For almost as long as I’ve been blogging, I have criticized gay marriage advocates for focusing more on promoting marriage rights than in talking about the meaning of this ancient institution — and why its obligations and privileges would benefit gay people. And the more I think about this attitude toward gay marriage, the more I see how it defines the rhetoric — and agenda — of the national gay organizations, including even Log Cabin, the ostensibly Republican one. They focus more on securing “rights” — and achieving them through government action — than on changing attitudes toward gay people.
Even as we see a significant shift in attitude toward gay people in America, the activists continue to seek redress in courts and in legislatures. At the same time, families across the country are becoming more accepting of their gay children (and other relatives) while private institutions are increasingly recognizing our relationships — and acting to protect us from discrimination.
In seeing the improving social conditions for gay people in America, I see why I’m not entirely comfortable with the term “gay rights.” It’s not that I oppose certain legislation which would benefit us. For, I do support state recognition of our unions — and legislation which would repeal Clinton’s Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy addressing gays in the military. It’s just that I think that most of what needs to be done is continue what has been going on since the 1970s — to change people’s attitudes so they gain a better image of gay people in general.
And this is happening despite the focus of the gay groups on judicial and legislative action. It seems to me that these groups have defined what is essentially a social movement in political terms.
Perhaps, they have tried too hard to emulate the Civil Rights’ movement of the 1960s. I believe that we’d be better served if we continue to put forward positive images of gay people in the culture. By our culture, I don’t just mean the media, but in our everyday lives.
By making this social movement a political one, gay groups see a dismal landscape — except in certain “blue” states. Yet, if their benchmarks are not laws passed or favorable court decision, but instead shifting attitudes, they might be far more optimistic about the social conditions of gay people in America.
GPW, interesting commentary. Adding to it, I think the national gay groups have missed a big cue – the very large percentage of young people who are supportive of gays and lesbians. If we’re winning the battle for acceptance/understanding among younger people, but alienating older folks (those of voting age who actually vote), these groups are missing the point. They’re squandering opportunities to build acceptance. There is probably room for both tactics (that is, judicial/legislative action ala civil rights and also engaging our hetersexual counterparts in more informative conversations), but I think they are allowing the debate to be framed in only one way. Or perhaps a better way to say that is they are reacting to the debate being framed one way, instead of changing how it’s framed.
Good idea, GPW. We can start by getting the main stream media to portray normal gay men and lesbians (the majority of us), especially couples, living our normal, everyday lives, working, raising children, and behaving and dressing as everyone else does, instead of just focusing on the drag queens and leather guys at pridefest parades. We’d still have a long way to go, but that would be a good start.
I agree very much with the original post, and with comment #1.
On the marriage issue (since this is the “Broadway” issue at the moment) I think that the discussion has to be had on a few levels at once. One level is the legal level where we are discussing things like rights, equality under the law, fairness and the like. That’s an important discussion, because it’s the discussion that is relevant for courts and constitutions – it’s the language of those venues. But it really can’t be the only level of discussion, I think.
The reason I think this way is that “marriage” means more to most people than a set of legal rights, obligations, duties and benefits. Yes, these go along with being married, but for the vast, vast majority of straight married people, they are not the key way they look at marriage at all, and when we speak of marriage only in terms of rights, we can convey an impression that LGBT people either don’t know what marriage really is, or don’t relate to it the way that the straight world does, or, more dangerously, perhaps won’t treat marriage the same way as the straight world does if/when it becomes available to us. In short, I think we need to articulate why we need marriage in terms of a discourse that doesn’t relate to rights, fairness and equality, but instead relates to marriage as most straight, married people view marriage. I think we desperately need to broaden the discussion to this level, beyond issues of fairness and equality.
The main obstacle to this, in my view, is ourselves. By keeping the issue on the level of “rights”, we can maintain a semblance of unity in what is otherwise a very, very fractious LGBT world. When we start talking about the “content” of marriage, that semblance of unity breaks down, and we face a lot of different opinions. Now, of course, there are a lot of different opinions about marriage in the straight world as well, but for us to mount a convincing discourse with most straight people, we need to deal with the folks on the LGBT “left,” (for lack of a better word), for example, who support marriage equality on the basis of anti-discrimination, but who see the “content” of marriage as being morally bankrupt, hopelessly heterosexist and patriarchal, and who do not support at all the idea of LGBT couples leading married lives that are similar to (or, using the oft-heard pejorative, “lives that ape”) straight married lives. In my view, these are counterproductive attitudes when it comes to marriage issues for gay people. We desperately need to build bridges with the straight world, integrate our lives with it, build bonds with straight people in our communities, and make the case for allowing us to marry through our example, through our lives, through our respect for marriage as an institution, and not just a bundle of legal rights.
Some of these ideas have been inspired by a book I’m currently reading entitled A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law and Politics” by William Stacy Johnson, a straight, married Presbyterian minister, theologian and lawyer. The book takes a multileveled approach: theological, legal, political. It strikes me that this kind of approach must be the way we look at these things simply because it is what marriage is: namely an institution that is not only legal, but also theological (and spiritual) as well as political/social. Marriage cuts across all of these areas, and that’s why it’s such a thorny issue for people, and why, in the view that’s beginning to crystallize in me, we need an approach to this that addresses all of these issues, not just the legal ones.
Politics of victimization. We’re all victims of homophobia and thus if you disagree with us it’s because of a moral defect. This reflects the larger ‘rights’ movement where you’re racist is you opposed affirmative action or illegal immigration.
What are the roots of this? the over reliance of gaining rights through courts? or groups reaching beyond their agenda to support other non-related causes?
Gay groups should be working to get legislation passed – and I much prefer the legislative approach to the court approach – especially if they are political groups. In fact, the public is ahead of legislators on many of these issues. My problem with HRC is they are so unsuccessful in passing legislation. They have been much more successful in getting companies to have gay friendly employee policies – including domestic partner benefits.
In the case of the states that passed those anti-gay amendments – those amendments hurt real people who live in those states who are in same sex relationships.
I just want to point out that many of the initial leaders of the gay community on a national level came directly out of the Civil Rights movement. So its perfectly natural that they would bring that approach into the GLBT politics. And of course, the conservative gay republican approach at that time was……. Hmmmm. Was there a conservative gay republican approach?
Meanwhile – slightly off topic, but gay men, for their part, are:
(1) Unable to refrain from turning a gay-majority or gay-friendly space into a sex space, where strangers have to sit in other men’s syphilis-infected ejaculate;
(2) Unable to understand a thing about straight people. Unable to conceive that straight people just do not do it that way.
Don’t believe me? Check this out: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1452
What got me chuckling (though lots of things do) was this bit, toward the end:
Umm… Sorry… I go to a neighborhood gym (straight-dominated) in a very liberal, very gay-respecting community… and the problem IS unique to gay gyms. Men, married or otherwise, DO NOT have sex in our steam room. Period. LOL
Marriage cuts across all of these areas, and that’s why it’s such a thorny issue for people, and why, in the view that’s beginning to crystallize in me, we need an approach to this that addresses all of these issues, not just the legal ones.
I absolutely agree.
Umm… Sorry… I go to a neighborhood gym (straight-dominated) in a very liberal, very gay-respecting community… and the problem IS unique to gay gyms. Men, married or otherwise, DO NOT have sex in our steam room. Period. LOL
My gym experience is very limited, but just wondering if the steam rooms are coed? It is possible, I guess for straight men to want to have sex in a steam room, but if they are separated by gender, their pool of partners they are attracted to is going to throw a monkey wrench into the desire. But I can say that the idea of public sex or quasi public sex doesn’t appeal to me at all, and I can’t help but affirm the complaints of patrons, who pay for the gym memberships having to deal with sperm in the steam room-that is just gross.
In context, I believe the gym manager meant to suggest that straight men are often secretly bi or gay, and often as trashy as gay men. And therefore would indeed have sex in an all-male steam room at your everyday neighborhood gym.
It’s one of the myths that gays with street-trash morals (V, I forgot to thank you for the phrase in that other thread – so thanks) tell themselves. Of course, a few straight men probably are like that. Since straight men are >90% of the population, if only a tiny minority were like that, it would still seem like a lot of people to certain gays.
Having said all that: Your point is well taken. You could have co-ed steam rooms. So, would straight men have casual sex with willing women in co-ed steam rooms? Maybe – in the deep heart of New York, San Francisco or LA and in a highly libertine era. At all other times and places, surely not.
(if it happened in my neighborhood gym, for example – people just wouldn’t stand for it, despite their being mostly liberals)
Having said all that: Your point is well taken. You could have co-ed steam rooms. So, would straight men have casual sex with willing women in co-ed steam rooms? Maybe – in the deep heart of New York, San Francisco or LA and in a highly libertine era. At all other times and places, surely not.
While there may be some straight men who would be interesting, in general women aren’t that casual, even the women I know who who are more casual in who they have sex with, aren’t so casual about where the sex takes place. Although, now that I am pushing 40, there could be some generational thing I am missing, but I don’t think so.
Asking Government to intervene on behalf of social institutions (philosophies, schools, universities, entreprenuerialism, marriage) is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when creating a Constitutional Republic with free-markets, liberty, and religous freedom.
Marriage is both a Religous and Economic Institution in America — The government cannot act on behalf of the Church, however, it should act on behalf of the Tax Payer. If two consenting adults (who can dicern from comma and coma) and financially independent (eligble for the draft, taxed, and contributing to the greater economic good) should have full-rights and access to that “good.”
This would be a moot issue if the Gov’t handled this from a Constitutional standpoint.
I think they should separate Church and State from every form of marriage — the Government (City and State level) has the right to perform economic unions — let the Social bodies who want to handle the rest handle the rest. Gay (accepting) Churches are growing faster than Gay-bashing — so it will work itself out in 25 years completely. Plus the courts will make more money by the increase in marriage fees and the increase in divorce procedings — win win for everyone, haha.
The biggest issue is to get rid of income tax and switch to a consumption tax, but that’s another blog.
Kevin
Kevin: Actually you’re wrong.. all throught the 1800s, the US State Department and US navy was basically the muscle behind US missionaries inthe Middle East and growing merchants. The US had a deliberate policy of trying to civilize the Islamic hoardes as well as create a Jewish state (before Zionism).. eventually as the Ottoman empire fell things shifted to the reality we all know today. But history doesn’t support your assertion.