Gay Marriage

Comments

1. 

   February 27, 2004

   Paul Craddick

   For an excellent cognate article, see this:
   http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040227.shtml

   Reply
2. 

   February 28, 2004

   Mick H

   Thanks Paul – as you say an excellent article. I must admit it’s only now that I fully appreciate why Roe vs Wade is cited so often in US discussions on abortion.

   Reply
3. 

   February 29, 2004

   Patrick

   Where can i get a civil union? Nowhere. That’s right: nowhere. It’s only still a theoretical option at this point. And it smacks of separate-but-equal to me. We’ll see how many military bases let “civil union” boyfriends live in on-base “married housing”. Riiiight.
   What’s the big impetus about reserving the term “marriage” for hetero couples, I wonder? What social goal does that foster, exactly?
   And the argument that a pro-life mayor blocking abortion access is the parallel to a pro-gay mayor OPENING marriage to gay couples is the most specious analogy I’ve come across yet. Blocking access to an abortion can (and did) lead to some women’s death. Granting marriage licenses to same sex pairs harms exactly no one. A better (but just as specious) historical analogy would be a 1938 German mayor granting travel papers to Jews slated for the camps, despite the “laws” on the books preventing such issuances. If you’re going to use lame historicizing analogies, judge by the outcomes not the “rules following” at least.
   But such rhetorical stances seem to cover a speaker’s distaste for literal equality to gays. I agree with Ms. Bruce that Andrew Sullivan is a fool. But regardless of his rather pathetic need for cultural affirmation, he is simply misses the point. Separate(ly named) but equal institutions are never truly equal. Like Rosa Parks, gays and lesbians are simply getting sick of having to ride at the back of the partnership-bus. THAT was degrading to blacks in much the same way that “domestic partnership” is to gays. Yeah, the bus still gets everyone from point A to point B in same time, same route, same price. But equality it ain’t. At some point, the law itself is contravened. We’ll have to see where the unfolding cascade of events takes us in this case.
   But my guess is that in 30 years, people will look back and wonder what the fuss was about, just like they do with anti-miscegenation statutes. Who care’s today what race people are when they get married. Interracial marriages have neither sullied marriage, nor sullied the races. Same will be true of gay and lesbian marriages.
   All this huff and puff about abortion clinic parallels and the need to preserve some weird historical “heterosexual ideal” in term of “marriage” will be seen for what it is: just people rationalizing their own interest in the status quo.

   Reply
4. 

   February 29, 2004

   Mick H

   Patrick – you may be right that in 30 years time we’ll look back and wonder what the fuss was about, but I don’t accept your analogy with interracial marriages. Race is irrelevant to marriage, but gender isn’t – and that’s the way most people see it. I don’t think that’s just homophobia or, as you put it, people rationalising their own interest in the status quo.

   Reply
5. 

   February 29, 2004

   Patrick

   Mick – Race is irrelevant to marriage? I doubt that was the view of anti-miscegenationists. Marriage is as much about making and raising babies as it is about anything. And mixed race baby-making was (and probably still is) the big problem with mixed race marriages to conservatives in the first half of the 20th century. Maybe race isn’t relevant to marriage to you, today, but that’s because the status quo has simply changed. Irrelevant seems a strong word — and a way of sidestepping the real ethical questions by way of fiat or declaration.
   I personally don’t think gender or race (or social class, ethnic differences, physical ability, age differentials, etc.) should be relevant to civil statutes granting marriage rights and obligations. But that’s how I see it. I don’t think you (or anyone) is in a position to simply declare what is and is not “relevant” in some objective sense. Without getting into some long digression regarding the complex history of marriage, including its Hellenistic and classical Roman heritage and variation, I think it’s safe to say the what’s relevant in marriage has always been culturally determined. So the framing of the debate in such glosses like “X isn’t relevant to marriage” seems quite suspect to me.
   In 1954, race and marriage were very relevant to some people. In 2004, gender is very relevant to some.
   Obviously, I know I’m biased here. And I don’t believe there’s some historical dictionary definition to be consulted here. But even if I did, I think that the debate shouldn’t focus on what Canaanites, Spartans, Masai, or 15th century Britons think was “marriage” — but what seems equitable and right for me in 2004 North America. That’s what I think is relevant.
   . . .
   So I ask again: do you think civil union’d boyfriends will get to live in on-base military married housing?

   Reply
6. 

   February 29, 2004

   Mick H

   Patrick – In answer to your question about civil union’d boyfriends getting to live in on-base military housing, clearly I don’t know, but again clearly, if not, then that’s a source of discrimination that will – and should – be challenged. I accept what you say about definitions of marriage being culturally determined: up to now it’s included the concept of gender, in thirty years time it may not. It just seems that in pushing so hard for this – which I’m not at all sure is something all gays want anyway – you’re going to end up with bad laws, and laws that aren’t democratically supported.
   Basically, the majority still think gender is intrinsic to marriage, but would be a lot happier accepting equivalent civil unions – which is where we came in, because you’re going to say, that’s no sort of equality, it’s like separate but equal, which in the end means separate and unequal. To which I can only say, the gay community are not exactly powerless or without a voice. If it turns out like that, people will complain. Things will change.

   Reply
7. 

   March 3, 2004

   GS

   It could just be a badly-constructed, run-on sentance, but…
   Quote: “[C]ivil unions [… have] been derailed by those like Andrew Sullivan and San Francisco’s Gavin Newsom, who want it all and want it now, otherwise they’ll feel rejected and outcast.”
   I wouldn’t presume to comment on what goes on in Sully’s world, but in what way is Gavin Newsom, a married heterosexual, going to feel rejected and outcast if gay people don’t have equal rights?
   No, never mind – I’m forgetting, anyone who isn’t a typically heartless, brainless conservative is, of course, an emotional wreck motivated by their need to be loved and enabled.
   Silly Gavin Newsom for doing something positive – he just wants to be loved!

   Reply
8. 

   March 3, 2004

   GS

   Actually, another thought does occur.
   For theoretical purposes, I shall temporarily accept that the majority of Americans actively oppose gay marriage (as opposed to not really caring), and that this matters (and it only matters if one doesn’t understand that democracy means more than simple mob rule).
   So, the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. That’s a good reason not to have gay marriage mandated at a Federal level. But, given that the majority of the citizens of San Francisco support gay marriage, surely what Newsom has done is entirely right and proper, by your argument.
   As for the argument that, by pushing so hard for equality, the gay community (and, indeed, everyone who supports civic equality) will experience a backlash – still, previous civil rights movements were in a similar position, so the comparrison to inter-racial marriage remains. And, indeed, there were backlashes. And they soon dissipatated, and equality was advanced much more quickly than it would have been without the pushing.

   Reply