In response to recent defeats on the marriage equality front, some progressives are returning to a view they unleashed when the marriage debate began but have been soft-pedaling since: that marriage itself should be knocked off its perch as a "privileged" relationship, and government should instead provide support to all manner of cohabitating arrangements. A new "Beyond Marriage" manifesto backing this view was issued last week, signed by some 250 left-liberal LGBT activists.
Washington Blade editor Chris Crain responds in Revenge of the Anti-Conjugalists, writing that "realizing the Right's worst fears" - about gay marriage being the frontline of an attack against marriage itself - "is the last thing our movement needs to do at this critical juncture."
Note: The progressives want various non-conjugal relationships to receive access to "all vital government support programs, including but not limited to: affordable and adequate health care, affordable housing, a secure and enhanced Social Security system, genuine disaster recovery assistance, welfare for the poor" and so on. This makes their argument distinct (if superficially similar) to the view expressed by some libertarians that government should simply get out of the marriage-sanctifying business and leave that to private religious institutions and contracts.
Update. No surprise; social conservatives have picked up on the lesbigay left's new manifesto. Robert P. George writes in First Things:
The choice facing us as a nation is this: Either we retain as legally normative the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman, or we give legal standing and public approbation to every form of consensual sexual partnering and child rearing, including polygamy and polyamory. Just ask those notable "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied activists, scholars educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers." They'll tell you exactly what lies "beyond gay marriage." They already have.
And the rest of us are the ones who have to deal with the fallout.
14 Comments for “If You Can’t Join It, Destroy It”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Washington Blade editor Chris Crain responds in Revenge of the Anti-Conjugalists, writing that “realizing the Right?s worst fears” ? about gay marriage being the frontline of an attack against marriage itself ? “is the last thing our movement needs to do at this critical juncture.”
I think that Chris Crain and everyone else ought to keep their pants on, instead of flipping off into a panic.
It is not as if gays and lesbians questioning the drive for marriage is anything new.
The gay and lesbian community has always had a contingent that has felt this way, arguing that the last thing gays and lesbians should do is adopt an institution that is oriented to heterosexuals need to keep sex under tight control in order to provide stability for child-raising. I have lots of good friends who have no use for marriage at all, and think that those of us who are pushing hard for marriage equality are fools of the first order.
I am astonished to hear Chris Crain suggesting that such voices should be “silent” because their voices are politically inconvenient.
All voices should be heard, and the worth of the ideas we put forth should be decided in the marketplace of ideas.
Gays and lesbians, as everyone over the age of forty knows, spent decades fighting against being “silenced”. We have no business joining our oppressors by trying to enforce a “gay orthodoxy” on marriage or any other issue.
What I would have liked to hear on this blog is a strong defense of the value of having numerous and conflicting opinions in the gay and lesbian community. Instead I get more nonsense about “liberals and progressives”.
Steve, I think you need to take a deep breath and consider the positions you lock yourself into.
A year or so ago, you were pounding the “liberals and progressives” for screwing up the works by insisting on marriage instead of civil unions. Then you moved to pounding on the “liberals and progressives” for not stopping the lawsuits. Now you are pounding the “liberals and progressives” for opposing marriage.
There’s a theme here, of course, but you might be better served to think through the issues, decide what your own position is on marriage versus civil unions versus developing our own institutions — decide independantly of whatever you hear those who you percieve as “liberal and progressive” saying — and start blogging from a point of view — whatever position you adopt.
I don’t agree with 80% of what “liberals and progressives” stand for — I’m an unreconstructed Goldwater conservative, after all — but the continual pounding on “liberals and progressives” as being the source of all evil, no matter what position you perceive them to taking at any given moment, is getting silly.
posted by Avee on
Tom, your comments are like a broken record; criticizing Steve for criticizing the gay left. Well, you know what, that’s Steve’s viewpoint and this is his site. Why, oh why, do you comment on every item to let us know how littled you think of this blog that you can’t keep away from (hey, I bet you have it on your RSS!)?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The reason why the letter was being written by all these “progressive” activists is simple — the gay movement is “veering out of control” of the self-appointed leadership.
For years, the gay “leadership” grabbed itself fat paychecks and fancy parties by promising the Democratic Party that the “leadership” set the agenda. Then came all of these silly grass-roots sorts who pushed for the issues which were important to them — their families, marriage, etc.
“How could this happen?” cried the disaffected. After all, these were goals directly in opposition to the Democratic Party agenda! Thus, I have little doubt that many of the “progressive leaders” cheered to no end with the last two state court rulings.
Take a look at the “gay agenda” they present. Government socialist health care, government-paid housing, Social(ist) Security, increases in welfare payments. There’s nothing “gay” in any of that. Why is that?
This is the last gasp of the self-appointed “gay leadership” to corral gays back into the Democratic Party pen. We’re supposed to stop caring about, well, GAY issues and start caring about socialist ones.
This gay never cared for such things, and I suspect the gay community will react to this latest cynical effort to Clintonize the gay movement with a mixture of hostility and disgust.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Avee: “Tom, your comments are like a broken record; criticizing Steve for criticizing the gay left. Well, you know what, that’s Steve’s viewpoint and this is his site. Why, oh why, do you comment on every item to let us know how littled you think of this blog that you can’t keep away from (hey, I bet you have it on your RSS!)?”
Yes, granted, Avee. I come because the comments and the discussions that flow from them, are interesting — take the recent discussion on the draft, for example.
But I can see that commenting on the formula (a liberal or progressive wrote x or not-x, isn’t it horrible, the GLBT movement for equality will never succeed if liberals and progressives have a viewpoint that will offend the right) is like a broken record, as is the formula.
But you are right and I’ll take my own advice. I will stop commenting on the formula and limit myself to commenting on what I believe and think.
I won’t bother to recast my comment above, but I’ll parse it to this:
The view that gays and lesbians should not seek marriage but develop our own social institutions has been a part of the gay and lesbian movement for well over forty years now. I don’t agree with gays and lesbians who think that way. But I’m glad that their voices are being raised loudlyu, because a “gay orthodoxy” is settling into the community around marriage, gays and lesbians need to hear all points of view. Gays and lesbians lived in silence for decades, afraid to offend those who were using the laws and our culture to oppress us. It isn’t our variety of ideas that will kill us; it is cooperating with those who wish to silence us, and to hell with folks who don’t like hearing all points of view.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
I have a friend that supported the “Marriage rights for all or none.” I certainly understand the response, and in some respects have it myself. Why should I support the 1349 special rights (per GAO report to Mr. Bill Frist) extended to heterosexual couples when I will be denied the most basic of those rights. The legal paperwork we are assured will protect our wishes can be challenged by bio-family or ignored by providers with little or no consequences.
Marriage equity is a “gay issue.” And it is one that deserves better discussion amongst ourselves.
posted by Mike on
Very well put, NEL!
posted by Randy R. on
I can’t believe that some in the gay commnunity are saying that we should all shut up because we are scewing up the agenda. If they are worried about what our enemies think, then they are the worst culprits: By assuming that there is one voice and one central authority by which we make our opinions known, it feeds into their worry that there is a ‘homosexual agenda’ that we all subscribe to.
We cannot define out rights and arguments based on what our enemies think or believe: we must base them upon what is right, for surely that is what will win out in the long run. Everything else is just distraction.
As for the argument itself, it’s baloney. I have quite a few straight friends who believe that the state should be out of the business of marriage altogether, that ‘marriage’ should be left to churches only, and that the state should allow civil unions to all, gays and straights. Now if our striaght allies are saying this, is Chris Crain going to tell them to shut up too, because, you know, it just might upset the religious right? What nonsense.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I can’t believe that some in the gay commnunity are saying that we should all shut up because we are scewing up the agenda
Actually, the irony is that the signatories of the petition are doing just that — they’re demanding that gay grass-rooters stop pursuing their own right to protect their families to support some Peter-Pan-esque pipe dream of “sexual liberation” which not only has little relevance to most gay families but also has little application outside of select groups in the big cities.
Now if that’s what they want, they should have a right to it (and I’ve long argued that government should be out of the marriage business altogether — government has no right “promoting” or “making difficult” one’s personal intimate relationships). However, it’s the signatories who are demanding the grass-roots shut up and let them lead again.
Ironically, the North Dallas Thirty persona has hopped in bed with this far-left motley crew in his own disdain for gay marriage. Remember when I said there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between so-called “liberal Democrats” and “conservative Republicans?” They both want to control your life and use their own hangups to govern your personal decisions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now if that’s what they want, they should have a right to it (and I’ve long argued that government should be out of the marriage business altogether — government has no right “promoting” or “making difficult” one’s personal intimate relationships).
Then you should be supporting them.
But instead, your “libertarian” principles go right out the window, as the rest of your post shows.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
I can’t believe that some in the gay commnunity are saying that we should all shut up because we are scewing up the agenda.
What agenda? The time is long past when there is any cohesive “agenda.” We’re at the point where there are specific issues that parts of the community might cooperate. But it isn’t likely…since the various ends refuse to cooperate on partisan principal.
posted by MadeMark on
I’d like to think there are plenty of people who will simply read the manifesto (or anything else) and determine for themselves if it has anything of value to offer. As an agenda it’s not going anywhere any time soon, but it does have many thoughtul and thought-provoking things to say. One of the reasons some people want to get married (aside from the romantic illusions of the whole thing) are simply to obtain benefits, specifically health insurance, for a partner. Poor gay people are especially disadvantaged in this area, but I doubt many of them read Independent Gay Forum. They are quite busy surviving.
There is a reason marriage rights are a much lesser deal with gays in Canada (look it up) – they already have universal health coverage and other protections. Were the United States to be a more equitable country, fewer people would be salivating over ‘rights’ that the state ought to be providing anyway. And I noticed partiuclarly the statistic showing the vulnerability of gay seniors. Being nearly 50 myself and not unduly enamored of marriage, and having older gay friends who are in this very precarious position of lacking adequate health care, I find the marriage movement to be based more on cultural pressures of everlasting love and romantic saviors(esses) than on any real belief in social justice. Anyway, pardon the ramble, I just think it’s great that there are progressives out there, and conservatives out there, and all the in-betweens and wheretofores. The vitriol that takes root and grows so well in ‘the blogosphere’ is a phenomenon someone should right about. Very little kindness, while an abundance of anger and contempt. How independent is that?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Then you should be supporting them.
Are you really so thick as to not be able to understand the difference between supporting someone’s right to his or her own beliefs, and supporting the beliefs themselves?
I support their right to say or thing or act however they want. I don’t support the principles they’re fighting for, and find it profoundly ironic that you’re so enthusastically endorsing their agenda. You big old leftist, you.
posted by Anthony on
I am going to take a serious risk here and offer an opinion. I think that gay people in America have far too much time on their hands to complain about this, that and the other thing. Suggesting that marriage is akin to blacks gaining their full civil rights decades ago is silly. I can’t think of a single gay person who’s been denied housing, the right to vote, told to sit in the back of a bus, been denied the right to sit at a lunch counter with straights, on and on and on. Yes, we are currently denied the right to marry, but how many gay people would actually undertake the responsibilities of wedlock if it were offered nationwide? I doubt the numbers would be very strong. Gay Americans ought to take a long look at what’s going on in the Middle East with the conflict between Israel and Muslim extremist terrorists. Gays can killed for simply being PERCEIEVED as being gay. Women are basically property in many of these countries and yet we’re obsessing about marital rights. If this country we live in doesn’t keep up the fight against such extreme beliefs based solely on so-called religious conviction then we’re going to face the same type of zealous theocracies that now dominate those Muslim nations. I know there will be people who will suggest that the Bush White House and the GOP are just as radical but that’s simply a lie. Nothing more or less. Wake up folks. We can have debates about gas prices, the minimum wage, taxes and other things because those are legitimate. Would I like to marry my partner? Of course. Unfortunately, the folks pressing this whole issue on both sides have made it virtually impossible to have the more practical and acceptable civil unions option. I am one gay man who loves this country and while I don’t agree with some of its policies and would like to see gays be more accepted, expecting or demanding legislators to affirm who and what we are isn’t the answer, at least in my view.
posted by raj on
Anthony | August 2, 2006, 8:31pm |
This argument is a perfect example of the fallacy of relative deprivation. Why shouldn’t gay people push for equal rights, when it is clear beyond peradventure that they are being denied them?
To a lesser extent, it is also a perfect example of the fallacy of generalizing from incomplete sampling. Just because you may not know someone who has been denied housing, etc., because they were gay, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t occur. For example, when I was in college, I, myself, was thrown out of a rooming house after the proprietor discovered that I was gay.