For Equal Marriage

We all have our personal narratives. And almost all of us come to a choking day, a day when we identify ourselves by a word that is not acceptable to those around us. One friend of mine realized she was an artist, in a family that wanted her to have a professional career. Another friend of mine realized that he was a soldier, in a family that did not approve of violence of any kind. One very common moment surrounds sexual identity. There are many sexual identities that do not get approval from parents, and one of these is being homosexual. Orientation towards members of the same gender is part of the human condition. It does not damage others, it is not like bloodlust, or revenge, or even jealous rage, which are also part of the human condition.

When a person reaches this moment of self-identity, they need to repeat the word over and over again. This is because they need to remove the sting from it, and make it normal in their minds. The personal narrative requires it. The inner balance requires that the shock, strangeness, and incommensurability of it be worn down, until the word is as smooth as a polished stone. The process ends when a person can say, to themselves, alone, or with any others, who they are. When saying "I am gay" is a statement of neutral fact, like ones address.

However, politics is not personal narrative. We are not going to get equal rights by saying "Gay Marriage" as often as possible. Quite the reverse: each time we say that this is about "gay marriage" we lose more support. This is about equal marriage. This is a campaign to equalize marriage laws for a fraction of the human population, who have, because of fear, superstition, and foolish tradition, been excluded from it. This means that while many activists need to say for their inner narrative the word "gay" over and over again, because they, and the people around them, need to hear it, for the law, as is often the case with the law, we must use neutral words which convey the facts and the legal frame. There are no gay marriages, only marriages. Marriage in most of America, is unequal, it must be made equal. Within this civil framework, the longer and slower work of culture can be done. As people see men who are married to each other, and women who are married to each other, as couples, the strangeness and shock of what this means will wear away.

We don't need Americans to come to terms with their inner homophobia first, but to remove the legal barriers to full participation. Civil rights were finally extended to African-Americans starting in the 1950's. It took court cases, a constitutional amendment, and a landmark law. Then it took more fighting still. America still has not come to terms with its inner demons on race, and could not until the laws were passed.
__________
Buzzflash
Digg
NewsHeat
__________

This cause might seem strange, but for members of my generation, it is our civil rights struggle. It is a moral imperative, born of necessity.

In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control identified a set of patients with a similar set of symptoms and conditions, specifically a rare form of pneumonia caused by an opportunistic infection. It was clear that these patients, four gay men from Los Angeles, had virtually no immune system. They eventually called it "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome" in 1982. This is a description, not a diagnosis. All the name means is that people who suffered from the condition did not seem to have a genetic trait plausibly in common, and they suffered from a suppressed immune system. Over time, it was noted that this had a virtually 100% mortality rate.

Tellingly, the original identifications were focused on the populations afflicted. Gayness, per se, was blamed for the disease in the general press, with some calling it Gay Related Immune Deficiency, there was even speculation that the male body, if exposed to outside sperm, would develop an immune deficiency. That scientists were willing to use this term is reported in this New York Times Article. Note the "lifestyle" hypothesis, that's code for the sperm break down idea.

The long torpor of the authorities, the horrible consequences, produced a generation who saw. But what we saw has rarely been described. It is this: in the end, AIDS is not a disease of homosexual men. That's an accident of transmission in the United States. Approximately 25 million people have died of AIDs since 1981, enough to depopulate the New York metro area. Some 33 million people live with AIDs today. That's the population of Tokyo-Yokohama metro area. Some 6 million people in developing and transitional nations need AIDS treatment, and are not getting it.

The lesson is this, there are no holes in society. Because we, the public, looked away from AIDS, because it was a "gay plague" confined to "the 4H" groups of Homosexuals, Hatians, Hemopheliacs, and Hypodermic drug users, it was seen as marginal. From that "marginal" designation, it broke out, even though it still infects minority populations disproportionately: African-Americans account for 48% of new AIDS or HIV diagnosis, but only 13% of the US population according to the Centers for Disease Control.

This lesson then is a simple one: the creation of gaps in our civil rights, the creation of gaps in who we protect, or value as human, creates a crack through which the forces of chaos pour into the society. It is not an arguable fact that in the developed world, the primary mode of transmission of aids is male-to-male sexual contact, with almost half of new infections being traceable to sexual contact. By creating an other world of other people, we created an environment where this particular disease could spread. Through people who were not really treated as people: Hatians, Homosexuals, Hemophiliacs, Hypodermic Drug users.

The long and sad history of mistreatment of homosexuals reaches into the recent past. In 1990 it was still legal in Albany New York to discriminate to tenants based on their perceived orientation. It has been legal to discriminate against perceived homosexuality in teachers. The military still bars homosexuals from serving, which has gutted many specialties needed in war. The consequences of this discrimination are the same as the consequences of other forms: human misery, loss of human contributions, pain, and death.

One of the institutions that human beings have created, however frail and imperfect it is, is marriage. It is a foundation stone of people holding to each other against the tide and darkness. Against the problems and pains, and against the deep range of terrors which chance inflicts. It is a way of building communities, creating stability, proving that the human heart has powers within it that will survive disaster, endure misfortunate, and flourish with even the smallest bit of hope. It creates a center for our future, a basis for our present, and a model for others to strive to happiness and hope. Marriage, for all it's imperfections, is a right we have made, and thus a right to be enjoyed. To bar some from it, for no other reason than childish fears is both foolish, and immoral. In discriminating in marriage, we harm our state, our society, and ultimately, ourselves.

People, and the people, have a right to grow and flourish. They have a right to those tools and privileges that society has created to that end. To end discrimination then, is not to grant rights. People already have a right to marry - however, the state, in these United States of America, interferes with that right. It will not recognize otherwise valid bonds of matrimony, it tells churches who they can and cannot sanctify, and it disrupts lives that are otherwise ordinary. The state is interfering in a right that people already have. This is about changing the law, then, so that it conforms to the rights that people already have by nature, and by, in the case of the United States, treaty. Family life, protected by the law, is a right.

For this purpose, then, and to this end, there must be a two pronged approach. On the one hand, socially, we must present people with the truths of the human condition without blinking. That isn't just differences in orientation, but all of the differences of identity. On the other hand, in the law, what we ask is that the law no long take sides in these issues, and no longer interfere with rights that it has already recognized as granting.

So don't say "gay marriage," because there is no such thing. Say "equal marriage" instead. But at the same time, don't ever shy away from telling another person who you are, or feel that you have to hide that in expression, overt or subtle. It is a difficult line to run sometimes, because the flowering of coming out of the closet can flood everything else. The pressure and pain of it can destroy everything else. But there is a magic to the majesty of the law, and a power to being more than a special interest. Marriage equality is not a special interest, it is a general one.

On this morning where we are all wearing pink triangles, and wondering which right is next to be squashed: after all we have no right to vote for the President "unless and until" our state legislatures are nice enough to grant it to us, we do not have a right to due process, or even the right not to be tortured arbitrarily while being held indefinitely - it is important to link the struggle for marriage equality for same sex couples, to the broader struggle for human decency, and human equality, even as we recognize that each person, and their struggle for self-identity and self-expression, is absolutely unique.

There are no "straight allies" in this fight, because there is no separate peace. If your rights are denied, then mine exist at the whim of a majority. The same people who can be riled up to vote against "gay marriage" can be riled up to vote in favor of torture, or to overturn tort laws, or for an illegal invasion, or to remove anti-trust protection. As long as an anti-marriage lobby and anti-marriage vote exists, then an anti-rights vote exists, which can be animated at a moment's notice.

Unless everyone is secure in their rights, their persons, and their place in society, no one is.

Stirling Newberry November 6, 2008 - 7:07am

Stirling Newberry's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Miscellany )

more than just a "personal narrative"

some of the enlightened clergy-- "in my opinion," note that when the church admonishes gay marriage they're also tarnishing the institution of marriage since marriage becomes a synonym for "heterosexual sex" rather than "a sacrament."

mrmx November 6, 2008 - 10:19am

Thank you for your fine articulation

of the need for marriage equality, Stirling.

The struggle for marriage equality will obviously take awhile, partly because a pile of laws like Prop. 8 will have to be reversed. To get there, a new coalition must form that includes the very minorities now protected and registered and canvassed to vote overwhemlmingly for Obama, but not for marriage equality.

This struggle will have to seek out the partnership of churches that so far promote conscious discrimination in marriage rights. I hope I live to see the Mormon church reverse itself on marriage equality like it did on blacks in the priesthood. It could happen, and indeed will have to happen. And it would signal an end to this gap in our society's civil rights.

Tom Robinson

trob November 6, 2008 - 10:34am

To change society, start with the children

The Importance of Teaching Children About Homosexuality

It appears that gay-positive stories for children are lacking. If you are a gifted writer, write a story for children about a gay family. Send articles to various parenting magazines to make them aware of the benefits of creating an inclusive society. Be relentless in your pursuit of justice. Instead of waiting for schools to initiate the conversation, parents should expose their children to a smorgasbord of human experiences.

Blumenfeld believes "that all of us are born into an environment polluted by homophobia (one among many forms of oppression), which falls upon us like acid rain. Some people's spirits are tarnished to the core, others are marred on the surface, but no one is completely protected. Therefore, we all have an opportunity-indeed, the responsibility-to join together to construct protective shelters from bigotry's corrosive effects, while working as allies to clean up the homophobic environment we live in.

Once enough steps are taken to reduce this pollution, we can all breathe a lot easier."

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

adrena November 6, 2008 - 11:32am

Unnecessary

Too slow, too tedious and just opens more attack surface.

Is there a book titled "Practical Warfare for Hopeless Idealists"? I think gay rights movement has all the necessary basic things (money and bitches from hell) to win, but is lacking effective organization and common sense. Well, that defines the democratic party a couple of years ago too.

-- Storm brings only richness with it

Singular December 6, 2008 - 7:34am

Escellent statement

Thank you, once again, Stirling.

Your main point is very well taken, that the labels we use may carry emotional weight that either helps to win or defeat our effort.

The bottom line in this case is that some are using their interpretation of ecclesiastical law as their unstated basis for condemning gay people and gay marriage. It's important point as the main antagonists of equal marriage can be identified with those who have rejected the establishment clause and hope to void the Constitutional separation of church and state. Their TV ads here in California were very misleading insisting that school children were going to be issued books to read promoting gay marriage. The margin of victory for the ban was narrow and those ads may have done the damage in spite of counter-statements by educators indicating there was nothing in education code mandating instruction in marriage, period. A little girl was shown with the book and asking her mother about it, then looking directly at the camera as the announcer said "It's an important issue for California," and then the girl said "And for me." People confused about their own emotions will tend to vote against a perceived possible threat.

The push for equal marriage must include reference to our Constitutional guarantee of minority rights under majority rule. There are times when majority rule trumps minority rights, such as quarantine during an epidemic. There is no loss to the majority when individuals decide the marry. They do not go around wearing buttons for the rest of their lives saying "I'm married to [name]." Walking down the street one cannot tell who is married and who is not, although we may guess correctly when someone wishes to signal availability. Otherwise, we don't know and, for the most part, don't care. Equal marriage is a minority rights issue where the majority is unaffected in practical application.

I am totally in favor, then, of restructuring the argument along the line of equal marriage and minority rights. That may actually eliminate the need to go on the attack against the antagonists as ecclesiastical activists.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

Powder Monkey November 6, 2008 - 12:03pm

Too little politics

Reuters about same-sex marriage and failed attempts to limit abortion in Colorado and South Dakota (!)
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0551506920081105

Same-sex marriage was already banned by four laws in Florida. Despite banning same-sex marriage fifth time, Florida voted for Obama. Thus the republican tactics didn't work as well as in Ohio (or where was it).

The republican party doesn't care about the issue, but it is a handy tool to activate Christian extremists. And gay-rights people are easy opponents equaling to political zeroes without any tactical skills.

I guess Democratic party will sort this out, not because of gay rights, but to remove one manipulation tool from the hands of republicans.

Singular November 6, 2008 - 12:26pm

About effective politics

Waving too colorful flags in a gay ghetto or in front of a Mormon church won't help much. Mormons know that the time is on their side and the demonstrators will simply go away.

But hitting their pockets would make a difference:

AmericaBlog is suggesting some boycotts.

-- Storm brings only richness with it

Singular December 6, 2008 - 7:24am

Boycotts won't do much

Figuring out a way to legally designate the Mormons a profit-making corporation or PAC might help. They don't act like an institution worthy of tax incentives, so they shouldn't have tax incentives.

I bet an anti-Mormon ballot initiative in California would pass by an even wider margin than anti-gay ballot initiative. They are more loathsome, after all.

chalo December 7, 2008 - 3:54am

Rights

I would argue that the secular state should not be in the marriage business at all. The objections to illicit unions is fundamentally cultural rather than legal. The majority subculture has imposed its conventions on minority subcultures, whether it be gays or "bohemians."

To the degree that the relationship between people is "sacred" or even "sacramental," it should be relegated to the religions and subject to their standards. However, secular relationships should be ordered through legal contracts. The concept of equal justice implies that such contracts be universally applicable to persons, all of whom are equal before the law as persons.

The problem is that "marriage" as it stands is a confusion of conventional, religious, and legal elements. This confusion results in the violation of fundamental human rights and US constitutional protections.

All of the issues surrounding so-called gay marriage can easily be resolved by sorting out these elements and renaming legal contracts so that they are not offensive to religious or conventional sensibilities while giving everyone the equal protection to which they are entitled. Leave "marriage" to the clergy of the various religions, and let lawyers deal with the legalities under which all persons are equal before the law, and the right of free association is upheld.

Something similar is also true of the abortion debate. The issue is really over when a fetus becomes a legal person. This is the debate that we should be having, rather than over peripheral issues that are emotionally charged but largely irrelevant from the legal standpoint.

tjfxh November 6, 2008 - 12:30pm

Yes, I totally agree

Let churches have their marriage in the eyes of God any way they like it, get govt out of the marriage business. In my mind, the govt should not document marriages at all, but should consider everything a "civil union" or an "equal union" if we need a new term to describe it. Be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman it is an equal union. A marriage certificate from a church could be used as evidence to obtain an equal union, but it is a separate thing between the people, their beliefs, and their church.

Because either we beleive in separation of church and state or we do not. And obviously the outcry against gay marriage is based on religious beliefs (which I actually think is fine), so get the govt the hell out of the marriage racket. This is all a bunch of crap meant to drive a wedge between good Americans in the cities vs the country. Enough is enough.

No more marriages, just unions.

zot23 November 6, 2008 - 1:20pm

Good Americans don't try

to deny civil rights to other Americans. There are sound reasons to make a distinction between good Americans and irrational, nescient haters.

chalo November 6, 2008 - 1:40pm

I believe you are missing

I believe you are missing the point which is simply that government has no place endorsing such purely religious sacraments as marriage.

Government should not endorse any marriage - it should, however, enforce equal protection for all people who wish to form a civil union.

The reverse of this is that government may not force any religion to endorse a particular sacrament. If your religion for instance will not tolerate marriage between gay persons or between a member of your religion and another, separation of church and state requires that government not interfere. Your recourse should be to seek a religion that permits such sacraments. You should, however, be able to obtain from the state a civil union. This is what couples seeking a mixed marriage (one of the parties not being a member of that religion) not ordained by one of their religions have customarily done. Same sex unions should be similarly protected.

hvd November 6, 2008 - 4:42pm

My point is there is no reconciling

with those who are incapable of reason. Repugs and others may exploit the division between the reality-based community and the hate-based community, but they are not responsible for "driving a wedge" between them. The wedge is the distance between fact and lie. You can't reconcile it.

My objection was to the seeming characterization of the hater side of the argument as being valid as the rational side. It just isn't. Making an end run around the legal issue to neutralize this particular point of contention doesn't prevent the same sort of quarrel from cropping up around some other matter (e.g. teaching science in schools), nor does it somehow make insane bigots into "good Americans".

I agree that the government should have no religious or quasi-religious prejudices as to who does or doesn't get to marry. Even the terms "marriage" for straights and "civil union" for gays implies a difference and preserves the means for future legal distinctions between the two.

chalo November 6, 2008 - 5:43pm

No, no, no the only

No, no, no the only governmentally sanctioned union for gays or straights would be civil union. Religions can sanction any marriage they want to.

At law and in civil society only civil unions would have meaning. Marriages belong to religions. Thus there would be civil unions for all and all equally protected and there would be religiously sanctioned marriages for those whose religions sanction them. Restoring to god that which is his (hers) (whatever) and to the state that which is its, i.e. civil contracts between consenting adults for the purpose of establishing a family.

No wedges other than those created by religions. The state is neutral as it should be.

hvd November 6, 2008 - 8:44pm

RE: "Let churches have their marriage in the eyes of Go"

IMO, the churches are defining marriage based on their own opinions! that's because marriage is a sacrament, a mysterious thing whiuch is bestowed by God; that's why divorce shouldn't happen because humans are attempting to break up something that God put together.

hence, that's why I opined (above) that the same-sex laws actually hurt the church since they're a sign that they're ignoring God's desires...

personally, I'm single and believe that God hasn't chosen anyone for me yet except from some nice girlfriends.

that's why I support both same-sex and different-sex marriage since I'm glad that those couples found love.

mrmx November 6, 2008 - 9:34pm

A sort of tacit

A sort of tacit acknowledgment of this argument lay behind the New Jersey Supreme Court's finding that there is no constitutional right to marriage for gay couples but there is a constitutional right to equal protection for "civil unions."

hvd November 6, 2008 - 2:04pm

Someone deleted my comment?

Wow.

I didn't think the Agonist was into censorship of mere polite disagreement on tactics.

AMC November 6, 2008 - 1:00pm

Sometimes posts merely disappear into technical black holes;

just try it again.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch November 6, 2008 - 1:01pm

I saw it, in the thread, and now it is gone.

But, OK.

AMC November 6, 2008 - 1:05pm

AMC

I see it in the comment page but the system marked it as spam. I will see if if can republish it.

Tina November 6, 2008 - 1:08pm

Cool.

A lot of people feel the same way as your spam filter. :-)

AMC November 6, 2008 - 1:17pm

lol

last week it caught a front page post by SP!

Tina November 6, 2008 - 1:56pm

Your comment was not polite

please don't tax my patience.

Stirling Newberry November 6, 2008 - 4:26pm

Really?

Do you think Pat Dobson and company are going to more polite?

The forces opposing gay marriage will use the renaming you propose to their advantage. They will fit all sorts of odd couplings as examples of the "equal marriage" you support, and force you defend why you changed your verbiage.

They will use a variation of the same tactic pro choicers use against "pro lifers" - so, are you against capital punishment? Gee, then I guess you're a hypocrite. You're for 'equal marriage'? How big is your tent - can I marry my dog?" Run that meme with a heavy rotation advertising budget.

And they'll run, in parallel - "they are afraid to even tell you what they really want: gay marriage. If they are ashamed to say it, why should you vote for it?"

IMHO, it is far better to use conservative principles judo. There was a snippet from a speach I heard today, something to the effect that: "I want to spend the rest of my life with my partner. What could be more 'family values' than that?" That's the fulcrum.

Going back to bedrock ancient political ideas, you have Aristotle writing about the importance of the 'hearth' to the polis. Home and family is a foundational part of our society, and marriage is one of the traditional ways to create and protect that kind of unit.

By seeking to be able to marry, gays (as shorthand for gays and lesbians, if they have to be separated) are asking to become more imbeded in American society. They want the right to be more like everyone else. To expand the benefits of having couples who married and function as economic units to a group of people who have, in the past, been at the finge of society.

In the same way that "don't ask, don't tell" is becoming increasingly unpopular with straight military commanders who see the value gay people bring through their service, society will - and is - slowly coming around to the value of married gay couples.

Demanding "equal marriage rights" is just not going to be as effective as other lines of attack that take advantage of all the good will that has been generated by and through gays in the media - home improvement shows, and Ellen, and reality television are, over the long term, killing the fear mongering fundamentalists. Gays have been substantially de-scarified for much of America. They are increasingly being seen as people who can get married, buy houses, spend money at Home Depot, put money in 401(k)s, be desireable neighbors - instead of bathhouse fequenting casual sex addicts who carry disease and engage in acts that can't be spoken of. A lot of progress has been made, and it is a very short step from "can" to "should be allowed to".

Going with "equal marriage" is a 'left sounding' strategy with political holes in it that will, in my humble opinion, not be particularly effective in making that transition against a well financed religious-right opposition.

If saying so isn't polite, then so be it.

AMC November 6, 2008 - 6:09pm

I think you're missing the point

the "yellow equal sign" has been around for ages for the HRC (human rights campaign).

that's probably where Stirling comes from.

historically, as you may remember, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus while whites sat in the front; that's what sparked the civil rights movements.

IMO, it's quite a tragedy that GLBT couples can't marry because it creates a social stigma which is based on nothing more than intolerance.

mrmx November 6, 2008 - 9:48pm

"Equal Marriage" is a bit Orwellian for my taste.

What you are actually in favor of is allowing marriages between gay couples of an appropriate age. You aren't in favor of "equal marriage" rights between a woman and cow, an old man and a young boy, an arranged marriage between infants, a traid, or abolition of incest laws.

I don't like it when members of the right rename their positions to make them more 'positive'. Language has meaning. While "pro choice" is an accuarate position statement, there is no "pro life" movement - they are anti-abortion. Similarly, I don't like mis-naming positions on the left to make them more politically palatable.

Gay marriage is going to be the law of the land at some point. Why use a deceptive label to try to get there a little quicker? If you are for gay marriage, say you're for gay marriage. Say it loud and proud because it's what you believe it. Don't water it down in an attempt to make it somehow sound better, or different, from what you actually support.

AMC November 6, 2008 - 1:14pm

thanks for reposting

I'm still trying to figure out to access the first post and why it got caught in the spam filter.

Tina November 6, 2008 - 1:18pm

Fair comment but

couldn't everybody agree to a understandable and descriptive name for these unions that doesn't involve the word "gay?"

1. That word is actually defined as "cheerfulness", a state of mind that, while it might involve sexual activity, is more usually associated with longer lasting and less passionate endeavours.

2. Many people involved in same sex marriages are not particularly gay, nor have I found most homosexuals to be more or less cheerful than the rest of the population.

3. Hijacking the word misrepresents the entire 1890's era. The "Gay 90s" weren't.

4. Redefining the word "gay" represents a terrible loss from the poet's lexicon. It was bad enough when the word "fey" had to be abandoned for the same reasons. How can rhymers wax eloquently about the merry month of May, for instance, unless it's in a verse about Ken Lay or something.

5. Speaking of the rhyming arts, Wordsworth wrote as follows: "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company". JOCUND. Ohmigawd. First "queer", then "fey", then "gay". Now "jocund?"

"Jocund marriage!" Even "jocund union". It could happen. Heaven forfend!

In the name of language, if nothing else, maybe it would just be simpler if people weren't required to literally or figuratively drop their pants before getting married. Other rules governing age, capacity exist for clear social reasons. However, legalizing civil unions between same sex partners also has a compelling social element, expecially when it comes to things like health care, property rights, inheritance issues, etc. None of these things have anything whatsoever to do with genital configurations, so far as I can tell.

And they don't rhyme either.

Chickadee November 6, 2008 - 2:27pm

that's my favorite poem

"For oft when on my couch I lie,
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
which is the bliss of solitude
And then my heart with pleasure fills
and dances with the daffodils."

the heart knows the objects it loves and it's happy to love them.

mrmx November 6, 2008 - 10:06pm

You Accused Stirling of Not Being Proud

so, if this is the post, I can understand how you hurt his feelings.

you can look at the HRC logo and see that Stirling isn't alone in his desire to be accepted equally by society.

moreover, it's sad that gays are thought to be natural child molesters like blacks are thought to be natural crooks.

the only way to end this discrimination is for society to Scarlet letters which it puts onto GLBT relationships.

mrmx November 6, 2008 - 10:00pm

Where did I say he wasn't proud?

Sterling's post was about backing way from using the term "gay marriage" and using a substitute term that I think would be politically ineffective. I think the term "gay marriage" is both accurate, and more defensible than a campaign based on a slogan of "equal marriage".

Your post appears to be heartfelt - but let me give you an example from the other side re: why "heartfelt" isn't necessarily smart in seeking to achieve a political objective:

Let's say that you are a fly on the wall for a meeting of top level Republicans, trying to regroup after their defeat in the recent election. Which of the following concerns you more:

"We need to get back to fundamental conservative values. Stopping illegal immigration, being strong on abstinence, stopping abortion, getting prayer back in schools, the deregulation of businesses, and ending progressive taxation. That's what's close to the hearts of our Republican base, and that's what we need to do, nationally, over the next four years to reclaim our rightfull position as the dominant political party of this great country."

Or:

"OK, we need to close the technology gap with the Obama democrats, and that is going to cost money - the RNC is going to spend it. We also need to poll better than 30% with Hispanics or we are going to keep losing elections - if we have to reformulate our immigration platform to do that, then get the focus groups together and figure out how we can do that without alienating the guys on the radio. We need to start putting together a platform that deals with the issues that concern today's voters - not the cold war, welfare state issue of the past."

Clearly, the passion for the cause is dominant in the first example. But, if you are a Democrat, isn't that exactly what really want the Republicans to do, because it would be politically ineffective?

Gay marriage in California was within a hair's breadth of having a majority in California despite well financed opposition from a coalition of fundamentalists and mormons. There are other states where the numbers are very similar. To reach a majority, gays don't need to win over gays, the young, the well educated, or political liberals. Like any other political movement, they've got to win over the middle. That isn't a group that is particularly susceptable to "expand rights because we deserve equal marriage" arguments.

Like military commanders - a notably non-gay/non-young/non-liberal group - gays are going to have to convince the political middle to endorse gay marriage because it has value to them. Military commanders now see that gay translators who were shitcanned out of the army could have probably prevent some of their troops from getting blown up. And, during a time when good service men and women are increasingly hard to find, recruit and retain, there are many 'known' gay members of the military who are good soldiers, officers, and specialists.

The benefits of gay marriage - to the strength of communities and the economy - are what are going to reach the open-minded folks who were for gay marriage in California several months ago (by fairly large margins) and who were turned to being opposed by the right-wing pre-election blitz.

AMC November 7, 2008 - 2:11am

RE: "Where did I say he wasn't proud?"

Why use a deceptive label to try to get there a little quicker? If you are for gay marriage, say you're for gay marriage. Say it loud and proud because it's what you believe it. Don't water it down in an attempt to make it somehow sound better, or different, from what you actually support.

It seems like you are saying that Stirling is using "deceptive labels" and "If you are for gay marriage, say you're for gay marriage. Say it loud and proud."

Of course you could be writing in the hypothetical tense but.... when I read it, it sounded like you were calling Stirling a phony and that he is not.

mrmx November 7, 2008 - 2:39am

The essay said:

"So don't say "gay marriage," because there is no such thing. Say "equal marriage" instead."

The issue is a tactical one. I am sure Sterling would say "equal marriage" loud and proud. In contrast, I think (and argue) that the proper term is the one that has always described the movement. To the extent he's saying - and he is saying it - don't use the term "gay marriage", we disagree on what is going to be politically helpful.

AMC November 7, 2008 - 12:31pm

the episcopal church

The Episcopal Church has a nice saying: "unity, not uniformity."

And, knowing Stirling, he simply wants to be free and receive the respect that he deserves if he spends his freedom well so he wants unity not uniformity because unity lets diversity express itself whereas uniformity stamps it out.

Hence, "equality" is a bigger dream than "gay marriage" because "social equality" requires a deeper empathy and Stirling, as an artist, surely has lived within the beauty of art and, like many, sees the state of "equality" as heaven on earth since we're loving our neighbors as ourselves and not putting our neighbors on pet leashes or treating them as second class citizens.

mrmx November 7, 2008 - 1:22pm

As with Obama's successful demographics, the acceptance of

marriage equality will probably take time for older intolerant voters to die off, and younger tolerant voters to increase. Especially in several major churches.

So maybe it's not convincing the middle of anything, but seeing the middle itself shift toward a more tolerant place.

Alternatively, maybe we can also change the middle if we hold elections on marriage equality in non-presidential years, and canvass the hell out of tolerant voters. Again and again in states that require voters to approve property tax levies for school financing, holding those elections in off-years, when combined with big turnout efforts, usually passes those levies.

On Tuesday there were no doubt another 500,000 votes out there to defeat Prop. 8. But it probably would have involved not just driving every last LBGTQ voter to the polls, but also every last rural hippie and McKinney/Nader/Paul/Barr voter that wanted marriage equality, too. Plus threatening or actually suing any church on its non-profit status if it engages in deliberate political activity could be an additional weapon. This will be a long political fight.

I appreciate philosophically the apparently libertarian argument that government should only be in the business of civil unions. But government is and always has been very much in the business of sanctioning marriage. I don't want to wait for a libertarian utopia before we make marriage equality an accopmlishment of government. For me this is still a matter of civil rights.

Tom Robinson

trob November 7, 2008 - 5:26am

Removing the state from its

Removing the state from its current inappropriate endorsement of the sacrament of marriage is not at all a libertarian argument. The state should not be in the business that is properly governed by religion. The state, however, has an interest in enforcing and providing incentives for contracts drawn to preserve the family unit. Just as it has an interest in contracts creating and regulating corporations, etc. etc. This is far from a libertarian stance.

This simple solution, which is available to courts, reestablishes in this domain the appropriate distribution of interests between religions and the state, leaves the religiously derived term "marriage" to religions and to all the zealots who are concerned with protecting its sacramental nature, while leaving the state to equally enforce contracts between individuals wishing to form a family unit.

Look, the same arguments were once raised concerning divorce. Because some religions were opposed on sacramental grounds to the concept, government felt itself limited in its ability to allow "married" persons to divorce. Now, fortunately, the state permits divorce or the rendering of the civil contract between persons while certain parts of the Catholic church still (I think) prohibit it on sacramental grounds. Thus, in the eyes of the church a civilly divorced couple would remain married.

Get the state out of the sacrament of marriage.

By the way I personally couldn't care less about these sacraments. But I do want my government to enforce and encourage contracts between willing adults interested in forming a family.

hvd November 7, 2008 - 8:08am

What is civil marriage?

This excellent post got me thinking that civil marriage is really just a special case of a contract. There are many contracts that the state agrees to recognize and respect in various ways -- wills and powers of attorney come to mind. Isn't marriage pretty much like that?

Seen in that frame, it is sorta obvious that any consenting adults ought to be able to engage in the contract of marriage, and have that contract recognized equally by the state.

(Not sure how polygamy fits into this frame, however...)

grassroot November 6, 2008 - 2:30pm

Marriage is a Contract in CA Constitution

If I recall correctly, Marriage is a contract in CA. The "marriage as a contract only" approach to things is a potentially interesting compromise.

Potential problems are that things like health benefits and taxes are affected by marriages as well, and that marriage contracts might allow stuff that would otherwise be illegal.

NateTG November 6, 2008 - 3:32pm

My personal view

I woke up before 5 on the morning of November 4th. I turned on the computer while coffee made and had an email from a friend in SE Oklahoma. He’d moved home to his grandmother’s old house on a ranch after being told he had a few months to live due to HIV and hepatitis C nearly 20 years ago, to die near family. He’s still ticking but moved into the nearby small town a year ago near his doctors and with the hospital less than a mile away. His income is about $600 a month. He doesn’t do much except shop for his groceries at the local store or the new Wal-Mart and a lady doing home health care for him does that when he isn’t able. His 89 year old father passed away the week before the election and he was out in public for the funeral. A family portrait was displayed at the viewing with his mother, brothers, sister, their spouses and children, but he wasn’t pictured.

I sent a reply. I heard back in the evening. Someone knocked on his door at 5 AM and he was hit in the face and beaten up. He had nothing to steal and that was common knowledge. He called 911. The police came and it took an hour for the ambulance to drive the mile from the hospital. The police took his statement. He got stitches and had broken ribs. He returned home at 5 PM. He walked. It wasn’t even reported as an assault. He’s just a queer. They should have killed him.

On the television news near here in Dallas a similar assault occurred. The victim shot and killed his attackers. It was the lead news story on election morning. The victim in that case wasn’t gay.

The right to marry is a secondary concern. The right to live comes first. Marriage wasn’t the business of the state in the US until the late 1800’s. You didn’t get a license. If a church would marry a couple and no one stood up to object, they were married. Papers were only needed later for inheritance or divorce and divorce was very rare. Prior to the time a license was required a minister didn’t need a bible or a basic knowledge of his faith to marry people. They didn’t need a church. The single greatest opponent of same sex marriage and sponsor of Proposition 8 in California is the LDS Mormon Church. Ironically, plural marriage was the main factor resulting in marriage licensing and legislation concerning marriage. The tax exempt status of the LDS Church should be denied for their involvement in this campaign, and any of the other churches involved.

No matters concerning the equal status as citizens with the full rights enjoyed by all other citizens will ever be granted except through the courts. My friend hasn’t been sexually active in many years. I haven’t been sexually active in more than 10 years. In spite of that, it is still justifiable to many of the bigots to kill or assault either of us. They don’t hate the sex act or the union sought by couples, they hate the orientation.

Phil Ford

Phil November 6, 2008 - 3:39pm

Meanings of "marriage"

1. A legal contract between consenting adults. A legal contract requires an offer and acceptance for "consideration," entered into by at least two parties legally qualified to enter into a contract, e.g., legal age, and under the constraints of law, e.g., absence of fraudulent representation, forced assent, etc. In previous time, the consideration was a dowry. Now that that is no longer required, there may nothing tangible exchanged, so consideration may be lacking. However, the legal contract of "marriage" is actually a cover-term for a series of contracts governing a complex relationship. All of these contract can be specified individually; therefore, the "contract of marriage" is unnecessary legally. For instance, the legal contract of "marriage" defines division of propery and inheritance rights. this can be modified by prenuptial agreements, wills, etc. In fact, the entire general contract can be redefined by the parties as long as both pariies agree to the conditions.

2. A social convention, in the sense of a rite of passage. Societies in the past have recognized as a rite of passage the special relationship of persons, generally for the purpose of identifying parentage to establish rights of inheritance, for example. In addition, tribal societies were built on kinship relationships, in which a tribe was subdivided into clans and clans into families. These primitive relationships became established as social conventions regulated by customs, which were subsequently adapted to the legal framework of a society.

3. A religious performance. Involving rites of passage, such relationships were ritualized. One of the principal ways of ritualizing conventions and customs is through religion. Before the advent of complex societies based on legal systems, religions were the modality through which rites of passage were ritualized and given a special status that laws would later largely supplant. However, some basic conventions like marriage remained principally within the province of religion after the introduction of legal systems.

Because of the connotations of "marriage," these factors have become confused. When we start to sort this out, we see how various elements arose, were structured, and eventually became confused with each other in the process of societal development. It's time to separate this out, because this confusion is getting in the way of basic human rights that are grounded in the notion that all persons are equal before the law and therefore deserve equal protections. We cannot have laws based on equal rights when convention and religion get mixed up in the process, thereby establishing privilege due to long-standing cultural bias.

Would this undo the effect of many such biases in addition to cultural bias against homosexuality, or other non-standard relationships such as open relationships, polygamy and polyandry? Of course. These relationships already exist, legally in many societies and sub rosa in others.

Why not recognize the fundamental human right of free association even though some people's noses will be bent out of shape. What is more important, some hurt cultural sensibilities or human rights and the legal foundations of liberal democracy?

tjfxh November 6, 2008 - 7:14pm

Equality benefits everyone

That was my "No on 8" promotional sign. Seeing others as equal, seeing their rights as just as important as our own, is what makes us realize we are all in this world together. Not to believe this, not to know it, denies our connection to each other and to the world as a whole.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” ~ Charles Darwin

darwin November 7, 2008 - 1:48am

I am still having trouble

I am still having trouble grasping the difference between a marraige and a civil union, or whatever. Is it a tax matter? Or divorce protections? I do not understand the big deal made of this unless there are some demonstrable advantages to state-sanctioned marraige that are not available via civil union. Regardless, while I generally believe that the state ought to offer all its services equally to the public, I cannot yet make up my mind where I stand on this issue.

A comment above points out that the family unit is an important societal component and that the traditional marraige is important in this. To my mind, there is alot more here than people seem to give credit to. The idea of tradition being somehow important, for instance. It seems to me that our culture is hellbent upon shedding tradition as much as possible, and I think this generally works to our detriment, at least in the short-term (we dont really live long enough to judge by the longterm).

Additionally, I find a difference between, say, feminism and homosexual rights. I judge homosexuality to be an aberration. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it surely must be so. This is not what we aspire to as a species - it is in fact the opposite, biologically speaking. I can see arguments that state that homosexuality is a natural outgrowth of conditions, but thats another issue. So, insofar as marraige is concerned, what is the "job" of marraige?

Is marraige just an economic contract, or just a religious sacrament, or just a means of fostering society, or is it all or none of these things and perhaps even more than all that? What facet of marraige can be said to be harmed by allowing homosexual marraige, if any?

My own offhand solution is that the homosexual couple simply make up another word for marraige, but I do see why that is no real solution, even if it would be useful in assuaging the religious fundamentalist. It is awfully hard to reason with someone who honestly believes that you are going to be thrown into a lake of fire in a year or two...

DBass November 7, 2008 - 7:37am

I think you have a good point

w/ regards to the role of marriage in fostering society.
Now that so many gay couples have children, having them fall under traditional marriage and family laws might be helpful.

dk November 7, 2008 - 8:01am

RE: "I am still having trouble grasping the difference"

"I am still having trouble grasping the difference between a marriage and a civil union"

the difference is intolerance since some folks believe that the bible forbids same-sex couples from "getting married"; however, even if this claim was true (I don't think so) we know that we no longer stone adulterers so times change.

It is awfully hard to reason with someone who honestly believes that you are going to be thrown into a lake of fire in a year or two...

hahaha; actually, the act of interfering with His sacraments is a very wicked thing to do so religious folks should start embracing same-sex marriage and allow God's Grace to manifest itself because, on the other hand, they'll be forced to justify their reasons about trying to smite God's Grace on Earth.

mrmx November 7, 2008 - 9:10am

Custom and Law

The point at issue is the degree to which custom should receive the sanction of law. Conservatives equate law and custom, completely libertarians divorce them. There is a spectrum of opinion in between. However, the issue is really a constitutional one regarding equality before the law, which denies unequal privilege to any limited group of human beings in relation to the whole of them as equal persons with equal rights as legal persons.

The conservative argument is that the nuclear family is the basis of society and has ever been so. Therefore, its members qualify for unequal privileges under the law.

The Bible contradicts them on this, however. The NT specifically states that Jesus established monogamy among his followers, in spite of the fact that the earlier law had allowed polygamy. Islam, Mormonism and other religions permit(ed) polygamy, and anthropological studies show that just about every conceivable custom can be found somewhere. So the conservative argument fails. It is essentially a religious one that has gained the force of cultural custom, too. Does that mean that it justified unequal treatment under the law in a liberal democracy such as ours, which mandates equality of persons under the law? I think not.A constitutional amendment would be required. Amendments to state constitutions are superseded by the US Constitution, so only amending the US Constitution would suffice to grant special privileges to only some persons.

Should then the teaching that monogamy is a religious principle established by Jesus (and there are both historical and theological reasons for questioning this), which then became a custom in Western society under the influence of the institutional Church, be given special privileges under the law?

The concept of equal rights argues against this view. Of course, other types of relationships also apply here, too. Those who argue differently should pursue an amendment to the US Constitution. The obstacles to this are enormous.

Similar issues apply in the abortion debate.

tjfxh November 7, 2008 - 10:11am

Then again, we could look at

Then again, we could look at what customs have produced the best humanity has yet accomplished and attempt to base our society upon them. (No, I dont know how to even attempt to assign values) And mormonism has been rather successful.

On the whole, I agree with what you are saying. So, maybe government should get out of the marraige business, and only perform civil union (for recognition of contractual obligation). Leave marraige (whatever that means) to religion, as others have said above.

DBass November 7, 2008 - 8:48pm

False imperative

I judge homosexuality to be an aberration...it surely must be so. This is not what we aspire to as a species - it is in fact the opposite, biologically speaking.

This is demonstrably false, as any cursory review of the literature with regard to vertebrate biology will immediately make clear.

A lay reader can reference Bruce Baghemil's "Biological Exuberance" for a 750 page sampling of journal literature regarding the homosexual, bisexual and transgendered behavior in pairing, parenting, and play behavior documented in 450 species of birds and mammals.

Heterosexual normative restrictions for behavior are comforting to some, but the basis is not to be found in biology.

Please note that "homosexual" is correct usage when discussing animal behavior. It is inappropriate with refererence to human persons. Consider the way "porch monkey" might appear in discussion of the history of epithet and social control in the United States, ca. 1500 - 1950, while a phenomenally racist slur addressed to any living persons.

koan November 7, 2008 - 2:40pm

Love Isn't Rational

So it can't be rationally defined.

mrmx November 7, 2008 - 4:50pm

But libido can

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

adrena November 7, 2008 - 5:36pm

i'm not sure

Sigmund Freud writes a lot about how society defines our ideas about libido in countless ways when were young so we're controllable when we get older-- that's my take on some of his writing anyway.

I tend to like Gay porn but talking to Gay men about sex (or thinking about gay sex) makes my skin crawl because men aren't the teddy bears that women are in bed-- that's my opinion anyway.

So libido is a very complex thing.

Hence, it seems clear that society uses external images and definitions, which have nothing to do with personal desire, to create definable behavior that's ultimately associated with legal and illegal boundaries.

I say: live free or die!

mrmx November 7, 2008 - 8:37pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

For Equal Marriage

Comment viewing options