Oversold?
Gay marriage is one of those issues that I could personally scarcely care less about.
Oh, I think "marriage" is a necessarily mixed-gender thing, and furthermore I think of it as a religious rather than civil or legal construct. As such, my inner libertarian thinks that civil unions are both perfectly fine and ethically obvious, and that any religious body that can theologically justify gay marriage should be able to do the job (although to do so in the Christian, Moslem, and most forms of Judaism would require a level of scriptural mangling that the inner Christian that shares space with my inner libertarian think of them more as "social clubs" than "churches").
I understand, and to an extent sympathize with, the pro-gay-marriage case; at one point, Andrew Sullivan had me more or less convinced in its merits. It didn't last, of course; further thought caused me to change my mind. I think Civil Unions are a tenable middle ground option that gives long-term committed gay couples the legal rights they should have, without changing "marriage" into something that it's not.
It's around this point that a gay marriage supporter will chime in "So it's the word marriage you're trying to protect?" Not really, but let's run with the idea for a moment; 10,000 years of human tradition have imbued certain words with meanings; "Priest" and "Veteran" and "Doctor" and "Female" are all "just words", like like "Marriage", too - many of them "words" imbued with benefits I'd love to have, to say nothing of deep symbolism - but no matter how badly I might want GI Bill benefits or an M.D.'s salary or or to have doors opened for me or to wear a miter cap, I don't get to, just because I say it should be so and that I've love the bennies, thank you very much. I can also expect them to say "why shouldn't two people who love each other be able to get married?"; because marriage isn't about love. A marriage must have it, but it's not about it. It's about having, raising and securing the future of the family.
In about half the US, gay marriage is illegal (and in many of them, so are civil unions). The reason? People oppose it. Not just the dour caricatures that proponents point to; even liberal states like Oregon and California reject the idea pretty roundly. And while the acceptance of the idea of gay marriage has grown in recent years, it's still, politically speaking, the stance of atiny minority.
Which means the spin is going to get absolutely outrageous, as this morning's Strib article shows us:
For Minnesotans, the campaign unfolding next door in Wisconsin may offer a preview of what to expect in a few months: an expensive, emotional political fight with no middle ground, and that could affect other political contests, including the governor's race.
Um...
Yeah.
Not seeing it.
Oh, it'll be expensive and emotional, all right. The emotions are justified; gays feel the bans institutionalize discrimination (and, as re Civil Unions, they may even have a point); antis are digging in to defend an institution they believe to be ordained by God, and ergo not to be tinkered with by the likes of Jane Ranum and Wes Skoglund.
But who says there's no middle ground? Supporting legal, civil unions - that give gays the legal benefits and headaches they so want, without enforcing a noxious redefinition of "marriage" onto people of faith - is a middle ground.
The answer, of course - the Strib, and the gay marriage activists whose water they're carrying, don't want there to be a middle ground. They want the issue to be framed in broad, absolute blacks and whites; you're either for gay marriage, or you're a bigot.
In Wisconsin, "we're going to have a passionate debate -- no question about that," said state Rep. Mark Gundrum, a Republican from New Berlin who sponsored the proposed ban. "This issue has gotten so big because of the incredibly aggressive push by gay activist groups. "
On the one hand, I have to hand it to the gay activist groups - well, some of them; they're doing it through the legislature, rather than the courts. They're embarking on a mission that's going to take them
generations (if they succeed at all), to convince people that 10,000 years of human tradition are wrong and need to be turned on their ear.
There are vagaries, of course:
The possibility that the Wisconsin amendment could upend the lives of far more people than same-sex couples is contained in its second sentence, which states that a legal status "identical or substantially similar to marriage for unmarried couples" would no longer be recognized in Wisconsin.
Supporters say the amendment would do no such thing. But an analysis by the Wisconsin Legislative Council did not decisively land on either side of the argument over that issue.
Well, words count, words in amendments as well as words like "marriage". I don't know that the Wisconsin ban is something I'd find acceptable, based on those grounds.
On the other hand, the opponents of the Wisconsin ban are up to the task of convincing anyone:
"That second sentence is really mean-spirited [Isn't that becoming the all-purpose way of slagging a conservative ideal these days? If a cultural conservative talks in the forest and nobody hears him, is he still "mean-spirited?" - Ed.]and raises lots of questions about basic rights," said the Rev. Winton Boyd, a United Church of Christ minister in Madison who is Kleiss and Garcia [the lesbian couple who, with their daughter, are presented in the sort of relentless soft focus you can expect to see as the standard template for all media depictions of gay parents in these cases]'s pastor and formerly served Lyndale United Church of Christ in south Minneapolis. "They may have overreached by thrusting this into questions of civil rights that go way beyond gay marriage. And in states like Wisconsin and Minnesota, that still means something."
Leave aside the inevitable left-of-center provincialism; there's a point beneath the condescension and mislabeling. It's neither mean-spirited nor particularly un-Minnesotan to oppose gay marriage on the grounds that "marriage" is, by definition, a two-gender thing, but it does pay to be incredibly precise in one's writing.
Gay marriage is not the number one issue for public consideration; it is, in fact, not in my top ten.
But I, for one, am looking forward to the Minnesota legislature going on record with the issue.
Posted by Mitch at
March 30, 2006 06:47 PM
| TrackBack
I'm actually looking forward to a Peevish denuciation of your premise "10,000 years of human tradition". It will be replete with references to polygamy, Alexander the Great and historical reference dating back less than 7,000 years.
Posted by: Kermit at March 30, 2006 03:56 PMLike any of that is germain...
Just sayin.
"…there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, William Shakespeare
Posted by: Eracus at March 30, 2006 04:11 PMMitch, you got the idea of marriage right when you stated that it is about the family. I would be more restrictive and say that it is about the protection of the children, the expected result of a family. Our legal and social systems have recognized that fact for centuries. Marriage is a contract that this recognized by the state. It has legal ramifications, most importantly, insuring that the children that result from that marriage are protected if and when the marriage is dissolved. Divorce proceedings spend a lot of time on the welfare of the children.
A non-religious ceremony in front of a justice of the peace, or whatever you guys have up there is legally as much a marriage as if the ceremony was presided over by a priest, a pastor AND a rabbi. And it is about protecting the children.
Non-married families, i.e., parents who are not married when they produce children, have additional problems when it comes to protecting children. Non-married parents seem to find it much easier to split, and protection of the children is more difficult, legally speaking. However, the relationship of non-married parents is not a civil union. It has no legal standing unless one party can make the legal point that it was a common law marriage. And yet, the state does what it can to insure that the child is protected.
All of that being said, I’m not sure what “civil union” actually means. It does not mean that two people can agree to participate in a contract, such as buying a house or a car. They can already do that. It does not mean that they can become responsible for a child. They can already do that. Does it mean that one partner is guaranteed participation in things like employee provided insur ance, retirement, and so on? Or is the whole thing a veneer of respectability for a lifestyle the most Americans are not comfortable with?
I think that most of us are concerned about a slippery slope. Marriage will mean nothing, family will mean nothing. We believe that marriage is a special relationship, and that it has a sanctity that living together does not have. It has obligations beyond the relationship of two people who are not married. After all, if two unmarried but cohabiting people split up, is there any legal issues that approximate a divorce? Only if there are children. Absent children, the state does not care. But a marriage requires a divorce, whether there are children or not.
I disagree that there is a middle ground. What is the middle ground?
Posted by: scott at March 30, 2006 04:38 PMWhat happened in Hawaii has left the dem's and the the whole pro gay marriage activist community very down on the idea of pursuing a democratic means to achieve their goal. Here in Hawaii you had almost perfect conditions for the legalization of gay marriage. Hawaii is geographically remote from the rest of hte US. It has a majority non-white population and has a history of supporting progressive causes well ahead of even liberal states on the mainland (see the career of US congresswoman Patsy Mink). Hawaii has been dominated by democrat local politicians since the early 60's. What's more a large part of the population confesses to atheism or Buddism rather than Christianity.
The history of the gay marriage movement in a nutshell is this:
1993: A sympathetic county agent gives a marriage certificate to male gay coupel. They can't get it recognized by the state, so they sue and take it to the supreme court.
1994: The supreme court decides that the state constitution does not define marriage as between one man and one woman and gives the legislature 2 years to remedy the situation. A poll shows the local population is split about 60-40 against gay marrriage.
1994-1998: pro and anti gay marriage forces inudate the state with rallies, TV and print ads, etc. The political storm reaches a turning point in 1998: The legislature puts a constitutional amendment on the ballot that year would allow them to restrict marriage to one man, one woman. The measure passes by about 60%-40%.
The gay marriage issue is what political scientists call a matter of core belief with little salience. The pro gay marriage folks couldn't win at the ballot box despite an almost "perfect storm" of favorable conditions.
So they've turned to the courts. Doesn't seem right, does it, for a party that claims to represent the common man against narrow political interests.
I ran into a bit of odd fallout from the Hawaii gay marriage controversy a few years ago. When I went down to the county office to get a marriage license the clerk told me to wait a minute. She left and reappeared with another civil servant in tow. New regulations said that a special "Governor's representative" had to process marriage license applications. They wanted no repeat of the 1993 incident.
Posted by: Terry at March 30, 2006 08:36 PMTerry brilliantly observes: "So they've turned to the courts. Doesn't seem right, does it, for a party that claims to represent the common man against narrow political interests."
Dirty little secret. The Democrat party represents narrow political interests against the common man (person). That's why they need the courts. They can't win in the public square.
Posted by: Kermit at March 30, 2006 09:17 PMScott said,
Or is the whole thing a veneer of respectability for a lifestyle the most Americans are not comfortable with?
Should be be passing legislation based on what people are comfortable or uncomfortable with?
There was a time when interracial marriage made people uncomfortable and we had laws against that. My mom is 74 years old and I don't consider her a racist but she is still uncomfortable with seeing a black man with a white woman and vice-versa but to question or even consider legislation against it certainly seems draconian today.
And is "lifestyle" code for gay sex? Is that the real issue? I hear people complain that allowing gays to marry means condoning the gay lifestyle.
What does that mean?
I've seen gay couples shopping at Rainbow. Horror of horrors.
My friend Steve and his partner go fishing in Tennessee every year - and not in the Brokeback sense. They really Fish.
My sister-in-law and her partner of almost 30 years just put their dog to sleep.
Is that a gay lifestyle?
If we're REALLY uncomfortable with the gay "lifestyle" why does every porno have two women engaged in lesbian sex? How about anal sex - a frequent theme in porno today - or, ummm, so I've been told... and why is Porno a multi-billion dollar industry? Not that I would know of course.
Why do Americans pour billions of dollars into something they are so uncomfortable with?
I think the real issue is that people have spent so long viewing gays and lesbians as different that they forget that they are just people who fall in and out of love like everybody else.
Basing legislation on being human is just fundamentally wrong.
Posted by: Doug at March 31, 2006 08:31 AMDoug revealed: "If we're REALLY uncomfortable with the gay "lifestyle" why does every porno have two women engaged in lesbian sex? How about anal sex - a frequent theme in porno today - or, ummm, so I've been told (yeah, right)... and why is Porno a multi-billion dollar industry? ('Cause they give you a discount at the store?) Not that I would know of course. (of course)"
TMI! TMI!
Posted by: Kermit at March 31, 2006 09:18 AMLeave your personal life out of this!
And one more thing.
"Basing legislation on being human is just fundamentally wrong."
Murder is 100% human, Doug. As is theft, rape and assault. If they weren't we wouldn't have laws regarding them.
Posted by: Kermit at March 31, 2006 10:05 AMEverything Human ain't necessariy good.
Doug said:
Posted by: BobbyRay at March 31, 2006 12:40 PM"Basing legislation on being human is just fundamentally wrong."
Yeah Doug!
Bought time we get those "speciest" beastiality codes off the books then don't you think? What a consenting man and consenting sheep do behind the barn is no business of the gummint.
Personally, a harem would be more to my liking. Could polygamy be the next civil rights issue we tackle, pleeeease!!!!
In Vermont the Civil Unions were being used by parents to pass property on to children tax free. The scam works like this: you're not allowed to reject anybody for one of those unions, which meant that parents could form a civil union with a child, who then got to pass on property and whatnot free of Vermont state taxes because the child was a "spouse." The Feds nixed the tax benefits, but with VT taxes getting something tax free was quite a good thing.
Even more strange was the case of a Connecticut pair who got a CU in VT, and went back to CT and then promptly "split." The problem was, they couldn't undo the CU. VT had a provision that their courts could only deal with dissolutions for in-state folks. But the house-husband (? or whatever you call the non-working, house tending equivalent in a CU) couldn't leave the house without losing all claim to it in CT court. Quite the mess.
But then again, the number of VT residents who got a CU was tiny, less than 5% of the total. Nice to know VT could export problems to the rest of the country so well.
Posted by: nerdbert at March 31, 2006 06:29 PMKermit said,
"Everything Human ain't necessariy good."
Nope Kermit, You're right but everything human that you and I don't necessarily relate to isn't automatically bad yet that seems to be the accepted belief among a lot of conservatives when it comes to the "gay lifestyle".
"Murder is 100% human, Doug. As is theft, rape and assault. If they weren't we wouldn't have laws regarding them"
Kermit, I said "basing legislation on BEING human is just fundamentally wrong"
You're conflating falling in love with someone of the same sex (and wanting that union officially recognized) with murder, rape, theft and assault.
So in your view, just for clarification, it is a crime to fall in love with a member of the same sex. That is what you are saying.
Posted by: Doug at April 1, 2006 07:30 AMThe issue is NOT about who you love. You can love anyone (or anything, or any group) you want in the USA, that is not being legislated. Get is straight. You can even go to a church and get whatever relationship you want blessed. That is not being proposed to be stopped.
The issue is about who our society chooses to give special rights to for the betterment of our society. If we choose to give those rights to a relationship consisting of a single male and a single female because we believe that is the most beneficial relationship for our society, then that is what a democracy can do. It does not send the thought police in to stop you from loving outside of that relationship.
Get the issue straight folks. It is not about limiting sexuality or stopping the free practice of religion.
Posted by: BJB at April 1, 2006 09:53 AMDoug wrote: "So in your view, just for clarification, it is a crime to fall in love with a member of the same sex. That is what you are saying."
This is the most egregious straw man argument I've seen on Mitch's blog since the last time PeaveBoy left a comment.
BJB wrote: "The issue is about who our society chooses to give special rights to for the betterment of our society."
I think you want to be careful with arguments of this type. The wonder of the US form of gov't is that it has no agenda. Government is not so much directed to do things as it is prohibited from doing things. Promoting an agenda may be the the goal of a political party but it is not the legitimate purpose of the state.
Posted by: Terry at April 1, 2006 05:09 PMGreat blog you are running. RyanX
Posted by: PyanX at April 25, 2006 04:04 PM