In the post before this one, I argued that one of the most common arguments against marriage equality is a bait and switch. Rather than arguing against marriage equality itself, opponents argue that ideally children should be raised by a mom and a dad. Then they tell people that in order to insure that children are raised by moms and dads, we must oppose marriage equality.
Marriage equality opponents must know that this is nonsense. All over the country, and (outside of Massachusetts) without legal marriage, same-sex couples are raising children. They are not waiting for legal marriage, nor will banning legal marriage give the government a new right to take children away from same-sex couples. The policy marriage-equality opponents propose – banning same-sex marriage – does not in any way solve the problem they claim to be responding to, which is children growing up in homes without two biological parents.
This fundamental disconnect between their (stated) goals and their policy is a problem for marriage equality opponents. They want the law to discriminate against same-sex couples; at the same time, they genuinely don’t want to be seen as anti-gay bigots. So they have to somehow connect “protecting the children” (a goal that’s not anti-gay) with discrimination against lesbians and gays.
The way some of them make the link is to argue that whenever the law treats two things with legal equality that sends a message. According to this worldview, by allowing marriage equality, Massachusetts has “sent a message” which says that no child needs a mom or a dad.
There are two problems with this point of view.
First of all, it’s simply, factually wrong: equal legal treatment sends no such message. If it did, then by allowing criminals in prison to marry, the US has sent the message that convicted murderers are just swell as parents and mates, and that kids don’t need two parents out of prison. By allowing the KKK a legal right to march, the government says the KKK is just as good as Veterans marching on Veterans Day. And so forth.
In fact, no such message is sent. I defy you to locate one non-KKK member who has been convinced that because the KKK has an equal legal right to march, they must be just as admirable as all other groups that march. People simply don’t think that way.
The paradox is, although no particular message is sent by equal treatment, a definite message is sent by prejudicial treatment. As long as marriage inequality continues, the US is sending a message that lesbians, gays and their children are second-class citizens (a message that’s particularly harmful to lesbian and gay teens). This may seem like a contradiction in my position, but it’s not. The discrimination marriage equality opponents favor is active discrimination; in contrast, equal treatment is a government’s way of being neutral, sending no message at all.
So, for instance, if the government bans all paintings of clowns (wistful thinking, I know), that sends a message that clown painting deserves contempt and lesser treatment. Does it follow that by not banning clown paintings, the government is saying a clown painting has just as much value as a Mary Cassatt’s The Bath? Of course not; the government is simply remaining neutral and letting the culture decide for itself what to value.
* * *
I said there were two reasons the “we can’t allow marriage equality because that sends a message that moms and dads are unnecessary” logic is flawed. One problem is that it’s factually wrong; equal, neutral treatment sends no message. The second problem is that the anti-equality logic treats the lives and rights of lesbians, gays and their children as tools to be used to benefit heterosexuals.
The lives of same-sex families aren’t post-it notes! If marriage equality opponents wish to send a message, they should by all means write opinion pieces, or agitate for more healthy heterosexual families on TV. But don’t use lesbian and gay lives for your op-ed statement. Same-sex families are human beings, as precious as any heterosexual family; injustice to them cannot be justified by saying injustice sends a valuable message.
The anti-marriage equality case rests on the implicit belief that any harm to same-sex families, however huge, is justified if it prevents any difficulty to heterosexuals, however tiny or theoretical. That view is simply not compatible with a worldview that sees lesbians, gays and their children as human beings equal in value to all other humans.
* * *
(Note that I haven’t addressed the question, “are mothers and fathers necessary?” That’s a topic for another post.)
and of course, still, in the anti-ssm argument, no one mentions the outlandish idea of marriage without children. Gasp!
They don’t like to remember that one, because it blows up their Marriage Is For Makin’ Babies argument.
Hang in there. We will get there, we will win eventually. Everyone was so giddy last spring and it seemed like the wall was coming down. Now we are reminded that we do have a long, hard fight ahead.
Couple of things. First, look at the final results. It’s depressing that 36 passed in almost every county. But it failed, and failed heavily, in the counties that have experienced same-sex marriage. Part of it is that liberal counties were both more likely to allow ssm to happen and because their voters were the least likely to buy the agenda of exclusion. But I do believe that part of it is that the ordinary unengaged voters in those areas saw ssm marriage and saw that the sky did not fall afterward.
On the bright side, we now have some space and some leverage that we need to move on right away. An awful lot of folks were able to vote yes on 36 by telling themselves a nice story. “I’m not a bigot and I don’t hate lesbians and gay men. I just think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Well, let’s capitalize on this quick by getting civil unions on the ballot for the next cycle. The middle will feel compelled to vote for civil unions to justify morally their yeses on 36. Are civil unions full equality? No, of course not. But they can do a lot of good if they’re put in place.
It’s grim, I know. But we are not in Ohio or one of the other states that delivered a major smackdown to the idea that same-sex relationships could ever be meaningful, legitimate, and real in any sense. And if I were to tell you four years ago that right now, civil unions would be seen as a broadly consensual compromise in the majority community, you’d have written me off as a wide-eyed idealist.
We face dark days ahead. Let’s move with what we can do ASAP.
Aeschylus, that still has the ‘c’mon bro, just sit in the back of the bus, it beats walking!’ feel to it.
The more I think about this whole issue, the more I come to a rather firm conclusion that the only way to really solve things is to somehow seperate marriage from the state given rights entirely, and make them all civil unions. That is after all, exactly what they are despite any amendments to the contrary (to my knowledge, seperation of church and state trumps all). At this point the conclusion is still a haze in my brain, but as a married person hetero that is invested in this issue rather deeply, I feel the sting of my marriage being molested by the morality police rather deeply, and really want to not be associated with this members only club that they have created of marriage.
Bottom line, I guess I’m saying that as much as it might make sense to grab the prize now, is it the wisest and most honorable course of action?
I just don’t know….
Quite right, Amp.
Another bait-and-switch that makes me crazy is the argument that if we allow gays to marry, we’d have to allow polygamy as well — an argument that seems to come up every time someone wants to oppose gay marriage. It is such obvious nonsense. I remember on the bar review course the professor explaining that equal protection means that the government doesn’t have to give away ice cream, but if it does, it has to give it to everyone (or something to that effect). Everybody gets to marry one person at a time. Period. Why is that so hard to understand?
I like to think about myself as one who seeks common ground in seemingly opposing views. I just had a conversation about marriage with a lesbian friend.
I have a historical view on same-sex marriage. The fact is that by tradition, marriage was always among a man and a woman. This was not put on the law books because it was assumed this way. The idea that a marriage can be made up from the same sex people did not even occur to gay people themselves until recently, which is when they started to push for recognition.
If you take it into perspective, there is a tremendous amount of progress that gay and lesbian rights activist can see. From something that wasn’t even on the radar screen twenty or thirty years ago, legal recognition of same-sex unions have become something that is not only recognized as an issue but is supported by about two-thirds of the population. Yes, that is right. If you add up those who support marriage and support civil unions, about two-thirds realize there is a civil rights inequality that needs to be addressed.
The term “marriage” freaks out most conservatives though. I consider myself a free-thinker, I am not religious but I happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and its purpose is for child-bearing. This isn’t because I am some sort of bigot who clings onto traditional values. Quite the contrary. I am from a country (Hungary) where heterosexual couples live together freely. Most of my friends took the view that they do not need a piece of paper to signify that they are committed to each other. Most did not get marry until they had a child. I myself did not want to marry until I decided that the man I was with will be the father of my children.
Now this comes from a country where the advantages of marriage are far less than in the U.S. and where common-law marriage laws come into effect automatically and apply to same-sex couples as well. “Life partnership” – as they call it – was established due to the need to cover legal issues with heterosexual couples living together who are not married. This is an issue in America that is not even on the agenda, even though it is an increasing trend.
Back to America. If gay and lesbian activists are concerned about getting the same rights than married couples, than settling for an equal status called civil unions will do it, and most Americans would approve it. If they are aiming for redefining marriage, than they are in for a long fight and heavy opposition from people who may not be as conservative as you might think.
Civil unions are not an equal status. Period. They simply are not, no matter how much you wish it so.
Marta, you may not think of yourself as a bigot. But when you say that because you “happen to believe” something is true, regardless of what the law says or whether it’s fair or who it hurts, well, that’s a kind of bigotry.
I’d prefer not to get into “is Marta a bigot or not.” The question isn’t, or shouldn’t be, if any particular person is bigoted (surely we ALL have bigotries hidden away somewhere); the question should be if a particular set of proposed policies is bigoted.
But historically, marriage was often between one man and several women (or vice versa). Marriage has historically too-often been between an adult man and a young girl, who may not have had any choice, and who had no legal rights to refuse to have sex with her husband (e.g., he could legally rape her). Historically, marriage has frequently been about treating women as men’s property, with few legal rights of her own. Historically, in many cultures, it was impossible for a woman who was beaten by her husband to get a divorce. Historically, it was sometimes illegal for people of different races to marry.
I’m sure you agree with me that it’s good that all these historic properties of marriage have changed. But if you agree with that, then you must logically agree that just because something is a history property of marriage, that alone is not enough to prove that we should keep it that way.
I certainly agree! However, the fact that enourmous progress has been made does not logically show that further progress is either impossible or undesireable.
Marta, there was a time in American history when public buildings had separate water fountains – one for black people, one for white people. Can you see why that was objectionable, even though literally speaking both races had “the same rights”?
I don’t know what most lesbians and gays in the USA want – I haven’t taken a survey. Many people, however, simply want equality. “Civil unions” aren’t equality – they’re a separate water fountain.
That said, I certainly will be glad if civil unions become a norm here in the USA. However, I don’t think that’ll happen without the pressure of some activists pushing for true marriage equality. Just a few years ago, civil unions seemed like an impossible dream in the United States. Now even a conservative Republican president says that he favors the idea; civil unions have suddenly become a moderate position favored by many. Do you really think that would have happened if activists hadn’t been pushing for same-sex marriage?
I’d prefer not to get into “is Marta a bigot or not.”
My point was really only that anyone who says “I’m not a bigot/racist/sexist/person with prejudices, BUT…” ought to look very, very hard at the statement they followed up with.
LOL. I am a person who does not care for what things are called, or what they look like. If you want to call me bigot, go ahead if that makes you happy.
I don’t care what you call two people’s union: marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, life partnership, whatever. What matters is substance, what you make of that relationship.
What is the substance of gay and lesbian organizations calling for marriage? If the substance is to get equal rights, than why do you care what is it called? The answer is simple: the substance is not simply equal rights. It is ideological. The recognition that gay people are not any different than heterosexual people. I do totally agree with that it is necessary, but I don’t see it as something that is tied to the definition of marriage.
I am a pragmatist. I truly don’t care about the world recognizing my relationship with my husband, because I think that the substance of it simply depends on me and him, and I don’t need a piece of paper to prove it. The reason I don’t think that same-sex marriage is all that important because I don’t think that marriage itself is that important.
Americans are obsessed with marriage. Conservatives see it as the pillar of society. Gays seem to agree with this since it is so important for them to get that right. Legally, in America there is a huge difference between a married couple and an unmarried couple living together for many years. America is the only developed country so underrecognizing people’s relationships without a marriage license.
The only reason I care about marriage is because of the legal protection it gives. And I truly believe that those legal rights belong to everybody, regardless of sex. I also believe there needs to be legislation about the rights of people living together. It is shameful that a woman, whose partner of eight years died, had no rights to arrange the funeral of her beloved boyfriend, but the ex-wife did.
Since I am a pragmatist, I am amazed that gay and lesbian activists are willing to throw away a compromise that gives them all the rights they currently lack, over some verbiage. It certainly looks to me that the verbiage is more important than the substance.
You argue that conservatives are bigots by clinging to the traditional view on marriage, and you argue that your definition is better and more righteous. Look at yourself. You are both ideologists.
My point is that if we want to move forward, we need to find a common ground. Americans have proved that if you leave the word “marriage” out of the equation, they are happy to recognize gay people’s unions.
Oops. Reading this it seems very argumentative, and sorry, that wasn’t my point.
Amp, I wasn’t saying that further progress is not needed. I was simply trying to underscore how much progress is already made in the relatively short period since the gay rights made it to the national agenda. This is very encouraging. It says that people aren’t stupid, and they are willing to change.
Rhethoric is flying on both left and right sides. I am thoroughly tired of it. Upon close examination (being someone who is not hung up on words helps with this) their positions on real issues are remarkably similar.
Stop focusing on the differences. Seek the common ground and you will come out as the winner.
Take the civil unions for now to provide the legal protection for same-sex couples, because they badly need it. Leave the ideology for another day when people are less jumpy about it.
Bleh! ‘Just get in the back of the bus, folks, stop being so stubborn!’
/sigh
Okay, I understand that’s how you feel. Do you understand that not all Americans feel as you do? And that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t automatically make your feelings right and other people’s feelings wrong?
To many people, especially Americans, there is spiritual and symbolic importance to the word “marriage” – as well as to the concept of equal treatment under the law.
Since you didn’t respond to this last time, let me repeat it: Do you understand why separate water fountains are objectionable, even though they were literally equal treatment? (Please respond this time, rather than ignoring the question.)
* * *
Please stop putting words in my mouth; I never said that conservatives are bigots because they have a different definition of marriage than me. However, I did argue – and you didn’t respond – that in fact, the historic definition of marriage has changed greatly over the centuries, often for the better. Just because something is historic is not proof that changing it is always bad.
* * *
Actually, to a large extent I agree with you. What I want is for the government to treat everyone with formal equality – the word “marriage” itself isn’t that important to me. Personally, I’d prefer to leave the word “marriage” entirely to the churches and shuls and other such places, and have the goverment only issue “civil partnership licenses” or something like that.
Regarding civil unions, you write:
First of all, as I already argued (and you seemingly ignored), there’s no reason to think that we would have made the advances we have, if activists hadn’t been agitating for marriage equality. You seem to want to celebrate the gains activists have made while at the same time scolding the activists for being active.
Second, what makes you think civil unions are such a cakewalk? People are happy to support civil unions in the abstract; but when people have actually put civil unions into state law, it’s only been done with an enourmous struggle and over the passionate objections of many. (Look at how hard it was in Vermont and Hawaii).
I think you’re letting poll numbers (which I’ve read, also) fool you into thinking that lesbians and gays have been offered civil unions and turned it down. That’s simply not the case.
As I said, I’m all in favor of taking civil unions for now, where we can get them. But it’s not as if anyone’s offered civil unions to lesbians and gays in the USA. You seem to think that civil unions are a shoe-in, which can be gotten without the struggle and strife that you turn your nose up in distaste at. I’m sorry, but that’s just not the case; civil unions, like any other gain, will not happen unless people work for it.
There is no such thing as “just ideological.” Ideology, no matter how precious or illogical, always translates into practice. It’s really just another word for someone’s rationale. It’s why we have Shrub to deal with for the next four years. It’s why textbooks in Texas no longer acknowledge fornicators. It’s why Amp’s health insurance rates are probably much higher than those of lil’ old recovering bulimirexic me. And it’s why there is no such thing as “separate but equal:” unequal terminology before the law inevitably involves unequal treatment under the law.
LGBT marriage-rights activists are not quibbling over semantics but recognizing the prejudices which those semantics betray. “Civil union” is a phrase created specifically for the purpose of preventing The Gays from encroaching on the sanctum sanctorum of Marriage. It’s separate and explicitly unequal.
And as long as my marriage is referred to in terms other than marriage, its validity will be qualified and endangered. Until my marriage is accepted into the overall definition of marriage, with all the historial and emotional burdens associated with marriage, I and my partner will not have the same protections.
I don’t deserve that and I don’t have to put up with it. I’m sorry if I’m not being sufficiently careful about the squeamishness of every vague, waffling, mod-con with a tulle fetish. I’m sorry if I consider that squeamishness to be a pretty hefty insult to me and mine, rather than a minor quirk of upbringing. I’m sorry if I consider their tender feelings towards their own prejudices to be idiotic, and trivial in comparison with my right to be my spouse’s spouse.
But we’re married. Not united, not partnered, not domesticated, MARRIED. To the extent that the word has meaning, we have as much right to it as they do.
Actually (if you ignore the fact that she seems to blame gays for foolishly trying for too much and refusing that perfectly fair compromise that they haven’t been offered, and have been forbidden from seeking in multiple states), Marta seems to me to be saying pretty much the same thing as basement Kim and Aeschylus are saying: if the fight is simply over the term marriage, then civil unions are an acceptible compromise (and Kim and Matt and Sarah and I, and most other married couples I know, will be switching from marriage to civil unions), but only so long as civil unions give exactly the same rights as marriages. Kim would prefer to see all marriages called civil unions, Aeschylus is willing to accept that civil unions may (as a first step) not give all the rights of marriage, and Marta assumes that they will naturally have all the rights of marriage, but the differences are small and largely tactical.
Of course, currently civil unions can’t give the same federal rights as het marriage, but neither can sam-sex marriage (due to DOMA), and many versions of civil-union (Vermont, New Jersey) are marriage-lite, but that doesn’t have to be the case. I would suggests a ballot measure which inserts into the legal code a definition of civil union, which permits sam-sex couples, and also inserts into the legal code the words “and civil unions” everywhere the word marriage occurs in the legal code. The Oregon constitution forbids changing multiple parts of the constitution with a single ballot measure, but it allows changing multiple parts of the legal code with a single ballot measure.
The fight at that point is the repeal of DOMA, and the federal recognition of civil unions as garnering the same federal rights as marriage. It will be a hard slow fight, but not any harder or slower than fighting to get same-sex marriage.
And it isn’t seperate but equal, since many het couples will choose civil unions instead of marriage. I also think it would be less threatening to the religious folk than simply replacing state recognition of marriage with state recognition of civil unions.
Piny, however, is absolutely right that it is far better to simply have same-sex marriage, since that is what it is. The most insulting thing about the religious marriage vs. civil unions thing is that gays and lesbians have been entering into religious marriages consistently for at least 3 decades. The problem has not been that churches and synagogues won’t perform weddings for gays and lesbians, the problem has been that the state won’t recognize them. That conservative religious people now insist that having the state recognize gay and lesbian marriages would be a slight to their religion (while seeing no problem with the state refusing to recognize the ceremonies of other, more open religions) is simply obscene. Furthermore, no one claims that people like me who were officially married by a friend with a mail-order ministers license, or like Kip and Jenn, who were officially married by a justice of the peace, shouldn’t call ourselves married.
I don’t care what you call two people’s union
Then why are you arguing against same-sex couples seeking marriage? Why the emphasis on the traditional definition?
It is not possible, from a legal perspective, to create “civil unions,” then wave a magic wand granting those unions the exact civil status as marriage. And on a moral level (as Amp already pointed out) it’s separate drinking fountains.
Marta,
I don’t know whose rhetoric you have been listening to. I haven’t heard any actual anti-SSMers who claim that their main concern is preserving the term marriage. Anti-SSMers insist that their argument isn’t even about their religious objections to homosexuality. Anti-SSMers mostly insist that they are anti-SSM because children must be raised by opposite sex parents (although they mostly aren’t willing to say that same-sex couples shouldbe foridden from parenting) and because gays and lesbians should remain second class citizens (the “if they can marry, they’ll teach gay sex in schools” bit). How will either of these objections be met by calling marriages civil unions? If the opposition is going to have to loose on all the points they feel are important, why would they be satisfied with getting to keep the word, which is not what they are arguing about. If we are going to have to win them over on all the points they feel are important, then why should we agree to give up on a point that matters more to (many of) the same-sex couples who are getting married than it does to our opponents.
I am an atheist, married to a Jewish agnostic. I would not be satisfied if our society had Christian church based marriages that had full rights and were internationally and nationally recognized, and “secular civil unions” which provided some of those rights, but probably weren’t recognized anywhere except the particular state that granted them. Why should gays and lesbians be satisfied with a similar arrangement?
The only way we have gotten civil unions is by fighting for marriage rights. Marriage rights are an existing thing, that one can argue shouldn’t be denied to parts of the population. In some places, a compromise has been struck in which sam-sex couples get some marriage rights and don’t get the name. In no place I know of have same-sex couples gotten full marriage rights but been denied the name. The civil union with full marriage rights is (so far) a mirage or a straw man. It isn’t one of the options on the table.
ampersands comments are excellent, as always.
I believe most of the anti-ssm people are really opposed to the symbolic nature of giving equal marriage rights. It does send a message. But, the message they care about is not “that no child needs a mom or a dad.” The message it sends that they don’t like is, “homosexuality is not an abomination.” They disapprove of homosexuality, and therefore want to stigmatize it (and homosexuals). Legal recognition takes some of the stigma away. (I think many truly believe their children will somehow be more likely to turn gay if the stigma is not in place, dooming themselves to shame and their children to hell.) When the anti-SSM people try to say the message is not “gays are bad”, but “moms and dads are not important” they are just lying (to themselves?).
Ampersand says approval of SSM is not a message, because it is just equality, but it is the prejudicial treatment that sends a message. Either way there is a different message being sent depending upon whether SSM is recognized by the state. The retraction of a (bad) message is still a message.
It does seem that the message element might have something to do with what rule is currently in place upon the introduction of the thing/movement/event. Not banning clown paintings, or KKK rallies does not send a message they are o.k., mostly because we have come to accept the norm of free speech, and this freedom has been available for a long time (for racist speech and clown paintings at least). Sadly sexual equality, on the other hand, does not have such a history, so movements toward equality are a message. This is not to say this history should not be challenged, but that a challenge to history sends a message that might not otherwise be apparent.
Trying to compare this form of legal message to other instances of government regulation is difficult. It brings up a problem of what is the baseline to start with: is marriage equality the place to measure from, or is the current (what I consider) unequal situation the place to start?
This reminds me of the Colorado Amendment 2 debate over wether protecting homosexuals from being discriminated by a city government in hiring is giving them “special rights” or just giving homosexuals the same rights everyone else has. Or the Abortion funding cases: is funding healthcare for the poor, but not funding abortion taking away a woman’s right to chose, or is it just not giving special help in making that choice available?
The current debate asks: is marriage a benefit we give to promote families and childrearing, that just happens to exclude homosexual couples? Or is marriage a benefit that is a right for everyone,intended to recognize a lifelong devotion to a partner and promote the stability of that relationship, which we are discriminatorially excluding homosexual couples from?
I think only people blinded by religious fervor, or years of conditioning that homosexuality is unnatural or an individuals choice of lifestyle can say marraige is soley about reproduction promotion.
Marta: The only reason I care about marriage is because of the legal protection it gives.
Ampersand: Okay, I understand that’s how you feel. Do you understand that not all Americans feel as you do? And that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t automatically make your feelings right and other people’s feelings wrong?
Of course I understand. I am not righteous about my feelings. And this is exactly my point. I am precisely saying that ALL Americans are having strong feelings about marriage, whether they are heterosexuals or not. Gay people must realize that conservatives have very strong feelings about it, as well. And in your words, that does not automatically make their feelings right and yours wrong, or vica versa.
The reason I explained this is that I wanted to make it clear that I am not coming from a right-wing agenda.
To many people, especially Americans, there is spiritual and symbolic importance to the word “marriage” – as well as to the concept of equal treatment under the law.
Since you didn’t respond to this last time, let me repeat it: Do you understand why separate water fountains are objectionable, even though they were literally equal treatment? (Please respond this time, rather than ignoring the question.)
Of course I understand, as I said I have a lesbian friend and I am well aware of how she feels about equality, and that she cannot have what is given automatically to heterosexual couples.
Separate water fountains is an excellent example. It took what, about a hundred years from actually abolishing slavery until the civil rights movement? All I am saying is to concentrate abolishing slavery first – i.e. get the rights you deserve – and wage the cultural war afterward. I am not saying that any part is less important than the other. I am saying that take it in order. The majority seems to support civil unions now. Go for it. Once you have it, attack the next bastion. It will be easier.
First of all, as I already argued (and you seemingly ignored), there’s no reason to think that we would have made the advances we have, if activists hadn’t been agitating for marriage equality. You seem to want to celebrate the gains activists have made while at the same time scolding the activists for being active.
I am not celebrating or scolding. And of course you are right that the gains are due to the activism. I am not saying stop the activism. I am saying refocus it in a more productive way.
My point is: try to understand the other side’s point of view, even if you don’t like those views. Frame your demands in a way THEY can understand. Seeking a compromise is not giving up your ideals, it is simply making them achievable.
Of course civil unions won’t be a cakewalk. You definitely have to fight for it. But it will be easier than getting equal marriage laws passed.
Here is what I think an achieavable agenda:
1. Get civil unions accepted. Since Bush just endorsed the idea, it is hot and should be kept hot.
2. Get a constitutional amendment to protect from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This follows very much a civil rights agenda.
3. Protect the constitution from amendments that would ban gay marriage.
4. Push for equal marriage rights. At this point you have the groundwork laid. If you have a non-discrimination clause in the constitution, you will have a very good case for arguing that you are being discriminated against.
You may be right that going all out is the right way to get the agenda through. But you may be wrong and you may get a back-lash that would rob you from legal rights that you could have if you would have done it piece-meal.
All I am saying is – understand what you are up against, and use that to your advantage.
And then we will hear “But why do you need marriage? You HAVE civil unions!”
Gay people must realize that conservatives have very strong feelings about it, as well.
I think gay people are pretty darn clear on this concept, as conservatives have not exactly been reticent about shooting their mouths off.
Look guys, sorry for everything. It is obvious that you don’t want my views. Thanks for Ampersand to try to be patient with me. This is your board and I am an outsider. I did not understand that what I was saying would upset you. Which was obviously my mistake.
If there will be a question on the ballot to give marriage rights to same-sex couples, I would say yes. I would say yes because I know how much it means to my friend. I am fortunate to know someone who can make me understand how important it is to her. She can relate it to me, and not brand me bigot, or assume that I think things that I don’t. I know her life is much more difficult than mine, and I wish it wasn’t so.
You’d say, that I said I supported civil unions? Yes, it is so. But I would vote yes on a ballot for gay marriage if it was on it. But I don’t think it will be, or at least not while conservatisism is running high and people are so polarized.
The agenda is yours, you decide how you handle it. Sorry to interject my views, I thought it would help. It goes to show how out-of-touch I am. Please accept my apologies.
Just to clarify — I think that ultimately the state has to get out of the marriage business altogether. The state must, however, have some way of managing intimate partnerships so that partners can with one single legal act accumulate all of the protections and rights that currently accrue to married couples (intestate succession, community property in some states, tax benefits, familial rights, etc.) The debate over marriage has demonstrated in vivid terms that the real basis for marriage — what differentiates it from a civil union — is its religious significance. So let the state do civil unions and let religious bodies handle marriage.
In that sense, maybe this whole hateful, depressing episode of tyranny of the majority will have a silver lining. If civil unions come out of it, we can begin to lay the groundwork for the ultimate arguments that the state must treat committed couples equally and must ultimately decide whether that is to mean extending marriage to all or getting out of the business of marriage entirely.
Call me an accommodationist if you wish, but I see it as a longer strategy to get to where we need to be. And if you’re in the camp that believes civil unions to be an unacceptable insult, what do you say to those who need some sort of legal protection now rather than waiting for the better form of equality to come in a decade?
I came across this site about a week ago, I really enjoy ampersand’s viewpoints on things. I do want to give Marta thanks for offering analytical advice, about laying a groundwork for a longer term strategy. It is always beneficial to our community to have someone willing to communicate with us, and whether we agree 100% or most of the way, it’s only by dialogue will change be made.
I have been in a relationship for 18 years and am the primary caregiver of our child. It has been a long journey to bring our daughter into this world and the whole route of childbirth and ‘babydom’ is filled with people of strong faith. Since it had been many years since I had left the church, it was an eye-opening experience to see how the perceptions of one’s faith had changed. So many people feel their faith is under attack. When I ‘discovered’ the blogosphere about 8 months ago, I went though many parenting sites, which ultimately can lead to sites of faith. I saw the same concept over and over, fears of ‘bibles being taken away’, ‘Christians are under attack’, ‘we can’t pray in public, they are trying to supress our faith’, etc.
I mean no disrespect to Christians, even those who to this day tell me in front of my child that I am a pawn of Satan, but I am truly afraid that in a Democracy where the majority can determine the vote, it can be entirely to easy for the majority to vote in a theocracy.
The fight to keep Under God in the pledge is about their faith. But it is an American pledge, not a Christian pledge. They perceive trying to remove it as a direct personal attack on their faith. The fight to put creationism in the pubic school system, the fight to put the commandments in federal courthouses, the fight to discriminate against homosexuals and our families, the fight to be able to discriminate in employment, these and many more things are all responses to what is perceived as an attack on one’s faith.
Conservatives are pressuring Wynnona Judd from not performing on Olivia Cruise Lines. So now it is apparently that if you entertain a homosexual you are by extension supporting all of our ideology. Christians remove references to homosexuality from public school systems on the grounds of it violating their faith, so we have public school systems censored because of religious belief. The possibility of my daughter sitting next to someone who’s parents would sue if the school mentioned our family are very real. Religious groups are boycotting Proctor and Gamble because they say it supports homosexuals. The Baptists have boycotted Disney for years for the same thing.
Their fight against us will not end with the finalization of the gay marriage issue whichever way it goes. They will always fight against positive societal recognition of us, because to do otherwise is an attack on their faith. Corporations must practice their faith or face boycotts. But I think that ultimately, in order for us to defeat their ideology and gain our civil liberties, we need to understand where they are coming from. Also, 9/11 helped with their paranoia immensely, even if it came from an American perspective rather than a Christian one. The very fact that everything they have ever come up with has had the word ‘Defense’ somehow attached to it, should tell us that we are trying to present justice and logic to something irrational. It won’t work. It didn’t work.
I wonder if we as a community devote our resources to helping those who believe in separation of church and state, even if we are of faith, as I am (I have my own relationship with God, I don’t need a church), then when that takes hold, won’t gay marriage be a step behind?
Ultimately, the government not recognizing any marriages, straight or gay, would be optimal, I agree with those comments, but I believe it is unrealistic. Christians have come to believe that marriage is a Christian tradition, even though they understand that it has been around in various forms far longer than Christianity. To get the government to not recognize marriage will quite simply be another attack on their faith. “God made man and woman to be together….”, they won’t stand for the government not recognizing that. While European countries recognize many different forms of relationships, they are more secular, America is far too puritan.
Marta, don’t take offense! People are passionate over this issue, and want to persuade you, not offend. I hope you see comments not as a rejection, but as a thoughtful dialogue. It is difficult sometimes to communicate about complex issues in a clear way within a minimum number of words.
I will note that I think this comment might illuminate why there is a such a passionate disagreement:
“Of course civil unions won’t be a cakewalk. You definitely have to fight for it.”
Marta says “you… have to fight for it.” Who is “you”? Does this “you” exclude Martha? Is it only homosexuals that have to fight? Why doesn’t Marta think she has to fight for equality? It seems like you are not on the team of equality Marta!:) I am not a homosexual, but I think that I still have to fight for equality. And, it does not matter whether I have a gay friend or not.
Perhaps if you(Marta) took the issue personally, you might think differently about strategy? Although, I do understand the “go slow” mentality. But, I do like to litsen to “mississippi god damn!” sung by nina simone
Since I am of the school that supports the lack of marriage period, I am curious why a person would on the one hand recognize the atrocious nature of marriage, traditionally, historically, etc, and on the other hand insist that their relationship *is* a marriage. Why this desperate need to define/own the word? To me it seems a translation issue. You have no other word for your relationship so you cling to the one that’s already in use, warts and all. Depending on your religion, you might have other terms that would be useful.
Mr. Kmyr says that it’s about the intolerance in the refusal of a large segment of the population to recognize gay people and their relationships as being like them and their relationships. But I agree with Marta, that won’t change with legislation. In the end, and here, this is my personal completely subjective and possibly wrong opinion, those people will have more respect for us if we disdain their approval than if we set up our movement around seeking it. Disdaining their approval means, in my head, rejecting their vocabulary itself, rejecting the terms they propose for the argument. This is not only a strategic move, it is a positive move, considering the complete yuckiness of their vocabulary. Let them keep their “marriage,” as far as I’m concerned, I want no part in it. What I want is equal protection under the law, and NOT JUST as a partnered person! Even if the struggle for gay “marriage” is successful, single people will still be systematically discriminated against and partnered people privileged, in terms of inheritance, social security and employment benefits, living wills, possibility to choose a person who will superivise your care if you cannot, and so on. To me, this is not a superficial problem!
It is not a gay person’s problem only to the extent that there are no single gay people. Um, right.
What I want is equal protection under the law, and NOT JUST as a partnered person!
A partnered person may have a certain financial and social interdependency with their partner(s) that an unpartnered person does not. How do you believe the law should address that?
And if you’re in the camp that believes civil unions to be an unacceptable insult, what do you say to those who need some sort of legal protection now rather than waiting for the better form of equality to come in a decade?
That they are fooling themselves if they think taking civil unions now means “better”, rather than “shut up and eat your half a loaf,” in a decade; that the meager legal protections from civil unions are already available piecemeal; and that anyone who believes simply creating civil unions will solve things grievously lacks understanding of the law.
Look at the state amendments that have passed. Most of them forbid civil unions or anything like them. Does that sound like people who would be happy to give us our rights as long as we don’t use the M-word? Those people have been, are, and always will fight tooth and nail to destroy any kind of committed relationship that isn’t male-female marriage.
I apologize profusely for the blog-pimping, but this is a very minor example of what I’m talking about.
mythago:>>A partnered person may have a certain financial and social interdependency with their partner(s) that an unpartnered person does not. How do you believe the law should address that?
Exactly. Probate and hospital visitation are the two examples I hear about most often–those are arrangements that exist between two people, not rights accorded to individuals.
There will _always_ be problems with preventing unfair challenges to some single person’s decision to, say, leave money to someone who isn’t a spouse or a child. Regardless of the ways in which we recognize lifelong partnerships of one kind or another, some relationships will always be vulnerable to court challenges by asshole family members. I’m not really sure how to solve that.
Tara,
My relationship to Sarah is a marriage, and it bothered me for a long time that I had entered into such a patriarchal institution. When we got married, there were still US states in which our marraige license would have given me the right to rape her. That, frankly, is disturbing and disgusting. I am slightly less bothered by being married now that those laws have been changed in every state in the US. When same sex marriage is the law of the land, I will be that much less disturbed. When incestuous marriages between older men and 12 year old girls are no longer allowed in Texas, I will be that much less disturbed. I want patriarchal marriage changed because I see it as harmful. I want non-patriarchal marriage for myself because it carries benefits. I think others should have access to non-patriarchal marriage because it has benefits which others shouldn’t be denied.
By marrying someone, you gain the rights associated with being married. If a single person wants those rights in relation to someone else, they merely need to marry that person. The law makes no requirement as to the nature of your relationship with your spouse. I can’t really see any way for the state to allow single people to (in one simple action) designate a person as the full range of things that marriage designates someone as being, except by allowing them to marry. Marrying gives you a set of rights and responsabilties in relation to another person, not marrying doesn’t. How would you suggest that those rights be allocated if no one were allowed to marry? An equality under the law that is achieved by reducing the rights of those who have more is not really a positive, although it may be necessary if the rights of some infringe on the rights of others. It is better for some to loose the right to hold slaves so that others gain the right to be free, but it is not better that everyone be made slaves so that no one will be freer than anyone else.
Now, why can’t I be married to Amp as well? My only answer for that is pretty weak tea: structuring a relationship larger than a duo is much more complicated, and much less susceptible to a one size fits all concept. However, I do think that a range of multi-person relationship sets should be pre-structured and easily accessible. I think our household, back when it was six people in community, would have had an easier time surviving if there was a structure along those lines that society recognized and supported. Doing something new or rare is worth doing, but it is a hell of a lot easier if it gets societal support.
On another one of your points, I don’t think that people increase their respect for you when you show them distain. Supplication may not garner repect, but distain certainly doesn’t either. Also, on rejecting the term marriage, I offer an old joke concerning the 70-80’s era idea of spelling woman wymyn to free it from the psuedo-etymolgy: wo-man from wif-man, wife of man.
Websters 2050 edition:
Wymyn, from woman, from wif-man, wife of man.
Rejecting the concept of marriage is a perfectly valid radical path to pursue, but rejecting the term does not actually get you anywhere. If people are forming monogamous pair bonds, particularly ones in which the participants agree to the idea of spending their lives together, particularly ones in which the idea of raising children is a possibility, then you may as well call it marriage. The task of reshaping it may even be easier if you accept what it is that you are working with.
But then, I may just be assuaging my intellectual dishonesty. When Sarah asked me to marry her, I said yes, and then I spent a day deciding if I could stand to be part of that institution. In the end I decided I could, but I have never felt happier about that decision than when Multnomah County decided to start recognizing same-sex marriages. I understand why the reactionaries hate it, because I love it for exactly the same reason: it is a death knell of patriarchal marriage. Marriage had to stop being about the control and disposal of women by men before it made sense for marriage to exist between two men or two women.
Tara:>>Since I am of the school that supports the lack of marriage period, I am curious why a person would on the one hand recognize the atrocious nature of marriage, traditionally, historically, etc, and on the other hand insist that their relationship *is* a marriage. >>
I got into this discussion on another board with an anti-marriage poster who informed me that the original purpose of the best man was to prevent the captured bride from escaping.
…Which is, of course, why the best man currently carries the ceremonial net and cattle prod to the altar.
Things change, is why. The definitions of a great many words have undergone radical changes over time. When I refer to myself as a second-class citizen, I’m not using the ancient Roman definition of the word. When my father refers to me as his son, he probably isn’t thinking of himself as an all-powerful paterfamilias. When I refer to my dear queer friends as my family, I’m not using the same definition that was in currency a hundred years ago, or even the definition used by all people today.
And when most LGBT people call themselves married, they aren’t thinking of femme covert, etc., any more than most non-Southern-Baptist straight married couples are. They’re using the operative definition of marriage now. My dad calls my mom his wife; that doesn’t mean he’ll get out the scold’s bridle the next time they get into an argument.
It occurs to me that, now that I am a guy, I should probably be a wee bit less flip about the powerful emotional connection many women have towards ending and escaping marriage. Especially since their aversion is grounded in a far more accurate understanding of history than the “traditional” stance undertaken by the anti-gay-marriage people.
Sorry about that.
I suppose this may be an imperfect analogy, but apropos of what Marta said, I recommend ssm activists read “Simple Justice,” a tome about the strategy pursued by Thurgood Marshall and others, both black and white, to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. I assure you that anti-abortion rights activists have. It started with desegregating the University of Texas Law School, it took 30 years, a depression and a world war, and, 50 years after “success”, one could argue that we have actually regressed, though the law has not. And Brown v. School Board did nothing with regard to other “less fundamental” aspects of Jim Crow, securing the right to vote, or erasing the hallmarks of economic deprivation, all of which were different struggles that continue to this day.
Also, Amp, I mean no disrespect, but I think it’s unfair to analogize civil unions to separate water fountains. It ignores that discrimination against African-Americans was pervasive and imposed a verdict of inferiority on nearly every aspect of an African American person’s life. The struggle for gay acceptance may seem similar, but gay people, for instance, have largely the same educational and economic opportunities as their heterosexual peers (you can quibble, but a look at educational and disposable income figures shows that gays are doing a heck of a lot better than other groups of minorities). Last week, how many people were functionally deprived of the right to vote because they have dark skin? How many because of their sexual orientation? It’s a different struggle, even if it should be animated by a similar strategy.
I agree with others who have said that getting the states out of bestowing the mantle of “marriage” would be a good thing. Secular marriage is a civil union. My church for one doesn’t recognize my marriage as valid because it was conducted without its permission to marry a non-co-religionist. I don’t care, and it makes no difference that certain members of my church look down on me. The law gives me what rights I need.
Trying to change perception is a long term proposition. Changing the rules of legal validation would have immediate positive consequences.
Just a further note about the strategy to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson: the initial cases did not even attack the legal doctrine of “separate but equel” but focused squarely on how unequal separate schools were. Brown finally ruled that separate was inherently unequal, and I know that’s what mythago and others are saying — a separate status for one group is inherently unequal, but you are not fighting a rational opponent.
My own answer is, go for civil unions, where ever we can get them, for those who want them. Civil unions are a substantial improvement, for those who can use them, and they’re not more of an insult than the status quo. But they’re still only a step on the way to full equality.
I don’t see what the big confusion is in creating equality for single people. Why should a single person not get to choose someone to be their next of kin? And why not different next of kins depending on the nature of the responsibility? I may want to appoint my brother to make decisions for me if I cannot, but I may want my disabled (or abled) adult child to inherit by social security and employment benefits. Because marriage seems to rely the idea that all things are in one person does not seem to be a reason to deny non-married people to find different things in different people. Or married people, for that matter! Even a married person might want their benefits to go to a child rather than a spouse. Why must I be tied to a form created with only couples in mind?
Couples create their financial and social interdependency, but it is NOT the only form of financial and social interdependency that can be created (or exist) between people.
I simply disagree with your implication that if one movement for civil rights is not fully identical with another, no analogies can be made.
I never claimed that discrimination against queers was identical to discrimination against Blacks. I don’t have to claim that, because I wasn’t comparing overall discrimination, I was making a specific point. Which is that “separate but equal” can be a means of perpetuating a lesser status for a minority.
European Jews had it much worse in World War 2 than Japanese-Americans had it; that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to point out the similarities between the two cases, to make the point that such racial/ethnic internment camps – even the good, American version – are evil.
Finally, although clearly some of our opponents are beyond changing their positions, I think that other folks are willing to change their position. 25% of the USA now favors same-sex marriage; I doubt that many favored it ten years ago. It might not be many years at all before majorities in the most liberal states favor marriage equality. Change is slow, but not impossible.
By the way, Marta, if you’re still reading, I’m sorry that you didn’t stick around; you’d be more than welcome to. I didn’t mean to indicate otherwise.
I don’t recall saying no analogies can be made. However, in American jurisprudence, analogizing the struggle for rights by many (including women, poor people, the mentally ill, and almost certainly, gay people) to the struggle of Blacks is a losing strategy. I can’t tell you how many people pursuing other types of rights have tried to portray their cause as “just like” the civil rights struggle for African-American equality, and almost without fail, have been rejected. In the historical record of America, there is nothing like race. At any rate, I understood your analogy perfectly. I just think it’s a bad one.
Why should a single person not get to choose someone to be their next of kin?
They already have this right.
Barbara, I understand your point that sexual orientation issues != racial issues. But the analogy is correct in a lot of ways: everybody understands it as an example of the idea that even if the facilities are exactly equal in quality and availability, there is something inherently wrong about saying “No, you get your own, I don’t want you touching ours.”
Tara,
We agree, although I thik you underestimate the degree to which divying up a conglomerated mass of rights makes it MUCH more complex to assign them. Right now, many of the rights of marriage can be assigned to others than a spouse on a right be right basis, but assigning over a thousand different rights, which vary in importance from absolutely critical to most people at some point, to only likely to be critical to a few people (I know I will probably never need to use my right to sell Sarah’s business’s inventory back to the distributors after her death, since she doesn’t have any businesses, and I understand how important a right it would be if she did), and which range across all levels of government and out into civil society is a complex matter, and assigning even the ones that are currently assignable piecemeal takes thousands of dollars in legal fees and still isn’t lock solid. Being able to assign those rights piecemeal is also much more likely to create unsolvable legal conflicts, which is why it requires the involvement of attorneys. And it still doesn’t work.
While working for no on 36, I met a lesbian who had granted power of attorney to her partner, but when she fell into a coma and needed medical treatment, the presiding doctor was not confident that the power of attorney form actaully granted her partner greater say in medical decisions than her next of kin had. The doctor therefore refused to allow her partner to make medical decisions and waited until her sister-in-law could be tracked down. Fortunately, she survived the delay, but those sorts of uncertainties are far more likely to arise when rights and responsabilities are divied up piecemeal than they are when divied up in blocks. I never actually met him, but the man who was the first to have his life saved by same sex marriage here in Oregon was a prominant figure in some of the no on 36 literature. When his partner found himself in the same situation, he was able to say to the doctor, “I am his husband,” at which point the doctor could say, “okay, you are definitely next of kin, and can make this decision for your husband.”
Should there be other block sets of rights and responsabilities that people can exchange besides marriage? Certainly. Domestic partnership agreements in cities like Portland and San Francisco have been (last I heard) more likely to be used by non-sexual partners such as siblings or close friends than they have been to be used by sexual couples (and more likely to be used by hets than by gays or lesbians). Obviously, there is a dire need for ways of giving and receiving support other than marriage, but I think that this is to some significant degree a seperate issue than the issue of same sex marriage.
Hmm, well, Ampersand, yes, I was still reading, and thank you for extending the olive branch, I guess.
Mythago, Ampersand: the waterfountain example indeed works well to get the point accross. I did understand the point very well. Now I know how a gay person feels about marriage. The example also came laden with implications that I was “inherently wrong”; that I was just compared to racists in best case, in worst implied that I was one; or at the minimum, that I was dumb and ignorant. Whereas you may not have intended this, yet it made me feel that way. All those aforementioned make me feel upset, and full of anger about how unjust, ignorant and – yes! – prejudiced those accusations are. None of which makes me exactly wanting to join the gay/lesbian movement.
Neither the accusation that I am “not on the team of equality” will exactly make me want to jump up and fight for gay rights.
Or how about this gem from mrkmyr: I think only people blinded by religious fervor, or years of conditioning that homosexuality is unnatural or an individuals choice of lifestyle can say marraige is soley about reproduction promotion. Well gee I must be fervently religious latently somewhere, it is very well hidden though, because in all appearances I have been raised in an atheic family and have not found God yet but who knows, he may call me some day, but I am still waiting. As far as the lifestyle choice, well, again it must be really latent because this thought never occurred to me before. But you guys are the experts on this, you may smell it from far away.
I thought that thinking that marriage was unnecessary unless one has children, and than only because it gives legal protections, was a rather progressive idea. Well admittedly I never thought that this would offend gay people. As a consequence it did not occur to me that it was somehow inherently wrong, or that I was just as bad as a racist, or that I was a bigot, or that I wasn’t on equality’s team.
Those things I had to learn today, and I am in shock. I am not sure how you guys intended to make me feel. Guilty? Defensive? Upset? Well, all of those worked beautifully. Welcomed – nope, sorry, that one did not work. Energized to go fight for gay rights – hmm, no, that one did not work, either.
Well thanks Ampersand for welcoming back… as you can see I am not exactly in the frame of mind for “thoughtful discussion”. I’ll have to give it a rest. You guys enjoy.
Mythago,
Single people can choose their next of kin… and that will hold up exactly as effectively as it does for gay partners. Great.
I’m on the wrong side of things here, but all this jumping on the marriage bandwagon makes me a little ill. There are so many problems with marriage and so much room for exploration beyond it.
I grew up with two sets of gay parents who were not married to each other, although I think they would have loved to be. They grew up with all the baggage about marriage being the destiny of love, about it being safe and secure, respectable, all these great things that they were denied access to. Well the gift that I feel I got, out of that sad situation, is that I grew up without that baggage, with a glimpse of another model/other models of relationships, and of a sense of what a falsehood and empty vessel “marriage” is.
Isn’t it possible to fight for a right without making it a holy grail? Without accepting the whole mystique that got built up around marriage? Without constantly reiterating that marriage is a positive thing, good for children, etc etc, all these things whose truths you don’t know any better than the fundamentalists because when has there been a generation of children raised outside of marriage and building relationships outside of the whole mental trap/filter. Yes I guess it’s a right and if anybody has it everybody should, but I don’t think it’s going to make any of us any free-er in the long run.
Marta:>>Those things I had to learn today, and I am in shock. I am not sure how you guys intended to make me feel. Guilty? Defensive? Upset? Well, all of those worked beautifully. Welcomed – nope, sorry, that one did not work. Energized to go fight for gay rights – hmm, no, that one did not work, either.>>
To paraphrase the late, lamented Margaret Sloane-Hunter, it’s a revolution, not a public-relations campaign. I’m sorry if you felt that the rhetoric was a little too harsh, but it isn’t as though the things you’ve said couldn’t be taken as equally offensive by pro-marriage people. “Some verbiage”?
We don’t really have a responsibility to be impeccably diplomatic to you or to anyone we disagree with. We’re adults here, after all. The people here used pretty civil terms.
And strategically–which seemed to be what you were getting at–being really, really, really nice to anyone we argue with is a dubious tack. There is no way to make pro-gay-marriage rhetoric soft enough to never offend the people with which we argue–we consider their beliefs wrongheaded. We believe that they are ignorant, or misguided, or bigoted, or oppressive, or selfish, or all of the above. You’re not Rick Santorum, obviously–that was why everyone was so reasonable.
We didn’t intend to make you feel anything. We wanted to make you think. If a conversation with a bunch of American LGBT and pro-gay-marriage people hasn’t given you any food for thought wrt gay marriage in America, maybe the problem doesn’t lie with us.
Some conservatives have proposed that we create an alternative and equivalent institution — they have proposed the working title egairram, though there must be a better word — that would be just like marriage but for two people of the same sex. I don’t see why so many people are so uptight about the definition of a word, really, but — I should note that I’m not gay, so perhaps I don’t have sufficient perspective and sensitivity to the issues here — that seems like a compromise that’s possible. For example, Jews didn’t institute Bar Mitzvahs for girls when feminism demanded a greater measure of equality: Bat Mitzvahs were created as an alternative and equivalent institution. For me, SSM is fine, and calling it marriage is fine too. If people are so upset by the idea, though, I don’t see any gross injustice in the idea of a parallel institution, except that it would make things more confusing, since a married gay person one asks is married would have to give a kind of “no, but I’m ‘egairramed,'” rather than a simple “yes.”
I don’t keep up much with this, and perhaps this is already in the works, but perhaps we should argue for marriage equality on first amendment grounds in addition to fourteenth: if Unitarians and Ethical Culturalists and the like performed religious rites for SSMs, and made them common-law spouses, then there’s the case of “you’re discriminating against my religious beliefs,” not just “you’re discriminating against me for being gay.”
Yes I guess it’s a right and if anybody has it everybody should, but I don’t think it’s going to make any of us any free-er in the long run.
I’d argue that having the option of marriage will do more to stop the bandwagon than any plea about how marriage isn’t so great.
Should Jews hold Bar Mitzvahs or Bat Mitzvahs for everyone, rather than having one for girls and one for boys? I realize that most people here probably aren’t religious, and that that neither is held with state sanction, but as a purely moral matter, should the rites be the same, rather than having two parallel sets of rites?
Don’t let perfection become the enemy of progress. Having said this, I also think it is quite right to state one’s goals explicitly; just recognize that in an imperfect world those goals likely will never be met fully, so have the grace to acknowledge and appreciate movement in the direction of those goals. Ends don’t justify means; rather, means must be appropriate to ends; and there are some means we can (as quasi-rational people) agree are not appropriate to anything good. These are just a few points to ponder in this debate: we all have somewhat differing goals, and this is not a bad thing.
Regarding Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs, it’s the same phrase with a different pronoun; “Bar” means “son and “bat” means daughter. It’s not a different term in the same way “civil union” is a different term than “marriage.” She has a “bat mizvah” for the same reason we use the words “she” and “her” to refer to her; it would be incorrect grammer to do otherwise.
In contrast, the objection to SSM is not that it’s incorrect grammer.
By the way, the coming-of-age ceremony for Jews (for Reform Jews, at least) is the same regardless of sex; the girl or boy marks the start of adulthood by reading publicly from the Torah scrolls for the first time. When I studied for my bar mitzvah, I studied in a co-ed classroom, and we all leared the same material (except that we all studied different Torah portions, of course, depending not on our sex but on the date of our bar/bat mitzvahs).
Fine–same rights, three different terms for gay, lesbian, and straight marriages. If it’s just the word that’s at stake. But it never is, is it?
Amp:>>Regarding Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs, it’s the same phrase with a different pronoun; “Bar” means “son and “bat” means daughter. It’s not a different term in the same way “civil union” is a different term than “marriage.” She has a “bat mizvah” for the same reason we use the words “she” and “her” to refer to her; it would be incorrect grammer to do otherwise.>>
Right. The equivalent terms here are “heterosexual marriage” and “gay marriage.”
No, bar and bat mitzvahs are not necessarily the same: in some synagogues they are (13, on Saturday, read from the Torah for both), in some there are increasing levels of difference — the local Conservative shul has the bat mitzvah at 12, while the Orthodox one has it at 12 and on Sunday without reading from the Torah. I vaguely recall issues about standing on the bimah, but am not positive what the issues are.
Different terms can mask different rights, because in some places (Reconstructionist or Reform shuls) they’re the same.
When you make a “loaded analogy”, you are basically insulting the person you want to convince. This is what anti-abortion activists do when they try to analogize abortion to the Holocaust. It doesn’t advance their moral cause (it’s also a much less apt analogy) and it is highly offensive to many, especially Jews. If that makes you feel better then so be it. Do I favor being less than explicit about demands? No. I think it’s important to be direct and forthright about what one wants. If, however, the images you use to give context to your demands are insulting and inapt you are far less likely to succeed. Also, as I understand it, there are many gays who do indeed see this campaign as a public relations one. So I don’t even know that you speak for all gays.
Discrimination against gays isn’t like discrimination against African Americans in historical origin or, frankly, social context. Anti-gay sentiment is clearly premised on selectively chosen Old and New Testament passages the relevance of which to modern society are extremely dubious. Their unnuanced application is quite punitive, not to mention totally inconsistent with how those documents are favorably “interpreted” to accommodate the “evolution” of social arrangements for heterosexuals, as in, divorce and remarriage. Here are some alternative analogies:
Since anti-gay sentiment is clearly religious in origin, one could better analogize the treatment of gays to the treatment of Mormons or Jews, who were eventually accommodated and assimilated to everybody’s benefit.
Again, given the religious origin of anti-gay sentiment, it may be more effective to argue that it is impermissible to build into any definition of marriage an exclusion that is explicitly religious. This is probably not the most opportune moment in history to so argue, but that doesn’t make the argument less correct.
But in reality, what I see is a level of hysteria by religious conservatives that is in direct proportion to the fact that they are losing the culture wars. I don’t see the point of giving them fuel to make their fire burn stronger.
I feel pretty much like Marta and I will be checking out as well.
Sorry to see you go, Barbara. If I was insulting to you, it wasn’t intentional.
You wrote “Again, given the religious origin of anti-gay sentiment, it may be more effective to argue that it is impermissible to build into any definition of marriage an exclusion that is explicitly religious.”
Unfortunately, very often the exclusion isn’t explicitly religious. Many of the anti-SSM movement’s intellectuals specialize in creating secular arguments against same-sex marriage, such as the argument my original post was arguing against. While they don’t deny that there are religious foundations to some anti-SSM arguments, they do argue that even from a secular point of view, SSM is a bad idea.
Digressing for a moment, the whole religious values question is vexing. I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with people letting their religious values inform their politics, but I do think that there’s something wrong with religious majorities using the vote to force their religion on everybody else. However, the line between the two is often hard to see.
Wolfangel, that’s right: I was thinking of my own Reform background. However, I think Reforms may be the plurality of US Jews (I’m not sure of that, though).
More importantly, Judaism is not the government. If a shul or a temple wants to discriminate between men and women – or, for that matter, between same-sexers and straights – I might not agree, but I think they should have the legal right to do so. But just because it’s legally acceptable for a particular branch of Judaism to decide to discriminate against women or gays, that doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable for the US Government to do the same thing.
I had a bat mitzvah in all ways like a bar mitzvah. And if any man I know says he had a bar mitzvah, I know pretty much what it means; if a woman says she’s had a bat mitzvah, I don’t. Was it one of those group things you did with your grade 6 class? Was it a full one? Where in between did it lie?
My objection about having “straight marriage” and “gay marriage” is that the two words hide sins. In, say, Massachusetts, they’re identical. So if in Utah they’re quite different (I realise right now there’s none of any sort there), well, it’s hard to know what it means, because there can be 50 meanings for 50 states.
I tend towards wanting some sort of civil unions for all, with marriage being a strictly religious ceremony, but think this is impractical. I dislike the separate terms for the same thing in part because of the water fountain issue raised above, and in part because it can be a cover for separate terms for different things.
Re: Bar / Bah mitzvahs. The problem with this analogy for me is that we’re talking completely apples and oranges. Hetero/homo marriages are not striving to gain religious equality – let the churches sort that out, can’t we all agree? What they are striving to gain is civil equality. Being mitzvah’d gives zero civil gain, and should be left soley to the discretion of the Jewish faith and faithful to decide whether it is appropriate within their religion. Using analogies such as this could easily lead to unwarranted fear of religious interference, which is a scare tactic that anti-ssm folks will happily jump on to rouse their audience.
Barbara: I think that the claiming of analogies that do work seems sort of semantic. Nobody here (I would presume) would ever deny that the discrimination struggles African Americans went through were not immense compared to the types of discrimination we fight today. What I don’t understand why anyone would try to claim some sort of dibs on discrimination analogies, as if it takes away the importance. Forgive me for saying if this offends, but it almost seems to imply that you’re saying the discriminations are lesser, so therefore less important. Isn’t each instance significant enough to draw as many analogies that can make people relate to it important? The sentence you offered was FAR too academic and targetted at a ‘thinking’ audience, while the analogy Amp used of fountains was easy to read and understand. Everyone got it without having to have any significant knowledge of the sorts of discrimination that occurred last century.
Sorry if this seems disjointed or rambling, but the defensiveness and in my perception erroneous claim of victimization comes off as self-serving, while at the same time managing to obfuscate more important content within the conversation.
Kim, I will answer. “Everybody understands the drinking fountain analogy.” To be sure. They do. Just as they understand the abortion/Holocaust analogy. I don’t know how else to say this. Everyone may understand these analogies but few will be moved by them because they try to occupy moral space that has already been claimed and that is unlikely to admit new company anytime soon. It’s an overreach — not because the discrimination is less disgusting but because it’s fundamentally not the same. Racial discrimination was purely and simply an exercise in collective humiliation, a projection of the helpless fury that the White South felt because it lost the right to determine the fate of its slaves. That’s why Jim Crow extended to every facet of life, to declare in effect the continuing de facto if not de jure ownership of former slaves, including going to no small amount of additional effort and expense to install separate facilities, such as drinking fountains, building extra schools, busing students all over rural Southern counties, and so on.
There is a moral premise for the subjugation of women and the social ostracism of gays. I vehemently disagree with that premise, but it would be silly for me to deny it and try to argue, instead, that it’s really just like racism. Indeed, gender role discrimination is in some ways even more insidious than racial discrimination because it appears to have been ratified by major religious texts, even as it is in some ways less consequential in its practical effects (educational opportunities, for instance).
I am not insulted by your disagreements, I just think you’re wasting your time by making analogies that mostly appeal to those who already agree with you. I also seriously doubt that it will help much with trying to gain the support of African-Americans. Look, it may not be fair, but I don’t see the point of being obtuse about the practical effects of the rhetoric you are using.
The government should not discriminate in terms of relationships. Civil unions will ensure the government does not discriminate against any relationship.
I agree with Amp that the government should get out of the marriage business. I have to side with Barbara on the separate water fountain issue. Perhaps it is my skin tone that makes me see the gaping difference. When I get on an elevator with a woman, she does not grasp her purse tightly (liberal or conservative does not matter) because I am wearing a Hugo Boss suit with a leather portfolio from Sardina. It is because the color of my skin. You cannot know a man prefers to have sex with other men when he gets on the elevator. So on that analogy I will disagree.
I do agree with you that civil unions, as structured now, are separate entities from marriage; separate, but not equal. If civil unions provided the same benefits of what we call marriage, what would be the purpose of marriage? I think marriage by the state would not have a purpose and therefore should be abandoned.
All this talk about children is sickening when we can just violate our marriage vows willy nilly. I think marriage is taken way too lightly today. Whenever, people have a hiccup and can’t get a long they get divorced. I used to ask my clients if they ever saw the 7-year itch. They did not make a movie about that because it never happens. It gets better with work — “It’s hard work being married”.
If the purpose of marriage is to ensure a strong family bond for children then why not push more incentives to remain married. I for one am in favor of negative incentives to stay married.
Barbara, if I had just said “separate is not equal,” without making the water fountain analogy, would that have been more acceptable? (This isn’t a leading question, I’m honestly curious as to your answer).
For those Blacks who I’ve read who object to SSM (who do not by any means represent all Black people), their objection doesn’t seem to be rooted in objections to analogies like separate water fountains. Their objection seems to be to anyone refering to marriage equality as a “civil rights” issue at all. My impression is that most of the Black leaders who have objected to referring to marriage equality as a civil rights issue are evangelical Christians whose mind is closed on this subject, and will remain closed regardless of the language used by marriage equality advocates.
That said, I’m not married to using the “water fountain” analogy any longer, and I’m open to the idea that it’s counterproductive language.
Also, racial discrimination did appear “to have been ratified by major religious texts,” at least until mainstream religious leaders decided that they could no longer afford to endorse racism, so I’m not sure the difference you refer to really existed historically.
I think you and I have different view on this (even while agreeing on the policy issue). I don’t think there is a moral premise for anti-gay discrimination, any more than there was (and is) a moral premise for racism. The only difference, in my view, is that it is no longer considered acceptable to cite passages of the Bible in support of racism, whereas it remains acceptable to cite the Bible in support of homophobia.
I realize, of course, that people (not you) think there is a moral premise for discriminating against gays; I just think they’re mistaken.
Kim says: “Forgive me for saying if this offends, but it almost seems to imply that you’re saying the discriminations are lesser . . .” Actually Kim it does offend and Barbara has it right when she says “I also seriously doubt that it will help much with trying to gain the support of African-Americans.”. An example that many find offensive is the Loving analogy. Mr. and Ms. Loving were prosecuted criminally for getting married. It is my impression that SSM couples are allowed to be married without being criminally prosecuted and the issue is government benefits of marriage not personal freedom from incarceration.
I am sure you just don’t realize how offensive it is to analogize the SSM movement with the 60’s civil rights movement. To be clear, there are valid analogies between gay rights and the 60’s civil rights movement, such as the Lawrence case where people were subjectively prosecuted for sodomy because they were gay.
Try again, J. So far there have been people fined and thrown in jail for performing same-sex marriages, if not for having one.
Amp, I think we cross-posted so I will not go down the separate water-fountain path again.
Just for humor’s sake — we had black and asian kids come to our house back in 1996 extolling the benefits of the Church of LDS. I just thought that was funny — a black mormon coming to the house of a black man and progressive “warrior” woman. I asked them if they knew they were not worthy of the kingdom of heaven until 1992. I don’t mean to belittle any mormons on this board, I just found that pretty humorous.
Amanda: They were fined and thrown in jail for abusing their public position. Just like Justice Moore was properly sanctioned for abusing his position so should anyone else holding public position of trust.
On the other hand people have not been thrown in jail for getting married since Loving.
An example that many find offensive is the Loving analogy
Those “many” people people who don’t think much about the legal reasoning of Loving, but who despise gays. It’s not the criminalization of marriage that is the important point of Loving, as you know very well.
And as a lawyer, I’m also quite sure you know that creating civil unions does not make them “the same” as marriage under all, or even most, laws, any more than giving fifteen-year-olds a provisional driving permit means you are treating them the same as adult drivers.
Mythago — unfortunately many African-American’s who may be for same-sex marriage are not as enlightened about the holding of Loving as you or I. As such, I have heard around our dinner table (that is the Sunday Brunch at “Chicken George’s” in West Philly) that many of them are insulted about “homosexuals sayin’ they is persecuted cause dey can’t get married”. Then the other guy says — “They should a’ been round here when they was throwin’ black men in jail for looking at a whait woman”. I tried to get as phonetically correct as possible to give those people who have not hung out at the “barber shop” or the “grain mill” exactly what “Middle America” thinks.
I am not sure if I said civil unions were the same as marriage. If I did I was mistaken. Let me make my position clear on that matter. The government has no business encouraging people to get married to ensure optimal pro-creation. Whatever the reasons are for marriage the government needs to get out of that game entirely.
Analogy comparing aside, as I think it’s gotten a bit counter-productive to the base conversation, what would those who have stated certain approaches wouldn’t work feel would be a better approach? In asking better, I’m not necessarily saying better for ‘you’, but better for the average person that isn’t likely to get into debates about types of historical discrimination.
The most important point to me at this point is what persuasive arguments sans begging for mercy and debasing my own beliefs on the issue are likely to get through and make a difference for the next round.
Comparing gay rights activists to Civil rights activists is sick. Homosexuality is a behavior not an ethnicity. If we allow gay marriage then why not plural marriage or let the Man Boy Love Association let old men marry young boys? You have to put your foot down sometimes. The fact is the Constitution protects basic rights but not behaviors.
You’re right, Pete. But I think we need to draw the line at a different kind of behavior, one that’s easier to demonstrate is learned not inborn. I think we should ban bigots from marrying.
If Amanda doesn’t ignore him, I don’t have to, either!
Religion is a behavior or collection of behaviors, and discrimination on the basis of religion is against the law. Marital status is also behavior-related, and, at least in my state, it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because they are married. Illness–including HIV-status–is at least arguably behavior-related, and it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because they’re sick. Many aspects of ethnicity–language, dress, gender presentation, observance of holidays, habits of etiquette–are behavioral, and it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because they _act_ like a member of a given ethnicity.
The right to freedom from discrimination on all of these bases is not afforded under the belief that people can’t help themselves. People’s differences, behavioral and otherwise, should be protected from tyrannical interference by the government.
jstevenson:>>On the other hand people have not been thrown in jail for getting married since Loving.>>
People have, however, been thrown in jail for having gay sex. That was constitutional until last year.
Pete, you are absolutely right. The constitution indeed protects rights, and not behaviors. But you assume that gays have a choice of being gay.
It isn’t so. I don’t live in a liberal area, but I had the chance to have three gay people in my life to whom I got close enough to have deep discussions of their feelings. They all described to me that coming out was extremely hard for them. They all struggled, and tried to blend in, tried having heterosexual relationships that failed. They all came very close to dispair, finally realizing that the only way they can ever come to term with themselves and have a chance to be happy, is that they accept that they are gay and find a gay person whom they can share their life with.
The “Pursuit of Happinness” is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Saying that you can only pursue happinness in a heterosexual way is wrong. Just as wrong as saying “God loves homosexuals, but hates homesexual behavior”. That is very unfair from God – he makes them homosexual than forbids them from being happy.
I am lucky, I am a heterosexual, I am allowed to pursue my happinness. Gays are not, and that is unequal and unconstitutional.
Kim, I am glad you asked that question. That is exactly what I was getting at.
I hope my answer to Pete illustrates an answer that could speak to many people.
Calling people names or dismissing them with snide remarks is not only counterproductive but portrays you as intolerant and ignorant, and alienates many who may already understand the unequality but are not so nuanced on legal matters or don’t know the lingo that all of you use.
No it was not constitutional to throw Gays in jail for having sex.
Several states in the US has a law against Sodomy. Sodomy is defined as any sex that is not in the missionary position.
So it wasn’t just gays who were thrown in jail. As a matter of fact there were several cases in Texas (now why doesn’t that suprise anyone). Where Heterosexual couples were thrown in jail for having sex in a position other than missionary.
That was one of the reasons the case went to the supreme court. In order for someone to know what postion you were in that meant they had to spy in your house or whatever private area you were using (provided you were using one).
Can you imagine the look on someone’s face when they saw the police peeping in their bedroom window?
And what would be probable cause for that? The neighbors saw your shadown hanging of the chandilier?
Kelli, the definition of sodomy varies from state to state, but in Texas, sodomy was sexual relations between any two members of the same sex. It used to be a series of laws against specific behaviors, but those laws are largely gone. In fact, it’s even legal in Texas to own a dildo now, as long as you don’t have more than 6.
Lawrence v. Texas was not decided as just a right to have the sex you wanted. It was decided because it was discrimination to single out only gay people and ban them from behaviors that are legal for straight people.
Piny: “People have, however, been thrown in jail for having gay sex. That was constitutional until last year.”
I have been chastise more than once on this blog for saying “gay sex”. People have not been thrown in jail for “gay sex” they have been thrown in jail for sodomy. In my three years as a defense attorney, I defended many criminal sodomy cases and none of them were between same-sex partners. Hugh Grant was arrested and for sodomy with Devine Brown. The problem with Texas was the unequal application.
“The “Pursuit of Happinness” is a right guaranteed by the constitution. . . I am lucky, I am a heterosexual, I am allowed to pursue my happinness. Gays are not, and that is unequal and unconstitutional.”
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to the “Pursuit of Happiness” that is a dangerous proposition that will backfire on the SSM movement. It also does not guarantee freedom from unequal treatment. There are limits to that freedom. Sure, expand rights to SS couples, but not becuase the Constitution guarantees a right to the “pursuit of happiness”.
The problem with Court challenges to laws you have to deal with the laws of unintended consequences. It is better to change the statutes. That way you can provide rights to another class without creating a Constitutional right to the “pursuit of happiness” or the “right to marry the person of your choice or people of your choice”.
People have not been thrown in jail for “gay sex” they have been thrown in jail for sodomy.
Laws against heterosexual sodomy (and the enforcement thereof) have eased up or disappeared in the last several decades, unlike laws against homosexual sodomy.
Surely you know that while all sodomy is prohibited under the UCMJ, same-sex sodomy is grounds for discharge, while opposite-sex sodomy is rarely prosecuted, except as an “add-on” charge in sexual assault or other cases. (As one JAG lawyer told me when I asked him about discharging heterosexuals for sodomy, “The only time we use sodomy, outside of rape cases, is when the guy’s an asshole and we’re discharging him anyway. If we find out that he and his girlfriend had a fight and she called him a cocksucker, okay, that’s one more charge.”)
that many of them are insulted about “homosexuals sayin’ they is persecuted cause dey can’t get married
While the guy is 100% right that it’s nowhere near what blacks went through–did he even think about that sentence? They think they’re persecuted because they’re not allowed to get married? Hello, what does he think a ban on marriage is–a signal that the majority wants to give you a great big hug?
The fact that you had it worse does not mean that some other people have it bad.
“don’t have it bad”. Typing…skills…fading…
It does, however, provide a right to the equal protection fo the law.
Of course, there are limits to that right. There are limits to all rights, including rights like free speech. Just because there are limits, however, doesn’t mean that the rights don’t exist.
Amanda: I will admit that I was wrong — Texas in its insanity actually has a homosexuality statute. It was the original sodomy statute, but was amended to specifically attack homosexuals. Was I including Texas when I said in America? A State of its own. How does Austin survive?
Mythago: I did say the problem was unequal enforcement. I agree we do not “look into the bedrooms to prosecute sodomy”. As for discharging homosexuals, of the eighty or so Marines I assisted in their discharge it was actually their choice. I have several friends who are in gay relationships in the military. Opposite sex sodomy is also grounds for discharge, however opposite sodomy usually gets ends up with bad discharges for exactly the reason your JAG friend says. Same-sex sodomy usually only gets a bad discharge if it is forcible. Like the case of the Cheif who seduced his subordinate and ended up having an affair with his attorney, who unfortunately killed himself before the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim went to the Court of Appeals.
I can only speak from my experience with the Marine Corps, all of the discharges I did was the choice of my client. They just wanted out of the military and they all were discharged honorably — well except one, but he was on his way out because he was always late for work not because he was gay. Nevertheless, we digress.
I agree with you regarding the Sunday Brunch crowd, but I can’t knock any sense into them if I tried. Blacks have a serious problem with homosexuality that I cannot understand and comparing the plight of marriage with the Loving case only magnifies the problem. That is the view from the field as opposed to the view from the “Ivory Tower”.
Blacks have a problem with homosexuality because they are and always have been “very evangelically conservative.”
If you look at most Black communities you will always find them centered around a church. African Americans take the Bible to heart.
Heck my grandmother has been studing the Bible for as long as I can remember. I bet she knows more about what’s what than Jerry Falwell.
So knowing how ensconced the African American community is in Religion it really should be no surprise that they don’t agree with homosexuality.
Now if you wonder about all of those images of homosexual men you see in the movies. I won’t deny that there are a number of homosexuals in the African American community both male and female.
But you know that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” thing the military has going on? Yea, well it’s been going on for years in the African American community.
So those who flaunt it (and I mean really flaunt it) usually get ostricized in one way or another. The rest of the folks you mind your business and I’ll mind mine.
If you don’t believe me go by the book “The Down Low” you’ll see what I’m talking about.
And with the exception of the Native American, Blacks always have a problem when other groups try to compare their plight with prejudices with ours.
Exactly how many European Americans were enslaved for 170 or so years technically? More like 275 years if you count Jim Crow and all the other things that have been done to prevent our rights as humans.
Though it may be true that since the fall of the Roman Empire that homosexuals have felt persecuted and unable to live as free as they would like. They have been able to live free.
Now the plight of homosexuals outside of the United States I can’t speak too all that well. It’s really not something I have followed. And as for my position on SSM. As long as you don’t pee in my flower bed I have no intentions of peeing in yours.
Personally I think that everyone is entitled to the same rights as everyone else, gay, straight, asexual. I don’t care what goes on between consenting adults. As long as it doesn’t involve harming me or mine.
And as for that stupid constitutional amendment idea. Oh they can kiss that goodbye. That has a ring of restriction of more than just SSM as ambigious as some of those amendments are. The next thing you know the only person you’ll be allowed to marry is the person who was born on the same day in the same town who makes the same income and looks exactly like you, but is just shy of being a family member.
We survive by carefully avoiding the police and the Bible-thumpers to the best of our abilities, something the rest of the country is fixing to get a much stronger taste of. :)
Oh yeah. And we drink. A lot.
To make a comment in support of Marta, way way way upthread. Civil marriage has way more benefits in many European countries than in the USA. Health insurance, tax status, survivorship exemption for estate tax, etc. For a European with nationalized health insurance, marriage isn’t going to get any additional individuals covered – every citizen is ALREADY covered. So yes, in a theoretical sense we ought to be looking at how we use marital status to distribute goods in this country. In a practical sense, any separate terminology will be almost assuredly unequal under the law.
As for Loving v Virginia, it is worthwhile pointing out that Mr. and Mrs. Loving were shown the door – threatened with being put in jail if they didn’t move to some other state or DC. They chose to fight it, in the setting of a country in which miscegenation laws were rare at that moment in history. Now I am not going to cater to the delicate sensibilities of some African-Americans about this case – there was an issue of freedom of intimate association, legal in almost every other state in the Union at that time. It is not a perfect parallel, the perfect parallel would have been a law without criminal penalty but not recognising civil benefits of interracial marriage. Would you consider Loving to have been correctly adjudicated if ONLY the criminal penalty were overturned, leaving the civil status of interracial couples unrecognized? I think not.
The case of SSM at this time is not criminal, but make no mistake, it is not solely a “white” issue. Face up to the fact that African-American same-sex couples exist – you can choose to deny them, or not.
Kelli: “Now if you wonder about all of those images of homosexual men you see in the movies. I won’t deny that there are a number of homosexuals in the African American community both male and female.”
The first thing I said when my cousin came out to me in front of my Marine friends was: But, black men aren’t gay they just play like that on T.V.!
I hung out with him regularly for a year until I moved to IN (mainly because he was friends with Cree Summers and I was in love with her), but nonetheless, it was a learning experience and changed my life forever.
Kelli: You mentioned that historically, homosexuals have been able to live freely. My intention isn’t to be argumentative, but I feel that it is worth pointing out that this statement is slightly in error and misleading as such. While homosexuals might have been able to live free, they have generally speaking not been able to live freely AS homosexuals. The argument that homosexuals have ‘freedoms’ has led (as I’ve noticed) to the argument that homosexuals have the same rights as straights – it takes form in the ‘you can marry any person of the opposite sex, just like me!’ shape.
As the direction of this thread has shown, you can create independent problems for yourself when you try to analogize your own plight to the harms suffered by others. You can get bogged down in a discussion of whether the analogy really holds up, which is to put it mildly a distraction. That’s one reason why I, for one, think it’s not a good idea to argue by analogy.
What language would be more effective? Well, I don’t know for sure. Without being too inflammatory, I think one approach would be to ask people to address the following: why is it that you interpret religious documents flexibly to accommodate the lapses of people like yourself? The NT texts consider divorce to be morally unacceptable — yet we accommodate those who divorce, we protect them through legal process, and we consider remarriage to be equivalent to first time marriage. Why? Because it’s pragmatic to do so, there’s no benefit to society to creating a never never land of dubious family relationships, and we recognize the unfairness of building into the definition of marriage the requirements of any particular religious denomination (in the case of divorce and remarriage, Roman Catholicism). There are some people who don’t consider remarriage to be marriage, but adultery, and will not attend second weddings. Just so, there will always be people who consider homeosexual unions to be fornication. Your job isn’t to convince them that they’re wrong, just that in the jurisprudential framework of America, they have to co-exist with people who don’t think like they do. How do you do this?
1. Educate people about the problems of not having “marital” rights with regard to sick and dying partners, inheritance rights, and, especially, their children. That is, if you can point out demonstrable harms — like when one parent dies, the other parent can’t predict what will happen to the child — I know someone to whom this has happened, fortunately she was able to work it out, but she still does not have full rights to a child who was clearly intended to be her child.
2. Convince people that, all things being equal, it’s better for society as a whole when people including gay people are able to have certainty regarding legal and familial relationships.
3. Work for more equitable social arrangements outside the context of marriage and employment to lessen the material value of marriage. It is simply a historical accident that access to health care should depend on employment or marital status. The struggle for legal status for a particular group should not displace the struggle for a society that is more just and equitable for all of its members.
4. One of the strategies of the early Civil Rights Movement was to take “separate but equal” at face value and to demand equal educational experiences, particularly at the post-secondary level, with the expectation that most states would just give up when they realized how much easier and less expensive it was to just admit African-Americans to law school, pharmacy school, and so on. Adopt this model. (“It’s not that we want “marriage” per se it’s that we want the legal protection of marriage, here are the 480 legislative changes that will have to be made for you to do that.”)
As I said above, I think that the push for change always precedes the readiness for change. The Civil Rights Movement prompted a serious political and social backlash that we are still dealing with. I think it’s extraordinarily sad that the only way for some people to let go of race as an animating tribal value is to take up an anti-gay agenda. But they have.
Okay I’ll try and take all this in. First Loving. They just wrote an article in one of the local newspaper magazines here in Richmond. Do you realize the problem that the Lovings had was that they decided to get married.
No one in the county cared that they lived together. There were many places in Virginia where that happened, but when they decided to get married they went to DC and then someone in town dimed them out and they spent a year in jail.
What always amazes me about Richmond is that you get more nasty looks from whites when they see interraccial couples than Blacks.
Homosexuals and freedom. There is a difference between freedom to express your will or desires and the freedom to live as a human like the rest of the world.
It may seem the same, but it isn’t. So on that pretext I say that homosexuals in this country have had more freedom than African-Americans. Because of the past that African Americans have experienced in this country is so vastly different from that of almost every other culture (Native Americans have been treated worse in many cases) that to even compare the prejudice they suffer with the prejudice of any other group is laughable.
To this day in many countries around the world African-Americans are treated like people to be feared and not trusted because of the way Media has portrayed us. (but don’t let me digress)
So you can say that homosexuals have had their freedom curtailed because they could show their love in the same way as heterosexuals but you still can’t compare their suffering of prejudice to that of the African-American. JMO
Black Homosexuals. Yes there are Black Homosexuals. I know that, I know a lot. I also know that the ones you see in movies, You know the ones who work at the hairdresser and dish with the girls and give “The two snaps up in a circle” are creations of fiction.
But for some reason people see this and think that ‘African-Americans accept homosexuals’ All I’m saying is that’s not the case.
African-Americans are not as accepting as homosexuality as people would think. What we do is just not outwardly (at least most of the time) treat anyone negatively.
And to do some Bible paraphrasing
“Judge not less ye be judged”
“Do unto other as you would have done unto you”
So because we aren’t out there chasing down homosexuals to beat them because they are gay, or because you don’t see us marching against gay marriage don’t assume African-Americans are accepting of homosexuals.
Extreme case in point. I have a cousin who came out to her father (also a cousin) about 2 years ago. Her father has not allowed her to come home since then. The only communication she has with the family is through her mother and her other cousins.
Less extreme: My husband’s uncle tried to come out about 10 years ago (he brought his boyfriend to a family dinner). It upset his mother so much that he started dating women so she would calm down. But the family has know for years that he was gay and for the most part nobody talks about it. Probably because with the exception of my husband’s grandmother nobody really cared it was his life.
Now it would take a book to explain the differences but I’ll try and sum it up. My husband’s family is not as conservative as mine. So they are more accepting of some things. My family well how can I say it. My father is a church elder, my grandfather was a deacon. I have several cousins that are ministers or evangelists as well as an aunt and an uncle who are pastors of churchs. And during the last family reunion we gave money to restore the first family church.
So in just those to cases you should see what I am trying to say. Black homosexuals, yes they exist. Blacks accepting of homonsexuality well now that’s a whole other ball of wax.
jstevenson, I don’t know where you get the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is “Ivory Tower.” Unless you think having a second-floor office qualifies me for being in a tower.
Blacks have a serious problem with homosexuality that I cannot understand and comparing the plight of marriage with the Loving case only magnifies the problem.
It’s *not* comparing the plight of marriage. Are you reading? The comparison with Loving is the legal reasoning, which–Constitutionally–is exactly the same. I’m not going to pretend there is no Constitutional problem because it might offend African-Americans to say so.
A real-world analogy, for those of delicate sensibility, is that it was once considered acceptable to have “Male” and “Female” sections of the want ads. It also used to be perfectly legal and socially acceptable to bar women from certain jobs (and effectively, bar men from others). Should it be OK to go back to those laws? What if the “men-only” and “women-only” jobs paid the same–would it be OK then?
Mythago: You misunderstood me. I was not giving my view, I was giving the view of my community. When I said “Ivory Tower” I distinguishing between those who say give theory on how blacks should vote and those blacks who know how they should vote.
Supporters of SSM would do well to study the black culture (and hispanic for that matter) to see what tactics they can use to garner support for the movement. Ignoring, mocking, insulting the culture or anyone that attempts to provide insight into those cultures is not productive. I am not saying anyone on this blog has done so, but believe me — references to Loving is going to be a problem.
Many older blacks see the decimation of their neighborhoods and believe it is a deliberate attempt by white society to destroy the black family. The teen pregnancy rate among blacks and the rate of unwed mothers is seen, by hard working blacks as a tool by the “white man” to destroy the power of our families (that is why I speak of “personal responsibility — don’t blame “whitey”, just fix it). It is thought that when we do not produce more strong black men and women our race will die. In our community the view is that homosexuality (male in particular) is a direct affront (don’t take this as my view and get defensive, just read and learn from it) to the black family and our duty to ensure growth of the black population through procreation. Without marriage as the foundation to productive procreation, boys and girls will grow up without fathers (yes we actually believe that is necessary). Lack of good fathers, blacks feel, is a direct result of mothers having more children out of wedlock. By definition, homosexual relationships will bear children, without a married mother and father in the home. The “white Christian” midwesterners and southerners are just a little left of African-American in this view. If the SSM movement can convience blacks that homosexuals will not cause children to be born without a father or a mother in the home then perhaps the movement will garner steam and support from the black community and then from whites.
Blacks, as a community, will vote for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what, just like white evangelicals will vote for the Republican Party no matter what. The crux that will throw the black vote wholly to the Republican Party is SSM. This position, for the most part, will hold true for the black community; of course there are aberrations, people such as myself and of course black homosexuals (“outed” not on the DL). Mississippi is a real world example of my point. Blacks voted Democratic in that majority black state, but the state overwelhmingly disapproved of gay marriage. It was not a religious mandate, it is because homosexuality, in their view, is part of the “white man’s plan” to destroy the strong black family. I remember people talking when I was young, after finding out one of the neighborhood boys was gay. “He got that way because of that white man he was hanging out with. His mama told the cops on that man — they won’t do nothin’. Don’t care about a black boy.” That was 20 years ago, I don’t think that view has changed much.
Ignoring, mocking, insulting the culture or anyone that attempts to provide insight into those cultures is not productive.
On this, we absolutely agree.
If it was directed at me, I don’t think I said that one form of discrimination was worse than another and I think it’s counterproductive to imply that those who are expressing their views are “likely” closet bigots. Making analogies invites discussion on the hierarchy of wrongs you’d like to avoid, so if you would like to avoid the hierarchy discussion the best thing to do is to avoid making the analogy. In any event, you are not going to control the cultural conversation and avoid the likely backlash with a dismissive attitude. I see parallels between the Matthew Shepards of the world and the countless black men who have been killed for having been perceived as looking the wrong way at an “inappropriate” sexual partner. I am not obtuse, but I am practical, and I get the difference in cultural context probably because I went to school and live in the South, and have spent significant blocks of work time in Mississippi and Alabama. However, in all honesty, there are so many threats to so many freedoms right now that I really am not sure that pressing the claims of any particular group is going to be all that effective.
Don’t get me wrong bean. I am not saying that the community feels one oppression is greater than the other. However, as a community, blacks do not necessarily think homosexuals are being oppressed. The feeling is, if you like to give blow jobs good for you, keep that to yourself, we don’t want to know about it. Kelli put it the sentiment correctly; don’t ask, don’t tell.
Blacks believe homosexuality was something wrought upon the black community by white America. It is shunned as another tool of destruction of our families. This is a serious issue in the black community, why blacks are dying of AIDS at the rapid rate and one of the reasons the Unitarian Church was founded. Google — black homosexual christians divided — good articles on this issue.
The views of the black community indicate on a microsocial scale, why SSM opponents arguing against marriage equality . . . [is the equivalent of arguing that] ideally children should be raised by a mom and a dad” and we must insure that children are raised in a home with a mother and a father. People in the black community don’t actually believe there are no gay parents, they believe the government should not encourage it. That is akin to the government encouraging the destruction of the black family. This is akin to black social workers opposition to cross racial adoption. Nothing worse, in their view, than a black boy adopted by a gay white man. I am sure Trey can add ample information on this issue.
Bean, there is a great deal of misogyny and anti-gay feelings in the black community, but gay activists recognizing this is only a small step in the SSM movement, they must step out and redefine themselves as not destroying the black family, but making it stronger.
Then let me put it this way bean, how many white gay men do you know have been lynched (government sactioned I might add) for just looking in the direction of other men.
No sexual overtures no comments just a glance
Matthew Shepard
Let’s address the issue of “passing”, and what the mythical unitary “black community” makes of family/community members who deny their origins. Does the ability to pass for white mean that those passing people are no longer oppressed, or cannot be oppressed because they have a chance to pass? Are passing people viewed as good moral people or are they tainted with a whiff of traitorhood? Are people who choose NOT to pass, though physically they are good candidates, considered morally superior for their choice, or suckers? What about people who “pass” at work, but not in their daily lives? Do family members have any reason to feel hacked when the passing person cuts them while in company with someone from the work world?
Hint: homosexuality is not solely about sex. Or even mostly about sex. It is about a web of relationships, some of which may be sexual (although not 100% of the time, naturally) or have sexual overtones, some of which are most definitely nonsexual.
I am not into comparing oppression. I am more concerned with how and why people think and behave the way they do. That, by the way, is why I put “black community” into quotes – a community is a bunch of people who have widely varying opinions, and it is always useful to remember the limits of generalized statements.
The “community” as much as people may want it to be is not mythical. Culturally, I have as much in common with a black man from LA as a black man from Jackson Miss. On the other hand, I can guarantee you there is a world of difference with Bobby Smith from Kentucky and Johnny Wilkes from Newton.
That said, I agree with you Nancy regarding “Passing”. People who can pass will be vilified, whether they do so or not. In law school there was a blonde haired blue eyed girl in our Black Law Student Association. First impression, wannabe. But, she was black and as educated blacks we realized the difficult life she had to live by choosing to be a part of her culture.
“homosexuality is not solely about sex.” I have heard it is a culture and not a culture. I would not identify myself as homosexual so I cannot speak for the community if there is one.
Kelli, hate crimes with anti-gay bias as a motivation are the #2 most common kind of hate crime, according to FBI statistics, and may even be the #1, but for spotty reporting. Anti-gay crimes number in the thousands every year without fail. Contrary to the straight ego-soothing perception of gay bashing as incidents that stem primarily from gay men making passes, a good number of incidents, if not the vast majority, happen when gay bashers seek out someone they think is gay just to beat them up. Straight people are targeted mistakenly by gay bashers all the time, according to the FBI stats. It’s unlikely that a straight man gets gay bashed because he hits on another straight man.
Too many gay men and lesbians have been beaten and in some cases murdered just for being who they are – not even having glanced. Of course, historically far more Blacks have been murdered than gays – unless you look at recent Western history in general, in which case we should include as many as 600,000 homosexuals were murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust, which is far more than the number of blacks who were lynched in the USA.
(Of course, there were also some lynchings in the USA of Jews, as well as of Asians and of Whites, but they were relatively insignificant in numbers, so they can’t compete in the “comparitive oppression” game. They’re still just as dead, though.)
All that is historic; since we’re discussing present-day policy, isn’t it present-day killings that matter most? In the last decade, I suspect that at least as many lesbians and gay men were murdered in hate crimes as blacks. Of course, for the highest liklihood of being assaulted or murdered in the present day, we probably have to look at transsexuals and the transgendered.
Plus, at least Blacks – and women – have achieved legal equality. Queers and trans have not. Doesn’t that mean that, in the present day, queers and trans are more oppressed? But wait, blacks are more likely to be poor, right? Right, so blacks are more oppressed. But Blacks in the US still aren’t as poor as Mexican-Americans or as American Indians, so one of those groups must be the most oppressed. But Veterans are more likely to be homeless, so they’re the most oppressed. But queers and trans are more likely to be homeless as teens because their families threw them out, so they’re the most oppressed. But that’s a “choice,” allegedly, whereas being black is not, so blacks are the most oppressed. But women are oppressed in every country in the world, not just white-dominated countries, so they’re more oppressed. Hey, how about the Jews – isn’t the Holocaust the worst oppression of the last century? But then how do we score slavery and jim crow? Not to mention the genocide of American Indians? But at least all those people have access to the normal facilities of day-to-day life, unlike the disabled. But isn’t a disabled poor black lesbian millionairre still better off than a homeless ablebodied hetero white man, making being poor the biggest oppression of all?
Are these comparisons ridiculous enough yet to make the point that “competitive oppression” is coutnerproductive, and illogical? It does nothing but divide people who should be allies.
Looking at the entire history, I happen to agree with Kelli that historically, blacks in the USA have suffered more due to oppression than lesbians & gays, especially if we ignore the pain and oppression of being closeted. But I disagree with Kelli that making such a comparison is a useful thing for us to do; and I disagree that it makes queers (or any other oppressed group) wrong to compare their civil rights struggles (not their “suffering”) to past civil rights struggles.
Even if we agree that historically, blacks suffered more, that doesn’t mean that the legal precident set in “Loving” can only be applied to black people; it doesn’t mean that if your ancestors weren’t mass-enslaved or mass-murdered, you’re not really oppressed and should shut up.
It certainly doesn’t mean that the moral lessons of the Black Civil Rights movement are so narrow and provincial that they should be ignored (except as applied to Blacks) and should add nothing to popular wisdom (except as applied to Blacks). But that’s pretty much what people here are arguing.
Kelli, until this post of mine (which is satiric), no one here but you has compared “the suffering of prejudice” of queers to that suffered by African-Americans.
Saying “separate is not equal” is not saying that queers and blacks have suffered just the same or an equal amount; it’s saying that the lessons of the Black Civil Rights Movement provide important wisdom when discussing ANY people.
Kelli, I’m sorry to hear of your husband’s uncle’s, and of your cousin’s, experiences with prejudice. I agree that homophobia is a problem within the African-American community (although not with all individual African-Americans, obviously); I don’t think anyone here is saying that the problem doesn’t exist, or that all Blacks accept queer rights.