February 22, 2004
Gay Marriage: A Modern Day Civil Rights Struggle?
As a politically engaged, openly gay man, I have endorsed the compromise that would create recognized civil unions, as a way of ending this troublesome debate on gay marriage. By doing so, we would take away a potentially potent ‘wedge’ issue from Bush and the Republicans to exploit. I also argued, that the day civil unions are made law would not be the end of the struggle towards full gay marriage rights. You see, Rosa Parks’ and Dr. King’s successful bus boycott in 50’s Birmingham, Ala., was not the end of the civil rights movement, but yet a major battle won in an ongoing conflict.
By passing on this compromise (and hard fought victory), we risk setting into motion new adversarial fronts: a discriminatory Constitutional amendment drive, endorsed by a reluctant President who capitulates to his social Conservative base; alienating and angering state legislatures who will no doubt repeat the divisive session we witnessed in Massachusetts; and, angering and alienating a growingly sympathetic public, eventually fed up with what seems like a frivolous repeat of the Florida recount.
But, now comes a gutsy, if not brilliant, move by the freshman San Francisco Mayor David Newsome that muddies the playing field.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but other than major pronouncements concerning White House furnishings, First Lady Laura Bush has only been publicly quoted on two major issues – the Confederate Flag and now, Gay Marriage. (The sheer cowardice of George Bush, in both instances, is an argument for another time.) This tactical turn by the boys at RoveVision is a clear indication of how volatile (and possibly damaging) an issue this has become - for the Republicans.
No doubt, dear reader, you’ve caught glimpses of those gay and lesbian couples camped overnight and braving the elements outside San Francisco’s City Hall. And you know damn well, all of America is viewing those triumphant images of excited and committed couples being feted, post ceremony, on the City Hall steps. To this observer, those images have the potential to have a similar effect as certain black and white television footage from the Civil Rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s.
It should be pointed out, that while condemning these moving images, Republicans from Pat Buchanan to Gov. Schwarzenegger, will only go so far as to argue the violation of California law. They also cite Prop.22, which bans gay marriage, passed with 60% support in a ballot initiative in 2000.
Now, allow me to cite history to support my argument. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in 1952, she was in violation of a written city ordinance (Code 6, Sec. 10). In 1963, when a white woman sat down with four black Alabama AT&T college students at a Woolworth’s’ lunch counter in Birmingham, they were in violation of state segregation law specifically forbidding white women to congregate publicly with Negro males. Also keep in mind, this was a time when most Negroes were terrified to exercise their right to vote, for fear of violence and reprisals. Jim Crow was the law of the land, and everything from public accommodations on down was separate, yet anything but equal. Negroes were second-class citizens in the eyes of the white majority – and, therefore the law. 60% support of white voters in passage of these laws is probably right on the mark – and, the law is the law. Right?
It remains to be seen, how these irrefutability joyous images of gay couples embracing, honoring, respecting and flying across this country to evoke the vows of commitment and love, will have on a cynical hetero nation. A group that (from this vantage point), takes such privileges for granted, but wants to deny it to those deemed less than an equal.
(Note to Mary Cheney: It’s time to speak up, baby girl!)
Bert, the the law of the land must be upheld or we risk anarchy. Mayor Newsome is not being corageous, is merely pandering to his constituency. Remember that Newsome was pushed during the last election not by a republican, but by an underfunded and grassroots green party candidate who was politically to the left of newsome. Newsome is risking very little. The problem that I have with what newsome is doing is has nothing to do with substance of his offenses, it is the fact that he is engaging in civil disobedience without risking any reprisal. As the mayor, the peroson that much uphold law and order in his city, he is charged with enforcing the laws, and now he is braking them undermining the rule of law. This is certainly hyperbole, as mayor newsomeºs actions will not cause SF to fall into the bay, or under go civil strife. I would like that Newsome actuatually be called to accont for braking the law like any of his citizens. This is a clear subversion of democracy.
Posted by: Miguel at February 22, 2004 11:01 PMJust a minor correction, it’s Gavin Newsome, not David.
I have to admit that politically I think this gay marriage issue is good only to the extent that it will hopefully lead to the abolition of marriage as a government institution. The government has no business priveledging “coupled” life over other kinds of life choices, like living single, living with many people- whatever.
But what you say, Bret, is rather poignant. I saw a man who got married in San Fran on TV the other day and he said “we just moved from the back of the bus to the front of the bus”. I gotta that got to me- as long as the government insists on supporting this increasingly arcane institution, they should not make a group of citizens feel like they are on “the back of the bus” for absolutely no good reason that I can see.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 22, 2004 11:04 PMMiguel, you make valid points as to the duty of elected office, but what ‘anarchy’ could come about from Gavin Newsome’s (thks, Dan) actions? Laws are broken everyday by govt and law enforcement with much worse consequences than handing out marriage licenses.
Civil disobedience as a crime, would surely be a misdemeanor. So, why is this a Class A Felony in the eyes of the Right? There is a larger context behind social Conservative’s homophobia.
By the way, Judge Roy Moore broke the law and lost his job because of it. But, what does it say about Republicans and lawbreakers, next we see his name on a ballot?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 22, 2004 11:43 PMBert:
My concern is what happens next? Seriously, what right do we as a society to prohibit incest or polygamy? I am concerned that somehow by discussing an issue like gay marriage and being opposed will be interpreted as anti gay in some way when truthfully, what goes on behind closed doors or between two consulting adults sexually is something I don’t want to know about. For instance, thank you for telling me you are openly gay, but truthfully I don’t care, but can you write?
I don’t see marriage as totally a civil rights issue, but rather a society decision to give our species it’s best chance of continuing. (procreation).
I do agree that having this issue this year could be a great gift for we republicans.
Craig
Craig- You have hit on the key point. There is absolutely no principled way gay rights advocates will be able to distinguish the arguments for polygamy (or consequal adult incest- especially among those of the same gender, so there is no “threat” of genetic problems from incest children, if that is really an issue) from their arguments on gay marriage. None- I dare any here to try. the only possible argument would go something like “well marriage is between two people”, which is exactly like the argument “well marriage is between a man and a woman”. their argument is broad and powerfull- I think too powerful for them to confine to the ends they wish to attain.
The problem is that no one can really explain WHY the government NEEDS to recognize marriage at all. Is it because of children? then why do we allow people who have no ability or interest in having kids get married? is it for tax purposes? why would those who decide to live with someone else get tax breaks over those who choose not to? Soon gay marriage will be in almost every state- then polygamists will make the same equal protection arguments and ALSO win- then entire communities can get get “marrired”, and marriage will have to go back to the churchs, synagogues and mosques where it properly belongs because it will be completely out of control. I thank the gay rights advocates for holding this institution to the light to day.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 23, 2004 12:18 AMI knew I’d have to address exactly such arguments as yours, Craig.
Are you purposely equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy? The first reaction of most gay people. Incest can be linked to other abnormal catagories of applied pyschology and polygamy actually enjoyed acceptance for a period much longer than the period since the deletions of homosexuality from the DSM.
Thru our efforts at educating the hetero world, we continue to gain acceptance and prove our normalacy. To prove your statements are not disengenious, where are the Incest advocacy groups? Surely, the Mormons still advocate their rights as a religious group to take mulitple wives?
These lines of argument would hold merit if they originate in your belief of homosexuality as a deviant or abnormal variance. For, at one point in history, slavery and Jim Crow were justified by such beliefs.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 23, 2004 01:16 AMBert, the the law of the land must be upheld or we risk anarchy.
Tell that to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and others. It is our duty to fight injustice.
The claim that allowing homosexual marriage opens the doors to polygamy, incest, marrying your cat, etc. has been debunked many times over. It’s like claiming that giving women the right to vote will let pets vote, too.
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/homo/gain_ground.htm
Posted by: ceejayoz at February 23, 2004 01:18 AMYou call the Institution of Marriage an Arcane Institution? I submit that it is not arcance in any way, that it is fundamentally important for several reasons:
#1 - Opposite sex unions propogate the species.
#2 - There are countless kids growing up under all forms of parenting, single parent, gay parents, married parents, you name it. All raise some good kids and all raise some bad. Yes it’s the responsibility of each parent to do their best to raise children with morals, and straight parents can be just as lame and crappy parents as gay parents. As an obvious opponent of gay marraige, I am convinced that having loving Man-Woman role models is key for “Healthy Social Development.” Men and women are genetically predisposed to need each other and each fulfills a very specific need of the child. Two clipped haired fat lesbians with nose rings that hate men because they were molested by some sicko when they were little girls, or two anal-sex hungry men (talk candidly to almost any gay man on the “Fruit Loop” in San Fran and then argue that Gay men aren’t in it for the sex) do not constitute “Healthy Role Models.” Not to say that all gays and lesbians are of the aforementioned type, but the vast majority are not in it for the Healthy Propogation of the species, or the raising of up-standing citizens.
#3 - Gay Marriage is a slap in the face to normal couples who hold the vows they take before God seriously. Yes I know there are lots of lame hetero couples who were raised by liberal parents and think marriage is just a short-term monogamy contract that expires when lust fades, but most are not. Nothing I am saying is all-inclusive. But giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples is like handing out Cambridge PhD’s on the street corner, and then weighing a real and a fake one the same.
What are Gay Couples “Really” after? Tax-breaks? Death Benefits? Medical Benefits? Recognition for liking sex with a like gender? Then pursue Civil Unions for crying out loud. Who cares if you get all the benefits, I certainly don’t, but it is a slap in the face that Gay people, and mayors and sociofacist judges, tell me that the sanctity of a covenant that means more to me than any emotion a secularist will ever experience, is Arcane and should be removed from all recognition except by the Church I was married in. How dare anyone say that to me.
I personally think that deep down inside, where they can’t even hear it themselves, people who secretly HATE Christians and Marriage and all things Judao-Christian are fabulously jealous of the love and contentment that they will never feel. They pretend they are happy… and those reading may laugh out loud and say I’m nuts, but look in the eyes of someone who thinks Marriage is an outdated thing and is so 5-minutes ago. Look in the eyes of someone who hates the idea of God and loves to tell people it’s preposterous and a self-reinforcing delusion… You will see a sad and lonely person, acting out constantly lest they have to sit with their own thoughts and realize their pitiful state. I’ve seen it on every corner of Haight-Ashbury, on the beach, in the library, everywhere.
So don’t tell me marriage is arcane… marriage between a man and a woman is beautiful and warm and if nurtured, blossoms like nothing the secularist will ever know.
Posted by: SanFrancis Jo at February 23, 2004 03:52 AMLook, biology teaches us that a certain amount of homosexual and even hermaphroditic behavior in the diversity of living species is natural.
Biology also teaches that evolution has provided for young best, in a majority of species above the insect world, by providing parenting by two individuals of opposite sex. There are however notable exceptions even in the mamallian world.
Anthropology teaches that among primates, survival skills are not limited to eating, drinking, elimination and flight or fight behaviors. Survival skills depend upon be accepted and protected by the family, clan, and tribe.
This socializiation process by which the young are taught behaviors which will insure their inclusion and protection by the group could not be codified prior to Gutenberg’s printing press or Egyptian heiroglyphics. Prior to these, the rules of socialization were passed down by word of mouth and became the source for what we call religion.
This explains why the basic commandments of all major religions of the world are so similar - because what was learned about how to socialize children so that they would be embraced and protected by the group would have been common experience of all humans regardless of geography, ethnicity or prehistory.
So, stable partnerships between a man and a woman were to be promoted amongst the clan as the physical sexual differences created divisions of labor amongst early humans. This division of labor required that the welfare and development of offspring benefits from a parent of each sex since the total benefits of the clan are passed down via the skills and labor of each sex.
With writing came the codification of traditions and ways passed by mouth of doing things. The collective wisdom of most clans and tribes eventually ended up in writing becoming the first laws of society. Those early laws regarding marriage and family and child rearing in all cultures were born out of hunter-gathering, agricultural, and herding communities, clans and tribes.
With the advent of money, two parents are no longer required, up to a point. Money takes the place of the special skills and knowledge of each sex parent. Money of one guardian can provide the skills and expertise and even teachings of traditional mothers and fathers of the society. In other words, with the ability to buy expertise, one no longer needs expert mothers and fathers to teach the skills necessary to function in society.
Remember, I said, up to a point. The psychological development of children is hinged to social acceptance in deep and fundamental ways. Bring up a child to believe they are not equal, not as good, not as smart, not as experienced or worldly as others and that individual will be more likely to act and behave in ways society does not regard as normal, worthy, or justified.
So, in a society which regards normal as having parents of opposite sex whom are biological parents - regardless of whether or not that definition is represented by a majority of families in reality - it will be healthier for the children to identify with that concept of normal. To deviate too far from normal, still means being ostricized, denigrated, and even punished by the family, clan, or tribe.
Now, religion says we should abide by the norms and rules laid down in culture’s radically different from that which we live in today. They defend this position by arguing it is not the wisdom or knowledge of Man which dicates what is good, normal, and right, it is the word of GOD which dictates what is good, normal, and right.
The secularist’s believe in the antrhopological and sociological explanations for the norms and values and thus believe that humans can and do define normal for themselves and it changes with the culture, technology, and history of a people.
Thus the issue of gay marriage really boils down to two views. The religious view which states that marriage is an institution of human society as sanctioned and fostered by God, and thus any change in that institution is an affront to god.
And the secular view which states that the human species defines itself through its culture. Therefore, since single parent families, adopted children families, extended families, nuclear families, and marriages without children are all recognized as legitimate families by our culture, the issue of civil unions is in fact, a civil rights issue. For the definition of family from a non-religious perspective is too diverse to be universal or codified and be non-discriminatory based on sex.
Where the centrists and middle majority of Americans lie on this issue is likely between these two opposing views. It may very likely come to pass, that outlawing civil unions of gay couples will violate equal application and protection provisions of our laws. Yet, it is perfectly defensible that churches deny gays church weddings and refuse to acknowledge on religious grounds, the concept of gay marriage as a divinely sanctioned or moral institution.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2004 07:58 AMSanFran- thank you for making my point for me.
“tell me that the sanctity of a covenant that means more to me than any emotion a secularist will ever experience”
If you believe that marriage is your covenant before god, and more holy that anything secularists can experience, then keep it between yourself and god! Marry in your church, take your promises in front of god, and leave the state out of it. Why is the recognition of your church not enough? Are you looking for tax breaks ect? If not, then what else can the secular state give you in terms of moral sanction? I am not religious at all, and I am also straight- when I marry the girl I love, it will be a promise between herself and me that on our word we will live together, raise children together, and take care of each other for the rest of our lives- we do not need the government to make that “meaningfull”, nor should you.
Bert- notice how you were able to only impute the MOTIVES of the person you are arguing with, but you are clearly unable to distinguish in PRINCIPLE gay marriage from polygamy. The reason you are unable to is not because gay marriage is wrong, or being gay is wrong, but because there is nothing wrong with polygamy. Like i said, there is no way in pushing your agenda you are not further the agenda of people who support polygamy and those who will eventually demand the right to marry their own family as a matter of equal protection. Why not be courageous enough to admit it?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 23, 2004 08:27 AMDavid: What a great summary of the broad political landscape of marriage. Well done.
Misha: The logician in me agrees with your view of taking the government out of marriage. Michael Kinsley agrees, too:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/
David and Misha, your posts really speak to the ambivalence I have about this issue. I am convinced that being against gay marriage is equivalent to being against equal rights for gay people, thus it is equivalent to discrimination against gay people. But my view is more complicated than that because I also want to make sure that those who still oppose gay rights(and their numbers are shrinking) aren’t prematurely steamrollered by those of us who fully accept gay people in all aspects of society.
As a recently-married straight man, I obviously approve of the institution of marriage. I have a deep respect for the marriage custom: people who are in love can call upon their family and friends, and indeed their society at large, to help them stay together and be happy in their love. As David points out, children are the primary beneficiary of marriage, and as such married parents (for me, it doesn’t matter if they are different genders or not) should be encouraged to stay together.
Because marriage and parenting are so closely related, however, I find it hard to imagine the details of how the government can be removed from marriage. Issues of parental rights, divorce, death, etc, all affect a child’s well being, and only the government and our legal system can truly resolve these issues. Marriage is a kind of legal contract that has a direct impact on the lives of children. As much as it dissolves the gay marriage question, abolishing marriage has other implications for children’s lives that I cannot fully accept.
It’s a tough issue, that’s for sure. But I am absolutely sure that gay people should not be denied ANYTHING that straight people are allowed, period. To think otherwise is, IMHO, bigotry.
That said, I am willing to compromise. I will hold my nose and support civil unions — despite the obvious “separate but equal” civil rights implications — if such a thing manages to placate those Americans who are somehow disgusted at the idea of “gay marriage” but who very sincerely want not to be bigoted people.
-Cf
SanFran, one could also easily argue that the majority of straight people are morally and ethically disgusting and totally incapable and unqualified to raise children. Most of them seem to be in it either for the sex or the peer pressure. I’m sure you’ll agree that there is precious little love in most straight marriages.
Like you said, not *all*, but the vast majority.
-Cf
Posted by: chris fahey at February 23, 2004 10:13 AMBert:
Thank you for your response. I am only equating homosexuality with incest or polygamy politically. I personally want to be protected from what people do in their private sex lives. Not only is it none of my business, but I go one step further to say that to tell me violates my privacy. As a friend, it would be ok to know “the basics”, such as if you were gay or straight. As an employer, I wouldn’t want to know about an employee’s sex life. (too much info!!)
As a nation, I do not see how we can grant a marriage license to a gay couple and not grant marriage license for polygamy and incest. I do not believe however that when we are looking at changing the law, personal morality or belief system of what I think of a certain variety of sexual activity between consenting adults is relevant or appropriate.
Also, I know some in our society believe being gay is a choice, and some see being gay as occuring at birth. That I am sure is a great debate, but I don’t see it relevant here. At least it isn’t relavant to me.
Protecting civil rights of consenting adults to lead their lives according to their own consience is what I think is important. I just do not know how to do that within the context of a marriage license.
The best idea I have now is with civil unions, because it avoids the pitfalls mentioned above. Also it can be a step by step process. It gives society time to think about unintended consequences. (polygamy, incest).
Thank you for the kindness of your reponse,
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2004 11:41 AMBert:
Just an after thought. Some times brothers and sisters live together for economic reasons. There is no “romance” and no “sex” involved. Many of these committed relationships last life times. They are “loving” and “committed”, just not romantic or sexual.
They probably face most of the same legal issues that gay couples face with regard to inheritance, retirement benefits, taxation etc. One may even wish to adopt a child!!
Should we deny a brother and sister in such a relationship the benefits of a marriage license? It may determine where or not one has health insurance!!
Any ideas??
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 23, 2004 12:05 PMThe the law of the land must be upheld or we risk anarchy
If that were always the case then today we’d still be British!
Posted by: blipsman at February 23, 2004 03:03 PMthe difference between Gahndi, MLK, Thurough and other practitioners of civil disobedience and what Newsome is doing is that they went to jail to prove their point, they did not undermine the rule of law, they stood up to unjust law and made the injustice of the law plain and lead to change. Newsome is not going to spend an hour in jail. He risks nothing and is only making the SF city hall look bad because it contradicts some law while attempting to enforce other laws. I just ask that Newsome and Gay rights activists to engage the public democratic discourse and change hearts and minds, not antagonize the majority. the law that newsome is breaking was passed by 60% of the vote in cali, that means that they need only change the minds of 11%, is that so hard? BTW Judge Moore was also breaking the law when he refused to take the ten comandments out of the court building, when he was duly ordered to do so. He felt strong enough about his convictions that he stepped down from his possition. I think the two situations are very similar becuse they are both politizied illegal behavior, and that is wrong, no matter if they are democrat, republican, green or libertarian.
Posted by: Miguel at February 23, 2004 04:21 PM#1 - Opposite sex unions propogate the species
That seems like a stupid argument, because last I checked you don’t have to be married to have sex.
Posted by: martin at February 23, 2004 07:22 PMWhew! Where do I start?
Miguel - When a law is made, isn’t the penalty for breaking such a law also included? Don’t you find it hilariously ironic no one seems to know Mayor Newsome’s fate for breaking such a law?
SanFrancisJo - I went thru my post several times and have yet to find the word ‘arcane’ when describing marriage.
Misha - In principle, polygamy is when a non-secular act has no footing in a govt based on the seperation of church and state. Gay marriage is not a cult-like quirk, just the demands of ordinary citizens, like you.
Craig - Sign me up for ‘Economically-challenged Brothers and Sisters For Marriage’! Then, maybe we can get them all in one room and finally marry them off to someone equally ‘attractive’?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 24, 2004 06:17 AM
