February 23, 2004
Gay Marriage and Activism
I’m for gay marriage. I think it would provide a number of benefits to gay people, and a number of benefts to mainstream society’s interaction with gay people. That puts me somewhat outside of the Republican mainstream on the issue. But I am unsure that the judicial path to gay marriage is the path which is most likely to lead to good results for gay people. This is going to be a ‘thinking aloud’ post so if you require firm conclusions and copious evidence, please read no further.
Before I move on I want to mention that in Denmark (where gay marriage has been legal for quite some time) the gay divorce rate is an astonishingly low 17% compared with the 46% rate for heterosexuals. I will have to leave the why of that to someone more knowledgeable, but I note this because it should provide a relatively interesting counterpoint to the notion that the existance of gay marriage somehow damages the institution as a whole.
I aplaud the publicity stunt currently going on in San Francisco. But it needs to be recognized as a publicity stunt. It will do very little to further the legal cause of gay marriage. I think the demonstrative effect of having gay couples wait for hours in the rain for a chance to get married is very powerful. However I fear the next step, trying to litigate the effectiveness of these marriages, is likely to be damaging in a number of ways.
The first is that litigating our way to gay marriage is likely to cause a significant backlash. One of the problems of engineering major social changes through the court system is that it leaves those on the other side feeling excluded from the process. For me the classic example of this is abortion law. If left alone by the Supreme Court, actual abortion laws would probably not be dramatically different today--especially in the first 5-6 months (which is when most abortions take place and which, not coincidentally, is when most Americans are more comfortable with the idea). But by litigating it into a new constitutional right, abortion law was removed from the democratic process. This left a huge number of pro-life voters feeling like their democratic voice had been written out of existence. This was a catalyst for the organization of what we now call 'The Religious Right'. Roe v. Wade was a tremendous organizing focus for the religious right. Even if it had lost 50 legislative battles over abortion in all of the 50 states, it could not have rallied as effectively as it did around the novel Constitutional decision made by 7 Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took an already divisive topic and turned it into a festering wound which 30 years later still gnaws away at the body politic.
Second, and closely related, having these types of changes engineered in the court system takes away from the legitimacy of the courts themselves. On the one had, if a legislature decides to do something new on a close vote, well that is what legislatures do. Courts, on the other hand, are supposed to enforce the law. When interpretations of the law change drastically, without similarly drastic changes in the words of the law, this leads people to believe that judges are injecting their own view into the case rather than being led by the law. Judges are trusted as arbiters of the law because they are expected to apply IT to the cases that come before them. When people begin to suspect that they are changing IT to suit their whims, such people are not going to trust judges. This will be a problem when legislatures really do contradict the Constitution because judges will have squandered their authority on lesser cases.
My unprovable conjecture is that 10-15 years from now, gay marriage will be legal with or without major court cases on the topic, but that if the main route to marriage is litigation it will be a much more divisive topic 10-15 years from now than it would be if it went through legislatures and administrative channels.
If the main path to marriage was legislative, Bush could not say: "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard."
We are so close to winning on gay marriage, but if we act prematurely, or in the wrong venue, we risk turning the issue into a deep fissure in the nation. If we act prudently it could be more like 'Queer Eye'--generally very good, with some grumbling from the fringes. Isn't that worth the hard work of using the legislative process rather than shopping around for a pliant judge?
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at February 23, 2004 02:16 AMSebastian, a very thoughtful study on a subject I also tackled, recently. (I’d be eager to hear your thoughts on my entry, as well.) As a gay man, I can add some insight to your arguments.
The low gay divorce rate in Denmark is not surprising. Gays and lesbians do not have the societal and familial pressures to marry or procreate. Therefore, unions (including many seen on TV lately) are born not only of love, but a mature and clear thinking step, not to be taken lightly.
I partially agree with your point as to the advocacy of the courts. Initially, I thought to challenge your notion of the court’s legitimacy being tainted, by citing Rove v. Wade and the Brown v. Brd of Education. No doubt, the same sentiment was expressed in the face of such sweeping changes, but resistance was clearly muted by one certainty - inevitability. That is whats missing in this civil rights struggle.
Finally, I agree (and am surprised) by your prediction of the certainty of gay marriage, as law, in the not too distant future. I must suggest then, to all those in opposition, in doubt or unsure gay marriage is the right thing to do - have a conversation with a member of a much younger generation.
And, next time you see footage of those protesting on opposite sides of this issue, make note of how age plays a part.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 23, 2004 03:43 AMHave either you Sebastian or you Bert ever actually BEEN to Denmark? Honestly, I went to Copenhagen a few years ago, and maybe a lot has changed since 2001 but I doubt it. Please don’t liken statistics for Denmark’s Gay Divorce rate to probablilities in the U.S.
Danes are a polarized people, friendly for their part but very polarized. Child Pornography runs rampant to this day according to a google search I just did.
On the Civil Rights point, even Jesse Jackson, who assails me for something almost every time he opens his mouth, states that Gay Rights are not Civil Rights. I don’t understand the Attack on the Covenant of Marriage. Why not just leave it at Civil Union and call it good. Give gay couples the right to Civil Unions and all the Medical / Death Benefits, everything but the Tax Breaks, and be done with it.
Married couples who procreate get the Tax break for creating and raising a future Tax Payer. Gay couples don’t… Unless they adopt which I also oppose. The reason this is not a CIVIL rights issue is simple. No part of a gay person’s civil rights are inhibited in any way. Egads, all I do at work is go to perversity training, I mean Diversity training, and learn how I have to be okay with standing in the coffee lounge and watching two male co-workers peck as a shift ends. The only thing Gay couples can’t do is “GET MARRIED.” Which is what, a piece of paper that means the world to Religious people? A document signifying the importance of their union as a testament to each other’s love? Why does it warrant abolition as a government doctrine? Why must the gay community attack it so? Please explain what part of marriage, besides tax breaks, is appealing and that you couldn’t have with civil unions. I’d love to know. DO you want a marriage certificate so that you can wave it in the faces of dissapproving Christians like a war trophy? Please enlighten me as to what the “REAL” agenda is… what are Gay people really after with this whole marriage campaign?
Eagerly awaiting an honest answer…
Posted by: SanFrancis Jo at February 23, 2004 04:16 AMSebastian, that is a great post. I agree that the court stunt is just that, a stunt. And I think that ultimately it will do more damage than good to the cause.
Posted by: rev_matt at February 23, 2004 10:07 AMIn what sense are these “activist judges?” It’s not like they’re going out of their way to rule on things. When a case arrives, they judge it based on the laws of their jurisdiction. The fact is that there are simply glaring contradictions between what state’s constitutions say about equality and the reality of being gay.
I guess I just don’t understand the furor. The judges are doing their jobs. Any person who actually read the laws would see the same discrimination.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at February 23, 2004 10:08 AMWhile I understand that it would be better for such an issue to have the support of the majority of the population, I believe that one of the fundamental roles of the courts is to protect those in the minority from the tyranny of the majority in issues where Constitutional rights are being violated. That is exactly what courts such as the Massachusetts are doing.
In my mind, there is little difference than when courts ruled for women’s sufferage, desegregation of school, protection of minority voting rights, allowing interracial marriage, etc. These may have not been what the majority of the population in wanted — were school integration in the 50’s and 60’s put to referendum it surely would have failed. Probably would even today in some states. Same thing with religious issues — were you to put to a popular vote a rule requiring Christial prayer in schools, you may get over half the population in favor. But it violates the fundamental tenents of our nations founding.
The issue regarding gay marriage is just the latest such issue where the majority is trying to withhold equal rights from a minority group. There is absolutely no reason on a secular, governmental level to forbid such marriages. Why does anyone care if same-sex couples want to jointly file taxes, have the same legal rights and obligations in regards to guardianship and inheritance, be able to provide health insurance for their partner, etc. The reality is that these couples love each other and are living together in committed relationships.
I don’t understand the Attack on the Covenant of Marriage.
Your church is free to not acknowldege homosexual marriages. This government, however, should not be - it’s a secular institution. My personal belief is that the government should stay out of marriage altogether - grant civil unions only. Let the churches handle their marriages the way they want to.
Married couples who procreate get the Tax break for creating and raising a future Tax Payer. Gay couples don’t…
I suppose you’ll be refusing marriage licenses to elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples planning on not having kids, then?
Please explain what part of marriage, besides tax breaks, is appealing and that you couldn’t have with civil unions.
Well, then, we’d best be banning heterosexual marriage, too. After all, explain what part of marriage, besides tax breaks, is appealing and that you couldn’t have with civil unions!
Posted by: ceejayoz at February 23, 2004 10:56 AMSanFran,
Why not just leave it at Civil Union and call it good
This comes across to me as though you are frustrated that gays aren’t happy with just the Civil Unions they already have. In fact, very few states offer Civil Unions. Many advocates of gay marriage would be fully happy with Civil Unions, but they can’t get them!
Please explain what part of marriage, besides tax breaks, is appealing and that you couldn’t have with civil unions.
For the most part, the reason gays have been getting married in San Francisco and New Mexico is that Civil Unions are not available to them. There is no option for them that allows them to have tax breaks, insurance rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, pension rights, real estate rights, Social Security rights, etc. besides marriage! Many of the couples would have gotten Civil Unions if those were available.
Part of the problem you will have with the debate for a long time is that you have a religious concept of marriage. For you, gay marriage is an affront to the Christian concept of marriage that you hold sacred. What you need to recognize is that people seeking gay marriage are not asking your church to sanctify their vows. They’re asking for secular society to recognize their commitment. Some have a religious background and have religious connotations to the institution, but many don’t. So they’re not “Attack(ing) the Covenant of Marriage”. They’re asking for a civil recognition that happens usually comes together, but is a completely different concept.
Posted by: LawnBoy at February 24, 2004 04:06 PMSanFransisJo -
You say:
Married couples who procreate get the Tax break for creating and raising a future Tax Payer. Gay couples don’t..
But that’s not the case. The tax break you get for raising a future taxpayer is being able to claim each of them as a dependant. Two people can be married, have no children, and still recieve a tax break for just being married.
Personally, I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business in the first place - but they’re gonna be, then I’m FOR gay marriage and AGAINST Civil Unions. Civil Unions just kinda smack of that old “seperate but equal” thing - and we all saw how well that worked out back in the day.
Plus, I think Republicans have to forfeit the term “Party of Lincoln” if they’re going to try writing bias into the Constitution. In fact, what with governement spending through the roof and all, I think he Republican Party might as well drop “Republican” too. Special passes will be given to McCain, Graham, and Snow.
The Party of Lincoln, the G.O.P., is officially dead. It’s time today’s neocons embraced their true roots: Dixiecrat!
Posted by: Al Lawson at February 24, 2004 09:24 PMSebastian, you wrote an article I can’t find argument with based on principle or perspective. Took the wind out of my sails on this one. I trust you won’t make a habit of this. :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 24, 2004 09:56 PMAl. Actually married people pay a higher rate of tax than equally earning individuals. They call it the “marriage penalty” and while it has been reduced it is still there.
Makes me think WJC knew what he was doing when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act; it actually saves same sex partners from the marriage penalty.
Posted by: George at February 25, 2004 01:01 PMGeorge:
“The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that more than 20 million married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single, giving rise to a marriage penalty. However, it is important to consider that CBO also concluded that another 25 million couples receive a marriage bonus, which means that their taxes are lower as a consequence of marriage.
More specifically, CBO has estimated that in 1996, just over half of all married couples received marriage bonuses, saving them $1,300 per couple on average. At the same time, a little more than 40 percent of couples incurred penalties, averaging $1,380 per couple.” - http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/marriagepenalty.html
No fault divorce has been the biggest threat to marriage. Unless the Congress endorses “one man, one woman, one lifetime,” a Constitutional amendment will not help society.
Posted by: Jason at February 26, 2004 11:22 AMWhat is the big issue over same-sex couples wanting to get married? Church and religion is constantly being brought up when it comes to same-sex marriages. What happened to seperation of church and state. It is the state that issues the license not the the church. You only have to marry in a church if you choose to do so. The way America is going today who cares if people of the same-sex marries or not. Majority of people in Amwerica today doesn’t even know what a committment to a marriage is about anymore anyways. Heterosexual marriages are going down hill. Constantly divorcing and children growing up in single house holds anyways. And by the way there is a whole lot of adultry going on too among heterosexual couples. Where is the church issue in all that. Today’s children just want two parents in the household whether they are opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples. And same-sex couples who have children well they are getting over on the goverment anyways every year at tax time. Let the Federal Goverment chew on that one.
Posted by: Cat at March 4, 2004 09:54 PMi think that gyas should not be able to be married it is in the bible that we are to be with oppisite sex it is adam and eve not adam and steve dont get me wrong i have a brother that is gay ,and i love him more than anything but i do not support the idea of gays to be married i mean thats just gross. would you want to walk down the street and see other women on ecach other i wouldnt.
Posted by: Britt at March 10, 2004 01:41 PMDoes anyone else feel like the Republican Party has left them? It has run so far to the right that it is making Democrats look like conservatives. Are there any true conservatives left in the party? If so, why don’t they speak up about this gay marriage crap instead of the extreme right continually dominating the party—church and state rings a bell here.
Whatever happened to pro-family, smaller government, balanced budgets, strong defense, strong dollar….none of it seems to matter to the Bush Republican Party. Next thing you know they will be calling for a ban on inter-racial marriages and eventually going back to dis-allowing women the right to vote. I long for the days when R stood for Republican and not Right Wing Religious.
- A privately religeous and still-registered Republican.
Posted by: wayne at June 11, 2004 11:53 PMThe fact is gayness is NOT natural! Just because you have an urge do do something doesn’t make it moral or right. EVERY argument supporting gay ‘marriage’ could be used to support the ‘right’ of ADULT siblings to marry each other or even parents marrying their ADULT kids. Where does the madness stop?
If being gay is ‘natural’ then I guess the urges felt by those who lust after kids is also natural; after all they were ‘born-that-way’ too! How dare we ‘judge’ or limit the rights of pedophiles to possess photos of naked 3 yr olds!!!!
Bottom line, anything outside a man and a women (ADULTS) who are not related being married and having sex is WRONG and disgusting. If everyone stuck to their married-to partner the self-inflicted disease called AIDS would go away.
Posted by: Jim Britt at July 18, 2004 12:38 PMOne more comment. The biggest problem with so-called gay marriage is that it opens the doors to perverted people adopting and corrupting innocent children. A child NEEDS both a mom and a dad as any sane person would realize.
Being raised by 2 men or 2 women gives a kid a distored view of the world (look how many kids that are raised without a dad in house turn to gangs and crime!)
Posted by: Jim Britt at July 18, 2004 12:42 PMAll of the witnesses in Baehr v. Miike — both for the plaintiffs and the defense — said that, on average, gay and lesbian couples are as loving as are opposite sex couples, and are equally as competent as parents. Since that court hearing, there have been many additional studies of the competency of gay and lesbian parents. Those conducted by groups opposed to same-sex marriage have generally found that homosexual parents are inferior; those conducted by groups that support same-sex marriage, or which have no preconceived position have generally found that gay and lesbian couples are equal or superior to opposite-sex parents. Children parented by lesbians or gays have been found to be no different from those raised in an opposite-sex household “…on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem.” Also, no significant differences have been observed in regard to “teachers’ and parents’ evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences.”
EVERY argument supporting gay ‘marriage’ could be used to support the ‘right’ of ADULT siblings to marry each other or even parents marrying their ADULT kids. Where does the madness stop?
The goal of the groups promoting same-sex marriage is very specific and limited. They assert that a man should have the same right to marry a man that a woman already has. Likewise, a woman should have an equal right to marry a woman. This does not have to imply that any other right not expressly granted is up for grabs.
Posted by: Tristan at September 21, 2004 04:21 PMIf I can have the soap box please…
Marriage is like that new toy and opponents to gay marriage are like the two year old who has not yet learned how to share. Mine! Mine! Mine!
Maybe we should just wait, eventually straight people will destroy the institution, which they are well on their way with a 60% divorce rate. Thats when we step in and take it from them. We can even slap their wrist if we want to.
Pet peeve: Comments like “I have nothing against gays, but do they have to do that kissing in public. Of course I dont like when straight people do it either”. Although they have no issue with television and other forms of media that average some form of heterosexual intimacy every twelve seconds.
Pet peeve: Living in a country where your President hates you. I’m sure “faggot” has slipped through his lips on many occasions.
Pet Peeve: As a nurse I do not have the luxury to descriminate against those I care for. It is acceptable for me to save the life of those who oppose same-sex marriage, yet not acceptable for me to marry the man who saved mine. Furhtermore, I can be fired for being gay, have no same-sex partner benefits, and no other rights in times of crisis.
Pet peeve: Log Cabin Republicans. How many times do you need to get slapped in the face before you learn your lesson. (campaign contributions returned from a party that does not want anything to do eith you.)
Pet Peeve: The Catholic Diosese of Boston having to close dozens of churches against the protestations of their faithful, (payment in retribution for destroying the lives of those they molested.) Simultaneously in Massachusetts the Catholic Church spending millions of dollars to in a mass mailing campaign to the catholics to fight same-sex marriage. Do catholic people have no spine? No courage? I guess not.
Pet Peeve: There is a quote, “let us marry each other and we will stop marrying straight people.”
Organizations that believe that gays can go straight are disillusioning the public. I find it facinating that any woman would want to marry a “former” gay man. Of course there are plenty that are married to a current one. This is all thanks to those who are vocally opposed to gay people, forcing them to living a “faux” staight life.
Pet peeve: If you do not want to give us marriage then you must allow for gay people’s taxes to be reduced by the amount that’s equal to all that is spent on schools, bussing, welfare, WIC, etc… If you want us to share the tax burden that staight people have created by overpopulating this small planet, then you need to give us an incentive.
I used to worry about what that faceless homophobe that I didn’t even know thought about me. I was concerned at how I was percieved by others. Now, what concerns me is my relationship with my legally married husband and the wonderful life we share. Don’t get me wrong, i love straight people, my family, friends, co-workers. people who may have had a bad impression of gay people but have met me abd changed there mind. The reason we will be successful in our fight for equal rights is that our opponents “hate” us, and we don’t hate back. Fortunately, there are organizations whose sole purpose is to keep homosexuals from getting any rights. There are people who get up every morning to oppress others, this is their job. The general population is starting to see this and realizing this is not right. In fact it is very wrong. It is hateful.
Remember one thing, people who truely “love” you will not try to change you.
The subject of same sex marriages should not even be up for debate. Its got nothing to do with tax breaks or anything else, marriage is not, in the first place, a man made institution it was created and formed by God. Refer back to the new testament where it was ordained by God for the union of man and woman to be united by God to form one, in order to have children. Firstly someone explain to me how that is going to work with same sexes, I think not. Same sex couples should be happy living together.They do not need marriage, they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Every decision and choice one makes here on earth, there’s sometimes going to be a consequence and a sacrifice, this is one of those times. The bible is very clear on this subject it is not up for debate and it is not something we should tamper with and try to update to our times, marriage is not outdated. If one tries to change God’s laws, one is treading on very dangerous ground, just look at past history. Its very ironic as the bible is used in the ceromony of marriage, so to try to ordain a same sex couple in marriage is just not going to work.
Posted by: eve at October 7, 2004 06:24 AM
