So I just read this article, and it refers to a state senator in Minnesota that is openly gay but does not support gay marriage (by his own admission):
"Koering thinks the state on the whole is not ready to accept same-sex marriage and that before he can support it, he’d have to see that others are more willing to approve.
‘I think if the gay community really wants to change things they need to go out and change the hearts and minds of people,’ Koering says, adding that he doesn’t see himself as a gay rights “activist.”
He also says that, personally, he isn’t sure how he feels about the issue.
‘This is a tough issue that people are trying to wrestle with and they’re trying to accept it, and I’m even trying to wrestle with it myself.’
‘Just because I’m gay that doesn’t mean I have to be for gay marriage.’
I’ve read through this article several times, and I still do not get this guy’s perspective. I understand that this particular senator is trying to represent his constituency, and I respect that. But I still can’t wrap my mind around this. To me there is a difference here between thinking now is not the right time to press the issue and the fact that he doesn’t know where he stands, even though he says he supports equal rights for everyone.
Anybody have an opinion on what’s going on here? Or am I misreading the whole situation?
My guess would be a struggle with his faith. The wiki says he’s Roman Catholic. I’m also an openly gay Catholic and it’s an interesting thing to be. I’d consider myself very comfortable in both my faith life and my sexuality, but there are still times that I struggle with the fact that my conscience and the church disagree so strongly about something that seems to be a perfectly natural part of me. If I were in a major leadership position, I can’t say I wouldn’t hesitate before supporting positions that go against such a publicized, however minor, belief of the church.
I’m not gay, and don’t know his personal motivations, but it might be a smart move politically. Many reports of the 2004 elections say that the gay marriage issues on many ballots helped turn out conservative voters who then also voted conservative across the board - for president, governor, senator, judges, school superintendents, etc. Pushing too hard might result in a backlash (such as a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage) that sets gay rights back for a long time. Purely from a strategic standpoint, it might make sense to wait a few years.
Being gay doesn’t mean you come complete with a pre-set slate of beliefs. There are gay Republicans, for example, even though the Republican Party is officially anti-gay-rights. They’re utterly and completely alien to me, but they exist.
There are gay men and lesbians on the left who think too much attention is being paid to same-sex marriage, and that this detracts from the effectiveness of campaigns to legislate more fundamental rights for gay folk (like anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws).
Same-sex marriage proponents don’t form a monolithic block that happens to correspond to “all gay folk”.
No, I definitely don’t think that all gay men and women form a monolith of thought. And like jayjay, the idea of being gay and also republican confuses me. My question was less about the strategy to further gay rights by avoiding the marriage issue for now, and more about the idea that one could be gay and one could also genuinely not be sure that they belived in that specific right for gay men and women, which I think MissMossie addressed well.
From the things he’s saying it sounds like he doesn`t realize that if we legalize gay marriage, people wouldn’t have to get gay married. It’s a pretty common mistake people make, not realizing that even when they’re legally recognized it’s still a personal choice two people make that doesn’t impact anyone else. Someone should tell him. Boy I bet his face will be red.
Well think of it this way, why wouldn’t all women support an equal rights amendments. Don’t they WANT to be equal to a man before the eyes of the law? Many don’t, for various reasons.
Why do some people accept limitations on themselves through the religion they belong to?
Why do some minorities like affirmative action? Some are offended by even the suggestion that they may need help and that they are fully capable of pulling themselves up to any level on their own.
Finally if something doesn’t directly effect you, you don’t care as much about it. For instance, if I said “I am gonna put a 50% tax on the top 3% of the money earners in the nation.” Would you really care? You might not think it’s a good idea but you’d probably not be too conserned.
Many gay men have no intention of getting married. They see the issue simply as a problem they don’t have any interest in.
I’m not gay, but there’s a couple of points here that are important to keeping in mind. First, as jayjay mentions, being a member of a group doesn’t mean that a position that is widely associated with being positive for that group is necessarily a position held by all members of that group. For instance, I’ve met plenty of minorities who are against things like affirmative action. In this case, I’ve met homosexuals who have actually said they are against it. IIRC, it was something along the lines that homosexual couples don’t need it to be commited to eachother and it’s more just an attempt to try to change who they are to fit in more with the heterosexual mold.
The second thing to keep in mind, and I think it’s really important for any sort of social issue is that effecting social change through legislation is a bad idea. IMO, the hard push for legislation and judicial decisions in favor of gay marriage in recent years while the majority of the country has not warmed up to the concept has been a catalyst for a lot of the anti-SSM laws that have gone into effect. If they hadn’t become major issues, chances are the legislation never would have been raised or gotten the attention that it did, but because there was a lot of pressure, people got scared and had the knee jerk reaction.
So, not only is this a politically wise move on his part, but as a homosexual himself, he’s probably making a wise move to further his own rights. Yes, everyone deserves equal rights, but these things take time, and as evidenced by the quotes from your OP, it looks like he realizes this isn’t the sort of thing that can happen over night.
OTOH, he could just plain not care. Just like many heterosexuals have absolutely no interest in marriage, maybe he personally has no interest in getting married and thus has trouble understanding why it’s such a big issue for homosexuals and if it’s worth the sort of social upheaval that will result.
There is, sort of, a situation where legalizing gay marriage would almost require someone to get married. I used to be involved in administering an employee benefits plan that allowed people to cover same sex domestic partners. If same sex marriage (or civil union) became legal in their state, they had to go through the legality to keep their partner on their benefits. In part this was to prevent opposite sex unmarried partners from being covered on the premise that, if they wanted to, they could get married. I could see a pragmatic gay person thinking that a subset of traditional marriage was preferable to the full package, with needing to get divorced and joint taxes and whatever all else.
I’m not gay or a Minnesotan but I would prefer my elected representatives not be so pragmatic with basic civil rights. A few gays who actually get benefits for their partners now will have to get married to keep them vs. all gays everywhere finally enjoy a right to marry the people they love, if they want. Seems like an easy call to me.
I agree with everything said so far, especially the fact that just like any other group of people, gays don’t all march to the same drummer. That being said, I have a more cynical take on this. The guy is a politician, and supporting an unpopular issue could be an obstacle to his reelection. Plus the fact that he already has a conflict with his religion that he has to rationalize both to himself and the public. My experience is that gay people who align themselves with homophobic religions and political parties are very good at rationalizing those alignments.
I would disagree. When a man and woman want to get married, they can run to a priest, but when they want to get divorced, they run to their lawyers. It’s all about the law at the end of the day.
Paul not only ‘does not support gay marriage’, he doesn’t even support the concept of faithfulness in relationships – based on his actions in trying to come between committed couples!
Frankly, I have more questions about his intelligence. It’s just plain stupid for a closeted gay republican to go to a gay bar, and hit on the bartenders boyfriend – especially when you are an elected official, and so many people have cellphones with camera capabilities.
Pictures of him – drunk, disheveled, and desperate – were emailing around the GLBT political community here. That situation was what caused him to come out in the first place. Better to come out on your own as a ‘courageous decision’ to 'be honest with your constituents.