How can you tell whether an issue under discussion is a case of civil rights or a culture war argument? In our current discourse, it seems that these two things are being conflated, and that one side sees an issue as infringing on their rights, while the other side sees those rights as either privileges or as invalid rights. Let’s take a closer look.

Start with the legal question. Is someone being denied a right, a protection or equal treatment under the law on the basis of who they are? If so, it’s probably a civil rights issue, not a culture war issue. Here are some examples:

  • A Black person is denied a promotion because of race.
  • A woman is denied a job opportunity solely because she is a woman.
  • A gay couple is denied a government benefit available to married heterosexual couples.

“I don’t like how society is changing” is not a civil rights violation. Neither is “I don’t want to see [group of people]” nor “I don’t want my kids to be aware that gay people exist.” Even if someone is a bigot, they may support basic civil rights for the people they find distasteful.

Culture wars are about what constitutes a “good” society, about competing visions for the country. That includes things like:

  • What should children be taught in public schools?
  • What language is spoken in public and supported by government programs?
  • What family structures are encouraged and privileged?
  • What should be shown in movies and on television?
  • What religious or moral values should be prominent?
  • How should historical figures be remembered or celebrated?
  • What behaviors should be celebrated or recognized, and which should be discouraged?

These are not civil-rights questions, but are about differing cultural visions for society. This can stray into a civil-rights issue if it includes barring some individuals from equal treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic such as sex, religion, race or sexual orientation.

What is being demanded? This is where the rubber meets the road.

  • Civil-rights argument: individuals want the same legal opportunity given to everyone else.
  • Culture-war argument: a group or person wants a specific version of society to be affirmed or accommodated.

The second argument is about social norms and cultural recognition.

An issue can contain both culture war and civil-rights implications. They often do, in fact. Consider same-sex marriage.

  • Civil-rights argument: if gay marriage is legal, then gay couples should receive the same legal status and government benefits as heterosexual couples. Refusing service to them on the basis of their legally protected status is barring access to public goods on the basis of discrimination.
  • Culture wars argument: Society should regard same-sex relationships as equally legitimate expressions of love and family, e.g. “Love is love.” That’s a cultural claim.

It’s possible to accept the first and be uncomfortable with the second, as many GOP legislators did when they affirmed gay marriage.

Is the goal equal treatment or compelled agreement? This is a helpful distinction if you are talking with someone who holds a different view of what constitutes an ideal society, but who is willing to allow people equal civil rights. For example, someone might say they dislike Pride parades, but would agree that gay couples should marry each other legally and not be forced into heterosexual marriages or singlehood. This is an important distinction that exists whenever civil rights are expanded. It takes some people a while to envision how a “good” society includes those people (whether it’s people of color, different sexual orientation or expression, minority religions, or working women).

“Culture wars” are sometimes used to mask discriminatory aims.The easiest place to find this is if we look at what happened during the Jim Crow south years. Segregation was defended as religious freedom–necessary to prevent miscegenation (including by the LDS church), a way to preserve “white” culture and tradition, a states’ rights issue, and a way to allow social change more time.

But it was actually a screen for denying Black Americans equal access to public accommodations, education, housing, job opportunities, and the vote.

A four-question test. To determine if this is a civil-rights issue or a culture war issue, consider:

  • Is there unequal legal treatment? Are similarly qualified and situated people receiving different legal treatment or access to opportunities?
  • Is the difference in treatment based on an intrinsic or protected characteristic? While some things are quite clearly intrinsic characteristics (e.g. biological sex, race) others are debated (e.g. sexual orientation, gender expression and or trans, religion). Some of those that are debated are still protected legally, and others are being attacked by current policy proposals. Additionally, someone can be discriminated against illegally, but a defense of the discrimination can claim it was on the basis of something else (e.g. qualifications).
  • Is the government or a public institution controlling access to a fundamental public opportunity? This includes things like voting, employment opportunities, public education, housing access, public accommodation, marriage and legal protection.
  • Is the dispute primarily about social norms and recognition? This includes things like symbols, language, representation, morality, education, social approval, and competing conceptions of the family or identity. If it’s these, it’s more likely a culture-war question.

It goes a little deeper, if you think about it. Civil rights are about living in a pluralistic society. Culture war politics ask for more: a public recognition of what one person or group thinks is good, normal, appropriate or true. This is one reason that conservative churches (as opposed to social justice churches) are particularly prone to culture war rhetoric in sermons, public statements, and political causes they support (e.g. opposing gay marriage). But of course, that’s true whichever side is talking. One might say “I can accept gay rights, but why do they have to be in your face about it?” Another might say “I can accept that religious people exist, but why do they never shut up about it?”

When you hear someone say “I’m not political” or claim ignorance about a civil rights or culture war issue, they might just mean “I’m uncomfortable telling people about my culture war position, but I accept on a basic level that people have civil rights.”

The anti-trans debate sits squarely between these two points. One side says that trans people are who they say they are, that gender identity resides in the brain (not the genitals), and that it is therefore an inherent characteristic to be trans. Some on the other side claims it’s a mental delusion that should not be accommodated, and there is an underlying fear that children who are exposed to the freedom to “choose” their gender will become trans or that trans people are a direct threat to others. There are three different sets of questions at play (at least):

  • Equal citizenship. Do trans people deserve the same basic rights and protection from discrimination?
  • Policy questions. How should institutions deal with sex and gender in specific contexts?
  • Cultural recognition. What should society at large believe and say about gender?

In a pluralistic society, we can hopefully agree on #1, come to some compromise on #2, but #3 is where things often fall apart. Perhaps my favorite example of #3 is when GOP representative Keith Self (TX) deliberately misgendered Dem representative (DE) Sarah McBride, following which she referred to Rep. Self as “Madame Chair” when answering his questions. He didn’t like it any more than she did (he found it so unsettling that he left the session), but everyone’s civil rights were upheld.

  • Where do you put the church in the civil rights / culture wars spectrum? Do you hear church leaders or members upholding civil rights or opposing them? Do you see them masking civil rights attacks under cover of culture war talking points?
  • Do you see the anti-DEI backlash in governmental agencies as a civil rights issue or a culture war issue?
  • Have you met people who are on one side in a civil rights argument but the other side in the culture war version of the same thing?
  • Are there things that are not inherent traits (like religion) that you think should also be protected from discrimination, such as political voting history or affiliation?
  • Are there other inherent traits that you think should be protected from discrimination (e.g. size, height)?

Discuss.