I wonder sometimes if advocates of gay marriage realize what a huge social change state recognition of gay marriage would bring. The very discussion itself has already caused many in our own community, particularly gay men, to reevaluate their attitudes toward relationships.
Given that the consciousness of our community first developed during the Sexual Revolution, with many understanding freedom for gays not only as the freedom to live openly, but also as mandating that gay people free themselves from the sexual mores, including lifelong relationships, commonplace in American society up until that time.
I wonder sometimes if all gay activists are comfortable with a community that increasingly celebrates its couples and promotes a lifestyle different only from our straight peers in the gender of our life-partners.
Just a thought on this busy day.
To me, gay marriage means everything straight marriage is supposed to mean…except for the gender of the partners.
Gay people were around before Stonewall. Or the the sexual revolution (or the French revolution, for that matter!)
Kidding aside, I do think that a possibility of validation does change one’s perspective. And those are the key points: “validation”, and “possibibility”. I mean, did any gay man reading this take their boyfriend to the high school prom? Yeah, thought not. But that’s ok, beacause it shows that validation does not always equate possibility. Making a life out of what one has is probably the most honorable endeavor. Many may not see that as such, so they don’t bother. I do not believe that those who do not commit (gay or straight) to any substantial relationship are the spokespersons of any group. Or me.
Gustav, please note what I said about the consciousness of our community. While there were gays around long before Stonewall, a community ethos seemed to develop in those heady days just after, one which is slowly beginning to change.
My dream is for a time when a couple can be straight or gay and we can raise kids behind a white picket fence and no one really notices. We’d have the same disfunctions straight couples do. It won’t happen in my lifetime but I think it will happen. Fifty years ago blacks couldn’t use most public drinking fountains. That’s why I’d prefer we win this in increments. Next should be civil unions in almost all the states. Civil unions which gives us everything except the word “marriage”. Ten years after that, someone will say hey, why not just call em married. And they will. So many of our good and brave trail blazers want the fight. They want the yelling and the fight. It’s just not me. And dare I say it’s not 80% of gay people. But we do appreciate and benefit from the militants efforts.
I certainly hope and pray for the day when gay couples exist side by side with straight couples and I also pray for the day when we who want to particpate in the free and open sexuality that was so much a part of the seventies, can still do so.
The “pair bond” as Desmond Morris called it, is great for many people but not for all and I for one do not see that situation in my future. And I consistently come across other gay men who do not see it for themselves either.
I hope that once gay “coupledom” has achieved parity with our straight counterparts, those of us who choose not to partake in the “pair bond” phenomena, will not be looked upon as antithetical to the hard won achievement of Mr. and Mr. (or Mrs. and Mrs, if you will) especially if we participate in the choice of unattached sexuality.
Lately, I’ve been reading White Guilt by Shelby Steele. As I was reading it the other night, I wondered what would happen if gay marriage were allowed tomorrow. I suspect some folks won’t know how to act and will find some way of continuing their victimhood. Next thing you know, we’ll wind up with gay Affirmative Action and heterophobia.
Of course looking at the news out of Provincetown lately, there’s already plenty heterophobia.
TGC, I just finished Steele’s book and hope to blog on it in the near future.
Groan. Another pop talking point passed off as irrefutable.
I suggest you read Chauncey’s “Gay New York.” I also suggest you do some research into mid-19th centrury discourses on sexuality. You might look a bit deeper into the transition from Harry Hay’s notions to the more conservative Mattachine Society’s notions that were ascendant before the so-called sexual revolution. You might leave the Ameican shore to study Berlin at the time of Hitler’s ascension and, before that….Oh never mind.
TThe notion that community “consciousness” “first developed” during the “Sexual Revolution” is just ignorant. Our present-day understanding of homosexuality includes echoes of sexual styles that go back centuries. If anything can be said about what it means to be queer, it’s that the definition is pretty damn incoherent and, if it’s not, you need to answer Foucault, Halperin and Sedgwick. Simply asserting this cliche,which nicely fits your version of the way things oughta be, is pathetic.
I mean, for Chrissakes, at least look up the stats on gay marriage where it’s been legalized and get back to us on the “huge social change” that’s occurring.
#8, please note my clarification in comment #3 above.
#8
Thank you, no. I have no desire to analyze it to death in an attempt to appear smarter than everybody else at cocktail parties.
It seems that the discussion was born out of a desire for lasting relationships. The “hedonistic” view of gay people as hopping from one partner to another seems to be left over from the days when our identities were more defined by people other than ourselves.
I’m not convinced that the satyr-like behavior is confined to gay men…there’s no shortage of news stories of straight men’s affairs. If all things were equal, gay men & women would be just as likely to settle down as our hetero brothers & sisters.
As for social upheaval, I haven’t heard of much upheavel in the European countries that have enacted same-sex marriage. 6500 marriages & England still stands.
#8: I knew much of that history too (you forgot Dr. Hooker, the first psychiatrist to not treat gayness as a disorder), I just figured it wasn’t relevant to the topic at hand.
From Boston:
“Two years after getting married, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the state’s landmark gay marriage case, are splitting”
Link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/21/after_2_years_same_sex_marriage_icons_split_up/
Apparently, the tunnels aren’t the only thing falling apart in Boston….
The concept of full legal recognition bearing equal rights and responsiblities is important. Moreover, that would be needed on a federal level to have the full protections under the law.
The problem, IMO, is there are too many fundamenalistic types fighting for “all or noting” and relying to heavily on the courts to magically make marriage equality happen.
While the effort and brining the matter to the forefront is a good thing. The tactics and approach are detrimental.
The separate is not equal arguement leads to even the banishment of civil unions. Why would a legislature fight for civil unions if the vocal fundamentalist gay faction doesn’t want them?
These “activists” negate what the community or others may want and try to force everyone to accept their wants and view. They are much like the opposition in that.
As far as promoting couples, monogamy and commitment. Gay couples, monogamy and commitment have been around long before Stonewall. My “aunts” had lived together for 50 years and this anniversary was marked in the 70s.
The influence is that Stonewll allows us to even have this discussion and dream of the possiblity.
But I agree with the person who laid out a plan to build over the next few decades.
#12 Vera Charles — July 21, 2006 @ 9:26 am – July 21, 2006
““Two years after getting married, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the state’s landmark gay marriage case, are splitting””
That’s !interesting. Are we supposed to presume that, given the fact that heteros in red states divorce at a much higher rate than homos in blue states, marriage should be denied to homos anywhere?
I don’t know about gay activists, but as a gay man in small-town America I have never wanted a lifestyle substantially different from my straight peers. I like to work, to shop, have a beer, work in the yard, watch movies, a little social activity and so on. What other life would I want, one that plays like being an extra in an X-rated remake of Caligula?? No, not me. I know some believe that a gay lifestyle is mainly a sexual lifestyle. It has never meant that to me. I don’t want to be different just to be different. I do want to be able to love the person I love, without fear and without ostracism. Otherwise, I like being a part of mainstream America.
Regarding the all or nothing arguement there’s this example from This is what domestic partnership gets you. regarding Eric Rofes recent death (& some will dismiss it out of hand because it comes from Daily Kos):
Seperate but equal might work as an interim, if Civil Unions are truly equal and carry the same responsibilities and rights. Otherwise, there’s no point to accepting those particular crumbs as we won’t be any better off.
There are very few that I’ve ever met who are pushing monogamy and LTR’s as the standard we all must live up to (but anti-monogamy folks seem to be insistant that their’s is the “correct” Gay Way).
Marriage, straight or gay, be an option for individuals to decide for themselves.
thanks for all these great comments, readers. Keep ’em coming!
RE: #14
That’s !interesting. Are we supposed to presume that, given the fact that heteros in red states divorce at a much higher rate than homos in blue states, marriage should be denied to homos anywhere?
Comment by raj — July 21, 2006 @ 10:14 am – July 21, 2006
Oh, raj darling…
Presume nothing. It’s merely an interesting (if sad) development in the ongoing discussion. Vera thought others on the thread might want to know.
Vera isn’t usually one to report bad news – as it ruins her positive outlook on humanity.
With marriage for ‘homos’ (your word, not Vera’s) allowed in only the bluest of blue states (the wonderful Gay-Bay State of Massachusetts – one of Vera’s favorites) and for only the past 2 years, Vera can’t verify your presumption of higher hetero divorce rates in red states compared to blues. It must be a limited and small study to result in this ‘fact’, but Vera isn’t one to questions others long held beliefs.
A frequent participant in divorces, herself – Vera has sympathy for anyone forced to return small tokens of affection and sentimental items given in what was once the full bloom of love.
Heartbreaking for all who posses hearts.
What needs to happen, but it won’t in our lifetimes, is for government to get out of the marriage business. Establish a standardized contract that, when agreed to by two or more parties, causes them to be considered relatives for legal purposes. If one were unfortunate enough to have few to no family members, it would allow them the practical benefit of having a set of close friends who could make decisions on their behalf in a medical emergency and visit them. It would save a lot of legal costs because it’s standardized, but people should be able to alter it to suit them. Stop treating people differently based on the contract from a government benefits point of view, and privatise or eliminate social security so people can leave their assets to their loved ones. Without a will, the standardized familial relations contract would be used as the primary basis for inheritance. It could even establish a priority list if you’ve established more than one person as a family member.
Meanwhile, churches and synagogues and whatnot can continue to have marriage as they define it and decide for themselves what constitutes a marriage. Adam and Steve can say “We’re married.”, and Jack and Jill can say “No, you’re not.” Freedom of speech. But there’s not much to fight over because they’re not getting any benefits paid for by all four.
The poor tax and income redistribution scheme known as Social Security is the biggest culprit. If you’ve paid a lot into S.S., the best way to make sure you get it back and then some is to marry someone younger than yourself.
That’s my little fantasy. No need to burst my bubble. I already know it ain’t gonna happen. It’s too sensible to satisfy the left or the right, each trying to use government to control marriage in their own ways.
There was not, at least initially, any “mandate”. Keep in mind not just the attitudes of gay men at the time, but those of the straight people around them, including their own family members.
There was no greater crime that you could commit in the eyes of society at large than that of being gay. A family would rather accept that their son was a murderer than being gay. To be gay was to be Outcast, Damned, Unclean. And of course for gay men, you would never, ever, be thought of as a man, manly, or masculine. No matter your actual behavior. You could never be Head of Household, to assume a man’s place in the world, your Father’s place, You had no “place” in the world at all in fact other than the role of outcast.
So it is in that context that the nascent self-awareness of gay people started to come together. Gays and lesbians did not in the 70’s suddenly decide to “break the rules” of sexual morality, because at that time they had already been thrust unwillingly outside of them. There were no rules of morality for them to break.
Some people point to the 70’s and tsk, tsk, about the promiscuity and casual sex. But they do so from the vantage point of being within society, not outside of it, as those gay people were.
It would be a meaningless statistic. Pennsylvania is an excellent example. The only reason this is a blue state is Pittsburgh and Philly. There is nothing “blue” or liberal about the rest of the state. A breakdown by county, OTOH, would be meaningful.
Gramps writes at #20: “There was no greater crime that you could commit in the eyes of society at large than that of being gay. A family would rather accept that their son was a murderer than being gay. To be gay was to be Outcast, Damned, Unclean. And of course for gay men, you would never, ever, be thought of as a man, manly, or masculine.”
Frankly, Gramps, that may have been the case in your family and those other dysfunctional families where your dates were raised, but it isn’t even close to being accurate –but your assessment nicely fuels the VictimCard and you seem to punch that VictimCard here enough to deserve at least a free fill-up of hot air. j/k
And before we have to go there, I know that the psychiatric community took a long time to reverse the mental illness angle, but the truth is that they had long since abandoned the notion (circa 1939-41) and credible docs had called for revision in official positions as early as 1931.
Your family may not have supported you and would have rather had a son serving prison time for murder… but don’t project that nonsense on the rest of our gay community. I’ve known lots and lots of gay men and women who came out in 1960-1970s in a warm, hospitable, accepting and loving family.
Put the VictimCard away; you’re already out of punches.
I must confess to a certain morbid curiosity as to why Michigan-Matt continually needs to respond to anything I write with unwarranted personal attacks.
I mean really, I could post a recipe for making a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich and he’d claim it was proof I was the Anti-Christ. The man just seems to crave my attention, even it is negative attention. Sick, sick, sick. You need to find yourself another hobby dearie.
The problem out there is all these people running around screaming about Massachusetts and the ruling that gays can get married.
Well, they really can’t. They don’t get the same federal privileges. Massachusetts is a glorified Vermont and Conneticutt.
These are stepping stones, but we are not going to see full equality until the rights and privileges that come at a federal level are equal. Who cares what it is called?
Leave the ceremony and “sanctity” for the church if it makes them feel better about themselves.
When you make a commitment to another human being and you would die for them you are married and that is sanctified by your love.
Very well said in that last paragraph, Kenny.
When you make a commitment to another human being and you would die for them you are married and that is sanctified by your love.
You know what or how a couple’s relationship is recognized isn’t what makes it a marriage. If the state said tomorrow that they weren’t going to recognize any marriages, I wouldn’t be any less married to my husband, because the important promise for us is the one we made to each other before God-that is the one that makes us married.
I do think the stepping stone route would have been the best way to acheive gay marriage-sure it would have required tons of patience, but in the end patience would have been less divisive, and I think it may have avoided some of the marriage amendment backlash that I think came about as a result of the Massachussette’s court decision. Several of the states that voted for marriage amendments were blue states, this isn’t a red state issue.
#8, please note my clarification in comment #3 above.
I read it. It in no way changes my critique. I love the way you use “seems to” to provide yourself an escape hatch.
I mean, really. Read some gay history. There has been an oscillation of political styles for at least a century. The gay movement was far more radical before Stonewall at one point than it was after Stonewall.
I mean, check out the UK just prior to Oscar Wilde’s conviction. This business about “huge social changes” has been the alarmist cry of the opposition for well over a century.
“And before we have to go there, I know that the psychiatric community took a long time to reverse the mental illness angle, but the truth is that they had long since abandoned the notion (circa 1939-41) and credible docs had called for revision in official positions as early as 1931.”
Where? Sources please.
I can’t wait to read this.
It would be a meaningless statistic. Pennsylvania is an excellent example. The only reason this is a blue state is Pittsburgh and Philly. There is nothing “blue” or liberal about the rest of the state. A breakdown by county, OTOH, would be meaningful.
But the red-blue metaphor is otherwise meaningful, right, professor?
I must confess to a certain morbid curiosity as to why Michigan-Matt continually needs to respond to anything I write with unwarranted personal attacks.
Because he’s an idiotic wingnut, obviously. This site fully authorizes invective and personal attacks. Enjoy it!
Anyone else notice how the new Ovid writes and comments in a vein very similar to raj baby? Hmmmmmm.
I see there’s yet another leftist sock puppet to ignore.
#32 Michigan-fatMatt* — July 22, 2006 @ 6:52 am – July 22, 2006
Anyone else notice how the new Ovid writes and comments in a vein very similar to raj baby? Hmmmmmm.
Sadly, no. (You can continue humming, though)
Apparently you need to have your glasses prescription checked. Look at the top line here: it includes the number of the comment to which I am responding, the name of the responder(*), the date and the time of the comment to which I am responding.
All of these are missing from Ovid’s post.
Don’t become another of the wingnut paranoids.
*fatMatt is what some right-wingnut talkshow hosts in Boston use to refer to Matt Amorello, the current head of the Massschusetts Turnpike Authority that Mitt “the snit” Romney has been trying to displace for a number of years in order to get state government access to the revenues of the Mass Transpike Authority. More Republican party corruption.
Why do I refer to you as fatMatt? You were the one who started the issue of denigrating people because of their girth. Debbie StupidCow. Remember? Of course you don’t.
Be sure and give my regards to your buddy Art Finkelstein the next time you’re in the Boston area.
Unfortunately, Raj, you’ve never actually seen Michigan-Matt.
I have seen Debbie Stabenow, and she is quite the extra-sized person, as this can show you.
Now, begin your BMI rant.
As I’ve stated before, I think many conservatives would gladly jump on the gay marriage bandwagon if there were REAL proof that it is genetic.
There are people that struggle with pornography, gambling, booze, etc. But they certainly have control over those parts of their lives. They weren’t “born” to be alcoholics.
Again, belief in the gay marriage gene is a matter of faith. Faith in lack of science.
#15 I’m with you all the way Lance. Ditto
#24 Kenny — July 21, 2006 @ 5:59 pm – July 21, 2006
When you make a commitment to another human being and you would die for them you are married and that is sanctified by your love.
If you wish to believe that, feel free. I would suggest that you not try to take it to the state marriage registry and get them to certify it. Unless you’re a resident of Massachusetts, of course. And, unless you can get the state to certify it, you can’t even hope to get any of the benefits of marriage at the federal level.
Of course, given the current make-up of the federal government, it is highly unlikely that you’d get them anyway.
But, at least with marriage, you might have the hope of portability, if not to other states, at least possibly to other countries. With civil unions? No.
#16 Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 21, 2006 @ 11:16 am – July 21, 2006
The part that you quoted is not unusual.
But regarding
They (the funeral home) had the gall to question a 16 year old relationship, legally bound as far as two gay men can go.
I’d give the funeral director and the medical examiner a bit of a break. It is unclear whether the funeral director or the medical examiner knew ab initio that they had had a 16 year relationship, or even what that relationship entailed. They were not married–within the meaning of the law in Massachusetts–and it was not clear whether the partner had the right to authorize an autopsy or to determine the funeral arrangements.
Let’s understand something. What you are properly complaining about is the fact that gay couples have to jump through these kinds of hoops in order to verify that they have the right to make funeral decisions for their dead partners–if they have the appropriate paperwork in place, and if the various states are willing to even acknowledge the paperwork (some obviously won’t, viz, Virginia)–and that straight couples don’t have to jump through those hoops. The complaint isn’t about the funeral home or the medical examiner.
#35 North Dallas Thirty — July 22, 2006 @ 3:00 pm – July 22, 2006
Unfortunately, Raj, you’ve never actually seen Michigan-Matt.
I neither know nor care what fatMatt looks like. All I know is that he and his sock-puppet V the stupidKow are willing to denigrate someone merely because of his or her appearance. That is all I need to know.
If I were to do the same with you, it would be a bit like me denigrating you because you engage in “diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain” in comments. I’ve held off doing that, but I may very well consider doing it next time when you bloviate on Malcontent.
All I know is that he and his sock-puppet V the stupidKow are willing to denigrate someone merely because of his or her appearance. That is all I need to know.
Which means they are engaging in exactly the same tactics as you are; however, in their case, they have visual proof for their statements.
And all this simply means is that you don’t have the guts to attack my physical appearance, even though I’ve given you my BMI. As always happens, standing up to a bully exposes them as a coward.
Why does Heather Chandler call himself “the compassionate liberal”? Wouldn’t most liberals be pissed at his insinuation that they are not “compassionate” by definition?
Whew! OK- Gay history: yes, I do think Gays became more of a part of mainstream media after Stonewall, but only because it could. Stonewall of course did not invent “gay/gayness”, maybe it just tapped into something everyone knew about. Most people did’nt know, or care, about the 40 some odd gay bars in Berlin c. 1914, or the red-tied guys hanging out the NY subways of same era. Or the gay rights group that came out of the US by WWI vets in the early 1920’s (squelched, be assured…but made the news). Effeminate guys were a comic appearance in nickelodeons (early silent films like “The Renunciation” 1909).Yeah…whatever- some may say, but I think there has been a long history of gays (or gay-ishness) that seem to have gained, if not outright acceptance, at least a knowledge of. That’s what gets the ball rolling. Family, friends, other close ones may have known, and indeed accepted their gay ones. Society may not always do so, of course (kids still beat up or tease the sissies), but as a history nerd I like to think the lessons from the old days enables me to rise above the bullsh*t, and be better for it.