I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
March 21, 2005
Safe Zones
As you enter my office, directly across from the door is a bulletin board and on it is a little sticker. It has the words ‘SAFE ZONE’ in large purple letters over an inverted pink triangle background.
It was given to me by the Spectrum group at Case which, according to its website seeks to “provide an environment where GLBTQQIA (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersexed, and allied) persons can socialize, learn, and grow.�
The sticker on my bulletin board is meant to be a signal that a student who fits into any of those categories can let me know without fearing any adverse or hostile reaction from me.
I have to say that I feel a little sad whenever my eye falls on that sticker. Have we come to this, that we have to publicly announce zones of safety for people for no other reason than their sexual orientation? Shouldn’t that be something that is taken for granted? The fact that it is not is a sign of how far we are from creating a tolerant society.
I have never quite been able to understand why some people get so upset by other people’s private lives. Yes, I can understand that because of your own religious beliefs or culture or upbringing or whatever there are certain things that you personally might not approve of. But you are always free not to do them. But why should the private lives of other consenting adults, even total strangers, matter to you?
And yet, it seems that many people are concerned about just such things. To me, one of the more disturbing features on last November’s election was the adoption of so many anti-gay measures across the nation. In Ohio Issue 1, that sought to prohibit gay couples from getting some of the benefits that married heterosexual couples take for granted, was adopted by 62% to 38%, an alarmingly large margin.
It seems pretty clear that there are at least two groups who currently run the risk of open discrimination – non-heterosexuals and Arabs/Muslims. It seems to be perfectly acceptable to say disparaging things against either of these two groups without being shamed or called to account.
When it comes to Arabs, for example, Third-Tier Pundit™ Hall of Famer Ann Coulter recently in her column referred to veteran journalist Helen Thomas as “that old Arab.� James Wolcott speculates as to the outrage that would ensure if that kind of language was applied to other groups. And Coulter’s fellow traveler on the Third-Tier Pundit™ circuit Michelle Malkin’s approval of the internment of ethnic Japanese during World War II and her advocacy of racial, religious and nationality profiling now is another example of this appalling tendency to select specific groups for discriminatory treatment.
Back to the issue of ‘safe zones’, I am not naïve. I know that people who are not ‘straight’ run the risk of being discriminated against, or much worse, in the broader society and that they are justified in being cautious about who knows about them. But it is a little disheartening that even in a university there is this fear of intolerance. A university should be different, even though it is populated by the same kinds of people as elsewhere, because in the university there exists something that does not exist outside in any organized way and which should act as a uniting force that overcomes the friction and divergence that can be caused by differences.
This unifying force is the love of learning and a respect for academic values that universities are built upon. If we immerse ourselves in that shared love of learning, then we will find that people who are sometimes very different from us can be the very sources of our own intellectual, spiritual, and moral growth.
In a university you will find people who are different in many ways, not just in terms of their sexual orientation. It is such individual differences that make life so interesting and enjoyable and these same qualities have been the fuel for some of the most creative people that ever lived. Our society, and our universities, should find room for all these people and not seek to shred them of their distinctiveness and make them conform to some idealized ‘norm.’
In other words, we need to make the whole university a safe zone for everyone.
Comments
Mano, a very thoughtful reflection on a much needed perspective on this issue - bravo!
It's amazing to me how little we have learned from our own psychological histories as human beings. Each time a majority has perpetrated discrimination on a minority, the majority always seems to find unique, justifable reasons why THIS TIME it's not bigotry, it's some sort of moral/biological truth.
Hopefully, in this modern day, with the advantage of ancestral hindsight of past mistakes, we will have the ability to recognize our present behavior for what it is, and not, once again, bequeath this task to our descendants.
Prof. Singham
I am apt to agree with you on the issue of homosexual marriage and sexual rights. I was dismayed as a Republican to see my party become involved in the marriage issue on a national level via the constitutional ban. There is, however, somewhat of a double standard when it comes to ‘tolerance.’ I am unsure why I am considered intolerant when I share my views on homosexuality. Suddenly, anyone who is not in favor of homosexuality is, quoting the spectrum website, ignorant and intolerant. That seems to me to be a little intolerant itself. No one would call and African American intolerant for deriding a Klu Klux Klan member. Similarly, without belittling the Civil Rights Movement, I feel I should be able to express my viewpoints on a lifestyle I see as inappropriate without being considered a bigot. Thanks for the comments and your time.
Vasanth,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I can totally understand your position. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect someone else to *approve* their lifestyle and there is no reason for you to be defensive about your views. You should be able to say that you dislike homosexual behavior without fear of being harassed or discriminated against. I believe that you should be allowed to propagate your ideas and views, without fear of being called names. 'Safe zones' should be for people with views like you too.
What I would like to see is an atmosphere where people can express their views amicably and in a spirit of friendly give-and-take and that, broadly speaking, the private lives of consenting adults should not be the basis for public policy that discriminates between different those different lifestyles.
It seems to me that you and I are actually in agreement. Am I correct?
Prof. Singham,
I think the whole idea of a "safe zone" on campus is completely absurd. The homosexual community is defeating their own cause by portraying themselves as constant victims. Instead of hiding in a "safe zone", they should stand proud despite the horrible discrimination they face everyday. It is rediculous that today in this free country we have "straight only" bathrooms and that gays are forced to ride in the back of the bus. How long will it be before homosexuals are allowed to vote like the rest of us?
I almost feel bad comparing the plight of homosexuals in the 21st century to the real discrimination against African-Americans in the first half of the 20th century. These gay activist groups with their unpronouncable acronyms are searching for sympathy in today's liberal media. Even worse, they paint those who don't sympathize with them as prejudicial bigots.
I know many people hate homosexuals and are outspoken about their beliefs. I cannot hate gays even though I hate their immoral lifestyle. I believe homosexuality is a moral sin, but I would be hypocritical to say that someone else's sin is any worse than the sins I commit everyday. The biggest problem I see is homosexuals who want everyone to accept their "lifestyle choice" as perfectly normal and natural. If any sexual orientations is acceptable, people should be more accepting of my desire to have four wives. I deserve the same rights as everyone else even though one of my wives is 14 years old and one is my cousin and one is a goat.
Why should Americans accept some forms of sexual perversion and find others abhorrent? I don't see anyone crusading for the rights of polygamists or pedophiles or those who enjoy beastiality. The same moral code that told society these behaviors are wrong also says that homosexuality is wrong. Just because people today have become more open with their sins, it doesn't make them not a sin anymore.
Many people are blinded by their outrage for this sin. Their response is discrimation and outspoken hatred. They hate the person instead of their sinful behavior. This response is just as wrong. Consider this example from the Bible. While the religious leaders of Jesus' day publicly decried this tax collectors and prostitues, Jesus was found spending most of his time with this same type of people. He says that it is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick.
People like me who disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle should not banish people to hide in a "safe zone." This will only drive them further away. Instead, we should introduce them to the One who can take them to an eternal safe zone.
Prof. Singham,
We are certainly in agreement that 'the private lives of consenting adults should not be the basis for public policy'. Now I am unsure if Joe Felix is being sarcastic or if those are his real feelings but some of his points do have merit. You argue that Congress shouldnt meddle in the private lives of consenting adults. Would that not preclude laws against polygamy?
There is another interesting aspect to this debate that few people touch on. Let us for argument sake assume that there is some room in the legislative arena for homosexual rights. Then decisions for or against homosexual rights would be determined based on the opinion of the constituents, as they are ultimately the ones responsible for electing those who legislate. There is an interesting trend amongst the American public with regards to homosexuality. In a survey recently done by the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050121_HOMOSEXUALITY.pdf) it seems that more and more Americans are becoming tolerant of homosexuality. For instance, in 1973, 73 percent responded that they believed that homosexuality was always wrong. That number is down to 55 percent now. More revealing however is the percentage of college freshman in 2002 that supported laws prohibiting homosexual marriage. Only 23 percent of respondants said that there should be such laws, and 59 percent said that homosexuals should be afforded the right to marry. Whether people like it or not, as more elederly (and generally socially conservative) voters leave the electorate and are replaced by younger more accepting voters the dynamic of gay marriage will change along with it. It seems eneviatble that sometime in the next 20-30 years that public opinion will favor full legal status for homosexuals (or any variety thereof) and that this debate will become moot. Once again thank you for you time and comments
Yes, what is considered 'normal' does change with time. I am not sure if it is always linear, though. There may be regressions back to earlier norms. That is an interesting sociological question to explore further.
Your point about polygamy is interesting, but I don't think it quite applies here. What I was supporting is the idea that non-heterosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
The comparison with polygamy, for the parallel to hold, would have to run as follows: *IF* Congress passes laws allowing polygamy, then it should also allow polyandry and anything in between.
In other words, if we allow a man to marry up to x women, then we should also allow a woman to marry up to x men, and allow either a man or a woman to marry both men and women, up to a total number x.
Mano,
As always your wisdom shines true. I was telling some friends that I was thinking about participating in this program and they reacted in a manner I'd not predicted. They said "What, you mean people can't feel safe and secure anywhere except for these safezones?" I responded no, that ideally the whole campus should be safe, but that these zones made it clear that the person in the zone was not only abiding by our univerity's principles of tolerance, but also volunteering to be a welcoming ear and resource for anyone who needed one.
I think their reaction demonstrates the bittersweet aspect of this program, and hope that someday we won't need these signs, someday when people will feel secure anywhere.
I'm reminded of a moment a few years ago when I was working in Baker. A woman visiting the building came to my office asking if I could find a phone number for her. As I was looking up the correct extension, she gave me a brief history of her life, a childhood of abuse, her own struggles with this as an adult lesbian, the help she'd found in the church, and her battle to find balance between her religion and her sexuality.
I didn't proffer much in the way of advice; mostly I just listened and reassured her that she seemed to be following a path that was working for her. She was making some major life changes, she was leaving the university, and didn't have many friends in town. I was a stranger, but for twenty minutes I gave her my ear and she had the opportunity to vent and run her thoughts by another person. And when she left my office she seemed a bit more calm, a bit more at ease.
So perhaps this is what the program is all about, just shining a light on a door to say "empathy available here."
Prof. Sigham
I dont want to beat a dead horse, but i think the polygamy argument has some merit. As I noted earlier you argue that "the private lives of consenting adults should not be the basis for public policy." Polygamy, polyandry etc. are relations between consenting adults conducted in private.. Therefore, would it be out of the scope of the governmen to legislate on this matter?
I understand the reciprocation clause of your argument and it certainly makes sense, but I am still unsure what role government should be given in the control of "private matters." Certain rights are undeniably outside the government scope to regualte (see Lawrence v. Texas), but others such as marriage require govenment sanction. So are there some interests the government should protect when it is responsible for the sanction of certain rights, i.e the right to marry?
I don’t think you are beating a dead horse, I actually think you are drawing a good distinction, one which I missed in my reading of your earlier comment.
I think that your point is that at present, government has drawn a line (or at least is trying to draw a line, pending the various court cases) that says that marriage is between a man and a woman. If that line is removed, does that mean that no line can be drawn and that we have to allow any kind of marriage between consenting adults?
I guess my point is that lines have to be drawn for there to be any kind of order, and all lines are to some extent arbitrary. But while they can be arbitrary, they should not be discriminatory. So for example, the speed limit of 55 mph is a line that is somewhat arbitrary since there is no logical reason why it should not be 54 or 56. But most people would agree that there should be some speed limit and go along with this number as long as this line does not contradict another principle that they hold more valuable. So if the legislature passed a law that said the speed limit was 55 mph except for members of the state legislature (or for men) who could do 65, then you might have a revolt!
So in the case of marriage, I would say that we could draw a line about marriage at different places as long as it does not treat different genders differently. If we want to say that marriage is only between two people of any gender, that’s fine. If society wants to shift that line to allow one person of any gender to marry up to (say) four other people of any gender, that’s fine too. People might dislike the new line and oppose it for many reasons (not the least of which is the confusion it might create!) but it is not discriminatory.
Now to take my point to the extreme, am I saying that consenting adults should be allowed to do anything at all? This is tough to answer since I cannot conceive of all the possible hypothetical situations that might arise that might give me pause. For example, assisted suicide is a tough case. Should we allow one consenting adult to request that another consenting adult help them die?
It is quite possible that there exist scenarios like that that we might agree require prohibition. But it seems likely (to me at least) that any such prohibition will have nothing to do with sexual orientation. I am finding it hard to envisage situations that might be ok for heterosexual people but not for homosexuals.
Thanks for the comments from everyone! They are really helpful and educational for me.
Prof. Singham and Mr. Ananth,
I'm surprised my earlier comment spurred this discussion of polygamy. I think you may have misconstrued the comparison I was trying to illustrate. I wasn't trying to advocate polygamy or say it should be legal if gay marriage is legal. The comparison I was making is that the behaviors of homosexuality, polygamy, incest, rape, and bestiality are all equally wrong.
Furthermore, if the government wishes to legalize one immoral behavior, they might as well legalize murder, robbery, and dishonesty. You are right when you say it is difficult to know where to draw the line. In an ideal world the government wouldn't have to legislate any moral issues. Of course in real life that would just lead to chaos and disorder.
I think the real disagreement over gay marriage lies mostly in the terminology. Although I believe homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't mean the government can't offer certain legal rights to people in a civil union. Marriage is a religious ceremony which has deep spiritual implications. For people who aren't religious, the marriage commitment loses all of its significance. This is evident in the high rate of divorce in the US today. The institution of marriage is ruined just as much by unfaithful heterosexual couples as it would be by homosexual couples.
Perhaps the solution would be for the government to only issue legal civil unions without calling it marriage for heterosexual or homosexual couples. This way there would be a distinction between holy matrimony and a legal civil relationship with no moral consequences. This would preserve the idea of marriage and still allow the goverment to legally bind what ever people they wish. They would be free to create their own regulations and stipulations for what constitutes a legal civil union without destroying the established regulations and stipulations of marriage.
I hope this clears up my point for you.
I think that Joe's next-to-last paragraph about civil unions makes a lot of sense and might go a long way towards resolving this issue.
Things along those lines have been proposed before but they tended to get drowned in all the noise and confusion.
Rather than distinguishing between "civil unions" and "marriage," with the latter being a religious union, I think it may be more appropriate to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. In a way we have parallel systems.
The state's primary interest in marriage is that of familial rights such as property ownership, inheritance rights, and taxation, while religions focus more on the sacramental nature of the marriage partnership.
Historically marriage has existed both as a civil institution and as a religious one, but not always at the same time. There have been times and places where a civil union was all that mattered. In the state of Ohio I can legally be married by a minister, priest, rabbi, judge, justice of the peace, or anyone else with government recognized authority.
Yet to marry in a church, mosque or temple, I will have to abide by the rules of the congregation. I may have to provide proof of baptism to be married in a protestant ceremony; promise to raise my children in the church to marry a catholic; convert to judaism to marry in a conservative temple. These rules will vary not only between religions, but also among the various denominations. And appropriately the religions control their own parameters for those who want to marry under their auspices.
But for the state, such matters are irrelevant. I found an entry online that goes into some more detail at http://domesticdiversions.com/index.php?p=461. (While I did not factcheck it point by point, many issues mentioned in this article I have read in other places in the past.}