America and Gay Marriage: Why an Antagonistic Film Boycott Won't Help Gay Rights

Orson Scott Card has said things that, particularly to gay Americans, is obviously and undeniably offensive. Quotes will follow that will probably anger a growing swath of the American population. These were not spoken moments of rage, but rather thought out statements that Card sat down to write and publish. As someone on the opposite end of the spectrum from Card on this issue, I strongly disagree with his viewpoints and stance on gay relationships and gay marriage.

Many on my side of this issue have even called a boycott of the upcoming movie Ender's Game, a film adaption of his novel. Geeks Out has published a special page to encourage people to "stand against Orson Scott Card and anti-gay activism".

I oppose the boycott not only for the impact such an act would have on the movie and its workers (because you would ultimately be hurting a cast and crew that has had stars and directors reach out on LGBT rights) but, above all else, I oppose the boycott because Orson Scott Card has a right to this opinion and if we really want to change his views, an antagonistic action such as a boycott of his film is not the proper way to go.

So what has Orson Scott Card said to anger this many people?

A particularly awful sample of quotes comes from "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization," an article he published in 2004. In it he makes the interesting point that gays have the right to marry, just not each other (a point I find interesting because it is one of the few arguments that acknowledges the right to marry that simultaneously does not give that right to same-sex partnerships).

This viewpoint that gays cannot marry though is one that is still a minority opinion. But it is not a minority opinion like those that believe they have seen an alien spaceship in the sky (10%), rather it is much more prevalent in American society. According to a Gallup Poll Social Series on Values and Beliefs, only as recently as 2008 did people approve and disapprove of gay relationships in the same numbers. In 2010, over 40% of people still thought gay relationships were wrong.

In the same survey in 2010, when asked what caused someone to be gay, more people responded "Upbringing/Environment" than "Born With." In the 2000s, each response receives responses in the high 30s or low 40s with some years "Born With" being the more common response.

Orson Scott Card's comments inspired a boycott movement, yet we do not boycott the 40% of people that still share his belief.

The boycott asked people to "stand against" activism that targets LGBT rights. While this diction is fine in the political arena in which this argument will eventually find itself, opposition to gay marriage is largely a social issue that is fought over the morality of gay and lesbian relationships. As long as people believe being gay is a choice, gays will always appear different and counter-cultural. As long as being gay is seen as a "choice," gay marriage appears a privilege.

We can combat this sentiment on two fronts. One is the legal/political arena which Card has said proponents of gay marriage have already won  with the resent SCOTUS decision ("With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state" - Orson Scott Card to Entertainment Weekly in July 2013) but simultaneously we cannot criticize opposing viewpoints as abnormal since their belief that gays are deviants (just as much as ours that they are born this way) is sprung from their upbringing. Just as in the Winter Olympics in Sochi, we must not combat the people or the laws, rather the stigma associated with LGBT members.

Gay marriage is an issue of morals for the majority of people on both sides of the debate. It's morally offensive to proponents of gay marriage to not allow same-sex marriages while it is morally offensive to allow them to the opponents.

While legally it can be challenged (and is), the drive to legalize gay marriage is ultimately from a moral standpoint, even if we approach bringing about change through the courts or legislation in a growing number of places. The two approaches facilitate each other. As more gay marriages happen, people will increasingly encounter gay marriages and adjust to the idea that such unions are not counter-cultural or pervasive. Meanwhile, activism showing LGBT members as part of society in a growing transparency will continue to convert people on the social front and inspire more legal action as the stigma of being gay is lifted in more and more places, creating a wonderful positive-feedback loop.

Given that gay marriage is not legal in most places and that those who oppose it are a shrinking minority, the battle is slowly being won. Time declared that gay marriage won in an awesome cover earlier this year. But as Card said in the July 2013 interview, we cannot ostracize this anti-gay minority (as, incidentally, they have the gay community). We must show tolerance to their viewpoints for that is the only way we can create a dialogue with those blocking progress, and a boycott of one film for the widely-held comments of the author of the source material is silly but more importantly potentially harmful to the image of LGBT activism in the national dialogue (the President is on board!) going on with this issue.

(Plus I love the book).

The Sochi Olympics: Why We Should NOT Boycott

Russia is currently pursuing a policy that, the United States feels, is dangerous on the world stage. The recent government crackdown on not only individuals who are gay but people who are pro-gay or, they feel, advancing the cause in any way is, in my opinion, horrific.

But, amidst the early seeds of discussion for boycotting the games, my voice does not matter on this world stage. After all this is an international event, and the world is not as shocked as rhetoric in the United States (and Britain with Stephen Fry's letter to David Cameron and the IOC) has been.

In a recent Pew poll among 39 countries, results showed that in only about a half a dozen countries do more than three-quarters of the population respond in the affirmative to the question "Should society accept homosexuality?" The United States is not one of them. In much of Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East, the responses were clearly in opposition to socially acceptable homosexuality. Though Europe largely supported homosexuality, 74% of Russian respondents answered in opposition.

A boycott of the Olympics would leave little impact. I see two plausible scenarios. The first is that only a few nations boycott (several European nations and maybe the United States, though this seems very fringe) and the impact is barely felt on the games which go on as planned in Sochi, even with a major sporting nation like the USA out of competition (and this failure does not even take into account hundreds of athletes and their crushed dreams). The second major option is the IOC moving the games to another location.

It is here that I point you to the Pew poll. Such a step would show overwhelming attachment to the sentiments of Western Europe and North America. In an effort to unify the world during a few weeks every four years, this would be a false step on the part of IOC since it would just highlight what can be seen as a "Western agenda" to those that disagree with homosexuality and do not see this as a human rights issue.

Instead, what I see as not only the least controversial but also most effective option for criticizing the games and advancing homosexuality as a human rights issue is attending the games in full swing, with nations and athletes bringing with them, unabashedly, whatever viewpoints Russia is domestically cracking down on.

A Russian official has hinted that during the games, though the law will remain in effect, competing athletes will not be affected. While this may not be the last we hear about this, I think nations and athletes that have an issue with the games should follow in the steps of Nick Symmonds who yesterday dedicated his silver medal to his LGBTQ friends. He chose to not wear a rainbow pin for fear of being placed in jail, but his voice on this issue still rang clear.

Any steps taken by nations in this event should play out on the level of the athletes. Pressure on the left to address this issue should manifest itself not through a governmental stance on this issue, but through athletes expressing their views. On this international stage in a foreign country, we should not parade in hoping to change laws, since this in itself is an act that may appear to infringe on sovereignty. In a country like Russia in which a large swath of the population supports these steps, we cannot come in and criticize the laws and brazenly defy them.

Instead, the focus should be on tearing down the stigmas associated with homosexuality that allowed this bill to pass and allowed the nation to stand by and watch it happen. Nick Symmonds, in addressing his win to LGBTQ members, is showing to Russia and the world watching that LGBTQ people are not criminals and that any relationships they have should be respected as human rights for they are equally dignified as all people are.

We cannot criticize Russia's law as a human rights violation when domestically they are punishing what they believe to be criminal acts in the manner one treats criminals. Simply put, visitors should respect the culture of a nation, and this culture appears to support this law. Change needs to come from the nation itself and what the world can do at the games is facilitate this change by speaking out to the world and the Russian public about the humanity Russia fails to acknowledge in the LGBT community. Though "gay propaganda" covers a wide swath of actions, actions as simple as dedicating medals to LGBT members or mentioning that you yourself are LGBT are small, unoffensive (the IOC has said they will enforce anti-"gay propaganda" laws), and, we hope, will be well-received by the watching public with no ramifications for the athlete.

There is no greater stage than the Olympics and non-political, compassionate comments about LGBT issues as human rights issues can and will be heard around the world.