So, those of you who oppose gay marriage: Now, *why *is it you care who I marry? I forget why it should be important to you. Can you explain it to me again? Thanks.
Also, there was a rally for gay marriage in downtown Seattle today, and I overheard this old black dude explaining to a couple girls who appeared to maybe be his granddaughters, about how the Homosexuals were trying to get special rights, which they didn’t deserve, because “even Barack Obama doesn’t think they should.”
Thanks, Barack. I get that it would probably have been political suicide to openly support gay marriage during the election, but your silence has been taken as tacit opposition. I hope this was one loony old dude, and not any kind of bellwether.
I am currently reading The Audacity of Hope, and what has struck me most about Obama’s viewpoint is that he really, truly believes in compromise, that the Republicans/conservatives are not evil people out to get the Democrats/liberals, any more than the Democrats/liberals are out to get the conservatives. And until we realize that, and work together to resolve our differences, there will always be political gridlock and problems will not be solved. Obama has said that he may well turn out to be on the wrong side of history. But he refuses to demonize those people, and at this time they do appear to be a majority in this country, who don’t support gay marriage.
I have been a supporter of gay marriage for thirty-two years. When I make political decisions, the issues of gay rights and gay marriage are most important to me. But the more I listen to Obama and read his book, the more I think about how to approach this issue in a way that will bring people together instead of putting everyone in separate corners screaming at each other. I still believe that the opponents of gay marriage are wrong, and that history will judge them that way. But I’m not convinced that telling them that over and over again is going to move us forward. I’m hoping that Obama can find away to bring people together on this issue as well as on other politically divisive issues.
I personally will always be a 100% supporter of gay marriage, and I will always state my position forcefully. But I get the feeling that when Obama talks about those people who call the other side evil, who refuse to compromise, who are so stuck on the idea that they are right that they can’t work with the other side to make progress, he’s talking in part about this San Francisco liberal.
Well I can’t answer as I do not oppose SSM, but I can’t get excited about it either. Why exactly is the word so important to you (as opposed to the rights)? Maybe if you can articulate why the word and its definition matters so much to you then you can appreciate why the word means so much to them as well.
Against Prop 8 but not loudly so and the meat of his position on the subject is this:
He’s been very clear as to his position on multiple occasions. The definition of the word marriage is up to religious denominations and/or states to define. The rights afforded to same sex couples are a matter for the law to protect without prejudice by constructing strong civil union legislation at a federal level.
WEB Dubois talked about the wages of whiteness. Poor white folks might not have much, he said, but at least they had the social status superiority over black folks; and as long as they had that, they damn sure weren’t going to support equal rights for black folks. Social status is relative, is a zero-sum game: when someone else gains status, you lose status.
I say that because I read a very interesting bit recently (from a SSM supporter) pointing out that gay marriage DOES harm married straight people: it reduces their relative status by improving the status of a group that has traditionally been despised. Poor straight folks might not have much, but at least they have their social status superiority over gay folks; and now gay folks want to take away that superiority.
It’s by no means a legitimate argument against SSM: self-interest must be trumped by fairness when deciding on social policy. But it does help me understand some folks’ vicious opposition to SSM.
I think **LHoD **has it down for many people, but there are other motivations as well. Those of low social status are not the leaders of the opposition, and without those leaders the anti-SSM movement would not prosper.
If I attempt to channel the inner workings of those who are most vocally against SSM, I come up with something like this:
“So much has changed in my life, and most of those changes are things I don’t like. I couldn’t hold the line against cell phones and youtube and racy content on prime-time TV and inter-racial marriage and mixed-race people becoming president and the removal of sodomy laws. But this is one thing I can and must fight to the last breath. If there is such a thing as gays getting married, then our country and culture are doomed and my grandchildren will inherit chaos. Are there to be no standards at all any more? I’m so afraid…”
Now, why the word “marriage” matters to me: I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, before gay lib was fashionable (for those who may have forgotten, the Stonewall riots happened in 1969; I was 20 years old). Even among laid-back hippies in the 60’s it was quite common (though not universal) to ridicule and shun gay men. Second class citizen doesn’t begin to cover it. Scum of the earth and something less than human were more like it. I don’t know if you can understand that if you didn’t live through it. Yes, we have come a long way. Legal equality in marriage rights will not be the last hurdle in the way of self-respect, but it is a big one. Why does it matter so much to me? Because it matters so much to them.
Roddy
I also think that you can’t discount the “icky” factor in determining why people oppose gay marriage. A few years ago I was talking to a fairly conservative friend of mine about the gay marriage issue, and he said to me, “It’s just so offensive to think about somebody doing that [gay sexual practices] to me.” I was shocked, because I certainly wasn’t advocating that this married heterosexual man start having gay sex. But as soon as gay rights were mentioned, that’s where his mind went, to his personal distaste for gay sex. This man, while conservative, is not an unthinking bigot, so I pointed out to him that just because he might feel personal discomfort with gay sex, that was no reason to deny others rights that have nothing to do with him. I’m not sure I totally convinced him, but I did get him to understand that support for gay marriage had nothing to do with his own sex life.
I think a lot of gay marriage opponents go to the same place: they feel personally threatened by gay sex, so they oppose gay marriage without grasping that the two things are not related.
I haven’t spoken to that man in a number of years. I wonder how he voted on Prop. 8.
Interesting thoughts. But as far as I can tell, all speculation from people who are in favor of SSM. Is there really no opponent of SSM on these boards who’s willing to explain their position to me? Seriously, please try to convince me that the gender of whom I choose to marry has anything to do with you. Seriously. Thanks.
There are. But I don’t think you’ll get very logical or satisfactory arguments from them. It’s mostly appeals to tradition, arbitrary definitions of what’s natural, and erroneous understandings of the legal system.
Well Roderick that’s a fine argument for the importance of legally enshrined rights but not for the word. And Der Trihs is not just plain wrong, but counterproductively wrong. Getting the rights, at a federal level even, is potentially achievable, but not if you call it marriage. Call it marriage and you can’t even get it to stand in California. Doesn’t that tell you something? Aim for “marriage” and you will mobilize a variety of forces against your cause including some who otherwise would be supportive of the rights that are in question. Not because they are bigots looking for an excuse but because “marriage” has a particular meaning to them beyond the legal rights/responsibilities. Polls support my contention: a majority of Americans approve of “civil unions with the same basic legal rights as married couples” while a larger majority are against gay marriage.
So BrightNShiny (and others), would you be satisfied with a federal law that created a strong civil union that from a legal rights and responsibilities POV was indistinguishable from marriage but was not called “marriage”?
Well, “union” has had a lot of meanings in its history. At one time it meant you were opposed to Scotland staying a separate kingdom from England (and Wales). Then it meant you were opposed to allowing the Confederacy to secede. For the last 100 years or so it has meant a banding together of workers for collective bargaining. There isn’t really a participle or adjective t6o describe your status like “single,” “married,” and “divorced” do: “civilly-unioned”? “unionized”? (sounds like something from chemistry).
We have two institutions in this country, sharing a name: religious marriage, bonding together of two believing people before God (or G-d, Allah, the Lord and Lady, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, or whoever); and civil marriage, the legally recognized institution that grants certain legal rights to two people vis-a-vis each other and against the body politic on formal witnessed recognition of their vows to contract a marriage with each other.
The idea of separating the institutions is a good one. The idea of inventing a new name for one is not. Let the churches decide who may contract a religious marriage within them; let the law recognize civil marriages – not civil unions, domestic partnerships, or contractual euphemisms that may or may not be portable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If you marry in Maine, you’re married in Oregon – by law. Period. If the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of Jesus Christ of the United States of America, Inc., decides that one man and one woman is its official criterion, fine – a gay couple wouldn’t be happy there anyway.
And – and this one is controversial – how about making it a law that anyone who misrepresents the truth in order to force his religious views on others by force of law, gets his own marriage legally dissolved – no choice, it’s gone, and not re-contractable; that’s the penalty for willfully committing election fraud of that sort. “Sauce for the goose” and all that.
In my mind, I envision this as being something that every married couple and “civil union” would do- when they go to pick up their marriage license. That should become a generic civil union license, and allow the word marriage to become a fully religious one. This way a couple may have a ceremony whichever way they choose, and then they can just go to the state and apply to formalize the union within the State, just like we do now w/ marriage licenses.
Or we could just call it “civil unions” but then give them the same licenses as a marriage one, so they’re entitled to all the benefits, and just white out the word “marriage” if we really have to. It seems foolish, but if that’s what it takes, then I guess that’s what it takes.
Here’s something you won’t often hear me say: Der Trihs is absolutely right. If it’s not called marriage, then it’s not the same thing as marriage. If we settle for civil unions, we will not receive all the same rights as married couples. Even in California, which has one of the strongest civil union laws in the country, civil unions do not have all the same rights as marriage.
There are over one thousand rights and priveledges inherent in the marriage contract. If we go for civil unions, we will have to fight for every single one of them. This will take years, and cost millions of dollars. In the extremely unlikely event that we win every single legal battle to get each of these rights, every time there’s a change to marriage laws, we will have to fight another battle to make sure that the change is applied to civil union laws. This will cost even more millions of dollars. All the while, we will have to mount constant defences against people who are seeking to repeal portions of the civil union laws, because they don’t think gays should have any protection. This, again, will cost millions of dollars.
All of this can be avoided by legalizing gay marriage. We won’t have to go through the expense of maintaining two separate bodies of law to govern exactly the same sort of relationship. Gay marriage won’t be vulnerable to directed legislation, because any attempt to weaken gay marriage would also weaken straight marriage.
What’s amazing to me is that anyone in this country still needs to be told why separate but equal doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked in any other social institution in our nations history. Why on Earth does anyone think it would be different for gay marriage?
Yes. It tells me that we have a long and hard fight ahead of us for full equality. What it doesn’t tell me is that we should just give up and accept whatever crumbs straight Americans deign to allow us.
And twenty years ago, they didn’t want us to even have civil unions. Forty years ago, they didn’t want it to be legal for people to be gay in public. Proposition 8 passed by less than five percent. It was a defeat, sure, but the anti-marriage lobby won this one by the skin of their teeth. As disappointing as it was to lose the vote, the fact of the matter is, this is the closest we’ve ever come to winning at the ballot. And every year we get a little closer. And you think we should give up now? Like hell.
No. Because every thing else aside, the name matters to us every bit as much as it matters to them.
Let me expand. I can see why some gays may think that being recognized as being the same exact thing as heterosexual marriage seems to be the “just” thing and why they’d want that. I understand the POV and it’s no concern of mine what you want to call yourself. I am just befuddled as to why the what you call it has taken over and become more important than getting the rights.
But go ahead, bang your head against the wall, use up your resources and political capital on fights over the name instead of focusing your energy on achieving strong federal civil union legislation. Who am I to say that getting basic rights should take precedence over being able to call it the exact same thing? I’ll vote for it either way. But I gotta tell you, if you have me, a card carrying liberal, who would argue loudly for the issue of strong civil union with full equal rights to marriage, just barely in your camp*, then you are not going to win hardly anywhere. And meanwhile rights go on being denied.
*And calling anyone who is uncomfortable with the concept a cryptobigot is unlikely to win anyone over.
It’s simply the way our legal system works. If you have 2 separate legal institutions, then every time a change is made to one of them, in order to keep them equal, the change has to propogate to the other. And it just doesn’t happen that way. Courts will frequently try to keep their rulings as narrow as possible. So a court may make a ruling on marriage and decline to extend the ruling to civil unions. And then we have to wait for a lawsuit concerning civil unions with the almost exactly the same fact pattern to work it’s way through the court.
And even when people are trying to keep two legal institutions in sync, it’s tricky to do. Legislatures make mistakes. The legislature in CA tried to make Domestic Partnerships equivalent to marriage, and they still didn’t manage to do it.
Creating a separate institution that is equivalent to marriage is almost impossible, and I think the people advocating this are seriously misinformed about how our legal system works.
You can’t just snap your fingers and change the name of a legal institution like marriage without causing a tremendous amount of litigation and upheaval. This is a theoretical solution with little practical use.
In the law, words are critical to the meaning of things. Talk of whiting out words doesn’t really make sense from a legal perspective.