Marriage & Relationships

Sweaters

by on

I take no pride in saying this, but I’m sort of enjoying watching the President and Mitt Romney — and their assistants — convulsing over same-sex marriage.  Lesbians and gay men have spent lifetimes feeling guilty about being homosexual, dodging the most obvious questions, and trying their damnedest to avoid the subject.  It’s kind of nice to see the shoe on the other foot for awhile.

The White House has outshone the Vatican in finesse, nuance and overthinking in trying to respond to Joe Biden’s comments over the weekend.  The Vice President tried to cut through the bullshit, but the bullshit prevailed.  Jay Carney had to devote half of a press conference to argue that the President’s current evolution has not yet brought him from fish to man.  Ironically, this is the one area where Romney’s folks are begging for a same-sex union between their candidate and the President, whose positions, they claim, are identical.

Actions, though, speak louder than words.  Jim Burroway aptly notes that whatever rhetorical symmetries Obama and Romney may share on same-sex marriage, it’s clear that the President won’t pander to the lingering brackishness of prejudice, while Romney not only will, he will do so with vigor. And David Weigel eviscerates any claim that Romney might have some humanity on this issue, having prominently signed NOM’s atrocious pledge against equal marriage rights.

Politics is ugly, and the politics of prejudice is ugliest of all.  Those of us who have had to suffer the prejudice about sexual orientation know that all too well.  But now that we’re comfortable being honest about ourselves and our relationships, I am hoping we can plead for some mercy for the guilty pleasure of watching some heterosexuals have to sweat it out for a change.

24 Comments

The Repentant Gingrich?

by on

So Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife says that he asked for an open marriage while he carried on an affair with his mistress (now wife) Callista. Meanwhile, candidate Gingrich speaks with a straight face about the sanctity of “one man, one woman” marriage:

“I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman.”

His defenders from the religious right—including Rick Perry—claim that Jesus offers forgiveness and redemption to repentant sinners. Presumably, in their minds, anyone in a committed same-sex relationship counts as unrepentant.

But the distinction they’re trying to make between divorce and homosexuality doesn’t hold up, even on their own principles.

Yes, the Bible speaks of forgiveness and redemption. But if marriage really is “until death do us part,” then Gingrich is still committing adultery with Callista. Don’t take my word for it, however–take Jesus’:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10: 11-12)

This double standard is worth pointing out, frequently, publicly and forcefully.

46 Comments

Allies on the campaign trail

by on

The most interesting thing about Rick Santorum’s responses to questions about gay marriage in New Hampshire may be the fact that they are, in fact, responses.  This is not a subject he brings up on his own — at least not in public forums where he doesn’t have control of the audience.

But in New Hampshire, members of the audience bring the subject up.  More important still, the subject doesn’t just get brought up by lesbians and gay men or their families.  At a high school,

The audience, half students and half local residents, reacted with snorts and applause. The students at Dublin School, which runs from ninth through 12th grade, were primed for Santorum’s visit, said headmaster Brad Bates. He said three students in the audience had gay parents, though they were not among those who asked about the topic.

Those of us old enough to remember back to the 20th Century know how hard it was for us to get gay equality mentioned in public discussions.  While the GOP still has a large contingent of those who’d rather talk about something — anything — else, that’s a luxury these days, at least on the campaign trail in places like New Hampshire.

And you can see why they’re uncomfortable.  Santorum digs in his heels, when asked about equal rights for gays to marry, and insists the subject is polygamy.  To be fair, the questioner frames the subject as the right to happiness, which allows Santorum the easiest way to get to polygamy.

In fact, though, the question is about equality — an explicit constitutional right, not something ephemeral or trivial.  And it looks to me like the audience’s dissatisfaction with Santorum’s obstinacy is based on the fact that that is the way they are viewing the question.

Santorum really doesn’t see this as being about equality for lesbians and gay men.  He believes that marriage is a privilege that government can provide selectively, rather than a right that it is obligated to confer equally.

But that view is no longer unchallenged.  That is what seems to be so frustrating for him.  He expects the references to polygamy to end the argument for everyone else, they way they end it for him.  But he is hearing a different question — about happiness and privileges –than he is being asked.  Polygamy is a different subject, as Jon Rauch has long argued.  It is about the right to marry anyone.  What lesbians and gay men are asking for, and what we have been successful in getting a majority of Americans to understand, is that we just want the right to marry someone.

That is the way these New Hampshire audiences, who are, after all, looking for a Republican to vote for, see the issue.  And I expect there will be more audiences with a similar view of the question in the candidates’ futures.

2 Comments

Where I’ve Been

by on

I’ve been quiet on this site for a while, in large part because I’ve retired my weekly column at 365gay.com, which has since announced that it’s going to shut down.  (I’ll resist the temptation to commit the post hoc fallacy.) Meanwhile I have been working on the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage for Oxford University Press, in which I argue against Maggie Gallagher; we’ve made progress and expect it to appear in Spring/Summer 2012. And I’ll be doing my usual Fall Speaking Tour, so if you’re near one of the venues, come listen, ask questions, applaud, cheer, heckle, or whatever.

6 Comments

Pride and Prejudice

by on

I have never seen anything quite like the Minnesota House debate over the proposal to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.  The amendment passed last night, 70-62.

In the first place, I’ve seen a lot of legislative debates on this subject, and five and a quarter hours is a lot of talking on a single subject.  I don’t think California has ever broken the three-hour mark on same-sex marriage, and that was years ago.

But the length of the discussion wasn’t what made it so remarkable.  While Joe Jervis says, “The vote came after impassioned debate by legislators on both sides,” in fact there was no debate at all.  Every member who spoke opposed the amendment – and did I mention that went on for over five hours?

The only voice in support was the amendment’s author, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who had no backup from anyone in his party.  And even he never weighed in on why it might be good to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.  His argument was about the virtue of legislative abdication.  This shouldn’t be our decision, it belongs to the voters.  In his cameo speaking role, he kept repeating that his opinion on same-sex couples, were he to have one, would be irrelevant to his authoring of the amendment.  The proposal wasn’t about same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, or, really much of anything at all.  He never budged from this non-position, and then went into radio silence, along with every pro-amendment Republican in the body.  One other Republican, Rod Hamilton, did share how deeply he had struggled with his vote, but that was the extent of it.  He, too, offered no argument in favor of the constitutional amendment.

In contrast, John Kriesel, a Republican Iraq war vet, was truly impassioned in his opposition.  He spoke about the American values he fought for, and explained that the amendment was exactly the opposite of what he understood our principles to be.  Rather than Gottwalt’s dodges, or the silence of the rest of his party, Kriesel was eloquent and manifest about his vote: “I’m proud of this.  It’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Three other Republicans and all but two of the Democrats could say the same thing.  So what about those 68 other non-voices, that majority in favor of – nothing?  This is what the public discussion of gay equality has come to on the right, a combination of cowardice and embarrassment.  Again, in decades of paying very close attention to legislatures, I have never seen such a stone wall (you should pardon the expression).  In the past, opponents have always had something to say.  They don’t any more.

That is a testament to the merits of their position.  They are willing to let NOM’s commercials do their talking for them, since even they know it isn’t seemly for elected officials to so openly appeal to the vestiges of prejudice.  Far from having arguments they can take pride in, they want to say as little as possible, knowing that history will judge them badly and hoping to minimize the damage.  That seemed to be Gottwalt’s strategy.  He knew, going in, that the other side had the better of it, and the best he could do was avoid owning up to the position he’d wound up having to champion.

Alone.

So now it will be up to the voters of Minnesota.  How much of the GOP’s prejudice will they be willing to adopt as so supremely important that it is worthy of being placed in their state’s constitution?

The rules for passing a constitutional amendment in Minnesota are tougher than some other states, and that is an important fact.  It must be passed with a majority of all votes cast in the 2012 general election, not just those cast on the amendment, itself.  The increasing support for equality across the nation will also play a role.

But there is one other factor.  Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has said he would fight the amendment with “every fiber of my being.”  That kind of public leadership from the state’s governor can make a difference.  California’s former governor once made a similar promise on Prop. 8; but like other promises he’d made, it wasn’t one he meant.  He spoke not one public word against the amendment, and only offered a tepid statement for use by the opposition.  I urge Minnesotans to do what California could not, hold their Governor to his word.

The rallying cry for this election should belong to Rep. Kriesel, though.  Looking down at his desk, and then up to his fellow representatives, he said, “If there was a Hell No button, I’d press that.”

12 Comments

Making the Case for Equality

by on

This week the libertarian Cato Institute sponsored a forum titled “The Case for Marriage Equality,” with David Boies and Ted Olson, the lawyers in the American Foundation for Equal Rights challenge to California’s Proposition 8. The forum also included Bob Levy of the Cato Institute and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, co-chairs of AFER’s Advisory Board. You can view the complete video, posted here.

If you watch nothing else, watch the last 3 minutes of the video, with Ted Olson’s moving final remarks, here. Olson was George W. Bush’s solicitor general, and famously squared off against Boies in Bush v. Gore.

As the Cato Institute’s Executive Vice President David Boaz points out in his introductory remarks, here, last year federal district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop. 8 unconstitutionally burdens a fundamental right to marry, singles gays and lesbians out for different and unequal treatment under the law, and violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution. (Boaz also ribs Chad Griffin, founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, “Aren’t you glad that the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and Nancy Pelosi were unable to block Judge Walker’s nomination?” (as they tried to do when Ronald Reagan put him on the court).

You can also find audio podcasts of separate interviews with Ted Olson and David Boies here. And Rick Sincere reported on the event for Examiner.com, here.

0 Comments

Friends and “Friends”

by on

I think Andrew pretty much sums up the problem of choice.  We choose our friends, but when it comes to love, the notion of choice is, at best, compromised and subsumed.  Those who argue that homosexuality is a choice view us, and view our relationships, as friendships either perverted or at best gone wrong.  We have often been called, even sometimes sympathetically, “friends” (Uncle Albert and his “friend” will be coming to dinner), but that was a nice way of avoiding the real subject.  It kept the language of same-sex relationships in a closet of its own, a frame that helped everyone cope.

You don’t hear that kind of language from our supporters any more.  Only our opponents are clinging to that outmoded notion of choice.  They think the whole debate over same-sex relationships is about our choice of friends.  They still can’t, or won’t, imagine that the flood of emotions and connections that they recognize as love can occur between two people of the same sex.  I’m sure that a lot of them don’t even think it’s demeaning to our relationships to view them as falling within the kind of choices we make about our friends.  They want us to have friends.  They just refuse to believe that the powerful and mysterious forces they remember and/or experience with love can happen, for some people, with members of their own sex, and are every bit as gratifying and amazing — are, in fact, the same thing they know so well.

All we have been trying to do for the last half century or so (“All!”) is edge the public’s understanding of our relationships closer to what we actually feel and  live.  We have friends, sometimes lots of them.  We choose them and treasure them.  But when it comes to love, we aren’t the ones doing the choosing.  Heterosexuals know that about themselves, and as Jonathan Rauch notes below, an emerging majority of them are coming to understand that we are sometimes lucky enough to be swept up in the same wonderful mystery.

14 Comments

Standing Firm

by on

Thomas Peters (“American Papist”) thinks that the Catholics who support same-sex marriage are just a bunch of phonies, and this makes the Public Religion Research Poll bogus.  I’ll leave the question of who counts as a Catholic to the Catholics, but can’t help pointing out that insulting fellow believers for insufficient dogmatism seldom works out well.  Plus, just as a demographic matter, if (as Peters suggests) the only real Catholics are the ones in the pews every week, the number of American Catholics is wildly inflated by pollsters, social scientists, and the church, itself.

But Peters doesn’t stop at provoking his fellow Catholics.  He goes on to argue that only (only!) 43% of these faux-Catholics support same-sex marriage, and that the higher figure of 74% includes those who support civil unions.  Peters says it’s important to draw a distinction:

In other words, the only way LGBT-funded pollsters can get Catholics (again, lumped in with inactive and less active Catholics) to “support” same-sex marriage is to create a false choice between full same-sex marriage on the one hand, and “no legal protection/recognition” on the other.

As soon as you introduce the reality that there are other ways of accommodating homosexual relationships into civil law without redefining marriage, support for same-sex marriage among Catholics drops off again. And yet we still see the headlines, “Catholics support same-sex marriage.”

How could I disagree with him about this false choice?  I’m all about the compromise.

The problem for Peters, though, is that one of the few people on earth who is undoubtedly a real Catholic thinks that false choice is the only one.  In 2003, Pope John Paul II approved of a document titled, “CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.” Bottom line? “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”  This explicitly includes civil unions which you’d think, by their very definition, might fall outside the jurisdiction of Catholic religious doctrine.  But it’s right there in black and brown and sepia.  These “considerations” were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and bear the name of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who in recent years has moved up in the organization.

I get a bit hot under the collar when people like Peters invoke civil recognition of same-sex unions, and imply they would support that compromise when, in fact, they won’t (Since Peters claims he’s a Real Catholic, I assume he would follow the teachings of the Vatican on this matter).  That has always been the shell game NOM plays, ceaselessly claiming they want same-sex couples to be happy, just not married, and then remaining blithe about the lack of any legal recognition for same-sex couples; they go blank in the eyes at any mention of support for civil unions.

In this, at least, Indiana’s legislature is being honest.  They are getting ready to go on the record as prohibiting any same-sex couple in their state from having any legal recognition, marital or otherwise.   While state statute already defines marriage as between one man and one woman, this constitutional amendment would make it clear to any uppity judges out there that Indianans won’t tolerate wobbliness.

It’s rarer than it used to be to see such open hostility to same-sex couples.  Even politicians who think their constituents want them to be anti-gay are more careful these days, and couch their rhetoric in fashionable tolerance-manque.  But Indiana and the Vatican remind us what steel-toed intolerance — the kind that ran rampant in this country for most of the last century — looks like.

6 Comments