IGF CultureWatch

It was the sort of headline that's become common these days: "When gays advance, America squirms."

I should be used to such headlines by now. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in June, we all knew there would be backlash. But I still find it rather unsettling, and this particular headline triggered my malaise full force. "When gays advance, America squirms."

Not "their opponents squirm." Not "some Americans squirm." AMERICA squirms. Suppressed premise: Gays are not real Americans.

Okay, so headlines need to be pithy. Unfortunately, the ensuing news feature on gay marriage underscored the message: gays are outsiders trying to move in. "Us" against "them."

But why? Giving marriage to gays doesn't mean taking it away from straights, any more than giving the vote to women meant taking it away from men, or letting blacks at the front of the bus meant that whites could no longer ride there.

Yet the latter analogy is instructive: when blacks moved to the front of the bus, many whites felt a visceral negative reaction, what some refer to as "the ick factor." Now gays are triggering the ick factor in their fight for marriage, and the results aren't pretty.

Some object to the comparison between the "behavioral" characteristic of sexual orientation and the "non-behavioral" characteristic of race.

But this objection misses the point. In both cases, there's a group whose behavior (moving to the front of the bus in the one case, pushing for marriage rights in the other) prompts hostility. In both cases, the hostility is largely visceral and inarticulate: "I can't explain it, it just FEELS wrong." And in both cases, the hostility results from, and contributes to, false beliefs about the group in question: "They're going to ruin everything for the rest of us!"

But how are gays going to "ruin" marriage? There are several possible interpretations of this charge:

1) "If gay marriage is permitted, people will choose it over heterosexual marriage."

This claim is, of course, ludicrous. After all, the usual response to a gay person is not, "No fair! How come he gets to be gay and I don't?!"

2) "Permitting gay marriage will cheapen heterosexual marriage by turning it into 'just another lifestyle choice.'"

Well, yes and no. Yes, it means that gay marriage will take its place alongside heterosexual marriage as an option to which persons might aspire. But again, these are GAY persons. It is not as if they would have, or should have, chosen heterosexual marriage otherwise. Let's face it: pressuring gays into heterosexual marriage is a bad idea for everyone involved.

Moreover, the fact that gays are fighting so hard for marriage rights should make it abundantly clear that they don't think of marriage as "just another lifestyle choice." Choosing to live in a high-rise instead of a ranch house is a "lifestyle choice." Choosing marriage is a major personal and social commitment. If gays didn't realize that, they wouldn't be fighting so hard for legal marriage rights.

3) "Gay marriages will be weak, setting a bad example for everyone else."

The idea here is that gay marriages will be less stable/monogamous/successful than their non-gay counterparts. Of course, it is difficult to substantiate this claim, since we do not know how gay relationships would fare given the same support that heterosexual marriage currently enjoys. But the more striking point is that on this logic, Hollywood actors ought not to be permitted to marry either.

4) "'Gay marriage' is an oxymoron."

The main argument against gay marriage seems to be definitional: the very meaning of marriage requires a man and a woman; thus gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. Gays who want to be called "married" are like steak-eaters who want to be called "vegetarians."

Thus understood, the argument betrays a fundamental confusion. The main issue is not whether gays should be "called" married. This is not to deny that words are important: they are. But the fight for marriage rights is not primarily about words. It is about legal protection for our relationships. It is about guaranteeing hospital visitation rights when a partner is sick, immigration rights when a partner is foreign, inheritance rights when a partner dies - and a host of other safeguards that married heterosexuals currently take for granted.

Steak-eaters are not vegetarians. But if steak-eaters were denied various legal protections that vegetarians routinely enjoyed, we could not justify such discrimination on the grounds that most vegetarians find steak-eating "icky." Absent better reasons, we would need to confront the ick-factor and work to make things right.

If the gay-marriage issue makes some Americans squirm, perhaps it's a sign of growing pains.

First published August 13, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press.

Just as its Boston archdiocese was offering $55 million to hundreds of sexual abuse victims, the irony-impaired Vatican issued "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons" containing the amusing objection that allowing gay couples to adopt children "would actually mean doing violence to those children."

The interesting thing is not so much what the Vatican said but that it felt a need to issue a statement at all. It must puzzle the Vatican that its anti-gay views, long accepted and dutifully enforced by society, are now inexplicably being ignored.

Realizing that it was no longer possible to simply declare its opinion, the Vatican tried to offer arguments. But that may have been a mistake. The argument are not nearly up to the task demanded of them. On the contrary, the arguments are vague, slippery, feeble, circular or false.

Here is the core argument: Marriage is only for heterosexuals because heterosexuals cause babies and marriage is for causing babies because that is what happens when heterosexuals have sex. Did you get that? Read it again. The rest of the "arguments" are even worse. Viz.:

"No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman." If that is a factual claim, what is it based on? But, in fact, the "certainty" itself is a social "ideology" now losing its grip on a previously pliant population. Even popes cannot transmute mere traditions, no matter how widespread, into necessary truths.

"Marriage was established by the creator ... as confirmed by Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation." But nowhere in Genesis is there any report that Adam and Eve were ever married. Their progeny (and others) "knew" or "took" wives, but again no report of any marriages.

How about this reason? Heterosexual marriage is based on "the complementarity of the sexes" who "tend toward the communion of their persons," who "mutually perfect each other ... in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives"?

Pause to notice how this relegates celibate priests to irremediable imperfection since they cannot be "mutually perfected." And it seems odd for celibates, of all people, to instruct the rest of us about the relations of the sexes. How would they know?

But it is not even clear what the "complementarity of the sexes" and "communion of their persons" means. That heterosexuality causes babies does not prove the sexes are complementary. Daily experience remind us that the sexes have different needs, wants, priorities, life-rhythms, even different sexual arousal patterns. Most heterosexual couples say it takes work to keep a marriage together.

The Vatican often claims that heterosexual sex is "unitive" and here refers to the Bible's odd notion that man and woman "become one flesh." To be sure, man penetrates woman, but that does not mean man and woman are "united" or "become one flesh." We now understand biology better than the Biblical authors:

The sperm cell carrying a man's DNA has to travel a significant distance from the man after being emitted before it can merge with an egg. If I send you an e-mail message, you get the information, but that does not mean your computer "united" with my computer. So heterosexuality is no more "unitive" for the participants than homosexuality.

Homosexual acts "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity," the Vatican says. But of course they do. We almost always choose someone whose difference from ourselves makes them admirable, exciting or interesting in some way, so "affective complementarity" applies just as well to gay marriage.

As for gay sexual complementarity, that is subject to mutual accommodation rather than the strictures of biology and is accomplished either by diverse preferences or reciprocity. Sadly, full sexual reciprocity is an option not available to heterosexuals and that fact impairs their ability to have as communicative and empathetic relationships as gays.

Finally, "the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions ... is not conducive to (adopted children's) full human development," and therefore constitutes "doing violence to these children." The Vatican says "experience has shown" this, but cites no evidence. In fact there is scant scientific support for its claim, and some to the contrary.

But the Vatican claim overreaches. It means that single parents should not raise children either. But if one father or mother is tolerable, then two fathers or mothers would be pretty good too--in fact, better, since any two parents will have different personalities and perspectives for the children to experience.

But the real reason the Vatican opposes gay marriage is that its goal is to press governments to "contain the phenomenon" (the Vatican cannot utter "homosexual sex") to avoid "exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality" that would "contribute to the spread of the phenomenon."

Legalized gay marriage could lead celibate gays to act on their desires, lead closeted gays to "come out," and lead society to cease its disapproval of homosexual sex, which would undermine the Vatican's effort to "contain" it and reduce its occurrence. Why does the Vatican disapprove of gay sex? Its arguments for that are no better.

We all know that young gays, bisexuals, lesbians and transgenders have a particularly hard time. At their most vulnerable moment, the time in which they are exploring and creating their independent identities - and the time in which many come out to themselves - they have very few safe spaces. Worse, those safe spaces usually don?t include the classroom.

At school, GLBT students are bullied verbally and harassed physically. They see few images of themselves reflected in classroom study or in open, happy gay teachers (who often themselves fear for their jobs). They must also deal with anti-gay talk that permeates the hallways, whether or not it is directed at them: for example, when a straight student calls another straight student a fag, or when a student uses gay as an epithet.

And unlike workers, who may be able to change jobs if they find themselves in a hostile environment, public school students must stay where they are or drop out.

That's why many gays and lesbians are supporting the first gay public school in the country, the Harvey Milk High School in New York, which will open in the fall. It sounds like a good idea, right?

Not to me.

This surprises even myself, since I know the power of, well, homogeneity. I went to a women's college and I know the bonds that form when people who are similar in some way share an educational experience. I know the empowerment that comes from having strong role models and educational materials that reflect who you are. I know what a change it can make when the messages around you are all positive and nurturing.

I also know the statistics. Over 40 percent of LGBT students don't feel safe in their schools. 28 percent drop out annually. 69 percent admit they've been harassed. And they are still three times more likely to commit suicide.

Yet I don't find the Harvey Milk High School empowering. I find it disturbing. It is an admission of failure.

That's because this one school can simply not do enough to correct the problem. Only 170 students will be selected for admission to Harvey Milk, yet there are thousands of gay kids in the New York public school system. In fact, the Heitrick-Martin Institute, which will run the school in partnership with the New York public school system, estimates that there are 100,000 LGBT students in New York City. That means that very, very few, just over 1 percent, will be able to be in this new, nurturing environment.

Sure, those lucky 170 will be tucked safely away in their all-gay classes. But there will still be gay, lesbian and transgender students in the other New York City public schools - and I guarantee you, many of them will continue to be harassed and bullied. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself admitted in a press briefing, - I think everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools. It lets them get an education without having to worry. It solves a discipline problem. And from a pedagogical point of view, this administration - and previous administrations - have thought it was a good idea and we'll continue with that."

The hearts of those who decided to start Harvey Milk are undoubtedly in the right place. But where are their heads? What will happen to those other students? This new school - and this new segregation - will take the pressure off teachers, administrators and Mayor Bloomberg to promote real reform. Because now, when faced with complaints, administrators, legislators and others will be able to simply point them toward Harvey Milk instead of doing the hard work of changing the culture in the schools.

Also, segregation is just a bad idea for public schools. That was true back when policy makers tried to separate black and white students and it's true now. It might solve administrative hassles, but it hinders social education.

Public schools are under funded - and the children who go there are often under educated. But the one advantage to public schools, especially urban public schools, is that kids get exposed to all sorts of cultural, ethnic and, yes, sexual orientation diversity.

And the more students are exposed to different kinds of people in a non-threatening setting, the less likely they are to grow up to be racist or homophobic themselves.

Also, high school is when a lot of students start to question their sexual orientation. Some gays and lesbians have known all their lives that they are gay. But heterosexuality is so deeply ingrained in our culture that many more don?t realize it until much later. Can you imagine the pressure of simultaneously applying for a school and worrying if you're gay enough to go?

Though the school will be open to all students gay and straight, the practical reality will likely be that only kids who are comfortable with their gayness or their straightness already - not those who are questioning - will actually apply. But it is exactly those students who will most positively affect the straight students around them.

Do gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids need a space where they can be with others like them? Yes. In a support group or a LGBTQ club.

Do they need a space where they can be free of harassment and bullying? Yes. Gay students should be safe in the classroom and hallways of any public school. We can't win that fight by simply shuttling them elsewhere.

Can someone please tell me which country I'm living in? Last week I sat down and watched a popular new television phenomenon. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" turned out to be a hilarious reality show in which five New York City homosexuals fix a hapless straight guy's home, hair, clothes and culture in order to win the heart of his female love interest. Here was a wonderful example of straight men and gay men communicating, laughing and getting along. And the gay guys were all about affirming the straight guy's relationship. At one point, the straight guy actually choked up in gratitude. It was poignant and affirming - for both gays and straights.

The same day the Republican leadership of the Senate put out a report decrying the terrible possibility that gay people might actually one day have the right to marry the person they love. So alarmed were the Senators that some states might grant marriage rights to gays that they proposed amending the very Constitution of the United States to forbid gay marriage (or any legal gay relationship) anywhere, anytime, anyhow. The next day, in a press conference, President Bush came close to endorsing the move. If the high courts in Massachusetts or New Jersey decide that their state constitutions demand equality in marriage (something that most observers believe could happen very soon), the reactionary movement for an anti-gay constitutional amendment could acquire an awful momentum.

How to describe this emotional whiplash? Every day, if you're a gay person, you see amazing advances and terrifying setbacks. Wal-Mart set rules last month to protect its gay employees from discrimination - about as mainstream an endorsement as you can get. Canada just legalized gay marriage, and the U.S. Supreme Court just struck down sodomy laws across the land, legitimizing the fact that homosexual is something you are, not something you do. Polls in Massachusetts and New Jersey show majorities in favor of equal marriage rights.

And now the Vatican comes out and announces that granting legal recognition to gay spouses will destroy the family and society. The church argues that gay love is not even "remotely analogous" to heterosexual love. The Anglican Church asks a celibate, newly elected bishop in England to give up his post simply because he is gay. Even the leading Democratic candidates refuse to support equality in marriage. Senator John Kerry, who has no biological children with his current (second) wife, says marriage should be reserved for procreation, and, with few exceptions, the others toe that line too. And a new poll shows a drop in support for gay rights in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision against sodomy laws. Another cyclical backlash against gays - with echoes of the Anita Bryant campaign in the 1970s - looks quite possible.

If, like me, you're gay and politically conservative, the whipsaw is even more intense. As a Catholic, I love my church. But I must come to terms with its hierarchy's hatred of the very core of my being. I admire this President deeply, but I have to acknowledge that he believes my relationship is a threat to his. In the coming weeks, it will be hard not to dread the prospect of this second-class status becoming enshrined in the Constitution. Whatever bridges gays and straights have built between them could be burned in a conflagration of bitterness and anger. This year could be for gays what 1968 was for African Americans: the moment hope turns into rage.

Many say they are not hostile toward gay people; they just don't think gays should be regarded as equal to heterosexuals under the law or that gay love is as valid as straight. How am I or any homosexual supposed to respond to that? How much more personal an issue can you get?

It seems as if heterosexuals are willing to tolerate homosexuals, but only from a position of power. They have few qualms about providing legal protections, decrying hate crimes, watching gay TV shows, even having a relative bring her female spouse to Thanksgiving dinner. Yet arguing that the lesbian couple is legally or morally indistinguishable from a straight couple is where many draw the line. That's why marriage is such a fundamental issue. Allowing gay marriage is not saying, We Will Tolerate You. It's saying, We Are You. This, it seems, we have a hard time doing.

I'll know we've changed when we see a show called "Straight Eye for the Gay Guy." In it a group of heterosexual men prep a gay man for the night he asks his boyfriend to marry him. When the boyfriend says yes, the straight guys cheer, and the gay guy chokes up. That will be the day gay people are no longer ornaments or accessories or objects of either derision or compassion. That will be the day gay people will finally have the description we have been seeking for so long: human beings.

Opponents of gay marriage often warn that gays want to destroy marriage. This is preposterous and alarmist. However, in a recent Washington Blade column, openly gay law professor Nancy Polikoff indeed argues for "abolishing the legal status of marriage for everyone." There are multiple problems with her radical proposal, which boil down to: it shouldn't happen, it ain't gonna happen, and it needlessly fuels the opposition to gay marriage.

Since the 1970s there's been an undercurrent of opposition to marriage on the gay left. Lesbian feminists have criticized its sexist roots, including long-discarded laws subordinating wives to husbands. Gay male sexual liberationists have seen it as stultifying, directing people into dreary traditional patterns of living.

When the idea of gay marriage caught on in the early 1990s, thanks in part to gay conservatives like Andrew Sullivan, these critics initially dismissed it as "assimilationist." We're not "just like straights," they like to say, and we don't want to be.

The argument for gay marriage depends, however, on the idea that gays are "just like straights" in every important respect. Gay couples are just as capable of love, commitment, mutual caretaking, and raising children.

Polikoff acknowledges that marriage confers important advantages to married couples in everything from health benefits to taxation. Gay couples, she agrees, should get these benefits.

But, Polikoff argues, everyone else should get them too. "A legal system that gives benefits to married couples but withholds those benefits from other types of relationships that help people flourish and fulfill critical social functions harms many people, both straight and gay," she writes. A man caring for his sick mother should be able to have her covered on his health insurance, for example. A woman should not lose her home to pay estate taxes when her cohabiting sister dies.

The main problem, according to Polikoff and other critics, is that marriage privileges some relationships over others. If gay marriage is allowed it will still favor married couples over unmarried couples and other relationships. Indeed, under Polikoff's argument, it's hard to see why legal recognition should be limited to couples. Why not recognize relationships of 3, 4, or more people?

There are good reasons to reject Polikoff's idea. The institution of marriage represents an enormous social investment, both in the couple and in the children they often raise. Every single one of the more than 1,000 marital benefits granted at the state and federal level costs us money, whether it's in the form of a Social Security death benefit or tax breaks on transfers of wealth between spouses.

There are many reasons we make that huge investment in marriage but not in other relationships. Marriage adds to social stability, including by curbing promiscuity. It furnishes caretakers to individuals who would otherwise rely on the state. Married people are healthier and wealthier than single people or unmarried cohabitants. Marriage affords a secure environment for children, who do better in married households. Even with today's high divorce rates, marital relationships are also more enduring, which makes our investment in them all the wiser.

Why do they last longer? Partly because of the benefits they get. But mostly, I think, because of the tremendous social support they receive. This support comes out of our history and tradition, not mere laws. The powerful social expectation of marriage becomes equally powerful encouragement and assistance from family and friends for the couple to stay together.

Marriage is important for the social affirmation it offers gay relationships, not just for the legal benefits. Contrary to what Polikoff suggests, not even a landmark Supreme Court decision like Lawrence v. Texas can offer that deep affirmation. No "civil union" or "domestic partnership" can offer it either.

By marrying, couples signal to society in a culturally and historically unique way the strength of their commitment. No other relationship can quite replicate that signal. Society understandably rewards the married couple's public commitment, but cannot be as confident about the durability or depth of other arrangements.

There is nothing inherently wrong with extending some benefits to other caring relationships. Maybe a son should be able to secure health benefits for his ailing mother. But every extension of benefits entails financial costs. Each of these proposed benefits should be weighed on its own merits, applied to those relationships that seem more than transient.

Polikoff probably assumes that abolishing marriage means everyone would get its goodies. At last, health care for all! Don't bet on it. The more likely outcome is that standard marital benefits would be eliminated or reduced to help pay for benefits accorded the newly recognized relationships. The social investment in former marriages would decrease, diminishing the return we all get from that bygone institution.

Marriage, with its culturally and historically rich meaning, and its critical role in children's upbringing, deserves its privileged position. There's just too much at stake to abolish it.

Because of its special place in our culture, and because of its reach far back into our history, marriage isn't going anywhere any time soon. So proposals to end marriage are a nice parlor game for academics, but nothing more.

In this case, though, the game has political consequences. Already a leading opponent of gay marriage, Stanley Kurtz, has cited Polikoff's and others' work as proof that gays are out to destroy marriage.

Polikoff and Kurtz are wrong. We aren't fighting for the right to marry only to see our marriages abolished.