From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:15:35 GMT

                                  Friday, the 8th of January, 1993

Steve Pope writes:
  Mike, I have to admit that you are usually quite consistent in 
  our political philosophising, with the singular exception
  hat your self-description as a "liberal" is bizarre.

Steve, I would suggest that you do not understand my usage of
``liberal''. I would also suggest that the reason for this is
that you have bought into the pop usage, meaning ``left'',
that is, socialist or social agendist, or more pejoratively
like Republicans (Rush Limbaugh, say, on the radio) use it
to mean ``tax-and-spend-our-money-on-social-programs-Democrats''.
My quarrel with this usage is that it robs us of a tremendous
political philosophical heritage, from John Locke, through Voltaire
and the philosophes, Jefferson and Adams and the Declaration of
Independence and the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights
of Man, on through J.S. Mill and Lord Acton,
and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
Amnesty International. My problem is that I don't know of any
other word to call the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson
but ``liberal''. Central to liberalism, you see, is the
formulation of the Rights of Man. Now, the Rights of Man have
their basis in what Locke called Natural Law. That is, they have
the possibility of absolute moral judgment, and human free moral agency
(and consequent moral responsibility) as their foundation. Rights
are construed as inherent properties of individual human beings, by
virtue of their humanity (i.e. by virtue of their free will and the
possibility of choosing morally correctly---if this indeed were *not*
so [that is, if ever there were a successful scientific study of human
behaviour demonstrating either a genetic or an environmental determinism
in human moral choice-making), then I think Rights would be out the window],
and *not* by virtue of a agreement among a democratic majority, or by
cultural construct, or by economic luck of the draw. Rights are powers
which individuals have that can never be voted away *justly* (they
certainly can be violated).  And this is regardless of the social benefit
thought to be consequent on their dissolution. OK, so I hope I have made
it clear that liberalism is distinct and opposed to socialism or social
agendising. It is also distinct and opposed to a right-wing concern with
nationalism, with patriotism, with militarism, and with the imposition of
tradition and authority for their own sake. Liberalism can certainly be allied
with conservatism (especially as I think a social or a fiscal conservatism),
but it is quite progressive as well, and apt to oppose conservatism
where conservatism would conserve essential injustice. Liberalism
stands essentially against the power of government, or rather
for there being well-defined limits on the powers given to government
(i.e. for constitutionalism and the Rule of Law). You may also
be thinking by now that by ``liberal'' I really mean ``libertarian'', but
I would say no, that ``liberal'' says there are some powers not given
to governments which powers we can deduce from moral philosophy, whereas
``libertarian'' goes rather further I think in saying that perhaps government
would be better not exercising even some of its legitimate powers.

You give an example of what would be wrong with CO2:
  As for the CO2-type measure, this measure singles out
  homosexuality as a category that has special legal 
  treatment.  Anybody who truly believes the line that
  all this measure does is "exclude [gays] from special
  legal treatment" is way off base.

  Let me explain by the simplest possible example.

  If a Colorado employer decides to fire an employee because
  he is heterosexual, that employer would get sued
  up the wazooo for wrongful termination.
  
  If a Colorado employer decides to fire an employee bacause
  he is homosexual, because of CO2, the employer cannot
  get sued for wrongful termination.

  So obviously, CO2 is not about equal treatment.  It is
  about enforced discrimination.

Now, Steve, I think you should understand by now from what I have
written in response to Evelyn about CO2 that if something like your
scenario *is* the case with CO2, then I would change my mind and
would oppose it. What I don't now believe is that what you have said
is true is what the law really means. (I am willing to be shown otherwise,
however.---I am not a lawyer.) You see, if your point is that one may
use typically any grounds for ``wrongful termination'' suits *except
now* homosexual or bisexual orientation, then I doubt it.
I doubt that one can sue for wrongful termination on the grounds
that one is too tall, say, or wears glasses, or because one was fired
for body odor. My understanding is that such wrongful termination
suits can only be based on claims of discrimination on the basis
of sex, or race, or a finite discrete set of other special categories.
If there were a law saying you shouldn't be fired on the grounds
that you are heterosexual, and if CO2 were in effect (so that there
were nothing protecting you from being fired on the grounds that
you are homosexual or bisexual), *then* I would agree with you
at least that the law protecting heterosexuals from being fired
would constitute a breach of equal protection, and I think that
this law would be wrong. But, I would perfectly well support
the inclusion of ``heterosexual orientation'' in the list
in CO2 (remember, I'd support adding just about anything to the list
of groups for which there ought to be no special status or privileges
or basis for claims of discrimination), and I don't think that CO2
means quite what you say it does. (As I said, I am willing to be
convinced otherwise.)

  I would have more respect for somebody who simply comes out
  and says they don't like gays (disgusting as such
  a person would be), then for somebody who tries to 
  insult the public's intelligence by describing these
  anti-gay initiatives as fair and equal.

I don't think either initiative is exactly equal. The Oregon
one I think is morally repugnant. But the Colorado seems
fair to me, which is why I have said I would agree to it.
The point is, I think that we have legislated a bunch of laws,
and come to accept a bunch of laws, which at bottom I think are
not fair. What CO2 says to me is that we shall not make more of these
unfair laws on the basis of this new social concern. I agree that it
is thereby not treating this new concern as equal with other concerns
(or for that matter with many other bases that might equally well be
included but just plain aren't), but if these laws themselves are not
right in the first place, I can't help but seeing CO2 as a good beginning
for curtailing these wrong laws.
 

                  Mike Morris
          (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books