In light of the gay marriage bans passed in California, Arkansas, and Florida on Nov. 4, the question is: What happens now?
Daniela's take
I readily admit it: I don't know how to do it. Perhaps it's because I live four blocks from The Gayest Place on Earth; or because I went to a top 20 gay-friendly college; or because homosexuality—like everything pertaining to sex—was explained to me early on in purely biological (and rational) terms by my parents. No matter the reason, the fact of the matter is that I don't understand how to reason with people who vote against granting equal marriage rights to all citizens on moral grounds.
I can rationalize the legal reasons for why these bans may have passed. (For example: Why should government involve itself in "marriage," an institution born of religion? Marry no one in City Hall—grant only civil partnerships!) So that's no problem. My issue is I don't know how, or even whether it's possible, to argue with someone who holds such extreme moral views about homosexuality. I can say the same thing, really, for someone who believes a zygote to be a human being; or someone who literally interprets the Beatitudes.
It's one thing to dismiss extreme moral views as the result of ignorance, it's another to try to grapple with an otherwise well-informed individual who holds these sorts of views. I read, recently, a blog post by a smart, college-educated girl who went to grade school with me. A week before Election Day, in a blog post titled "What I Stand For," she wrote—
"I believe that legal marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I do not believe it discriminates against homosexual people to defend that time-honored definition. I do not dislike homosexuals; I will not stop being any of their friends. I will not call them names; I will not belittle them. But I will do all that I can to stop them and those who are for it from changing the definition of marriage that is the very basis of society and everything I believe in. A person does not have the right to marry anyone he or she wishes to. We do not have the right to choose anything or anyone. Men cannot marry men. Women cannot marry women. People cannot marry animals. A 40 year-old cannot marry a 12 year-old. A man cannot marry more than one woman, and a woman cannot marry more than one man. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It is a word with a definition that I do not want to have changed."
The equating of consensual, mature, homosexual love to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality! The irrational fear that another person's marriage defines your own! I'm at a loss.
Some have asked me why I trouble with trying to decipher such views, and the reason is that I have been trying to decide whether it's of any use to even try to argue with such people, so as to try to get them to vote differently. Perhaps we ought to explain to them that a gay marriage ban is not really a ban on gay marriage, it's a rejection of marriage equality and a dismissal of human rights.
Over the past few days, I've decided that I will not try to argue with these people. Fortunately for all those who embrace rational thinking and who not only laud but actually enshrine equality, the arc of history and progress is bending in the right direction. The younger generation—my generation!—is overwhelmingly, by 2 to 1, for marriage equality. Every day, more people who grew up ignorant of or prejudiced towards homosexuality are turning around and either discarding those views, or simply acknowledging that this is a human rights issue. While this year California, Arkansas, and Florida did not move forward with the tide of progress, they will. Soon.
Danish's take
That California, this bastion of tolerance, passed Proposition 8 was certainly a bummer. Ultimately though, we will look back at this embarrassment as merely a minor hurdle on the road towards the inevitable recognition of same-sex marriages across the civilized world (although I understand why the thousands of people being told their marriages no longer exist might think otherwise).
The gay marriage debate is no longer a debate about homosexuality but is now squarely a debate about the institution of marriage, and that debate in turn is about family policy. The suggestion that the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples could lead to even further redefinitions is not unfounded. However, as long as any redefinitions draw more people into marriage, it's hard to understand why anyone would oppose them. From a policy standpoint, "married people are healthier, happier, more prosperous, and more secure. They have fewer problems with depression and crime, they lead longer lives—by every measure we can calculate, married people do better on average, and that's even after you account for the differences in the married and unmarried populations." It seems to me the more the merrier!
So besides gay marriage, what further iterations are anti-gay marriage people worried about? One legitimate concern that comes to mind is polygamy. The legalization of gay marriage could certainly pave the way for polygamous marriages, but when you consider the positive impact marriage has on people I don't see what's so horrifying about this prospect. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I can't see how forcing them to choose non-marriage "lifestyle alternatives" is better for anyone. This is easy for me to say as a progressive young person living in San Francisco, but how could politicians in the "Real America" ever vote for anything that even remotely suggests that people living outside of the norm deserve the same rights afforded everyone else? The sad truth is that they probably couldn't, and that is why the solution rests not with new legislation but with the removal of old legislation. That is to say, take the power of recognizing marriages out of the hands of the state. Make marriage a contract between consenting adults (enforceable by law like any other contract) and "It would put gay [or polygamous] relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction—which is how it should be."
Jacob's take
Any self-identified progressive must have had mixed feelings about the ballot returns on November 4. While the new left-of-center governing majority achieved an unprecedented landmark in racial equity, another majority rejected progressives’ attempts to achieve marriage equality for homosexual couples. It is thought that this other majority was decisively composed of religious Obama supporters. This very fact exposes an interesting tension in the new "Obama coalition."
A lot of people find this disconcerting but I don’t see it that way. I think this is a chance to redefine the progressive outlook on the issue of civil marriage and gay rights. I’ll state my position quite clearly: I don’t think civil marriage ought to be extended to homosexual couples; rather, it should be dissolved completely.
I am not nor do I pretend to be an expert on California Family Code or other relevant statutes, so this is an argument based on principle. As I understand it, California domestic partnerships allow all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual civil marriage and are treated as equivalent to same-sex civil unions by Vermont, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, to name a few. Domestic partners in California are able to take one another's last name, file a joint tax form, and adopt a baby. As far as I can tell, the controversy over gay marriage (in California) is less about "gay" and more about "marriage." Opponents of gay marriage find it outrageous that the government would tyrannically redefine "marriage," a word whose definition their religions invented, of whose use they want to be sole guardians.
I don't see why anyone objects to religion retaining the unique right to define marriage. Regardless of whether it should be, this is a religious concept before it is a civic one. If churches wish to allow same-sex marriages, good for them. If you are a religious gay couple and wish to be married by a church that refuses, that is between you and your superstitions. The point is this: Marriage as a religious pact in contradistinction to partnership as a legal structure ought to be kept as separate as possible. Regardless of the issue of same-sex marriage, there is something uncomfortably close about the relationship between civil and legal code in the domain of marriage. That the marriage certificate is a legal document made valid by the signature of a priest is, to me, inconsistent with the principles that guide so many other aspects of our government.
The argument about the separation of church and state cuts both ways: If government can’t tell religion what marriage is (as the argument for Prop 8 goes), then religion can’t be the basis for a legal definition of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who grant the latter often cite research on societal benefits of the nuclear family to support their definition of marriage. However, this research falls quite short of the burden of proof if one weighs the claims of its proponents against the questionable effects and problematic validity that those studies show. Furthermore, government cannot use empirical research, valid or not, without applying it consistently. For example, no one has sought to prohibit alcoholics from getting married and having children, despite research that might suggest it would be better for society if they didn’t.
The last right not afforded by California domestic partnership is the right to have the same legal appellation as civil marriage. Symbolic as it is, I think this lack is a far cry from the rights lacked by racial minorities before and since the Civil Rights Act. Nevertheless, I do believe this problem should be solved.
There are two solutions: Expand the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples; or expand the definition of domestic partnership to include all heterosexual couples and do away with civil marriage. Each option requires a compromise. Either opponents of gay marriage give up their definition of marriage, or gays give up their aspirations to have their unions called marriage. With the latter option, the sacrifice is shared -- everyone gives up the notion of civil marriage -- but the right of religious sovereignty over the definition of marriage is not infringed and the legal rights of homosexual couples are indistinguishable from those of heterosexuals.
Jonah's take
What are we debating again? What is the debate? Really? And what scientific evidence are we weighing for or against this? How many millions of dollars of taxpayer money is spent studying the benefits of marriage? Isn't there cancer to be cured or wars to win? Instead of spending cash trying to find correlations that prove outdated religious bigotry, can't we be more creative? Here are some programs that could use these millions in research more than anti-gay marriage studies:
1) The Study on the Benefits of Cute Dog Collars on Dogs, and Whether They Make a Dog Gay
2) Old Library Books: Why Do They Smell So Good? And Is Smelling Them Patriotic?
3) Has It Been Long Enough That We Are Now Allowed To Wear Roller Blades?
Yes, there are correlations to a child's upbringing and the state of his parent's marriage, undoubtedly. Marriage is good for kids, ok, fine. We get it. Can we move on, now? Oh, no? We can't? Still debating this? There are times to pretend you are listening to your opponent, feigning objectivity when your burning subjectivity is itching to burst through. But now is not one of those times. When somebody says, "I like Matchbox 20," I keep my opinions to myself. That's fine, I say. I don't, but you are allowed to like them. Though when someone tells me they love Britney Spears' new single, I stand firm. "No, you can't. You cannot. You are wrong. And this is not a matter of opinion." There are times when we must lose the mantle of "debate" and say, "Sorry, no. Not this time. Not gonna debate it. You are absolutely, objectively wrong."
In the future we'll look back and shake our heads and roll our eyes at the enormity of ignorance we've had to put up with. To even engage the debate is pure idiocy, see. But what should we do? What is needed is a true shift in language. You can't change the minds of the staunchly religious, but if you confuse them maybe we have a shot. First ask them to ban straight marriage. They will say, "That is crazy talk." You agree. But this is the old foot-in-the-door trick. Ask for too much and then, after you have primed them for compromise, go in for the kill. "OK, fine. Don't ban straight marriage. Just ban gay marriage banning." Say the last "banning" under your breath so that they don't hear it, and in confusion they will lift the ban. It's the only way.
Nathan's take
The New York Times has decided that Mormons tipped the balance in favor of Proposition 8. The Economist has (lamely) proclaimed that the Mormon work ethic has insulated Utah from the economic storm. What should we, proponents of equal marriage rights, do to counter the homophobic economic engine running in the mountains? Organize, march, sue, convince. Make a ton of money.
Economists argue that bias is irrational -- not a great way to make money. A company that makes hiring decisions for reasons other than competence and talent is going to be punished by competitors who take advantage of that talent for their own gain. Now, proponents of same-sex marriage have an opportunity to punish states that deny marriage rights, and reward those that do. Move to Connecticut and Massachusetts! Revel in our New English autumns. Bring your entrepreneurial spirits and wallets. Fill state coffers with income and sales tax receipts. At least vacation here!
Of course this will happen on its own, as same-sex couples come to live in a place that will recognize their unions. And a mass exodus from California would cripple efforts to turn this year’s Proposition 8 near-loss into next year’s victory. However, as we we attend political rallies and speeches, we can and should make decisions about where to live and work and what we buy with an eye towards punishing bias.
In response to pro-gay marriage boycotts in California -- some more sensible than others -- Prop 8 supporters have called the efforts "intolerable," and "mob justice." I don't understand this. The free market’s definitional quality is right there in the title -- it’s free! If I’m free to make a purchasing decision based on something as insubstantial and unrelated to underlying quality as a celebrity endorsement or witty advertising campaign, then I am damned well free to make a purchasing decision based on whether my money's going to keep my friends from getting married.
Respond to fear-mongering and bias by moving to (or vacationing in) Connecticut and Massachusetts. Earn a ton of money. Spend it on businesses that support equal rights. Make the Economist write an article marveling at the economic benefits of justice.
Ottavio's take
Gay people do not deserve the same rights as straight people. Their morals are compromised as their sexual orientation clearly demonstrates. We must shelter our children from their example and the scary prospect of being raised in one of their morally decrepit families. Even though we have won this last battle against liberal America, we should still all move to Iran where Mahmud Ahmadinejad has assured me there are absolutely no gay people. Death to the Great Satan. All hail the union of the penis and the vagina.
But seriously, if we want to take more cues on how to govern our country from the Bible, I suggest we start with the issues that Christ emphasized the most and work our way down towards the issues he emphasized the least. Lets deal with the poor, the weak and the suffering and then, once there are no more poor people, no more weak people, and no more suffering people, we can get to the issue he mentioned vaguely, a few times.
Robin's take
Immaculate Conception
Graphite on Vellum
The gay marriage ban is a clear example of religious prejudice/discrimination/bigotry. I don’t know which is more outrageous: That a gay couple cannot get married in California or that they do not have the right to adopt a child in Utah?
Thomas Beatie, a man who used to be a woman, is married to a woman and is pregnant for the second time. His situation raises a lot questions about parenting a child. Is he a father or is he a mother?
One thing is certain: As scientific advances permit people to inhabit the outskirts of nature, the literal interpretation of religious texts becomes more problematic. I am so relieved that in 2004, 42.6% of people in America believed God created man in his present but only 29.1% believe that God is angered by human sin.
That's why I drew this piece.
Sarah's take
Is it overly optimistic to think that one day we’ll look back on the era when gays couldn't marry with the same uneasy pride and respect for progress that marks our understanding of the pre-civil rights period? First, Massachusetts and Connecticut, then California, then not -- and soon enough, there will be a Loving v. Virginia, if there isn’t a Plessy v. Ferguson-type misstep along the way. I'm taking the long view here.
Still, that future day is hard to imagine. Welcoming gays into the institution of marriage is quite radical: no civilization in history has done so, aside from the handful of countries that allow it today (Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, and Spain) and a few scattered Roman and Native American examples. From a removed perspective, it is even an amusing paradox that so radical a proposition can stem from such conventional desires -- namely, the desire to pair up for life, and possibly raise children together. We are humans, and these are our ways -- for homosexuals as for heterosexuals. Will justice not prevail at least in those areas where it coincides with human nature?
Indeed, I feel a strange passivity toward this struggle because I think it cannot but succeed. This is an impulse to be resisted: Progress can’t come soon enough for people enduring injustice now. I'm reminded of the observation of Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, on his colleague Martin Luther King in a recent New Yorker article: "Martin said the people who were saying 'later' were really saying 'never' … The time to do right is always right now."
How trite; how true.
Walter's take
I should begin by clarifying that I advocate same-sex marriage on a normative basis and as the correct interpretation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. I was therefore disappointed by Proposition 8's success in California. While plenty of arguments have been offered to defend Proposition 8 on moral, natural, and familial grounds, it seems clear that the only honest motivation was religion (and perhaps the popular defense, "yuck").
The most common religious defense is that homosexual marriage threatens the institution itself. The tragedy is that many people do feel that the state recognition of homosexual marriage changes the nature of their own marriages, they have good reasons, and it's our fault for not being crystal-clear about the separation of church and state.
American Protestants have enjoyed centuries as the cultural and political heirs to the United States: The nation was founded and (until this century) owned and operated by White Protestants. And while Protestantism is hardly the only religion to blur the distinction between church and state (the Catholic Church is just as active in lobbying to change public school curricula, for example), I believe marriage is an issue over which Protestants feel uniquely entitled because they have no need to distinguish a political marriage from a religious marriage: the United States has largely codified into law the Protestant institution.
Other groups—for example Catholics and Orthodox Jews—have religious practices which are not codified into statute (Catholics do not believe in divorce but have their own church process for Annulment, Orthodox Jews have no divorce but men may grant a get). These differences remind those groups that a political marriage differs from a religious marriage.
Catholics and Protestants had very different opinions about Proposition 8. Most White Catholics in California opposed Proposition 8; White Protestants supported it with an overwhelming 85%. My explanation is that Protestants understandably feel that the recognition of homosexual marriage threatens their institution of marriage because they are rarely reminded that these two institutions are not the same thing. I believe them when they say that this will change the foundation of their marriage from one with a basis in a moral code to one with a basis in civic bureaucracy. Protestants, in short, grew too comfortable with the idea that a political and a religious marriage where the same thing.
This is hardly a decent argument against gay marriage; it has no more merit than the argument that the U.S. is a Protestant nation—or California a Protestant state—and we are therefore committed to Protestant traditions. Instead, it should be a reminder of the political problems that are created when we allow church and state to be blurred. Generally speaking, it's easy to disparage a strict secular tradition: I don't think a nativity scene in a public school in a 100% Christian community offends anyone subjected to it. That's not why I would oppose it. I oppose it because we confuse people.
When we mix religious and political traditions and space, we allow people to forget which traditions are religious and which are political. This can lead even the most liberal of electorates to deprive individuals of basic human rights.
Will's take
Maybe the disappointment of the Prop 8 failure can serve as a reminder of the amount of work left to be done to reach mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Living in coastal enclaves where gay people are often thought of purely as aesthetically-gifted brunchers who like to party a lot and live in trendy, expensive neighborhoods, makes it easy to forget the huge amount of misunderstanding and hatred that still exists toward homosexuals across this country.
Earlier today at an In-N-Out Burger in Pleasanton, Calif., I saw a young University of Oregon hockey player enjoying a Double-Double with a group of his teammates, sporting a bootleg "Army: No Homo" T-shirt. The Mission District hipster in me (and yes, there is quite a bit, though not quite at the tattoo/barista/thrash drummer level) wanted to take this as an ironic protest against the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but given his general demeanor, I'm willing to wager that wasn't the case. Unfortunately for this post, I didn't have the balls to ask him about the shirt, nor did I want to ruin my own Double-Double experience by sharing the venue with a confirmed homophobe.
While the spread of the Internet has dramatically opened up the diversity of information accessible about the world outside one's own life, it can often serve to only accentuate discriminatory behavior through the mask of anonymity. The world of online video gaming is full of anti-gay banter and deliberately hateful attacks on the "gaymer" community. Elsewhere on the web, I've seen message board posts recently lamenting the trend that "every TV show these days has to have a gay or lesbian character" and other such "pervasions" of modern American life by the "gay agenda."
I'm not a completely guiltless observer of these trends either. In years past, I've been guilty of not challenging the use of "gay" as a pejorative adjective referring to stereotypically effeminate activities and attitudes, though not as an out-and-out insult like many young Americans do. Example: Liking pop opera quartet Il Divo is "gay," but a teacher who gives you a bad grade on a test isn't. Unless they are. Not that there's anything wrong with that—to quote the Seinfeld episode that most accurately reflects the lingering unease of homosexuality and PC leanings common in my peer group.
Being a committed Boy Scout brought me some of the most meaningful experiences of my life, from cultivating my love of the outdoors early on to anchoring some of the more subtle traits of personal discipline and integrity in relationships that I rely on every day. Nevertheless, the very Mormons who broke the bank funding Yes on Prop 8 ads provide the bulk of the funding to the Boy Scouts of America, resulting in the infamous policy banning gay Scouts and adult leaders from participation. My own council in high school (Boston Minuteman) took a firm stance against this discriminatory practice, allowing members of all persuasions, but the shame of the national ruling remains with me.
The situation may still be bleak, but there's good reason to believe that it is steadily improving, though not at the pace that those of us sympathetic to the plight of gay rights activists may like. The fact that Prop 8 succeeded by a much thinner margin than the earlier vote banning gay marriage is encouraging. Ultimately though, perhaps the biggest driver of broader mainstream tolerance of homosexuality has been the courageous "coming out" of many of the past several generations of gay people, leading millions of Americans to realize that gay people aren't the one-dimensional threats of their imagination, but cousins, siblings, and children of people much like themselves.
My uncle and his partner, who live and work in St. Paul, Minn., have been together in a stable and loving relationship for most of my life, though until I was at least 13 I just thought they were business partners and good friends, and it wasn't until late in my childhood that the started attending family gatherings as a proud and open couple. My second cousin grew up in upstate New York with a pair of extremely loving grandparents who happened to be devout and culturally conservative Christians; their continued love of him even after learning that he was gay no doubt led to some serious soul-searching and reexamination of old beliefs.
Across the country, gay people in "red states" and smaller cities have gradually been moving into the light, quietly changing opinions and staking a claim that their life need be no different than any other American's, regardless of who they choose as their objects of love and lust. Though it won't be easy, and could fail if our society turned away from openness and acceptance as a value, it is here that I think the battles for gay rights will be won, not in "gay ghettos" like West Hollywood, the West Village, and the Castro.
RSS Feed