Justice Scalia's Rant Misses the Point on Same-Sex Marriage

I couldn’t help but notice the stark contrast in reactions to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in two landmark gay marriage cases.  On one side we saw jubilant celebrations as a long-denied civil right was finally granted to same-sex couples in California, and the dignity and value inherent in loving gay relationships were boldly affirmed in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The other side was characterized by anguished and bitterly defeated anti-gay marriage Republicans and conservative Christians who condemned the decisions as unholy attacks on traditional marriage and a threat to society. Even the supremely arrogant Justice Antonin Scalia couldn’t resist unleashing his own hostile views in his caustic dissent:
“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.”

Besides being an outspoken advocate for the losing side, Scalia’s rant offers clear evidence that the Right just simply doesn’t get it when it comes to gay marriage. Scalia is correct in asserting that defending traditional marriage is not the same as anti-gay bigotry, and it’s wrong to assume such views to be the motivation of every opponent of same-sex marriage.  However, the major flaw unpinning his argument is thinking that religious-based assertions to uphold the definition of traditional marriage is a legitimate basis to deny extending marriage equality to those who don’t subscribe to it.

In other words, both viewpoints are NOT equally defensible from a social equality and civil rights standpoint. Same-sex marriage doesn’t in any way infringe upon the right or desire of heterosexuals to pursue marriage -- and despite opponents’ empty claims to the contrary -- will have no impact on those unions. However, efforts by opponents of gay marriage to ban, restrict or deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry represent a substantial infringement. 

As a society, we understand the value of social and cultural norms, but a strong belief in tradition is not sufficient grounds to justify unequal or unjust treatment of a class of citizens under the law. Republicans and Christian conservatives vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage either pretend not to grasp this basic point or are so blinded by their own narrow beliefs that they choose to disregard it, which is why they are losing the fight against gay marriage.

Despite the Right’s ideological resistance to change, cultures do evolve -- as do long-held attitudes, traditions and beliefs.  If they didn’t, gay Americans wouldn’t be allowed to serve openly in today’s U.S. military; interracial couples wouldn’t be allowed to wed; African Americans and women would be prevented from voting; and the unjust and immoral practice of racial segregation would still be the shameful law of the land. 

The goal of affirming equality for all citizens is a universal principle that must always trump other narrow religious and ideological interests, no matter how passionately and intensely advocated. That’s a point on which even conservatives can all agree, whether they choose to personally accept gay marriage or not.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s Exclusion Message Rightly Backfired

CEO Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie & Fitch experienced what mirrored a Mitt Romney moment when, in a unguarded moment during an interview seven years ago, he spoke openly and honestly about the consumer market his clothes are intended to attract:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool-kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kids with a great attitude and a lot of friends.  A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes] and they can’t belong.  Are we exclusionary? Absolutely!”  

A popular youth brand bragging about the fact that it’s exclusionary, implying that unattractive geeks can't wear its clothes? Honest perhaps, but it’s an off-putting marketing message that has sparked a major backlash against the chain. The retailer’s apologies have yet to quell the firestorm of condemnation from offended teens, celebrities and others.  Is the outrage justified, or is it a case of modern political correctness run amuck? 

First, let’s acknowledge that what Jeffries said, while candid, was also painfully obvious.  One look at Abercrombie’s over-sexualized advertising featuring athletically fit and handsome young male jocks, and there’s no mistaking who the chain is marketing to.  There’s also nothing controversial about a retailer or advertiser targeting a particular niche market of consumers; what retailer doesn‘t?  But what Jefferies said during his ill-expressed moment of candor went beyond merely defining his brand and needlessly offended consumers his brand doesn‘t cater to.  

In today’s more culturally diverse and inclusive society, it’s not good policy nor good business to promote ideas of exclusion or to suggest that some people aren’t welcome or “don’t belong.”  Besides, why turn away consumers who may aspire to be the people a brand celebrates?

Imagine retailer Victoria Secret saying that they only market their stylish lingerie to thin, beautiful women who like to feel sexy.  Implied message: fat, ugly women should look elsewhere. But, in truth, some fat women may want to feel sexy, too.  And if they are willing to spend money on clothes that aren’t intended for them, so be it. The retailer makes a profit either way.

The flap over the comments by Abercrombie’s CEO isn’t about suggesting that apparel retailers should cater to every type of consumer in the marketplace, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic, as well as being adverse to the ideals of free market enterprise.  The flap, however, is about denouncing a corporate message that seemed to insensitively dismiss or demean “the wrong type” of desired customers. 

Efforts by teen groups trying to pressure the chain to expand it sizes or tone down its sexualized advertising are perhaps well-intended but misguided.  Abercrombie forces no one to shop at it stores.  Teens offended by its brand or marketing message can simply choose to shop elsewhere, or even encourage other teens to boycott the store if they choose.

Yes, all clothing styles aren’t made for all body types and sizes.  And we have all seen people who fail to grasp that concept in their fashion choices. But Abercrombie as well as other apparel retailers are well-advised to let consumers decide for themselves what clothes they “belong in.” 

Exclusion is an unwise marketing message for almost any retailer, and Abercrombie’s seemingly out-of-touch CEO now knows why, as some shoppers will likely “exclude” his store from places they prefer to shop.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California.  He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.