Center for Building a Culture of Empathy

   Home    Conference   Magazine   Empathy Tent   Services    Newsletter   Facebook    Youtube   Contact   Search

Join the International Conference on: How Might We Build a Culture of Empathy and Compassion?


Empathic Design
Empathy Circles

  Restorative Empathy Circles
Empathy Tent
Training
Conference
Magazine

Expert Interviews
Obama on Empathy

References

    Books
    Conferences
    Definitions
    Experts
(100+)
    History
    Organizations
    Quotations
    Empathy Tests

 

   The Emergency Empathy Response Team Responds to:

 

Same-sex marriage: Empathy or right?
Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post



 

There are two ways to defend gay marriage (Empathy or Rights)

  • Empathy

    • people feel empathy for gays

    • feel empathy for those who are scared of the change

    • Empathy is a gradual process

      • not compulsorily

    • He goes from Empathy to sympathy

      • (he mixes empathy and sympathy)

      • (it confuses the situation)

    • more compromising - (is about understanding not compromise)

  • Rights?

    • less compromising 

    • are compulsorily

    • civil rights

  •  Obama moves from empathy to rights

    • going from gradual movement to political calculation for self interest?

 

 

How to approach the dialog?

  • Nature of the article itself

    • reasoned approach

    • look for underlying aspects

    • untruths - dishonesty

  • Explore the Relationship of empathy and rights

    • empathy

    • rights

  • Empathizing with Charles

    • what are his underlying values?

    • what is the role of empathy for you?

    • Does Charles Krauthammer, support building a culture of empathy?

  • There is no core value of empathy in society. Charles seems to say the empathic approach, were people dialog about the issue of gay marriage and come to some sort of an empathic understanding is the way to go. However, there is not a social structure to foster this dialog in a highly empathic way. The current media discussion is very polarized,

  • Says; Obama has initially proposed to use empathy to use bring people together around this issue.  Now he is appealing to rights. The legislatures that are enshrining anti-gay marriage. Using the coercive poser of the law.

  • Need to first set the social value as empathy.  We need to all agree that we want a culture of empathy.

  • I think the gay movement would have been more effective if they had appealed to empathy rather than equality.

 



Charles Krauthammer
Same-sex marriage: Empathy or right?

 

There are two ways to defend gay marriage.

 

Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.

 

 

Barack Obama, "Meeting people like Judy Shepard, and not only hearing the heartbreaking tragedy of Matthew but also the strength and determination she brought to make sure that never happens to young people anywhere in the country again ... those stories made me passionate about the issue."

 

 

No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.

 

 

At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until yesterday, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times.
 


The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position.



Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage.
 


Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights — and just as inviolable.
 


Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.



Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias — “serves no purpose . . . other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”



Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand[ing] rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.
 

expand[ing] rights
"The announcement I made last week about my views on marriage equality -- same principle.  The basic idea -- I want everybody treated fairly in this country.  We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody.  That doesn’t weaken families; that strengthens families.  (Applause.)  It’s the right thing to do." Barack Obama 
Remarks by the President at Rubin Museum of Art New York, New York


 

 

 today’s successor

"What young generations have done before should give you hope.  Young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, didn’t just do it for themselves; they did it for other people. 


That’s how we achieved women’s rights.  That's how we achieved voting rights.  That's how we achieved workers’ rights.  That's how we achieved gay rights.  That’s how we’ve made this Union more perfect." Barack Obama
 
President at Barnard College Commencement Ceremony

 

 


Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.



No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.



Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.


He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.




When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.



Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.
 


True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.