As diligent readers of this blog now, I am very skeptical of the notion of “equality” as pushed by the various left-leaning gay groups. They tend to want to achieve “full equality” through greater government regulation of our economy — and our lives.
Sometimes, they become so blinded to this notion that they neglect the original goal of gay rights’ movements–to make it possible for us to live freely and openly without our sexuality preventing us from participating in society or advancing professionally. They seem to think we need government to grant us more “rights” in order to effect the needed social change.
A new study seems to show quite the opposite, confirming a point I’ve been making for as long as I’ve been talking about gay issues, that all we need is economic freedom, given that private enterprises tend to respond readily to changes in society. Even in the Bush era, I noted, an increasing number of corporations adopted non-discrimination clauses as part of their employment policies and expanded their benefits packages to include same-sex partners.
Others have also studied how economic freedom helps people like us. Through “Regression analysis of up to 65 countries“, Niclas Berggren of The Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) and Therese Nilsson of the Department of Economics, Lund University; Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) find that
. . . economic freedom is positively related to tolerance towards homosexuals, especially in the longer run, while tolerance towards people of a different race and a willingness to teach kids tolerance are not strongly affected by how free markets are. Stable monetary policy and outcomes is the area of economic freedom most consistently associated with greater tolerance, but the quality of the legal system seems to matter as well. We furthermore find indications of a causal relationship and of social trust playing a role as a mechanism in the relationship between economic freedom and tolerance and as an important catalyst: the more trust in society, the more positive the effect of economic freedom on tolerance.
In short, free markets are good for gays. To see how the scholars reached their conclusion just download the study at the above link.
I agree that you are probably right to think that the lack of non-discrimination laws has less of an effect as some people think. However, given other traditionally discriminated against groups get this protection, isn’t the lack of these laws some sort of statement against homosexuality?
It’s probably similar to people wanting same-sex marriage to be allowed in places where civil unions confer the exact same rights, even though it doesn’t have a large effect on the actual rights of gay and lesbian people. It’s about society making a statement about the equality of gay and lesbian people in our society.
Are you merely saying that people supportive of gay rights should focus on other issues where it might have a bigger impact on people or are you saying that expanding anti-discrimination legislation to cover anti-gay animus is bad?
WOW.
This is right up my alley. I’m gay, I’ve advocated gay equality for decades (the small-government kind, “equality before the law”), and two of my top concerns today have to do with preserving/restoring (1) sound money and (2) the Rule of Law. (Or ending cronyism, if you prefer.) Are those things connected?
Let me think. If those things were connected, it would have to do with… the issue of social trust. A society ruled by “laws, not men”, and in which government preserves the value of money (and thus the real value or real buying power of peoples’ pensions, wages, savings, etc.) is a society where people get up in the morning and do good things, because they feel like the world is sane, and they can trust their fellow man, who is worth helping. That is the kind of society that gays need, to flourish in the long run.
So does the study go on to say anything about social trust, as a possible reason why economic freedom and social tolerance would be connected? Why yes it does:
Again… wow.
ILoveCapitalism:
My hero, Frederic Bastiat, would agree with you completely.
Nicely done, sir.
#1: Why do you automatically equate legislation with acceptance? Why must the threat of aggression be used to “make” people accept us? That certainly doen’t say much for the much-touted “progressive” belief in “democracy.”
We have come much farther in the free-market atmosphere than we have ever done with the help of the over-politicized, donkey-like plodding of big government “help.”
Here’s a little ray of sunshine: de-politicize gay rights as much as possible, and trust the people. “Progressives” claim they believe in “the people.” Here’s their chance to prove they’re serious.
Or not…
Greed trumps all prejudice.
@Lori
The reason that legislation at least confers some sort of weak acceptance is that the people vote for the legislature so “pro-equality” legislation is indicative of the way society feels.
I get that maybe it doesn’t make as big a difference but given the anti-discrimination laws against other forms of discrimination doesn’t the lack of them indicate an acceptance for unfair treatment of GLBT people even though it has less of an effect than many imagine.
I’m not saying that the government will be a better help than the free market I am only saying that the people express their tastes and moral values through the legislature, and therefore anti-discrimination laws will indicate the changing mood in society. Maybe we shouldn’t have any of them but given we have some shouldn’t we also prohibit anti-gay discrimination?
Leo, I’m saying expanding anti-discrimination legislation to cover anti-gay animus is bad is unnecessary.
“I am only saying that the people express their tastes and moral values through the legislature, and therefore anti-discrimination laws will indicate the changing mood in society.”
The problem with this argument, Leo, is that anti-gay social conservatives use the same argument to justify anti-gay legislation. They also “express their tastes and moral values through the legislature.” Therefore, their discriminatory laws are intended to indicate a mood in society that changes — they hope — in their direction.
There’s no way to argue with such people if you just want to do a different variation of the same thing. It’s like a tennis match that never ends, and that nobody ever wins.
Thanks Dan,
Lori: I understand that social conservatives also want to use this argument to justify anti-gay legislation, but I don’t see why that makes the assertion wrong.
The point I am making is that legislation will be used to express their tastes and moral values through the legislature, regardless of the beliefs about whether or not homosexuality is ok or not.
I think the reason why we should disagree with anti-gay social conservatives is because they don’t think homosexuality is ok and we shouldn’t reject every proposition they state unless it is derived from this belief. I don’t think my argument is derived from that belief.
I get that it’s really annoying and a waste of time for society to keep using legislation to discriminate/not discriminate against gays. I however don’t see why this is an argument for unilateral disarmament.
The culture informs the law. As we drift away from the Judeo-Christian ethic and look more to situation ethics and moral relativism, we leave a behind a safe harbor and enter a fractious sea full of small boats each operating according to its own charts and its best perceived interests.
The old proverb informs us that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison.” Well, one man’s insistence for tolerance immediately identifies his own stony intolerance.
I have no faith in the concept of libertarianism where culture no longer informs the law. The Utopian idea that the lack of culturally based regulation will result in an open and free and just society is just nuts.
We have reached a certain level of “tolerance” of gays in our society and the culture has, by and large, absorbed the change by being “tolerant.”
There has always been a dynamic tension between regulation and personal freedom. All laws restrict personal freedom. When a bazillion regulations are added to a law, the impact on personal freedoms is enormous.
The problem is not government per se, but leviathan government where cronyism is the general rule and the people get governed by stealth. Gays have not been particularly well represented in terms of a small fraction of the population having a small fraction of the seats in representative government. But in terms of crony government, the gays have had remarkable success in getting their cultural issues to the fore.
If there were true animus toward gays in this country, the 14th amendment cases would be flowing. The culture has come to terms with the gay as being an equal citizen. It is the gay who is still, largely, consumed with his own dissatisfaction with “rights” which are particular and peculiar to being gay.
Gay Green Lanter, gay spokesman for Romney, gay access to the free market, gay education measurement, gay standard of living, gay this and gay that are not of general interest to the culture at large. And, unless there is some important aberration in the due process of the law or the equal protections of the law, why should being gay be of particular general interest to the culture at large?
It is not so much what one does in private that matters as it how one interfaces with the general culture in the public square.
Leo, I understand your point and for years felt similarly. However, at some point you have to ask yourself “where will it stop?” Now I feel like some of this legislation to grant this right and that right, or not, plays right in to the hands of the big government liberals and RINOs who live to further confuse the taxpayers and obfuscate the process with YET MORE laws. And the knee jerk evangelicals play into their hands just as well with their attempts to impose a DOMA or other laws restricting our rights.
Dan makes excellent points in his piece and so does Lori in her replies so the only other thing I can add is as she said:
And unfortunately, that is what marks today’s social movements concerning gay rights both pro and con…. a deep seeded mistrust of the people. Another hallmark of the big government types in DC.
BTW – Happy Pride for those who still note these ceremonies. I still choose to do so today because I plan to go out and be myself and express myself as a gay conservative if the situation warrants it.
Free Markets are good for everybody.
@Leo
I’m unaware of laws to protect lefties, despite the centuries of oppression, hostile environments, and health concerns.
Just as one minority who didn’t want nor need ‘protection’. Are you saying Society is making a statement against lefties?
More importantly, when one starts looking for “traditionally discriminated against groups” the smallest ‘group’ is one.
Mormons have suffered grave discrimination in our country’s history; the Governor of Missouri in the 1830’s ordered all of them “exterminated.” (You know, like certain paranoid delusional lefty commentators claim Republicans would be perfectly happy to do to teh gheys.)
According to Leo, the lack of laws according special protections to Mormons is a statement against Mormons.
The Irish, the Polish, and the Italians have also been the victims of discrimination in this country; but they seem to have done just fine without an array of hate crime and affirmative action laws enacted on their behalf.
“According to Leo, the lack of laws according special protections to Mormons is a statement against Mormons. ”
Except that there are laws according special protections to Mormons. Besides our pal the first amendment, federal law prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion.
And, actually, the same is true of your examples of the Irish, Polish and Italians; Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “National origin”.
Mormons, Irish, Poles and Italians ARE protected by “an array” of hate crime laws. In fact, they have been federally protected since at least the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Anti-discrimination laws involving gay people don’t, that I know of, use the term “gay”; they ban discrimination based on “sexual orientation”.
Federal anti-discrimination law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin, but NOT on the basis of sexual orientation. Mormons et al have protections in federal law that gay people don’t. Yes, the term “Mormon” is not specifically used, but in the situation Leo’s talking about, the term “gay” wouldn’t be used either, because that’s not how anti-discrimination laws are actually drafted.
I’m not entirely on board with what Leo’s saying, but he is definitely right about one thing: there ARE laws protecting all religions and national origins that still leave open the possibility of discriminating based on sexual orientation.