Commenting on the surprising recognition of same-sex marriages in Iowa (which officially began this week), the film critic David Ehrenstein recently told the New York Times Sunday Styles Section that, "Iowa is apparently infested with San Francisco values."
This was irony and provocation by Ehrenstein, an often funny and certainly accomplished writer. But there are two commonly accepted claims that lie behind the humor, one of which is widely believed on the pro-SSM left, one of which is widely believed on the anti-SSM right, and both of which are wrong.
First, despite what many litigation-minded SSM supporters might like to believe, court decisions are a poor register of popular opinion. Indeed, they're valued most when they buck popular opinion. There's no evidence that Iowa has suddenly fallen in love with gay marriage, ahead of jealous Californians, New Yorkers, or even Illini. We have SSM in Iowa only because seven judges on the state supreme court say so, not because the state legislature or the people wanted it. The state provided no recognition for gay relationships: not marriage, not civil unions, not domestic partnerships. A poll on the eve of the decision found just 26% of Iowans supported gay marriage, well below the recent national average. SSM may yet survive in Iowa because the state's constitutional amendment process is so procedurally demanding and time-consuming. The evidence so far shows that people calm down about SSM if given sufficient time to adjust, and Iowans may have until at least 2012 to pass popular judgment on the issue, if ever. But make no mistake, if Dubuque could constitutionally implement its "values" as quickly as Orange County can, we'd have a ban before the fall harvest.
Second, despite what many opponents maintain, gay marriage is not a "San Francisco value." It is very nearly the opposite of a San Francisco value in the derisive, libertine sense many gay-marriage critics mean that term. Marriage is about commitment, family, and responsibility. It is not about sexual freedom, individualism, or self-expression. So gay marriage is not, contrary to what one prominent academic supporter of SSM recently wrote, a clash of "sexual liberty" and "religious liberty." We already have sexual liberty and certainly don't need marriage to practice it.
Furthermore, gay marriage is not a cause that many gay leaders in San Francisco or elsewhere easily took up. They were initially resistant and suspicious of it as mimicking heterosexual norms and limiting sexual liberation, which is what they imagined the whole gay-rights movement had been about. They were dragged to the effort by gay conservatives and others who articulated the reasons for it and by gay couples who needed and demanded it.
So gay marriage actually is much more about Dubuque than San Francisco, to the possible dismay of both.
5 Comments for “Dubuque Values”
posted by BobN on
They were dragged to the effort by gay conservatives and others who articulated the reasons for it and by gay couples who needed and demanded it.
Let the historical revisions begin!!!
“Gay conservatives”? In the 70s and 80s? Out? Nonsense.
I’m sure there were a few and they worked with their moderate and liberal brothers and sisters and together moved all our issues forward.
posted by Casey on
Deny your history all you want, BobN, but it’s the truth. The Log Cabin Republicans were founded in the 1970s to help fight the Briggs Initiative in California – where they played an important role in recruiting then-governor Ronald Reagan to our side. And yes, in the age old debate between so-called assimilation and liberation, conservative gays have usually been the standard bearers of the former (we call it just wanting to live a normal life in which neither our rights nor our choices are dictated by our orientation), while the cutting edge of liberal queer thought rejected institutions like marriage as too mainstream – today expressed by the “beyond marriage” nonsense. Andrew Sullivan (in his much more conservative days) was writing about the importance of marriage back in the ’80s, and being attacked for it by gay libertines – and he was far from alone. Like it or not, facts are stubborn things.
posted by BobN on
Gay conservatives, having achieved so very, very little during the rise of conservatism since Reagan, are hell-bent on claiming responsibility for something, anything. Yes, they did contribute, of course, but the idea that the libruls were their enemy in pursuing recognition of our relationships and marriage is absurd.
Andrew Sullivan loves to think of himself as the lynch pin of the marriage movement and, goodness knows, he did a lot to get it in the conservative spotlight and, therefore, the national spotlight considering the governing administration at the time, but the movement started long before he came along and has been hard fought mostly by LIBERALS. That’s not because conservatives didn’t care, but because most gay people are liberals, especially in those parts of the country that have moved the farthest and the fastest on gay rights in general and relationship rights in particular.
Sure, Sullivan “debated” and “argued” with “queer theorists”, but the main point of all that yammering was furthering their own careers. I don’t think anyone took any of the yammering very seriously, do you?
posted by BobN on
So gay marriage actually is much more about Dubuque than San Francisco, to the possible dismay of both.
Yeah, we’re so busy with orgies and such in SF that no one really has time for family…
posted by TS on
Brilliant and VERY metagame. I like this article lots.