Choice Words from Bill Richardson
Tuesday August 14, 2007
Background: Bill Richardson on Civil Liberties
I should have known it would happen: I endorsed Bill Richardson as the best civil liberties candidate for 2008 and, within days, he committed a verbal gaffe that horrified practically the entire LGBT rights community.
It all happened at the first-ever presidential lesbian and gay rights forum, sponsored by Logo and the Human Rights Campaign. One of the forum moderators, Melissa Etheridge, asked Bill Richardson: "Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?"
Richardson gave the absolute worst three-word response that he could possibly have given: "It's a choice."
And then all hell broke loose.
According to Pam's House Blend, with whom Richardson spoke after the debate, he admitted that he was "confused by the question" and that "it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science."
But when we look at the full exchange, Richardson seems to be making a pretty good point (text bolded for emphasis):
The only reason it would matter whether or not sexual orientation is a choice, from the perspective of civil liberties, is if the argument for lesbian and gay rights is based on the rather patronizing idea that lesbians and gay men are who they are because they just can't help it. By that model, sexual orientation becomes some kind of genetic disease, some kind of handicap, that we should accommodate with legislation in much the same way that we accommodate learning disabilities. That line of reasoning will never lead to marriage equality.
This is not to say that sexual orientation isn't something you're born with. The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, strongly suggests that it is. But does this really matter when we're talking about the basic issue of equal rights? Is Bill Richardson right that this ultimately isn't about science?
I think he is. I think Richardson is also the only Democratic candidate who has an actual track record of getting things done on lesbian and gay rights.
If we want a candidate who will always say the right thing, then Bill Richardson obviously isn't our best choice. But if we want a candidate who has a track record that suggests he will actually do the right thing, then he is practically the only credible gay rights candidate in the race. All we get from the other seven Democratic contenders are pretty words and non-binding promises. I stand by my endorsement of Bill Richardson, especially on this issue.
Disagree? See any gaps in my reasoning? Click on "comments" and say your peace. I'll blog the best responses next week.
Related Entries:
|
It all happened at the first-ever presidential lesbian and gay rights forum, sponsored by Logo and the Human Rights Campaign. One of the forum moderators, Melissa Etheridge, asked Bill Richardson: "Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?"
Richardson gave the absolute worst three-word response that he could possibly have given: "It's a choice."
And then all hell broke loose.
According to Pam's House Blend, with whom Richardson spoke after the debate, he admitted that he was "confused by the question" and that "it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science."
But when we look at the full exchange, Richardson seems to be making a pretty good point (text bolded for emphasis):
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.Richardson shot off his mouth and gave the wrong answer--if he doesn't understand the science of sexuality, then how does he know what is and isn't a choice?--but I also see dangerous logic in the idea that it matters, on a deep and profound moral level, whether or not sexual orientation is inborn. It shouldn't. Nobody asks whether heterosexuality is a choice. For that matter, we know religion is a choice and we still don't permit discrimination on that basis.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
The only reason it would matter whether or not sexual orientation is a choice, from the perspective of civil liberties, is if the argument for lesbian and gay rights is based on the rather patronizing idea that lesbians and gay men are who they are because they just can't help it. By that model, sexual orientation becomes some kind of genetic disease, some kind of handicap, that we should accommodate with legislation in much the same way that we accommodate learning disabilities. That line of reasoning will never lead to marriage equality.
This is not to say that sexual orientation isn't something you're born with. The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, strongly suggests that it is. But does this really matter when we're talking about the basic issue of equal rights? Is Bill Richardson right that this ultimately isn't about science?
I think he is. I think Richardson is also the only Democratic candidate who has an actual track record of getting things done on lesbian and gay rights.
If we want a candidate who will always say the right thing, then Bill Richardson obviously isn't our best choice. But if we want a candidate who has a track record that suggests he will actually do the right thing, then he is practically the only credible gay rights candidate in the race. All we get from the other seven Democratic contenders are pretty words and non-binding promises. I stand by my endorsement of Bill Richardson, especially on this issue.
Disagree? See any gaps in my reasoning? Click on "comments" and say your peace. I'll blog the best responses next week.
Related Entries:
Comments
Governor Richardson clarified his statement afterwards, saying that he does believe our gender orientation is biological. But, Rep. Barney Franks said it best yesterday:
“Governor Bill Richardson’s apology for the mistake he made in saying that
sexual orientation is a choice did not surprise me, because he has been a
strong supporter of our right to be treated fairly throughout his public career. It is especially relevant that he voted consistently on our side from the start of his Congressional career in the 1980s, when the issue of LGBT rights had far less support even from Democrats that it has today.
I regret Gov. Richardson’s misstatement – as I sometimes regret one or two of my own – but his error in the pressure of a debate should not detract from his very strong record in defense of equality for all Americans, including those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans gender.”
I’m not convinced Richardson made a misstatement. The question was if homosexuality is a choice, not whether orientation is a choice. That question as asked is ambiguous.
If you interpret the original question to refer to orientation, that certainly isn’t a conscious choice; scientifically, we don’t know how much is genetic and how much is environmental (and even if it were all environmental, that doesn’t make it a choice).
But the question could also be understood to mean, do you believe homosexual behavior is a choice? Then the correct answer is, yes of course, unless you believe that gays are incapable of making their own sexual choices. There are people with a homosexual orientation who are celibate (often for religious reasons), some who are monogamous, some who are promiscuous, and everything in between. Unless there’s a psychological pathology involved, the extent to which a person behaves homosexually is indeed a matter of choice.
I suspect that when Richardson first heard the question, he understood it to mean, “Is behaving as a homosexual a choice?” Apparently, though, that isn’t what Ms. Etheridge meant, and thus her surprise at the answer.
The problem wasn’t with Richardson, but with the way the question was worded.
Actually, when reading through Richardson’s answer, I think it’s a rather good one. He seems to be saying that all people should be treated as people, and why should we be pigeon-holing them anyway? And he’s right that there are a lot of scientific issues relating to homosexuality that we simply don’t understand.
Dave
Richardson is constantly betraying the tribalistic behavior of the false machisimo of partirchal latinos (I am latin, I know). For him to us the word “maricon” on a bigot like Imus’ show and make the statement that he would not speak ill of Gonzales- a fellow latino- is enough for me to conclude is is indeed culture bound. You may make misstatements, but you are not asking for my support for the highest office in the land.
Eric
The problem is your inabilty to accurately define the word “homosexuality.” Did you serve as a consultant for Bill Clinton when he asked the grand jury what “is” means?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty /ˌhoʊməˌsɛkʃuˈælɪti, or, especially Brit., -ˌsɛksyu-/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee, or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1890–95; homo- + sexuality]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (hō’mə-sěk’shōō-āl’ĭ-tē, -mō-) Pronunciation Key
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet – Cite This Source homosexuality
noun
a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition – Cite This Source
homosexuality
A sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. (See gay and lesbian; compare heterosexuality.)
[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary – Cite This Source
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary – Cite This Source
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: “hO-m&-”sek-sh&-’wal-&t-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
LatinoMan: I think the dictionary definitions you gave support my point. If “homosexuality” is “sexual orientation to persons of the same sex,” then “homosexuality” is (in my opinion) not a choice. If “homosexuality” is “sexual activity with another of the same sex,” then “homosexuality” (in my opinion) is a choice.
Once again, this topic rehashes. Having a gene does not make the behavior good. While H&L don’t choose attractions, they do choose their sexual behaviors. Even if orientation doesn’t change it’s best to change them to either straight missionary sex or celibacy. This will be controversial but rapists also don’t choose their feelings & there could be a rapist gene, but we do what we can to prevent rape.
Eric
Is heterosexuality a choice? The definiton of homosexulaity in the first sense is orientation- that is what Richardson says is a choice. Every reliable behavioral science piece of literature demonstrates the it is an immutable characteristic whether it is acted on or not.
Herit
Having a “deviance” doesn’t make something bad either. On a bell-shaped curve, genius IQs are in the upper 10 percentile. Whould you like to enumerate the inherent “bad” about homosexuality. Please don’t include sociogenic problems like job, housing and other forms of discrimination. Those problems originate with the perpetrators
If you think Bill Richardson is your friend …
watch your back, for when you least expect it, this Judas is sure to stab you deep, right between your shoulder blades!!!
Hey fellow Twilight Fans!
I just found a website where you can watch Twilight: New Moon for free! I found out it was leaked by the director himself!
Anyway, you can watch it at http://watchfullmoviesonlinefree.com
Enjoy guys!
Love,
Team Edward Gal!