The Freedom Bulletin

Dan Savage, the creator of the “It Gets Better” project to combat anti-gay bullying, is now himself being accused of bullying.

During a speech to high school journalists, Savage ranted against various kinds of alleged “bull**** in the Bible.” These comments caused about 20 students to calmly and quietly leave the auditorium. Then, Savage said, ”It’s funny, as someone who is the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a$$ed some people react when you push back.”

I agree that by making these comments, Savage acted as a bully. A lot of attention has been given to the bullying that gay teens face, and that’s a good thing. But people shouldn’t forget about all the other victims of bullying. Religious people are often bullied for their beliefs, as are teens who, either for religious reasons or otherwise, choose not to date, wear “sexy” clothing, swear, or drink, for example. In my experience growing up in liberal, gay-marriage-supporting Massachusetts, this is actually more common than anti-gay bullying.

It’s also interesting that this article about Savage’s speech shows him wearing a t-shirt that reads, “Google Santorum.” Arguably, it was bullying for someone who disagreed with the former senator’s political and religious views to turn his name into a disgusting term. It is also arguably bullying to encourage and promote this kind of ridicule as Savage did.

And worse, Savage once said on the Bill Maher show, “I wish Republicans were all f***ing dead.” (Thanks to Say Anything, via The Humble Libertarian, for this example.)

How about being civil to people you disagree with, instead of ridiculing them (or wishing for them to be dead)? Just as no one should condemn gay people for being who they are, gay-rights supporters should not condemn Christians or Republicans for being who they are.

On Friday, a jury in New Jersey convicted Dharun Ravi of several counts of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, and witness and evidence tampering for spying on his college roommate, Tyler Clementi. The case would be nowhere near as highly-publicized as it is, and likely would never have become a criminal case at all, if it weren’t for Clementi’s suicide shortly after the spying, in September 2010. Because Clementi was gay and Ravi had spied on him kissing another guy, his death became symbolic to many gay rights and anti-bullying advocates who demanded (rightly) that something be done to fight back against bullying and harassment. Was Ravi’s conviction – which could result in deportation and/or jail time – the right way to fight back? In some respects, yes; in other respects, no.

Ravi faced 13 main charges and was convicted on all of them. Two invasion of privacy charges were for using a webcam to spy on Clementi and his guest engaging in intimate contact without their consent, two more invasion of privacy charges were for making it possible for others to view the webcam feed, and four attempted invasion of privacy charges involved trying to do the same on a different occasion. Seven additional counts involved deleting tweets and text messages, lying to police, and trying to influence others in what they told police, in order to impede the investigation.

On top of all these charges, the invasion of privacy charges carried various counts of bias intimidation, alleging that either Ravi’s goal was to intimidate Clementi because of his sexual orientation, or that he knew Clementi would be intimidated because of his sexual orientation, or that Clementi ended up being intimidated and reasonably believed that he had been targeted because of his sexual orientation. The jury convicted Ravi of at least one of these bias intimidation counts for each invasion of privacy charge, for a total of 24 convictions on 35 total charges.

See a breakdown of all the charges here.

First of all, I agree with the prosecutor’s and the jury’s harsh response to Ravi’s actions to the extent that it is important to treat mental and emotional harm as seriously as physical harm. Legal systems tend to treat things as a violation of a person’s rights only if they physically hurt the person or cause them to lose property or money. But harassment, humiliation, exclusion, and insults can be every bit as harmful as theft, vandalism, or assault, and perpetrating them against innocent people is equally horrible. Bullying violates the rights of its victims, and the legal system should act accordingly.

In Ravi’s specific case, I think it is completely appropriate for him to be punished for watching Clementi (above) and his guest kissing without their permission, and especially for inviting others to do the same. The details of the case are not as clear cut as many initially believed (including myself when I first blogged about it). Ravi’s defense team suggested that he was worried about theft because Clementi’s male friend was a few years older and looked “creepy.” And as Ian Parker at the New Yorker pointed out, no video was actually posted on the Internet, and there was no sex shown on the webcam, just kissing. But the evidence showed that Ravi intended to watch, and invite others to watch, Clementi and his male friend hooking up. He texted about a “viewing party with a bottle of Bacardi and beer,” tweeted, ”anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me,” and made sure the camera was pointing at Clementi’s bed. Ravi’s actions were simply wrong. People have a right to live free from secret surveillance, especially in their own rooms.

The one thing that I disagree with about this verdict is that it treats the crimes against Clementi as especially bad because he was gay. The basic principle behind hate crimes, of which the bias intimidation charges are an example, is that it is especially wrong to commit crimes against a person if you are motivated by hatred of them based upon a certain group that they belong to, such as their religion, race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. First of all, the phrase “hate crime” is a bit of a misnomer because it equates “hate” with prejudice against a group. But it is certainly possible to hate a person for reasons other than their membership in a historically-disadvantaged group. And if directed at a person who does not deserve it, this is every bit as horrible as group prejudice. For example, I was bullied in middle school because I preferred to wear dresses and skirts instead of jeans, was shy and quiet, didn’t listen to “cool” music, didn’t use the latest slang, and was interested in “geeky” things like history and books. As far as I know, I was not the victim of any crimes currently on the books, but had I been, this would not meet the criteria for a hate crime, and so the perpetrators would not face an enhanced sentence. The fact that I was targeted because of who I am as an individual, as opposed to a group that I belong to, does not make the bullying any less hurtful, the motivations behind it any less heinous, or the bullies any less deserving of punishment.

The bottom line is that bullying innocent people and violating their privacy should be treated harshly by the legal system, no matter what the victim’s religion, race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation.

Now that the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has been repealed, Harvard University is officially recognizing the ROTC as a student organization. Previously the university refused to allow the military to recruit or have offices on campus, saying that excluding openly gay people from serving violates their anti-discrimination policy.

But of course, Harvard being the notoriously liberal place that it is, there were still anti-military protests at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new Naval ROTC office. Many of the protesters objected to the fact that transgender people are still banned from the military, which is reasonable, because it makes sense that people should be allowed to serve regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. But others protested against ROTC simply because they don’t like armies or soldiers in any form. There were signs that read things like, “Don’t stain Crimson with blood,” “Say no to militarism at Harvard,” “Operation Enduring Freedom 1462 dead,” and “The military is ageist, classist, racist, homophobic, sexist, imperialist, transphobic.” People handed out filers criticizing Harvard for “cultivating militarism.” And another student said, ”I would oppose ROTC’s return to campus even if the military were an entirely inclusive institution.”

Despite the fact that the Assistant Dean for Student Life seemed to welcome and encourage protests, saying, ”We didn’t want people protesting on the outside, on the periphery of this day. We wanted them to be a part of this day,” this didn’t go far enough for one student, who complained, “To ask students not to protest the ribbon cutting to me is deeply disturbing.”

The protesters’ point about transgender rights is legitimate (although far from the most important equality and individual rights issue facing America), but it is hypocritical for people who extol the virtues of diversity and minority rights to demand that an organization be banned simply because they do not like militarism. It’s also wrong to hate on ROTC cadets because you disagree with the war. Welcoming the ROTC back to campus should be a happy occasion, a step forward both for equality and patriotism. Instead, a substantial number of people chose to view the entire day as something negative because current policies aren’t quite progressive enough for them.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, have both been in the news recently – DOMA because the Obama administration announced on Thursday that they would no longer defend it against lawsuits, and the ACA because a judge upheld its constitutionality against a religious-freedom-based challenge a week ago. Other than that, these two laws don’t have much in common. But this made me think, why did the Obama administration decide DOMA was unconstitutional while enthusiastically defending the constitutionality of the ACA?

DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman and, as a result, denies same-sex spouses of federal employees some benefits that are given to opposite-spouses. The Obama administration decided it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As Attorney General Eric Holder wrote, “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

The Democrats’ health reform law, the ACA,  makes it illegal (for the vast majority of people) not to buy health insurance, and punishes people who disobey this requirement with fines. The Justice Department’s website has a prominent page dedicated to its “vigorous” defense of the law in federal courts.

Why does the Obama administration believe Obamacare is constitutional but DOMA is not? DOMA merely stops some people from partaking in a benefit offered through their spouse’s employment with the federal government. It might be fairer if both same-sex and opposite-sex couples  were offered the same benefits, but (a) the fairest thing for gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, married, and unmarried people would be not to offer benefits to spouses at all but only to actual employees; and (b) people don’t have a fundamental right to government-given health benefits based on their spouse’s employment. The ACA, on the other hand, outlaws the decision to opt away from health insurance and instead pay for all of one’s health services oneself. In other words, it takes away the ability to spend one’s own money as one chooses, which is a fundamental right.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow people to form whatever romantic relationships they want (or none at all) without government labels or interference, and to choose whether to buy insurance or pay for health services in cash? I sure think so, but I guess that’s just me.

There are some stories that make me think, “Why on earth would someone do that?”

This is one of them:

“The New Jersey attorney general’s office is reviewing the case of a Rutgers University freshman who jumped from the George Washington Bridge last week after images of him having sex with another man were broadcast on the Internet, and will decide whether to prosecute the incident as a bias crime, a spokesman said Thursday.”

“A body pulled from the Hudson River was identified Thursday as that of Tyler Clementi, 18, of Ridgewood, N.J. His death was ruled a suicide. Clementi’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, and a friend of Ravi’s, Molly Wei, have each been charged with two counts of invasion of privacy for using a webcam to film and transmit footage of Clementi having sex in his dorm room.”

I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend why someone would decide to tape their roommate having sex and put it on the Internet.

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that this (alleged) crime was homophobic or a hate crime. The accused students may not have been motivated by hatred for gay people, and even if they were, I don’t think that would be any worse than if they were just motivated by hatred for Tyler as an individual.

Taping someone having sex and putting it on the Internet is cruel, wrong, and violates their rights regardless of whether they are gay or straight. It’s a shame that the maximum penalty for this is five years in prison (10 if it is a hate crime), considering that people can get more than that for victimless crimes like gun possession and drug use. If they are indeed guilty, the two suspects’ actions directly caused the victim’s death, so I certainly don’t think it would be inappropriate to charge them with homicide.

Some of the comments that people have posted about this case (here for example) are horrific. While most commenters actually have brains and hearts, some have posted that being gay is vile and despicable, that Tyler committed suicide because he knew that what he did was wrong, that anyone who commits suicide must have something wrong with them, that Ravi was the real victim because he had a gay roommate, and that he had a constitutional right to secretly tape Tyler having sex and put it on the Internet.

Although it must be annoying when your roommate has sex in your room, Ravi and Wei seem to have done the taping not out of frustration but because they thought it would be funny to humiliate a fellow student. Ravi did not seem at all threatened, upset, or even inconvenienced, happily tweeting things like “”I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” and “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Tyler did not commit suicide because he had “issues;” he committed suicide because two people decided to violate his rights and humiliate him, something that no one should have to deal with. As for the claim that Ravi had a right to do what he allegedly did, ask yourself this question: What is more important, the right to secretly tape people and put it on the Internet, or the right not to have people secretly tape you and put it on the Internet? I think the latter.

The bottom line is that the two suspects in this case, if guilty, are bullies. Tyler’s sexual orientation is irrelevant; the case would be just as tragic, and the alleged crime just as evil, had he been straight. Humiliating another person – whether gay, straight, bi, or asexual - is not funny, and in this case it cost a young man his life.

Yay! Alison Lobron in the Boston Globe wrote exactly what I’ve been saying! Rewarding married people with health insurance and other benefits from their spouses’ jobs is discriminatory to single people:

“Our country’s habit of passing out financial perks based on marital status is hardly a time-honored tradition. According to marriage historian Stephanie Coontz, it wasn’t until the early 20th century that US governments and corporations began using marital status as a way to decide who got which benefits. ‘The development of the welfare state here was more attached to marriage than to individual rights,’ she says.

Extending the privileges of one spouse to the other might have made sense back when women were often required to leave the workforce upon marriage. But now it’s hopelessly dated. ‘Why should my access to health care depend on whom I’m sleeping with?’ Coontz says. ‘It’s a good reason to argue for the state to develop other ways to extend health insurance and benefits.’”

Proponents of gay marriage should heed this, since they often argue that allowing gays to marry is the only way to have equality. Actually, they just want to join with married straight people to discriminate against singles. True equality will only happen when married people no longer get benefits that single people don’t get. The best way to do that is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Since Proposition 8 was passed, outlawing gay marriage in California, liberals have been complaining almost nonstop that gay people’s rights are being violated. First of all, this irks me because the liberals creamed conservatives on election day, taking control of the presidency and Congress and killing Question 1 in Massachusetts. You’d think this would be enough to make them happy. But you’d be wrong.

Gay marriage supporters like to compare their struggle with African Americans’ struggle for civil rights. This is a completely inaccurate analogy. At various times in our history, blacks were subjected to slavery, were unable to vote, were lynched, and their property was vandalized.  All people have a fundamental right to vote, own property, make their own decisions, and of course own themselves, so the treatment of blacks described above violated their rights.

On the other hand, gay rights activists are arguing that their rights are being violated because they cannot get married. This isn’t true, because marriage is not a right. Gay people, just like everyone else, have the rights to own property, own themselves, make choices, and live without interference, but they don’t have a right to marriage.

By arguing that they have a fundamental right to marriage, gay people are themselves being discriminatory, because marriage is an inherently discriminatory institution. It discriminates against people who choose not to get married. Basically, marriage is when the government gives people benefits (such as tax breaks) for deciding to form a lifelong partnership with another person. By giving benefits to married people that it does not give to single people, the government sends the message that married people are superior to single people. This is simply wrong. There are many reasons why individuals would rahter be single than married: maybe they are asexual, maybe they would like to live alone and be in control of their own house, maybe they would rather date lots of different people instead of committing to one. Whatever the reason, single people are just as good as married people, and being single is just as desirable a state as being married.

When people claim that gays have a right to marry people of the same gender, they are actually saying that gays have a right to be treated in a way that discriminates against single people. It makes sense to argue that gay people have a right to form any consensual relationship they want. It does not make sense to argue that gay people have a right to form a lifelong partnership with someone of the same gender and get government benefits for it.

I am not being anti-gay, since I don’t think straight people have a right to marriage either. Instead, the government shouldn’t be in the business of granting recognition to relationships in the first place. People should be able to form whatever relationships they want and call them whatever they want to.

Owning property, making one’s own decisions about medicine, and bearing arms are all examples of fundamental rights. These rights are currently being violated due to the 16th Amendment, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment to the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Brady Bill, respectively, acts which, interestingly enough, are predominantly supported by liberals. It’s awfully hypocritical to oppose the rights to own property, make decisions autonomously, and bear arms, while claiming that there is a fundamental right to marriage.