First published in the Valley News, Jan. 25, 2008.
What a non-issue civil unions are turning out to be.
I fully expected that the GOP candidates would leverage New Hampshire's newly enacted civil union law to remind voters that only they will protect the traditional family. I'm sure there were comments made at rallies and in restaurants that I didn't hear and that reporters chose to ignore. But short of Mike Huckabee's statement in the ABC/WMUR/Facebook debate that he and Obama likely held different positions on same-sex marriage, fulminations against lesbian and gay couples simply failed to materialize.
In point of fact, the positions of Huckabee and Obama are much closer than one may realize - no viable candidate for the White House supports same-sex marriage - but consider what the silence in New Hampshire portends. Just a little more than a week before the Jan. 8 primaries, the local papers were abuzz with news of the law taking effect. The steps of the capitol became the Dixville Notch for gay couples as three dozen of them said their "I do's" before family, friends and the media (and at least one cranky protester from Maine) at midnight on New Year's Day. Projections from those in the know suggest that over 3,500 couples will take advantage of the new law in the first year alone. That ain't chump change.
Meanwhile, the local GOP opposition isn't even trying to overturn the law. At present, it hopes to repeal the provision that says New Hampshire will recognize out-of-state civil unions. News flash: Not gonna happen. Gay Vermonters who work in the Granite State are tired of being legal strangers every time we head east across the Connecticut River, and our allies in New Hampshire will rally for us. Besides, four states now have civil unions: Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. Only one has same-sex marriage (Massachusetts.). The trend line says that more and more states will enact civil union laws, and just as in New Hampshire, more and more people will have no objection when that day comes.
Now fast-forward to the spring of 2009. Imagine the next president proclaiming that the federal benefits that attend civil marriage (well over 1,100) would be extended by executive order to all federal employees whose relationships have been registered in one of the 50 states. And imagine that president calling upon Congress to pass legislation to extend those benefits to all couples so registered.
I'm deliberately avoiding the M-word here because for years now I've argued that we as a nation need to divorce the legal benefits of marriage from the religious connotations of the word. I've argued that civil unions need to be available to all. And the collective shrug seen in New Hampshire suggests that a move in that direction is possible, both on a statewide and on a federal level.
After all, most of us intuitively grasp the distinction between a license filed away in a musty vault somewhere and the moment enacted before witnesses where two people wed their lives to each other. The latter, not the former, constitutes marriage. The rest is paperwork.
I do not discount the symbolic important the M-word has for many in our world today, which is why I'm happy to report that people routinely refer to my partner and I (neither one of us likes the word "husband") as married. The state cannot withhold the word or the ceremonial rites of marriage.
The legal rights of marriage, in contrast, are held exclusively by the state. Let's keep prying those rights free from the word itself. One of the fastest ways we can do that is to elect a president who can help make this distinction clearer, who respects all couples for their intrinsic worth and sees their genuine need for the protection of their relationships that only the law can afford. And when the GOP nominee starts squawking about civil unions on the state and federal level, say: You had your chance to speak up in New Hampshire. It's time for you now and forever to hold your peace.
Corvino, John
{ 70 comments }
← Previous Comments
I think Kip’s and Arthur’s original posts hit to the heart of the matter.
I only would add that if “civil unions” are so inoffensive, there’d be no problem with getting federal recognition of such unions that is commensurate with opposite sex marriages. Obviously, such an enterprise attempted legislatively through a repeal or amendment of the DOMA law would be viciously opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike — Nancy Pelosi, for instance, would not even allow it on the floor.
Ergo the core thesis of the original article is flawed, I’m afraid.
Yeah Ashpenaz, you hold on to that anger, nurture it and feed it. That’ll do you a whole lot of good. It’ll be particularly helpful in driving away the gay man you hope to have a relationship with.
Ash wrote, “I want to move beyond reparative therapy into healthy, whole, non-abusive, non-exploitative gay relationships.”
A commendable aspiration. I suspect, however, that your quest is complicated by the fact that you blame ALL gay people for your past suffering, which means that anyone you might meet who is a possible partner, being necessarily gay as well, would be your definition be one of the people responsible for your past suffering. So presumably the first thing you’ll need to get from this attractive total stranger that you’ve just met is to ask him to apologize for ruining your life. Then you can proceed to build a healthy, whole, non-abusive, non-exploitative gay relationship. Alternatively, in the likely event that this does not and has not worked, you might try mastering your own anger, being more rational and recognizing that all gay people cannot possibly be responsible for your past suffering nor can possibly all condone exploitation of teens, and stop your own abusiveness (such as your slanders during this discussion).
I wonder how many women victims of abuse have heard the same advice at Catholic-run women’s shelters? Stop being angry–all men aren’t like that, dear. Many women move from domestic violence into stronger, healthier partnerships with women–do you say to them, “Don’t give up on men, honey, there’s a nice one out there for you somewhere”?
If you were one of those who, in fact, knew that older men were exploiting young, confused gay men, why didn’t you stand up against it?
Back to the topic of this thread–I suspect that those who will work hardest for gay marriage/civil unions are those like me who see lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships as an antidote to the corrosive, abusive gay community which currently exists for the majority of gays. We want an alternative. Those of you who are OK with the way things are really don’t care whether there’s change or not.
“If you were one of those who, in fact, knew that older men were exploiting young, confused gay men, why didn’t you stand up against it?”
How nice of you to ask. As a matter of fact, I did. In 1994, I wrote a commentary taking apart NAMBLA which appeared in several gay papers (you can find it on my website (click on my name above or google Rosendall and NAMBLA), and helped get NAMBLA and other pedophile groups expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association. I produced a pair of concerts that raised funds for DC’s Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, to which I am a regular donor. The local activist group in which I have long been active, GLAA, has advocated on behalf of youth for many years, and successfully pushed for an enhanced anti-harassment policy in the DC Public Schools, among other policy changes. But I bet you won’t give credit for any of that.
No, those who are working hardest for gay marriage are mostly those who believe in equal rights, justice for gay families, and rational, secular government.
As for the abused woman, what I would say to her would depend on how she acted.
If she ranted delusionally about how the entire straight community was complicit in her abusive relationship simply because they know abstractly that abuse happens… if she claims that over 90% of straight people are devoid of responsibility and integrity and values… if she makes leaps from “straight people could probably do more to help abused people and prevent abuse” to “the straight community itself abused me and covered it up”… I would suggest she get help dealing with her obsessive and irrational anger.
Righteous anger is one thing. What you are demonstrating is not righteous anger; long ago you crossed the line into Crazy and kept going. GET HELP.
Sure, Karen, I’ll get help–please send me a list of approved therapists who will explain to me how the gay community is wonderful and I and my friends weren’t exploited or abused. Who will tell me it’s wrong to be angry and that my problems are all self-loathing and internalized homophobia. Who will make me say “I love Big Gay Brother.” I’m sure you have a list from PFLAG.
Dan Savage cares about equal rights, but all he wants to do is incorporate all the abusive, exploitative, and corrosive aspects of gay life into marriage. He, and the many gays who think like him, don’t want to take on the actual responsibility of a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. They want the gay community to stay exactly as hedonistic as it is, and share benefits at the same time. Dan Savage would be content to have his partner drive around, picking up legal-age teens, exploiting them, and then coming back home to share health benefits. Please read his articles on the subject and you will see I am not exaggerating.
I want the gay community to grow up and form adult relationships which involve taking vows of lifelong, sexual exclusivity–forsaking all others, ’til death do us part–and then being man enough to live up to the vows we take. I want the gay marriage movement to be an antidote to the perpetual adolescence and narcissicism which makes up most of the community. I would love to see a gay community capable of self-criticism and even repentance. Simply having equal rights doesn’t mean we have gained any sense of personal responsibility or integrity. If we want marriage, then we have to willing to live up to the high standards marriage requires. Otherwise, the world will see us as simply making a mockery of a cherished institution.
“Sure, Karen, I’ll get help–please send me a list of approved therapists who will explain to me how the gay community is wonderful and I and my friends weren’t exploited or abused. Who will tell me it’s wrong to be angry and that my problems are all self-loathing and internalized homophobia. Who will make me say “I love Big Gay Brother.” I’m sure you have a list from PFLAG.”
Any therapist who isn’t a fraudulent “reparative therapist” will be able to spot your paranoia, obsession, narcissism, distortion, and denial from miles away. No “gay community approved” lists needed, o delusional one.
Dan Savage is not The Gay Community. His opinions have no power over you or me.
I refuse to criticize myself for a characteristic I do not possess. I refuse to repent of a misdeed I have not done.
Amen, Karen.
Really, true progress can only come when we decide that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The state only issues marriage licenses for one reason–taxes. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony and the government should butt out. Why we constantly need the government’s approval of us is beyond me. It used to be Americans were repulsed by government, found it sully and putrid. Now, even religious people seek the government’s validation of their beliefs. The only winner in this game will the government. We need to encourage smaller government before it’s too late. Marriage is not the right path to take. We should argue that the government has no business validating personal relationships. It’s repulsive to even think about it….
“…look at europe, gays didn’t get all their rights all at once. First it was marriage without adoption rights, then they got adoption rights. The name of the game is stepping stones. Today civil unions, tomorrow same sex marriage.”
I’m not too sure where people in America get their news about “Europe” but it’s grossly ignorant. There are no gay adoption rights in Europe. NONE. Of the three countries which permit same-sex marriage (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain–sorry, Scandinavia does not have gay marriage, but civil unions on par with California’s) none permit gays to adopt. In fact, France, which banned nationwide gay marriages in 2006, at the same time banned gay adoptions. The US is decades ahead of Europe when it comes to gay adoptions. Even Alabama does not ban gays from adopting.
James when you make absurd statements like “Every gay man in the world knew this was going on” you have no credibility on anything you say.
You knew it was going on, didn’t you, Randi? You knew that older men were cruising around and picking up young, confused, teenage boys and exploiting them, and that this was a standard part of the gay scene for many years. It still is, though now the cruising is done online. If you knew about it, then you can assume everyone else did, too. Did you speak out against it? If not, how are you any different than those who didn’t speak out against the priests who were doing the same thing, probably to the same confused teens?
We’re not talking about NAMBLA here–sure, everybody condemns that–but what’s your age cutoff for exploitation and abuse? Because some priests and some gay men obeyed the letter of the law and only exploited those of legal age, does that make their abuse less damaging? Is it OK for someone to seduce the 18-year old who mows the lawn, knowing that he might commit suicide later after his father finds out? Would you try to stop one of your friends from seducing his 18-year old lawn guy?
Would you support programs which encourages young gay men not to have sex until they get married? Not for moral reasons–God forbid–but so that they can have time to grow up and make well-informed decisions. Even if they don’t wait until marriage, at least they will have the choice to take it slow.
If we want gay marriage, we have to play by the rules. We have to encourage our young people to wait until they are ready and have sex only when both partners are fully committed to the relationship (ideally, marriage, but realistically, any mature, healthy relationship). We need to model this sort of prudence and responsibility in our own lives so young men get the idea. We need to take vows and live up to them. We need to man it up and take responsibility for the lives we lead and the examples we set.
James, I’ve never been a part of any sort of “gay scene” as you describe, so you’re a liar and you know you are.
And I might add your exact words were “My friend, 16 years old, cruised the Main Street every weekend, picking up men in cars. The older men who were his gay mentors never told him this was wrong, but gave him advice on how to do it better. Every gay man in the world knew this was going on, and no one spoke out against it. It was part of the scene.”. Obviously untrue.
I’m sorry for my unclear pronoun reference. “This” refers to the fact that a large part of the gay scene was men cruising for teenage boys. I’m sure you knew that was going on, even on the streets and in the restrooms of your town. That you didn’t know my friend was one of those specific teens that was exploited, well, OK.
You, like many others, simply stepped aside and let this exploitation and abuse happen, leading many confused young gay men to addiction and suicide. You looked the other way. That makes you complicit.
You, like many others, simply stepped aside and let this exploitation and abuse happen, leading many confused young gay men to addiction and suicide. You looked the other way. That makes you complicit.
Hmmm. Okay. Yep, I’m fully responsible, and it’s my fault. So be angry at me for doing ALL this.
Now what?
Ash wrote (presumably addressing Randi), “You, like many others, simply stepped aside and let this exploitation and abuse happen, leading many confused young gay men to addiction and suicide. You looked the other way. That makes you complicit.”
Ash, you blithely make assumptions about people based on nothing but speculation. You do not know. And you make these assumption about all gay people, which is ridiculously false on its face. I seldom go to bars, and am not part of any “scene,” but over the three decades since I came out my observations have simply not matched your claims. Older men picking up teenagers has not been a significant part of the bar scene. For one thing, people under the drinking age of 21 are generally not allowed into the bars. I don’t know what city you live in, but regardless of what you have observed, even if it includes cannibalism and alien abductions, here in D.C. that has NOT been my observation. So you are just wrong on the facts.
Aside from that, since most gay people are not part of the urban bar scene, any vage, second-hand knowledge they may have of it makes them no more responsible for it than anyone else randomly chosen from the general population. I am aware of a numer of terrible things going on in the world, from hangings of gay youths in Iran to anti-gay murders in Jamaica to the genocide in Darfur. Despite doing what is probably a lot more than most people as someone interested in international activism, my efforts would remain a drop in the bucket even if I quit my job and worked on the cause 24/7. So I do what I can and try to inspire others to become involved as well.
While I agree with the “no man is an island” perspective, I utterly reject your assertion that mere awareness of something makes one complicit in it. You not only make false generalizations about people you don’t know, you overstate your case by a hundred miles. And you are staggeringly presumptuous.
Given that you won’t even give credit to gay activists who actively work to rescue homeless teens from the streets (and I am talking about staff of nonprofits who are bonded and background checked and monitored to make sure that they do nothing improper), it is clear that your anger is indiscriminate, unfocused, unmerited, and sociopathic. You are only increasing nastiness, not helping anybody and certainly doing nothing to promote healing or true responsibility.
Ashpenaz “I’m sure you knew that was going on, even on the streets and in the restrooms of your town.”
You don’t know any such thing. I have never heard of such a thing until your allegations here and given your blatent dishonesty I have no reason to believe you at all.
Ashpenaz said “You, like many others, simply stepped aside and let this exploitation and abuse happen, leading many confused young gay men to addiction and suicide. You looked the other way. That makes you complicit.”
Bullshit. In order to have “stepped aside” or “looked the other way” I’d have to have been in the midst of such allegations and I most certainly never have been. By your logic you’re complicit in the rape of underage girls because you’ve done nothing to prevent it – you’ve “stepped aside” and “looked the other way”. Just because you hung around with drug addicts and gay prostitutes doesn’t mean every one has. I’ve never been a part of any of the “scenes” you allegate and its damn ignorant of you to state that I have when you DON’T KNOW.
Ash I’m a little late to this party, but can I ask you a question? How many 17 year old gay kids, tossed out by their parents, have you rescued? What have you done to help the girls walking the streets of Omaha tonight, selling their bodies to old straight men? How about the Mexicans working in the meat packing plants in East Sioux City under miserable conditions – have you been an advocate for them?
The world can be a nasty place, there are tons of rotten things going on. You just can’t grieve over every bad thing that happens to someone. I’m sorry for what happened to you, but your blame of some monolithic “gay community” is just bogus. And what’s worse, you’re not a kid anymore – for your own sake you have to let go of your anger so that you can find that one guy who will want a monogamous relationship with you. You can blame everyone here if you want, but what good does that do you in your effort to make a life with the guy of your dreams?
And by the way, Wentworth is better looking than Dominic….
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.