Gay Marriage vs. Board of Education
Since I was away from the computer on Monday, I didn’t get chance to comment on the first gay marriages being performed (as pointed out in this comment) :
I was hoping to chime in about how this decision by the state judicial branch is going to cause that state’s electorate to actually lean to the right and give Bush Massachusetts in a couple months. But I never saw a post on The Talent Show about it. I’m kinda surprised, especially since you had been pushing for civil unions as a good middle-of-the-road policy, and therefore assumed you’d be worried about how the gay marriage fight is going to affect the election.
As mentioned above, while I’m a strong supporter of gay marriage, I still support those who are more comfortable with civil unions. Gay marriage is as decisive as any issue out there right now and a middle ground is probably necessary if we’re going to make progress in some of the less tolerant areas of the country.
To put it in terms of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, the competing sides aren’t between whether gays should be allowed to marry or should have a “separate but equal” solution, but rather between marriage advocates and people who think homosexuality is a sinful abomination on par with incest. If the Brown case had been tried during reconstruction between people who wanted to fully integrate schools and former slave-owners who still saw African-Americans as being 3/5 of a person, our schools would still be segregated today. (Okay, so they are still mostly segregated, but that’s another issue entirely)
The fact is, integration wouldn’t have happened in the first place if it weren’t for segregation. While it means the march toward equality is moving slower than we’d like, it also means that the public’s unfounded and xenophobic fears are smoothed over. Yeah, I don’t think we should have to tip-toe around prejudices either, but that’s one of those things that comes along with living in a democracy. Being right often takes a back seat to being popular when it comes to getting anything done.
To bring it back to politics, I don’t think this will have a huge impact on the Presidential race. I think Kerry has a better chance of winning Texas than Bush does of winning Massachusetts. Even if this does cause the state to move to the right, it’s still Kerry’s home state. He’ll do fine. Plus, Bush’s pleas for an anti-gay constitutional amendment have generated about as much support as his plans to go to Mars or remove steroids from professional sports.
By the time the election rolls around, there will be six months of legal gay marriage and the Chicken Little’s out there will be able to see that the sky isn’t falling. I know the moralists are freaking out right now, but they’ll get used to it. If anything, I think the media attention will do a lot for the gay rights movement.
Did you guys notice anything missing from the news reports about gay marriages being performed? Unlike every other gay-themed event that the media covers, this was devoid of drag queens, leather men, and half-naked loudmouths (and I’m sure the cameramen were looking for them). Monday’s gay marriages weren’t about trying to grab the spotlight, but legally solidify existing relationships, and I think media coverage made this point fairly clear. Sure, there’s gonna be plenty of grumbling about “traditional values” for a while, but they’ll surely be contradicted by the lack of marital disasters in the wake of this landmark decision.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I simply do not understand people who are comfortable with civil unions, but not marriage. They’re only arguing semantics. Technically all civil marriages are civil unions. There is nothing that makes going to a court house and getting a license anything but a civil matter. If you are uncomfortable calling it marriage, you are most likely uncomfortable with it from a religous perspective. The good part about that is that churches still will have the right to marry whoever they want.
Comment by Andrew — May 19, 2004 @ 2:44 pm
in one report i heard yesterday (no CNN i think) one gay couple who was married was asked the question of why they prefer marriage to civil union. apparently the couple already had a civil union from several years ago, but the marriage would grant them even more legal rights and benefits than that civil union had previously. they didn’t get into specifics, but anyway… apparently there are more benefits with marriage than with civil unions.
though i understand your point, greg, i think the pro-civil-union/anti-gay-marriage stance is political bullshit. and again i say- the people on the right aren’t trying to pander to the middle on issues like this, so why should we?
Comment by tom — May 19, 2004 @ 4:49 pm
I don’t think the “no marriage, yes civil unions” position is necessarily a pandering one anyways. I think there are plenty of people who are legitimately sensitive to gay issues but still uncomfortable with the idea of gay people getting married. I wouldn’t be surprised to see many of our current crop of baby boomer politicians falling into that category. We’ve got the choice of either welcoming those who agree with us 90% of the time, or alienating them by decrying their stances as “bullshit”. I disagree with them, but I’m not gonna burn any bridges if I don’t have to.
But even if the position is one done for political pandering, it’s not as if the Republicans don’t do the same shit all the time. Every time they run for office, the do the same thing when they talk about judicial litmus tests and the like. Besides, if there’s any side that should be compromising and working together, it’s ours. Let’s not forget that they’re winning and we’re loosing right now. We’re not gonna get anything done if we stress ideological purity over general unity. Let’s take over a branch of government or two, then we can quibble over the specifics.
Comment by greg — May 19, 2004 @ 5:10 pm
yeah, i do agree that we neet to unite overall… and i see your point of baby-boomers still being a bit squeamish on homosexuality, but even my parents (who’re very liberal for their age, but have a little trouble with homosexuality) don’t have any problem with the idea of gay marriage. i think that more people jst don’t care, than do. i think that the main motivation for kerry’s attitude is political pandering to religious people- the only ones who really seem to care. and for that, then we should compromise at no church marriage for gay couples, but they can still get a legal marriage at the courthouse-there is a difference there that would preserve that “holy sacrement of marriage” while still granting gay couples the right to be legally married and thus get the benefits, and acceptance, they want.
Comment by tom — May 19, 2004 @ 5:33 pm
I agree with Greg on this. There are a lot of issues invovled with Gay marriage, especially when you start talking about civil unions. It is a complicated issue which unfortunatly will only recieve a balanced and intelligent discussion in some 22nd century historian’s book. But I kinda suspect that it won’t matter very much come the fall… at least I hope it won’t
Comment by Joe — May 19, 2004 @ 5:50 pm
Personally, the difference for me is that ‘civil union’ implies ‘non-religious’ which is not at all what it tends to mean in the actual debate, which is why so many gay people are against civil unions, which usually represent a tiny subset of rights appertaining to legal marriage.
If ‘civil union’ could be defined as ‘all rights of a legal marriage’ that should be good enough; provided that churches be allowed to have gay marriages if they want to, I don’t see how anyone can reasonably object to that (note I do not say ‘I don’t expect anyone to object to that’).
My own preference would be that gays universally reject religion, or at least those based heavily on ancient homophobic novels, but obviously plenty of intelligent people, gay or straight, feel like they need eternal answers, even lame ones, so it’s unlikely that this issue will be resolved any time soon.
Comment by jwer — May 20, 2004 @ 5:08 am
My opinion is the state should have civil unions for everyone. Gay or straight. Everyone gets the same legal rights. If you want to call it marriage you can, if you want to consumate it in a religous sense in a church, you can as well as long as there is a willing church.
Comment by Andrew — May 20, 2004 @ 8:53 am
Andrew:
right, that, only more long-winded!
:o)
Comment by jwer — May 21, 2004 @ 4:25 am
Marriages are contracted–not consummated–in a church or registrar’s office or wherever. Consummation is the first post-vow act of coitus. A marriage that is NOT consummated is NOT valid, and dissolving the legal bond is done by annulment rather than divorce. That is, there is a formal declaration that the marriage never existed rather than one that it no longer exists.
This raises interesting problems for homosexual unions, since by definition they cannot be consummated.
Comment by Sean Fitzpatrick — July 12, 2004 @ 12:11 pm
Not true. Let me quote to you from the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that essentially “legalized” gay marriage. Pay close attention to the part I’ve italicized for you :
I’ve got some extended quotes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court in this post. The reason gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts is because every argument put forward by the anti-gay crowd was bullshit.
Comment by greg — July 12, 2004 @ 12:29 pm