The Equality Battering Ram
Brendan Eich has just resigned as CEO of Mozilla, maker of one of the most popular web browsers. He made a $1,000 donation to Proposition 8, back in 2008, an insubstantial sum really, to a campaign that is 6 years old. The Gay Lobby, the current shock troops of the Sexual Revolution, demanded his resignation, or a show trial in which he repudiates his actions, or preferably, both.
Listen to this short statement from one of the principals in the dispute, Geoffrey MacDougall, the Head of Development for Mozilla. He pitches this as a conflict of rights, without taking sides as to which right should predominate.
The free speech argument is that we have no right to force anyone to think anything. We have no right to prevent people from pursuing their lives based on their beliefs. That what matters is their actions. And as long as they act in the best interests of the mission, as long as they don’t impose their beliefs on those around them, they are welcome.
The equality argument is that this isn’t a matter of speech. That believing that 1/n of us aren’t entitled to the same rights as the rest of us isn’t a ‘belief’. That the right to speech is only truly universal if everyone is equal, first.
This “nuanced” and “balancing” of competing rights has become almost the default position. I wish to call attention to the last sentence. “The right to speech is only truly universal if everyone is equal, first.”
The problem is: what does “equal” mean? You don’t need to be a mathematician to know that it all depends. “=” is a meaningless symbol, standing all by itself. We need to know what is on either side of the equals sign in order to know if they are truly “equal.” 2+2 does indeed equal 4. True statement. 2+2 does not in fact equal 5. 2+2=5 is a false statement.
In a similar manner, “equality” as a political or social concept is meaningless without knowing the context. We need to know who is supposed to be equal to whom, for what purpose, and in what context. It is not at all obvious that everyone is equal to everyone else in all dimensions and in every context.
As a matter of fact, it is patently obvious that this statement is false. It is not possible to construct a social order in which everyone is equal to everyone else in all dimensions and in all contexts.
With this in mind, reconsider the claim, “the right to speech is only truly universal if everyone is equal, first.” As long as the Sexual Revolutionaries keep moving the goalposts to more and more expansive definitions of equality, they can justify continually postponing free speech.
This is the truth that the Revolutionaries hope no one will see. They hope that no one will dare to ask the uncomfortable question: what exactly does “marriage equality” mean?
For years, I have argued that the concept is simply impossible. What is called “marriage equality” supposedly means nothing more than that same sex couples should be treated as the legal equivalent of opposite sex couples. But since marriage affects, and in some respects defines, parenthood, this is quite literally, impossible. “Marriage equality” requires a gender neutral reading of the Uniform Parentage Act. Instead of a legal “presumption of paternity,” which attaches children to their biological fathers, “marriage equality” requires a legal sleight of hand to be reinterpreted as a “presumption of parentage.”
This reinterpretation treats children unequally with respect to their biological parents. Some children, the children of opposite sex couples, have a legally recognized right to know both of their biological parents. Other children, the children of same sex couples, do not have this right. As a matter of fact, the legal system actively prevents children from having a relationship with one of their parents. If the “intended parents” do not want the child to have a relationship with a biological parent, the state protects the interests of the “intended parents” against the interests of the child.
How is this equality? It isn’t. Only if one defines the identity and relational rights of the child out of existence, can one assert that the children are just as “equal” as the adults.
Once we acknowledge the contextual meaning of the term “equality” we can see that it is not a slam-dunk, done-deal, discussion-ending concept. As a matter of fact, it is an ever-moving target. Society may agree to mandate equality in some dimension. But that is never enough to satisfy an overarching demand for equality in all dimensions. Every “equality” milestone has the next demand built into it.
Please look at this video from around the ten minute mark through the end. What you will see is a pair of gay men talking about the babies they acquired through the use of donor eggs and a paid gestational surrogate. They say they spent about $120,000 for their babies. At the end of the video, one of them says:
“What comes next after one gets married? Kids. So that is the logical the next step. There needs to be surrogacy equality in all states.”
“Surrogacy equality.” I wonder: Did people who voted for “marriage equality” by voting against Prop 8, realize that this what they were voting for?
The message here is unmistakable. “We are not satisfied with redefining marriage. We now must redefine parenthood. We will not be happy until we have a legally recognized right to have the babies we want. If that means we have to purchase the babies, so be it.”
Surrogacy introduces whole new realms of inequality into society and into the law. Some women will be legally recognized as the mothers of the babies they give birth to. Other mothers will not. Some women who provide eggs for gestation will be recognized as mothers, other women will not. Some children will have a legally recognized right to know both of their biological parents. Other children will not. Any adult with money gets to do anything they want. People without money? Not so much.
But hey, the two gay men are legally “equal” to a mother and a father, and that is all that matters, isn’t it?
“All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”
We cannot pin down exactly what is meant by “equal.” The activists keep moving the goalposts. Today, it is “marriage equality.” Next, it will be “surrogacy equality.” Your free speech will be held hostage at each new step.
Do you see where this is going, my friends?
The demand for an undefined and unlimited concept of “equality” is a totalitarian strategy. Everyone has to be quiet until we have achieved every conceivable form of equality.
I do not say that these people are “fascists. ” Nor do I say they are “communists.”
I say something stronger. The Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian movement, unto itself. It demands the impossible, as a high moral duty.
“Equality” is no longer a noble political principle. It is now a totalitarian battering ram.
I decline to play by these rules.