The Economist Gets It

This week, The Economist published an editorial that left me pleasantly surprised.

I often read the magazine simply because it's more literate and has a broader horizon than most other magazines.  Their book and theatre reviews are among the best.  However, I don't always agree with their political and economic views, which always seemed to the right in a Thatcherist (if not Reaganesque) kind of way.  

As this week's editorial rightly points out, there seems to be a growing divide in this world when it comes to LGBT rights.  Now most western European countries, and some in Latin America and Asia--along with Canada and nineteen (as of this writing) US states--have legalized civil unions or gay marriage.  And those countries, along with others, have struck down old laws that criminalized homosexual acts.

On the other hand, some countries are developing ever-more-repressive policies toward LGBT people.  Those countries, mostly in Africa and the Muslim world, are--to some degree--reacting against the increasing tolerance of the West (and Far East).  But Russia's anti-gay policies cannot be laid solely at the feet of Vladimir Putin:  Polls indicate that about three in every four Russians disapprove of homosexuality.

Could the reaction of such countries be, in some way, a tacit admission that the world is changing?  Could they be left behind in other social areas, as well as economics, if they don't follow the rest of the world?  The editorial seems to imply as much:  In those countries, as in the rest of the world, the population--particularly the young--are becoming more urbanized and educated.  And, of course, they use the Internet.  So, perhaps, old prejudices and taboos could simply fade away as those younger people take their places in the world.

Some Of Us Are More Equal Than Others

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If you've read George Orwell's Animal Farm, you will remember that proclamation.  The pigs, who controlled the government in the world depicted in the novel, made it.

No gays are equal, but some are even less equal than others.

Of course, Orwell didn't write that in his novel.  But it's a pretty fair summation of the situation LGBT people face in Europe, and the rest of the world.

This map from ILGA Europe illustrates what I mean:

Map can also be seen here.

The percentage shown for each country indicates the degree of equality LGBT people have with everyone else.  As a region, Europe probably offers the greatest degree of equality in the world.  Still, there are great variations within it and some depressing (but not surprising) realities.  For example, the worst country for equality--the Russian Federation--scores 7 percent, and other countries in that region have very low ratings.  On the other hand, northern and western European countries fare best, with Great Britain scoring highest at 77 percent.  Belgium comes in second at 67 percent (two-thirds), while Norway, Sweden, Spain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands trail closely, all coming in at over 60 percent.

It would be interesting to see a similar map for the United States.  Would it reveal any surprises in comparing the states?

Gay Marriage In The Land Of Il Conformisto

France has legalized same-sex marriage, the UK will do the same this summer, and Germany is awaiting a vote on the matter from the Bundestag.  That leaves Italy as one of the few Western European countries where the matter is not at least under consideration.  In fact, it's one of the few countries in the area that still doesn't even recognize same-sex civil unions.  

Some Italian cities--including Milan, but not including Rome--have legalized such unions.  But, as a recent Times article noted, the rights of gay couples end at their cities' limits. 

Some people blame the Vatican for the situation I've described. However, as Same Love founder Alessandro Bentivegna noted, "Ireland is just as Catholic, yet they're 100 years ahead of here."

If anything, the Irish have been more Catholic than the Italians for at least a couple of centuries. As in Giulia in Alberto Moravia's The Conformist observes, "Ninety percent of the people who go to church today don't believe. The priests don't, either."  Although the situation is changing, for many Italians, the Church is something like the Royal Family is to many British:  They can't tell you, exactly, what it's for or about, but they cannot imagine life without it.

On the other hand, Ireland had, arguably, the most fervent believers in Europe.  That, I believe, is a result of the British attempt to destroy their religion.  For a long time, Irish would-be priests were trained in France by disciples of theologian Cornelius Jansen, who emphasized human sin, depravity, predestination and the need for divine grace.  One result is that they preached through fiery sermons that could make even Jonathan Edwards blush.  

One thing about fundamentalism--whether of the Christian, Islamic or Jewish variety--is that when people break away from it, their actions are more decisive and climatic than of those who simply drift away from more moderate churches. So, while Italian Catholics--even those in the countryside--aren't much more religious than their peers in France or other countries, they are also less likely to bread away from Catholicism altogether.  That is why people attend church even when, as Giulia said, they don't believe in it.  

This attitude about church extends to other areas of Italian life:  People--especially politicians--cling to beliefs, rituals and traditions even after they have lost meaning.  That, I believe, accounts for the lack of urgency among Italians concerning a number of social issues that are debated vigorously--and, sometimes, acted upon--in other countries.  

A typical Italian attitude goes something like this:  Yes, gay couples should have the right to marry and have al of the other rights heterosexual couples have.  But they can go to Belgium or someplace else to get married.  So why is it so important to legalize it here?  Why is it such a big deal? If you can find a way to live your life the way you want to, why should you change anything?  As an Italian professor once told me, "If the Bastille had been in Rome, it would still be standing."

Also, politics are very different in Italy.  Here in the US, the far left and the far right are the most vocal in their views, and the latter is better able to transmit them because it is backed by some very wealthy individuals and corporations.  On the other hand, the center-left and center-right not only dominate Italian politics; they are also the most vocal proponents of their points of view.  And, those views, as often as not, are about preserving the status quo rather than making dramatic changes--as has happened in Ireland and Argentina--or in "returning" to some idealized version of what the "Founding Fathers" stood for, as we see in the US.  

In other words, Italians don't have the sense that they have to "save" their country, as the American right has, or that there has to be  a social revolution, as is occuring in Ireland, Spain and some Latin American countries.   That may be the main reason why Italy may not legalize same-sex unions--let alone marriage--for a while.