Chris Geidner has a good, measured piece at Salon, gently making the point that the gay community does not need to be at war with the President over the Smelt brief. I agree, and urge people to read his essay.
While he does not defend the brief, though, I think he misses the key point. That's even clearer in his blog post criticizing the rhetoric John Aravosis has been wielding. It's not that he's wrong; Aravosis does exaggerate the role that the pedophilia and incest cases play in the brief, and does overstate DOJ's official statement about its role in defending federal laws. But these are disagreements about hot, political oratory, and distract from what I continue to think is the central problem with the brief - its premises.
As I've argued, the constitutional sections of this brief could not have been written but for its central, unarticulated thesis -- that all people are fundamentally heterosexual. It is only from that starting point that anyone could argue DOMA does not discriminate against lesbians and gay men. If all people really could meaningfully marry someone of the opposite sex, then DOMA's prohibition on any federal legal recognition for same-sex relationships really doesn't discriminate against anyone. It is the very model of the "neutrality" the brief continually invokes -- because the world it posits has no homosexual people in it to discriminate against.
That premise is as untenable as it is incoherent. Of course DOMA discriminates against lesbians and gay men. It was intended to discriminate against lesbians and gay men. This calumny deserves the fury that has taken hold in the gay community, and is at the very heart of the acrimony I think most of us now feel.
Everything else is beside the point. This vintage misconception (I'm really trying to restrain myself now), was publicly adopted by the administration, and we deserve nothing less than a substantive and explicit apology for it. From what I've heard and read so far, the administration has never so much as acknowledged that the brief might be reinforcing a notion that is not true - the very one that provides the foundation for the harmful notions about homosexuality gays are spending their lives trying to replace.
Like Geidner, I honestly do not think the President believes this lie. But it now has his name on it. We need to focus solely and relentlessly on getting the White House to see what it has actually told the American people.
7 Comments for “To Unfold the Folded Lie”
posted by George Delmerico on
You are absolutely 100% correct about this bizarre, unexamined premise that everyone is born completely heterosexual, and that a homosexual orientation, as Dr. Laura puts it, is an “objective disorder.” The whole premise panders to the notion that something is broken in these people, something that justifies persecution, exile, discrimination, whatever. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is shameless, ignorant bigotry. This is the absolute heart of the fight!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If all people really could meaningfully marry someone of the opposite sex, then DOMA’s prohibition on any federal legal recognition for same-sex relationships really doesn’t discriminate against anyone.
It doesn’t.
Whether or not one has sex with their partner is not the basis for marriage, and for a very good reason; the argument that your constitutional rights are violated by being barred from marrying that with which you wish to have sex opens the door for exactly that which was talked about in the brief.
Furthermore, as we’ve seen from heroes of the gay community like Jim McGreevey, being “gay” does not preclude you in the least from marrying a woman, having sex with her, and producing children. The fact that this is highly inconvenient to the argument Link is pushing does not make it cease to exist.
posted by George Delmerico on
This is not an inconvenient argument, just an irrelevant one. No one assumes all heterosexuals will fall in love (not merely have sex with) people of the opposite sex–but it’s expected of homosexuals. Either this kind of sexual orientation exists or it doesn’t.
posted by Pat on
Whether or not one has sex with their partner is not the basis for marriage, and for a very good reason; the argument that your constitutional rights are violated by being barred from marrying that with which you wish to have sex opens the door for exactly that which was talked about in the brief.
NDT, I don’t know if, in the past, whether or not one has sex with their partner was an important part of marriage, but it apparently is now. There is always the assumption that 99.9% of the people who get married have sex on the wedding night. Further, not consummating a marriage is one of the reasons for divorce in many states. Obviouosly, there is a lot more to marriage than sex. But I have to say that if there is a problem involving sex in a marriage, that does seem to become a primary issue.
Furthermore, as we’ve seen from heroes of the gay community like Jim McGreevey, being “gay” does not preclude you in the least from marrying a woman, having sex with her, and producing children. The fact that this is highly inconvenient to the argument Link is pushing does not make it cease to exist.
I can’t speak for the gay community, but not only do at least 95% of the gay people I know (most of whom are to the left of me) not regard McGreevey as a hero, but they believe that he has caused more harm than good.
Further, whether one agrees with Link’s argument or not, I think Link gives his readers some credit. Most gay people are well aware that it is not only possible for a gay man to marry a woman, have sex with them, and have children, it has happened all too often. And the results, all too often, aren’t positive (just like the example you provided). So, it’s not inconvenient at all.
This is not an inconvenient argument, just an irrelevant one. No one assumes all heterosexuals will fall in love (not merely have sex with) people of the opposite sex
George, I don’t agree the argument is irrelevant. Same sex marriage will not mean that every homosexual person will fall in love with a person of the same sex. Many persons, straight or gay, will not marry for a variety of reasons, one being they simply do not want to marry. One of the things same sex marriage will do IMO, will encourage more stable same sex relationships, and reduce the number of gay people who marry persons of the opposite sex (who are not aware of their partner’s same sex orientation).
posted by Brian Miller on
Whether or not one has sex with their partner is not the basis for marriage
Actually, that is incorrect. In a large number of states, a legal marriage is not considered officially complete until “consummation” (sexual intercourse). In most states, a lack of sexual intercourse has been, in and of itself, valid grounds for divorce — predating even most contemporary “no fault divorce” laws.
being “gay” does not preclude you in the least from marrying a woman, having sex with her, and producing children
Just as being a conservative doesn’t preclude you in the least from registering as a Democrat, supporting socialized medicine, and voting for Nancy Pelosi. Thus, banning the Republican Party and Republican politicians from running for office doesn’t violate the rights of people, since most people aren’t Republicans (but independents or members of other parties), and Republicans aren’t prevented from participating in the political process if their candidates and policies are banned.
They can just vote for liberal Democrats or third parties.
Makes about as much sense as your argument. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thus, banning the Republican Party and Republican politicians from running for office doesn’t violate the rights of people, since most people aren’t Republicans (but independents or members of other parties), and Republicans aren’t prevented from participating in the political process if their candidates and policies are banned.
The interesting thing there is that the gay-sex liberal Brian Miller draws an equivalency with voting and freedom of speech, which ARE explicitly established and protected as rights in the Constitution, and marriage, which is not.
Furthermore, Brian Miller insists that any sort of limitation on marriage that would affect sexual satisfaction is discriminatory — which means that bans on child marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are discriminatory because they interfere with other peoples’ “right” to marry that which they find sexually satisfying.
posted by Pat on
Just as being a conservative doesn’t preclude you in the least from registering as a Democrat, supporting socialized medicine, and voting for Nancy Pelosi. Thus, banning the Republican Party and Republican politicians from running for office doesn’t violate the rights of people, since most people aren’t Republicans (but independents or members of other parties), and Republicans aren’t prevented from participating in the political process if their candidates and policies are banned.
They can just vote for liberal Democrats or third parties.
Excellent point, Brian. Except, I’m thinking more and more that the Democratic Party should be banned and Democratic politicians should be banned from running for office. If they want to run, they should be forced to run for a third party whose platform they are in complete disagreement with, and stay in the political closet.
Because you know what? If you let Democrats and Republicans run for office, we also have to let 10 year old children, pets, and plants run for office, besides legalizing incest and polygamy.