The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution is scheduled to hold a hearing on Thursday, September 4. The topic: whether the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is sufficient to block gay marriages, or whether amending the Constitution is necessary.
Given the hysteria on the right over this issue, it's nice to
see a few more conservatives coming out against the proposed
Federal Marriage Amendment. For example, writing in the Washington
Times, Bruce
Fein argues:
Conservatives should squelch a rash constitutional amendment...to prohibit states from recognizing homosexual marriages and thus place the issue off-limits for popular democratic discourse. The amendment would enervate self-government, confound the cultural sacralization of traditional marriage and child-rearing, and clutter the Constitution with a nonessential.
Readers of this blog will know that many "queer" lefties also
lack enthusiasm for marriage equality, while their straight
coalition allies have been largely silent. Richard Goldstein, who
is certainly no friend of IGF, takes issue with his side's
reluctance in a Village Voice piece titled "The Radical
Case for Gay Marriage." He observes:
There's been no crush of Hollywood celebs at fundraisers for this cause. The radical cadres that march against globalization and war haven't agitated for marriage rights. "There is virtually no opposition from progressive groups," says Evan Wolfson of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The problem is a failure to speak out and get involved." From a movement noted for its passion about social justice, this lack of ardor demands to be addressed.
But, of course, Goldstein is hoping gay marriage will radicalize the institution and pave the wave for legal recognition for all manner of unions -- which is what the rightwingers fear most. Once again, the gay left mirrors the religious right.
This
New York Times article by Clifford Krauss on the ambivalence of
some Canadian gays toward their recently achieved ability to wed
has been generating comment. Krauss reports:
In Canada, conservative commentators worry aloud that gay marriage will undermine society, but many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.
It is a debate that pits those who celebrate a separate and flamboyant way of life as part of a counterculture against those who long for acceptance into the mainstream. So heated is the conversation that some gay Canadians said in interviews that they would not bring up the topic at dinner parties.
You know what, nobody is going to force anyone to get hitched. It's a matter of the legal option to wed, for those who wish to do so. Why is that so threatening to the "anti-assimilationists" of the left and the social conservatives of the right?
The Times article also presents this tempered critque of gays
against gay marriage:
"It's the vestiges of a culture of victimization, of a culture that's tied to being in a ghetto," said Enrique Lopez, 38, an investment banker who has been in a steady relationship for two years but says he is not ready to marry. "The vast majority want to live innocuous, boring lives, and the option of marriage is part of that dream."
I'll give the last word to marriage activist Evan Wolfson, who wrote recently in the NY Daily News:
Threat to marriage? How does a loving couple taking on a commitment suddenly become a threat because the couple is gay?
Which is a viewpoint both the religious right and gay left might
well ponder.