Proposition 8 has passed and removed the right to marry from hundreds of thousands of people. Gay groups and people that believe this is an injustice have created a blacklist of donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 8, is horrified: “It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people’s civil rights.” Alison Stateman, writing in Time magazine, published his quote without challenging the absurdity of Mr. Schubert’s claim.
His claim is absurd because it has three major errors. First, Mr. Schubert tries to equate status discrimination with a targeted boycott. Proposition 8 discriminates against gays based on their status (they are gay), and status-based discrimination is almost always a bad thing (Think Jim Crow). Boycotting companies for voluntarily donating money is not the same thing as status-based discrimination because it targets companies based on their actions, not their status (e.g., donating money vs. being a corporation).
Second, Mr. Schubert conflates government discrimination with private action. The blacklist was compiled by private people to speak out against hate and discrimination. These private citizens can only do two things: spend money and speak their mind. But when the government discriminates, it has significantly more power. Under the new law, if two gay women have a child together, and the state-recognized mother dies, then the state can take the child away from the other mother–because they are not married. Because the state defines who gets to be a family, then it can take children away from a person that the state does not recognize as a parent. Proposition 8 uses the power of the state to hurt gay people and their families. The blacklist uses the power of private speech and private spending to encourage other people to respect their neighbors.
Third, Mr. Schubert has no understanding of a “right.” According to Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, “When a right is invaded, a duty is violated.” If the blacklist really “tramples” on rights, then someone has violated a duty owed to the people on the blacklist. Does Mr. Schubert think that we have a duty to not make lists? Maybe he thinks we have a duty to not criticize other people. Does he think we have a duty to shop at Container Supply Co., and that by boycotting the store, we are violating our duty to shop there? What duty does the blacklist violate? What right is being trampled on? The truth is that the blacklist does not violate any duty and the boycott does not trample on anyone’s civil rights. Compare this to Proposition 8. Until Proposition 8 passed, gay people did have the right to marry. Mr. Schubert, through his campaign, destroyed that right for hundreds of thousands of people. It is more accurate to say that Proposition 8 trampled on the civil rights of others.
My strongest criticism, however, is not for Frank Schubert–it is for Alison Stateman (the author of the article), her editor, and Time magazine. Mr. Schubert was the campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 8; I expect him to make ridiculous statements like this one. I expect Time magazine, however, to be staffed with inquisitive and intelligent writers and editors. Ms. Stateman’s article ended with Mr. Schubert’s quote but she did not challenge the huge errors in his statement. Before publishing his quote, Ms. Stateman and her editor should have asked a simple question: Is Mr. Schubert’s assertion true? With only a little intellectual curiosity, any reasonably intelligent person could have exposed at least one of the errors above. Publishing Mr. Schubert’s misleading statement without criticizing his errors was irresponsible and lazy.
Is it too much to expect that a venerable magazine such as Time would be skeptical of partisan statements and analyze a potentially-biased statement to make sure that the statement is true?
