IGF CultureWatch

After I wrote recently about the impediments--or lack of inducements--society presents for gay men to become adults, a reader referred me to an article on "Gay Adults" by Los Angeles psychologist Don Kilhefner in the magazine "White Crane."

Although the article contains too much Radical Faery politics and spirituality for my taste, Kilhefner's main point about the need for recognition of "gay adult" as a stage in the gay life-cycle is important and he develops it thoughtfully.

Kilhefner writes that one time after a public discussion about gay men's lives during which he discussed gay adulthood, "a bright, 30-something, gay man ... shared that he had never heard of the concept of a 'gay adult' ... and he found it intriguing. He always heard people talking about "older gays" and "younger gays" but he had never heard of gay men having an adult stage of development."

Maybe things are a little worse in the Hollywood fantasyland of perpetual youth, but perceptions are probably not much different elsewhere.

Kilhefner critiques the rationales (or excuses) offered--that I too have offered--for why gay men so often seem not to mature into adulthood.

Consider the supposed delayed adolescence of men who come out in their 20s. He points out that adolescence normally lasts about eight years at most. So, he wonders, "why am I seeing large numbers of gay men in their late 30's, 40's and 50's still thinking and acting like 20-somethings?"

He acknowledges that AIDS took the lives of many of the gay 30-65 generation, but cites CDC estimates that only 8-12 percent of gay men have died because of AIDS. "Where are the remaining 90% of gay men who are not missing in action?" he asks pointedly.

His critique of the "absence of children" argument is the weakest, depending on his notion that gays as a group have some purpose and that purpose is "the spiritual survival of the species." That sort of unprovable metaphysical speculation won't convince many people. But I think better arguments could be offered: Gay men who marry or otherwise join their lives to a long term partner generally act more mature. And even single men who see their own immature behavior mirrored in younger gay men eventually find the sight distasteful and abandon it.

I think there are counter-arguments to each of these, but they may be only partially successful so the critique of gay immaturity has considerable force and deserves a serious hearing.

There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers. They run gay businesses, the gay cultural institutions, the gay bars and clubs, the community health and social service organizations. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.

Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group. It is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.

For those who do not know how to stay involved: We need gay adults to volunteer at gay organizations, to serve on committees that can use their skills, to hold a fund-raising house party, or even start a new organization or group when the need arises, as all the AIDS organizations once were.

From time to time, I get emails from readers saying, "I wish there were a group that ..." to which I usually reply: "Start one!" Gay adults are the ones with the knowledge and self-confidence to be entrepreneurial about such things. (For instance, a young artist I know is currently forming a gay artists and art photographers network.)

And we need gay adults to engage in an unobtrusive calming and mentoring of young people (and juvenile adults) in the arts of growing up. They can do this in large measure just by being themselves. They can exemplify simple maturity and self-possession, an example of someone with a source of internal authority and sense of what is appropriate in varying circumstances.

"We have been busy mothering (i.e., accepting) each other and our young," Kilhefner writes, "accepting behaviors that are clearly self-destructive to us individually and collectively--at a time when we need to be fathering (i.e., communicating expectations to) ourselves and our young--developing a community-wide ethos ... that expects young gay men to become adults."

And I add: Sometimes it may take more overt social pressure. We have all seen people behave stupidly and thought to ourselves, "Oh, grow up!" Maybe we should occasionally say that out loud.

My friends Janna and Carrie are married to each other. So are Michelle and Heather, and Amy and Beth. They are married because they love each other and have committed to each other; they are married because they can be.

All three couples live in Massachusetts, which remains, after the New Jersey decision, the only state in the Union where it is legal for gays and lesbians to marry. They are just three of the more than 8,000 gay couples who have married in Massachusetts so far.

The New Jersey Supreme Court could have gone the Massachusetts route, mandating gay marriage. It did not. Instead, in a 4-3 split, the court said that equal rights are not optional. What to call those equal rights is.

The legislature, they said, has 180 days to decide. (All seven judges agreed unanimously that New Jersey's constitution protects the equal rights of gays and lesbians-the three judges in the minority voted for marriage instead of leaving it open to the legislature.)

This is a wise decision in our political climate. Coming so soon before the November mid-term elections, a ruling that ordered same-sex marriage in New Jersey would likely have propelled forward the anti-marriage amendments that will be on the ballot in eight states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Tennessee and South Carolina.

It could have been a disaster. We could have seen a backlash like the one that roiled the country after Massachusetts gave us marriage in 2003.

So yes, the decision was wise. Measured. It gave gays and lesbians in New Jersey access to the full rights they are entitled to, whatever that package of rights is called by legislators. I am thrilled-absolutely thrilled-that New Jersey is joining Connecticut and Vermont in giving all of its citizens the perks of marriage, including survivors benefits under workman's compensation laws, the ability to not testify at a spouse's criminal trial and tuition assistance.

But.

Equal-marriage activists are right when they say there is something special about the word "marriage."

It may seem like semantics. I myself thought that semantics was all it was, until I went up to Massachusetts a few weekends ago to play football and spend some time with Janna and Carrie, and Michelle and Heather (I need to see Amy and Beth on my next trip-sorry, guys).

I know many, many long-term lesbian couples in Chicago and New York. They own houses and condos, they have children and pets and car payments and gardens and holidays with the in-laws. They are as committed as my married friends.

I myself was in a partnership for seven years that both of us considered a marriage (this was before legal marriage was even a pipe dream). We had a ceremony; we received gifts. We presented ourselves to new acquaintances as till-death-did-we-part. Certainly, that was our intention, if not the eventual reality.

So I know that mere words-"marriage" or "civil unions" or "domestic partnership"-do not have the power to put a relationship together or take it apart.

But there's something special about the lesbian couples who are legally married, a striking difference between them and my partnered friends. There's an ease about them. A security. A relaxed sense of entitlement when dealing with officials, contractors, lawyers, employers. Marriage gives them personal and social standing that being partnered simply doesn't.

The words matter.

Not just to them. The words matter to their friends and neighbors and family members. Straight people understand about marriage. They understand what kind of commitment it is. They intuitively get the words wife, husband. They don't have to wonder after a year if the married couple is still together-they can assume they are, or else expect to commiserate over the news of divorce. They don't have to stumble over words, don't have to wonder if they say "girlfriend" or "significant other" or "partner" or what.

When faced with the words "married couple," straight people know how the couple should be treated, and they treat them accordingly. When they don't treat them accordingly, it is clear to everyone that they are discriminating.

Marriage is special. It just is. It is one of the marks of adulthood in our society, the term we use to describe the crucible that creates new families.

New Jersey isn't ready for marriage yet. Nor, obviously, is most of the country. If civil unions are what we can get right now, then civil unions are what we should continue to fight for, what we should agree to when compromise is necessary-as it inevitably is.

So it is civil unions for now. But let's not forget that we're aiming for what Janna and Carrie, Michelle and Heather, and Amy and Beth have already.

We want marriage.

This article appeared on Examiner.com on October 30, 2006.

There's never been a same-sex marriage in Virginia, and they've been outlawed by statute for more than 30 years. So why are Virginia voters being asked to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Mostly because it's a bait-and-switch game. The proposed Ballot Question No. 1 is far broader than a simple ban on gay marriage.

Supporters say the amendment is needed in order to prevent activist judges from unilaterally changing the definition of marriage. But no liberal activists have yet been sighted in the Virginia judiciary. And that's no surprise because judges in Virginia are selected by the same legislature that has repeatedly passed bans on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, including this proposed amendment.

In fact, Virginia is one of only two states where the legislature directly appoints judges to the state courts, including the state Supreme Court. It is inconceivable that Virginia judges, including four members of the Supreme Court, are going to impose gay marriage on the state. Virginia is not Massachusetts nor Vermont or New Jersey, and our judges are certainly more conservative than those in New York, where the high court recently upheld the state's ban on gay marriage.

The irony in Virginia is that conservatives fearful of an out-of-control judiciary are in fact inviting the judiciary to get involved in micro-managing family law. Take a look at the actual text of what journalists are inaccurately calling "the proposed ban on gay marriage."

The first sentence of the amendment reads:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions."

That sentence is what amendment supporters want you to read. But read the rest of it:

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." [emphasis added]

Note the italicized words. The use of the word "or" makes this a very broad law.

Supporters of the amendment rely on the assurance of Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell that passage "will not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons."

But lawyers disagree. The firm of Arnold and Porter issued a 71-page analysis of the amendment coming to starkly different conclusions. Their lawyers concluded that the amendment could be interpreted by Virginia courts to invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under domestic violence laws, block private companies from providing employee benefits to domestic partners, and prevent the courts from enforcing child custody and visitation rights, as well as end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and advance medical directives, executed by unmarried couples.

The firm went on to say: "This exceedingly broad and untested language is the most expansive such proposal ever to have been put before the voters of any state."

We should not pass constitutional amendments whose effects are so uncertain. A simple ban on gay marriage would be redundant, but it would have the virtue of clarity for the courts. The actual amendment invites judges to review every private contract, every employee benefit, every legal arrangement between unmarried partners.

That should be anathema to opponents of judicial activism. It should also be a frightening prospect to Virginia businesspeople. A growing number of companies are offering benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees, and they will want to locate in states where those benefits are clearly legal.

This amendment goes too far. But even its first sentence - the ban on gay marriage - is unworthy of a state that was the birthplace of American freedom. It is a cruel irony that this amendment to restrict contract rights and exclude loving couples from the institution of marriage is to be added to Virginia's Bill of Rights, a document originally written by the great Founder George Mason.

Mason's eloquent words inspired Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence and James Madison in writing the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution. We should not add language to Virginia's Bill of Rights that would limit rights rather than expand them.

Gay marriage is not legal in Virginia, and there's no prospect of changing that in the foreseeable future, whether by legislative or judicial action. Ballot Question No. 1 is unnecessary and will create legal uncertainty.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.