascists, or the opening of a sex shop? Should he be legally incapable of refusing to participate in something he deems abhorrent?
These questions put, I think, this massive liberal hysteria in some perspective. At best, it distracts would-be reformers from questions that matter a great deal more; at worst, it risks turning the so-called champions of tolerance into something rather nasty, and actually quite intolerant. In bending over backwards to defend against hypothetical bigotry that will almost assuredly never be justified under this law, they are, in the same breath, showing very little tolerance for the views of those who disagree with them on the question of gay liberation and same sex marriage. Is it that they cannot fathom the idea that those who happen to hold different views on these questions, may actually choose to live in a way that reflects those views? Rather than a very laudable campaign for equal rights for homosexuals, this has become an embittered effort to invalidate those who, for whatever reason, hold a different from theirs.
I never thought I would say that I pine for the days when the Left got itself worked up about poverty, hunger, corporate influence, and the power of Wall Street. But if to care about these things is not to be a liberal, what on earth is? It is time for liberals to return to their roots.
