If you don’t mind listening to audio stuff, check out this debate between Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, and Reverand Lou Sheldon, President of the Traditional Values Coalition. The debate took place on April 20th at Stanford Law School.
I found it startling how unprepared Sheldon was; when discussing the question of same-sex marriage in the Scandinavian countries, for example, he said that he didn’t know the difference between causation and association. It’s also striking how poorly hidden the Reverand’s obvious anti-gay bias is (at one point he dismisses a document Wolfson cites by sneering that the authors were gay). I kept imagining people from the “opposing SSM isn’t anti-gay” wing listening to Reverand Sheldon and wincing.
I frequently read the reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage – people like Elizabeth at Family Scholars or Eve Tushnet, who are well-informed and don’t have a personal bias against lesbians and gays. If I’m not careful, this could lead me to a distorted view of the opposition; bigots like Reverand Sheldon are much more typical of the anti-SSM movement’s leadership.
Anyhow, it’s fun listening if you have something to do with your hands for a long while, like inking a page of your comic book or something like that.
Sorry dear, but I and many others like myself feel there IS no “reasonable” objection to SSM – it’s a civil rights issue, period. LGBT persons aren’t advocating that a religious body doesn’t have the right to refuse whom to marry. What we ARE arguing for is fair and equitable treatment under the Constitution of the United States. If that’s grounds for “reasonable objection”, than I suggest that those persons you mentioned have no idea what it is like to be a persecuted, used-as-political-wedge minority, whose life and safety are repeatedly cheapened by the dissemination of such unenlightened pap. Dismissed!
Jennifer, if you’re a regular reader of this blog, then you must know that I don’t think there’s any reasonable objection to SSM either. I’ve written dozens of posts explaining how unreasonable I think any opposition to SSM is.
However, I do think some opponents of SSM are more reasonable than others. Someone who favors civil unions, but is worried about unforeseen consequences of expanding marriage law is being unreasonable, in my view; but not as unreasonable as someone who thinks that lesbians and gays are covertly planning to recruit all straight schoolchildren to “the gay lifestyle.”
I pretty much agree with every word you say in your post. You’re trying to make me into your opponent, but I’m really not.
Are you sure Eve and Elizabeth don’t have a bias? I think thy’re careful not to sound offensive, but they do have a bias.
Well, I think that, given the context of a homophobic society, it’s pretty safe to assume that everybody has a bias – including Elizabeth and Eve, and including myself. Not even all lesbians and gays are free of internalized homophobia.
So in my view no one, or almost no one, totally lacks bias. It’s a matter of where on the scale one falls. And in my judgment, Eve and Elizabeth fall more towards the “relatively unbiased” end of the scale than someone like Reverend Sheldon does. It’s possible to talk to them about the pain and suffering their policies cause same-sex families, and I don’t think they’re faking when they say they care about that.
None of which mitigates my utter opposition to their beliefs regarding same-sex marriage, and my belief that the policy of opposing SSM is a policy of bigotry.
Let me ask you: Do you see no distinction between a “let’s pull all the gay authors off the bookshelves and burn them, and then impeach Judge Kennedy for writing the Lawrence decision” anti-gay conservative and a “pro-civil unions, favor anti-discrimination legislation, agree with gay rights organizations about everything but marriage” SSM opponent?
Shouldn’t you be inking?
(Shouldn’t I be working?)
Actually, short breaks are sometimes useful, especially now that I’ve switched to using a real brush (well, sort of – it’s this Japanese internal-loading ink brush Jenn gave me, and it’s fantastic) rather than a brush-marker. Sometimes one part of my brain is saying “let’s go! Let’s ink that next panel!” and another, smarter part of my brain is saying “step away from the drawing board for five minutes and let the ink dry before you continue or you’ll regret it.”
So a brief distraction now and then actually helps.
Yeah, but playing SMAC for seven hours is usually pretty detrimental to productivity. (Stupid Spartan invasion force. I’ll show them…)
Anyhow, listening to the debate. Sheldon’s points:
Homosexuality is a choice
GLBT people are not a real minority because they’re not politicaly powerless, they’re there by choice, and they’re not
Gay families aren’t real
Societies who accept gay peoploe will collapse (citing Unwin)
OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
A mommie and a daddie are the only way to go for families, anything else makes for a huge danger, OH GOD WON’T YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Men are naturaly sex predators
Women will harrased by bisexual men (?)
[…]
This is all I could stand. Plus, work.
Anyone have a text transcript?
I have to agree with Jennifer (and Amp of course *smile*) there really isn’t any reasonable arguement against SSM. The only real reason is that contrary to all the evidence out there you don’t see same-sex couples and same-sex-parented families as equal to those of opposite sex couples.
And that means you are prejudiced against gays and lesbians to such a degree (as we all have internalised homphobia, even us LGBTQ peeps, in this culture) that it overwhelms your ability to see things rationally and with humanity.
The ‘slippery-slope’ argument doesn’t honestly wash with me, as there really isn’t that much of a difference between a modern gay person wanting to get married and/or raise a family and a straight person. It really isn’t fundamentally changing the model. But that’s a debate for another thread :)
And Josh, I think you sum things up quite well *bravo!*, and what is scarier, is that the majority of anti SSM folks are right up the same alley *smile*
Couldn’t they have found a better anti-SSM proponent? Sheldon is a wackaloon.
Does anyone else have issue getting the audio to play? A transcript would be nice.
Mythago, opposing SSM is a whackaloon thing to do, and sheldon is one of the big league anti-SSM peoplt out there. I think he was a natural choice.
I mean, let’s say we were debating racism. Should we go out of our way to find a well spoken racist to represent the opposite point?
Yeah, but no one required black people to marry each other in order to get civil rights. Assimilation sucks, no matter how you color it.
I would think that feminism per se would be a reasonable argument against SSM.
But the again, I’m just turning into a crotchety old dyke who doesn’t want government handouts if I play nice at home.
*smile* awwww Q Grrl, you’re not old ;)
I actually know a lot of more mature lesbian women that don’t want SSM. But don’t worry, I’m not going to say “if you don’t want SSM, don’t have one” to you, as I understand your concerns are considerably wider than that. But, aside from my own wish to get married eventually (whomever the crazy woman is) I also look at it as a stepping stone. If we get our hands on this, then there is other steps we can take.
Yes, I know the same argument could be applied to leaving trans people our of our movement *shudder* and just settling for civil unions *another shudder* but I think that’s TOO much compromise. I think reasonable people can make a line between what is acceptable compromise and what is too much.
Plus honestly, while to a certain extent this IS assimilation (of course, being a thin white woman from an upper-middle-class background completing her doctorate, I think it would be a touch deceiving for me to describe myself as somehow seriously outside of the mainstream, despite being a feminist left-wing lesbian), I do think it is a way for us to get into the ‘inside’ (as it were) and make the kind of changes to the mainstream that really need to be made.
Yeah, I’m not going to tell anyone to *not* get married. I just don’t like this particular blanket approach. I also know that all the progress that we have made has come from resisting most assimilation and clearly defining ourselves as communities deserving of equal civil rights.
I’m a single dyke, and plan to be for a while (even if I were dating). I also live in the South. So folks being able to marry in Vermont or California is cute and fun to celebrate, but it has little to no political influence on laws in North Carolina that support (legalize) discriminatory practices in housing and employment. In fact I’ll be the big meanie and say that the backlash against gay marriage has created some unhealthy tensions in conservative states that I haven’t seen in the past 10 years. Are we, as gays, responsible for this backlash? — I’m gonna say yes. If we create the political platform, we need to be able to take care of those of us who suffer conservative backlash (or at least have a contingency plan). Marriage is very much a class issue/class right [read: white middle class — the same ones the Suburu ads are geared towards]. I put it last before housing, jobs, and education.
… If a young, black, butch lesbian is making less than 11k a year, her primary concern is going to be job security and affordable housing.
*nods* I completely agree with you in regards to we need to place queer rights in more of a ‘social justice’ approach. While I am never going to not go for marriage (although, personally I prefer the BMW X5 or the Landrover Freelander over the Subaru *wink*), I do think we have too much of an emphasis on it, and a better strategy would be to decentralise it and place it as one of a number of goals (such as trans, class, race, etc issues).
We actually had a recent blow-out at the university where I work and study, where there was a LARGE tension between those that were more conventional white gay activist orientated and wanted to push for getting the ‘gay agenda’ underway in concrete terms, and those of us more academically orientated that actually wanted to look at the ‘agenda’ itself and ask what was being pushed for, why and if this was really the best idea. I wish I could tell you it’s been resolved, but at most there has just been a fall back to respective trenches.
I live in a very liberal part of a very blue city (hell, Mayor Daley has come out in favour of SSM) in a blue state (go Obama! *smile*) where we already have protections (which recently have been extended to the whole state) but I really do think that it defeats us if we are just focusing on our immediate needs and not look at things in a wider context.
More than that, I think it actually is our responsiblity as those of us queers that are more privileged in our location, class, race, etc to be working our arses off to make things better for that young black butch lesbian making 11K a year, particularly by listening to her telling us what she needs.
There’s a backlash because we’re making progress, not because we did a Bad Thing. And yes, I will say that if you don’t want SSM, don’t get married
I mean, let’s say we were debating racism. Should we go out of our way to find a well spoken racist to represent the opposite point?
Yep. You do more damage to their side that way.
Yeah, problem is mythago, it’s not SSM that I don’t want (although I don’t), it’s that I don’t want it as a political platform. Personally I think it is a selfish and poorly thought out strategy.
Can you outline for me how marriage rights will promote civil rights, across the board, for gays and lesbians? Especially if marriage rights fall under States rights.
So what are these rights and privaledges of mariage, Reverand Sheldon?
Ah yes, rational, unbiased debate…
Hi Amp,
I wasn’t trying to suggest that you are somehow an “enemy”. I’ve read some of your recent threads and understand that to be far from the case. In my original comment, I was responding to the way the framework of “reasonable” was employed. I’m very passionate about having conversations with left-of-center folks about the way that the right co-opts language and frames every debate in the public forum today. We’re not doing enough to counteract these outrages on a daily basis, so from my reading, to label anti-SSM pundits “reasonable” to me does equal co-optation. It could even, as Sarah points out, be seen by some to be a reflection of internalized homophobia, because the language gives the impression that *you* think the authors and their positions are reasonable. I can’t say that, because I don’t know you, and don’t want to put words in your mouth – you’re too prolific a writer for that! *smile*
Thanks for the opportunity to take part in the discussion.
And Sarah, rock on, sister friend. :) It’s so nice to know my point, while not expressed as eruditely as I might have hoped, was taken.
If you’re interested, there’s a professor at Berkeley named Dr. George Lakoff, who has founded the Rockridge Institute (progressive think tank) to counteract the fierce co-optation of the language of public discourse by the hard right folks. Here’s the website, for your convenience:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Ugh, aren’t George Lakoff’s 15-minutes up yet? His condescending attitude towards the language we use and the debate is why progressives are losing political clout.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with suggesting that people like Marquardt aren’t reasonable. She has a very specific concern about the status of marriage in this country and the role SSM could play in further weakening it. While I don’t agree with her perspective, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some intellectual merit in it and the issues she is concerned about. In that sense, she is no different from many feminists who have very utilitarian and rigid positions on domestic violence or pornography.
She is a marriage absolutist who believes that anything that could erode marriage should be viewed with suspicion. That’s not different from domestic violence or rape absolutists who believe that any attempt to distract from what they believe is a crisis should be viewed with suspicion.
Res Ipsa,
No point in responding, you just don’t get it. Probably never will.
Enjoy your social privilege while you have it!
Wow, what a nutjob! I haven’t heard such a childish, unprofessional, inarticulate and idiotic attempt at getting a point across in, well, ever. Even Dubya did better than this Sheldon dude. I just wanted to put him in a box and strap down the lid until he stopped foaming at the mouth. Oy.
“Enjoy your social privilege while you have it! ”
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Res Ipsa –
What I think Jennifer was meaning (admittedly, this is my interpretation, so take it with a grain of salt) was that one particularly has social privilege when one doesn’t see how those that are less privileged in relation to you are being positioned as ‘other’, or dehumanised (to whatever degree).
The reason why we argue that no one in reality has a reaonable argument against SSM is not because we think that people can’t argue well. Because a few on the other side of this debate actually can. What we are critiquing is the mindset behind the actual argument.
This can be revealed in the very language you use to talk about Marquardt. Sure, she might very well have a genuine concern about the state of marriage in western society; but why would she think SSM would “erode” it any more? The only way one could think it would erode the institution of marriage is if you think not only that same-sex couples aren’t equal to opposite-sex couples, but they are so much less equal that having them join the institution in it’s current fairly awful state would lessen it even more.
I (and I would stretch that to we, I think) have no issue with those that think differently from us (say pro-life peeps) IF (big ‘if’ here) their position comes from a well-reasoned thought process. Do I agree with them? Hell no. But I can see their thoughts are well reasoned, and respect that, as much as I disagree (admittedly, this is a minority on the pro-life side I have to say).
However, when one holds a position that same-sex couples and same-sex-parented familes are somehow less than those of opposite-sex couples, against every single piece of the screeds of respected research that shows to the contrary, then that simply ISN’T a well-reasoned position. That IS bigotry unfortunately, and in reality that’s the basis for all arguments against SSM, and so that’s why we contend that there AREN’T any reasonable arguments against SSM.
Language and context are very very important facets these debates, and so one needs to look beyond the ‘how’ to the ‘why’ and that’s what I would like to think I’m giving an okay shot at here.
Does that clear things up? (if I have misrepresented you though Jennifer, please let me know!)
Would the fact that I am a gay man change the equation that I have “social privilege” and therefore don’t get it?
I do think bigotry plays a role in most of the opposition to SSM, but I don’t think you say that to the exclusion of the idea that there could be some opposition which isn’t fueled as much by bigotry as by some larger concerns.
Res Ispa –
Actually, no, simply being gay doesn’t absolve you of having privilege, no more than me being lesbian doesn’t (same way it doesn’t stop us from having internalised homophobia, because its about more than just us as individuals).
You’re certainly welcome to think that there are some that oppose SSM that aren’t motivated by bias and bigotry. I think there are certainly those where they don’t think it’s bigotry that’s behind their position, but again, as I said above, its about looking at the wider social construction and context of what lies behind their beliefs and motivations. It might not be the major motivation, but bigotry is bigotry.
Fair enough, Sarah. I think there are bigots–like Sheldon, and then there are bigots, like us. I would put Marquardt much closer to us than Sheldon, but I have also read her stuff extensively and may be more emphathetic.
I am in the camp that this is the wrong fight at the wrong time, but that we still have to fight it. Same-sex marriage is not the most important issue in the battle for gay rights, but we’ve been dragged into it and now have to see it through until the end.
*nods* oh I completely agree, there are far more important issues for LGBTQ’s to be dealing with (like Q Grrl and I were discussing above) but yeah, this is where we are and what we have to fight unfortunately. It sucks, but that’s where we are at.
Can you outline for me how marriage rights will promote civil rights, across the board, for gays and lesbians? Especially if marriage rights fall under States rights.
What do you mean by “promote civil rights, across the board”? Are you saying that if SSM won’t make all discrimination and bigotry go away, it’s not worthy as an issue?
Nobody is saying that SSM is the only, or even the most important, civil-rights issue for l/g/b/t folk. Nobody is, I hope, saying that it is a miracle cure. But marriage discrimination is right at the heart of the bigots’ sexist conception of how human beings should be, which is why they fight against SSM so hard.
I don’t think being able to marry will end homophobia. I do think it’s an important step.
I think it would be nicer if you couldn’t be fired in 35 states just for being gay. Being able to get married doesn’t help you much if they can legally fire you for it the minute they find out.
I don’t think being able to marry will end homophobia. I do think it’s an important step.
Judicially-imposed SSM will end up boosting homophobia and making it more socially acceptable. (Democratically-enacted SSM wouldn’t, but that isn’t what’s going to generally happen, as far as I can tell.)
I hope that this will not end up sliding back to the point where we were in my childhood, when most people would excuse anti-gay violence, but it might. That would be a bad thing.
Judicially-imposed interracial marriage didn’t increase racism.
…Why would it be more socially acceptable to hate gay people if they were allowed to get married?
Judicially-imposed interracial marriage didn’t increase racism.
Outside of the deep South, there was no organized constituency particularly opposed to interracial marriage. Within the deep South, those decisions did increase racism – although it’s a bit hard to tell the difference between 105% and 110% for most of us.
Why would it be more socially acceptable to hate gay people if they were allowed to get married?
Most progress against homophobia has come from blurring the them-us feelings that many straights had/have about gays. Studies indicate that anti-gay attitudes generally weaken when gays are portrayed as normal members of the community – when, in other words, viewers begin to recognize that “them” and “us” are actually the same people.
A judicial imposition would starkly redraw that line, strengthening group identification on the part of straights.
Or so it seems to me. YMMV.
Was it possible for anyone? Like, say, some researchers or sociologists whose study results you could link to?
You can also argue, of course, that leaving a line like the marriage line in place creates the same effect. Why would the perception of relative normalcy change if your borderline-acceptable gay neighbors become your borderline-acceptable gay married neighbors?
Why would the perception of relative normalcy change if your borderline-acceptable gay neighbors become your borderline-acceptable gay married neighbors?
Because of the difference between tolerance and normalization. Tolerance is voluntary; it comes out of my own decision. Normalization is involuntary; it comes out of a decision formulated by someone else. No court is requiring me to invite Dan and Steve over for the barbecue; if a court decides to tell me that Dan and Steve’s relationship is the same as me and my wife’s relationship, though, I’m going to feel put upon.
Additionally, when I’m tolerating Dan and Steve, I get to feel good about myself. Look how open-minded I am! Even in the midst of this homophobic country, I think of my gay neighbors as friends. When I’m obliged to normalize them, however, all opportunity to express my own virtue is removed.
All of these resentments and hard feelings are going to channel, not to the courts directly, but to the gay people that I do know. That certainly isn’t fair, but it is the way that human emotions seem to work. Your use of “borderline” is an apt choice of words. Dan and Steve are borderline tolerated. It doesn’t take much movement to push someone out of the borderline.
(Note, Dan and Steve are entirely imaginary. I just moved, and we don’t know any of our neighbors yet. Nor, I hope, would I harbor ill feelings towards any of my neighbors, gay or straight; this is simply an example.)
Judicially imposed SSM I tend to think will actually decrease homophobia in the long term. In the immediate (and possibly the intermediate) term however it will undoubtably increase levels, as we have been witnessing recently. But the historical evidence shows that eventually people simply get used to it. Hell, support for a woman’s right to chose has actually increased since Roe v. Wade.
However, to simply say that it will have an effect one way or another all over the place is too much of an oversimplification. The way in which judicially imposed racial desegregation occured is evidence of this. Racism went up in certain areas and down in others, moreover shifting in that regard in different localities depending on the events in that locality (the “not till it’s in my backyard” syndrome).
Personally, as I have been discussing with Q Grrl, I think we SHOULD be pushing for SSM, and pushing with a long term goal in mind. HOWEVER, I do think at the moment we have too much of an emphasis on it.
We need a wider social justice approach, networking and interconnecting with other minority groups, where our oppressions intersect and multiply. We also need to focus on such things as hate crime laws, anti discrimination legislation, education and tolerance programmes in schools, colleges, etc and so on. The current focus on marriage lessens our resources to fight in these areas as well.
But to think that backing off on SSM and focusing on other queer-positive strategies won’t result in homophobic backlash I honestly think will really work, nor should we do it for that reason. To a certain extent we have opened a pandora’s box, for good or bad, and this is what we need to deal with.
Personally I think we need to take another look at our strategies nationally. I honestly think the adage of “think globally, act locally” really applies here. Certainly have a larger national focus in mind, and act with that as pieces together, but working with the specific local conditions foremost in our minds and strategies.
There are a lot of local efforts going on, but there seems to be a certain disconnect between them and the wider national organisations. If there is anything the right wing fundamentalist bigoted nut-jobs have done excellently, and that we need to emulate, is develop coordination between the local groups and the more national political umbrella organisations so we can have coherent strategies.
And fuck, we need to come out. We are everyone’s friend, sister, father, brother, cousin, mother. As Robert says, we need to destroy the “us” and “them” mentality, and just show how much “us” we are. Hell, SSM to a certain extent is a part of that.
Judicially imposed SSM
Don’t buy the lie that it’s “judicially imposed”. What the courts are doing is NOT “imposing” SSM–they are ruling, and correctly so, that the marriage laws of their states as written are discriminatory. The legislature can take steps to fix that problem without allowing SSM, as was done in Hawaii. It’s more of the backwards nonlogic of the reactionaries to take a limited judicial opinion, grounded in plain vanilla equal-protection analysis, and scream about “judicial activism” because a court followed precedent instead of doing what they wanted it to.
Robert’s very right that a lot of “liberals” seem opposed to SSM because right now, they can pat themselves on the back for being more tolerant than thou–but nobody is telling them where their comfort levels have to be. Though I don’t agree that a potential backlash or violence is a reason to sit down and shut up and not piss of the hets.
I think it would be nicer if you couldn’t be fired in 35 states just for being gay.
False dilemma. Who said we have to choose? (By the way, SSM would open another loophole there. I wasn’t fired for being a lesbian, you see; I was fired for being married, and all my male-coworkers are married to women and nobody fired them! That’s sex discrimination.)
I don’t think it is a false dilemma. I believe there is only a limited amount of political capital to be used at any given moment, and prioritizing marriage over other issues is not a good use of limited politlcal capital.
And your loophole really wouldn’t work since judges have consistently seen through such arguments in finding gays and lesbians weren’t protected under Title VII.
How can they disdain “such arguments” when we have only recently had SSM?
Political capital is not infinite, but it’s not the zero-sum game you portray, either.
Because the idea of gays and lesbians trying to make sex discrimination arguments usually fail under Title VII. For instance, gay men rarely succeed in arguing they are the victims of sexual harassment since the courts say the harassment is not taking place because of the victim’s sex, but because of their sexual orientation.
In other words, a heterosexual male called a faggot and threatened with rape in the workplace can bring a Title VII claim but, except in rare instances, a gay man called a faggot and threatened with rape has no similar claim.
Title VII is not the only avenue to address workplace discrimination, and “usually” doesn’t mean “always and forever.” Again, I agree that SSM is not the be-all and end-all of l/g/b/t rights. But it’s important, and “if you support it we’ll get you on other issues” is just something the ‘phobes use to scare us, like threats of backlash violence.
Robert –
Wow. That has got to be the most self-centered statement I’ve read in a long time. Apparently the purpose of marriage is to make heterosexual couples feel superior to their neighbors. Without that, it all falls apart.
Remember, when we’re talking about what courts are “telling you”, we’re talking about civil marriage and a big part of that is about legal protections and so forth. Will you feel “put upon” if Dan dies and Steve is basically treated as next of kin? Will you feel put upon if Dan’s employer pays spousal benefits to Steve? Will you feel put upon if one of them is in the hospital and the other is allowed to visit without having to beg?
If so, well, I have no respect for you. None of those things have anything to do with you, so I have no idea why you would insert yourself into them.
If not, well, I guess your issue is all about the M word and not about everything that goes with it. Again, I find this attitude odd. I have yet to read a good explanation of why what happens in one marrage should be an issue in a stranger’s marriage.
As it happens, I do think that my own relationship is just the same as yours — just as useful, just as valuable, just as life-giving and joyful, just as worthy as respect. Well, since I don’t actually know anything about your relationship with your wife, I guess I can’t go quite that far. Maybe mine is really better. You, of course, have the freedom to believe differently. Believe it or not, you would continue to have that freedom even if the courts start calling my relationship a marriage.
To be fair to Robert, I don’t believe he was stating his own views re neighbors and barbecues, but portraying the mindset of people who proclaim to be “not prejudiced,” but who become distinctly uncomfortable when not-prejudice has the force of law. These are the ones you hear whining “But why can’t they just have something exactly identical and not CALL it marriage?!”
Mythago – you may be right. Perhaps I was unreasonably grumpy yesterday.
I simply have difficulty with the idea that legally recognizing a relationship somehow “forces” others to change their beliefs against their will. I mean, I know of plenty of cases in which people disapproved of a hetero marriage that was perfectly legal. The legality of it doesn’t really force neighbors to approve of it.
I don’t have a huge problem with the idea of civil unions simply because, in my mind, the practical benefits would outweigh the negatives. But I admit I don’t understand the “just don’t call it marriage” issue. It seems that too much is being hung on a word.