The other night I attended a screening of a friend’s documentary-in-progress following a number of gay couples who, in 2004, went up to San Francisco to get married when Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed his city to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A number of things struck me about the footage, but two things that my really stood out. First, here were almost no attacks on social conservatives.
Indeed, when the various couples talking about how getting the license impacted their relationship, many sounded a lot like social conservatives. And that was the second thing that really struck me. One spouse realized she couldn’t just walk out the door after they’d had a fight or faced a trying situation. They realized they had made a lifetime commitment. Their relationship wasn’t just about love. There was also a sense of mutual responsibility. Not only did marriage bring the two individuals closer, but it also integrated each more closely together into the lives of his (or her) partner’s extended family.
In short, they talked about marriage as mosst heterosexual couples in traditional marriages have talked about it for generations.
I wish my friend every success with his film and hope it soon becomes available to a wider audience. But, it hit home to me in large part because it stood in stark contrast t0 the imagery I have seen and the arguments I have heard in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage.
It’s almost as if those “designated” to make those arguments (or those who designate themselves to make them on behalf of the “gay community) are afraid of sounding like social conservatives. And that’s the primary reason, I believe, we need a complete overhaul of the gay leadership. These people are versed in left-wing politics, more ready to bash “right-wingers,” the very people whose minds they most need to change.
Do we need leaders who use the anniversary of 9/11 to tell attack opponents of Obama’s proposals for health care reform, calling theirs a “virulent political atmosphere“? If she really hates conservatives, she should get a job at the Democratic National Committee (or maybe look for a position at MSNBC).
If she thinks attacking conservatives who oppose increased government control of health care will help advance the cause of lesbian Americans (the woman in question works for a lesbian rights’ organization), she is clueless about the attitudes those “conservatives” have about gay people. For many of those whom she labels “conservative” are really libertarians have and, if they aren’t already, are open to a live-and-let-live attitude toward gay men and lesbians.
The people gay activists most need to reach don’t respond to the type of left-wing campaigns gay leaders are most accustomed to running. It didn’t help that when the “No on 8” campaign was staffing up in the run-up to last fall’s elections, they looked to veterans of Barbara Boxer’s various campaigns. Maybe had they had a few conservatives on board, they might have thought to ask Ward Connerly to cut a commercial urging voters to reject the measure. They may find his views on all other issues anathema, but he is well-respected on the right even despite coming out in favor of partnership benefits for gay employees at California public universities. Most of those who bristle at the mere mention of his name were already going to vote “No” anyway.
The normal Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative dichotomies don’t fit the debate issues of concern to the gay community. Many minority groups who overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party also have high rates of attendance in churches not favorably disposed to homosexuality. Those individuals will listen more readily to pastors to whose services they flock every Sunday than to the friendly twentysomething who knocks on their door once every election cycle.
But, some Republicans, particularly those who own businesses and work in the private sector, are amenable to greater tolerance of gay people. Many have gay co-workers or found their companies catering to a gay clientele. They know that showing respect for their difference is good for business. They can be moved on the issue of marriage and civil unions, that is, if gay advocates make the right approach.
You can’t make that approach if you see those people as the “enemy” because they support smaller government and less regulation. Or dislike them because they oppose the policies of a political figure you adore. You need to talk in language they understand, using words that do not offend them. And with a gay leadership rooted in left-wing politics, you have as our national spokesmen and women people more accustomed to bashing conservatives than to understanding and appreciating their ideas.
And that is one reason, voters keep rejecting gay marriage. Replacing the left-wing leaders alone will not change the debate, but it will be a good start.
In the past I have worked with (mostly) gay men, and except for one, I had no qualms or problems about their sexual orientation. In that one case the person was extremely overt and that made the situation very uncomfortable. In fact it was funny because in one situation there were employees who felt uncomfortable with Bruce (the man whose place I took whilst he was recovering from a broken arm) but I got on with him like a house on fire. The major reason why it was this way is that his sexuality did not bother me and we actually enjoyed some of the same things 🙂 on the T.V. If I remember correctly it was something to do with the late Graham Kennedy and being from Melbourne….
My big thing is that I do not like people being “in your face”. Conservative people like myself will take people at face value. We do not need to know the sexual orientation of another person. What matters in the workplace is human relationships at the office level.
I think what really needs to happen for better equality is that the left wing gays drop the subject of “marriage”. I have no problem with the notion of a civil union which is the same as a common law heterosexual relationship. I draw the line at “marriage”. After all, there are many heterosexual couples who are committed to each other and they never marry by getting that piece of paper.
Well said straightAussie.
I believe there are some gay’s who only want the “marriage” title in law to sexually harrass organized religion.
Flamboyance of one’s sexuality is unconforting whether hetero or homo, especially in the work place. It is down right sexual harrassment in many cases.
Just look at a pride parade. Do we really want to unleash that kind of flayboyance on society? I for one DO NOT and gay leadership NOR lifestyle has convinced me to support same sex marriage. Civil Unions are the way to go, NOT MARRIAGE.
I think gay people are fighting for the wrong cause. Why would any gay person want a sacred institution between a man and a woman? Being gay is opposite of the definition. We should recognize that and celebrate it as opposed to pretending we are exactly the same. It’s the legal institution and benefits gay people want. Maybe it’s the ceremony and their name in the paper. It’s the recognition of it all and the same benefits married people get. We all want respect, and gay people should have it. But so should straight people. Gay people should get together across the country and decide what they will call their institution between two members of the same sex. And from there get your lawyers and lawmakers to do what they need to do to legalize it. Voters keep rejecting gay marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman and adding the word gay before marriage doesn’t change that.
Because why shouldn’t gay people also get the name if they are willing to take on all the obligations and responsibilities of the institution? Is it political advantageous not to use the name, that seems to be the case…so for the short run it might be for the best.
I am at the age now where many of my friends are getting married, and I would like to be able to invite them to my wedding one day and have mean the same thing. I don’t want to have to have something different than the rest of society just because I am gay. I think that goes against the idea of America as a melting pot, as uniting different people under common culture and traditions. I am from a younger generation where, at least I think, gay youth want to be like their straight counterparts and not a separated community. I think gaining marriage recognition will help to further that process, which has already started.
And looking at prior comments, I have some real problems with their assertions. Straight People have hurt the institution of marriage more than we have, they are the ones that have created no fault divorce, drive thru wedding chapels, annulments and the like. The reason marriage isn’t taken as seriously as it is today is not because of gay people wanting to get married.
I would take some of the opponent’s of gay marriage more seriously if they were doing more to protect marriage than denying it to the gay community. I don’t see them pushing to change divorce laws to make it harder, I don’t seem pushing for covenant marriages in more states, things that would actually put more responsibility back into marriage. I don’t see how it is disrespectful to straight people for us to want to be able to marry, to share the same experiences as they do. It would help bring us closer and help stop the fracturing of society that has been happening over the decades.
Yes voters keep rejecting gay marriage, its a hard issue for us to win right now. I am a little disheartened by it but things will one day turn out. I am sure if Interracial marriage had to be voted on by the states it probably would have had a similar track record as gay marriage in the beginning. Its our fight to win, just have to keep explaining our view and continue to slowly win people over.
There are three issues: there are the sexual issues which are a private matter-and things like the Pride Parades make them very public. Heteros HATE their own sexuality on parade, it is no wonder they hate ours doing the same; There are cultural issues which are oriented towards the community at large, Ellen Show, musicians, generally out and well known gays that are accepted and present positive stereotypes that help the community and those that accept gays make arguments on gay rights behalf; Then there are the societal issues where politics have been playing out. It is clear – yea, it is – that we could probably get ‘civil unions’ passed in 40-45 states, a slam dunk in 20-25 of them.
Attacking socons is just stoking the worst elements of their population. Yes, WE have to accommodate them. However, we can. It is clear to outsiders that some in the community want ‘marriage’ exactly to ‘rub their[socans] faces in it’. Talk about counter-productive and CHILDISH.
I don’t care what it is called, as long as it is functionally, legally, indistinguishable from marriage. We are our own worst enemies.
Last comment about the leadership of the community: it should be clear to anyone that minority rights activitists don’t give a rats ass about the MINORITY! It is about political power. And that power is about agitating, not solving problems. I am a parent and a partner. I am a lesbian and a conservative. The leadership has not represented, nor helped ME and my family.
One example: Dick Cheney, one of the most reviled people on the left SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE. Do you think, for ONE SECOND the leadership would make him feel comfortable or even welcome at a community event?
At a number of conservative websites there was commentary about how nice it was that the Maine gay marriage vote failed. The commentators wrote how the gay marriage issue doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. I pointed out, as I have for years, it certainly does. Several phrases come to mind:
“Marriage & Liberty for All”
“Don’t tread on me!”
“My Marriage — None of your business.”
Look out!!! Here comes an anvil. Gays seeking marriage are a flyspeck on the population tables. To suggest that there is some quid pro quo in having heteros clean up their bad marriage habits to gain the respect of gays seeking marriage rights is beyond laughable.
Holy Cow, man, you come knocking at the door begging for privilege and respect and the first thing you do is tell the holders of the keys that they have fouled up the game.
Are you not saying that since so many hetero marriages stink that it logically follows that gays should be allowed to further corrupt the institution?
Whew!!!!!!
It’s interesting that the same liberals who deride “tea parties” and pro-life rallies as being stupid wastes of time somehow think that Pride parades and Prop 8 protests are effective. If you know how you respond to tea parties, that is, by wanting even more to stamp those people out, why would you not think that’s the way most people respond to Pride parades?
Once you have come to the simple realization that tea parties and Pride parties simply cause the opposition to retrench, then maybe a little light bulb should come on over your head: Let’s stop doing that! You know, I think that’s making things worse! Let’s try something else!
Why is that so hard?
Dan, good post!
Agreed. Too many gay marriage opponents are barking up the wrong tree. Often with arguments that are downright specious, as we’ve just seen in the recent marriage thread. Having said that, too many gay marriage advocates are barking up the wrong tree as well (with all their left-wing blather on “rights” and “equality” in a matter that States legislate as a privilege), so the whole debate is a giant c-f.
I hope this documentary becomes available soon. I would like to see it as well!
Straight Aussie – Why does someone who is flamboyant “bother” you? Are you “bothered” by someone who is flamboyant hetro and always talks about girls? Are you “bothered” by someone who is flamboyantly religious? Are you “bothered” by someone who is flamboyantly conservative? Are you “bothered” by someone who is flamboyantly into sports?
Should we deny those people the access to marriage because they “bother” you?
Maybe we should deny everyone who has ever had a DWI the right to marry.
Maybe we should deny everyone who smokes cigarettes the right to marry.
Maybe we should deny everyone who is vegan the right to marry.
Those activities “bother” me.
They could still get a civil union, but because what they do “bothers” me, we should restrict them.
This would make me much more comfortable – oh yeah, it would protect society from being “bothered” too.
#6
I just don’t agree with you, I don’t think letting gays marry would somehow bring ruin to the institution. People are fighting for what a vast majority take for granted, they aren’t doing it so they can just destroy it. I know I personally would take it very seriously, and I don’t think your accusation is fair.
If you read more than just line of my post, you would see I didn’t lay blame on all straight people. I specifically talked about opponents of gay marriage, which in Maine turn of 53%, they were half of that..so about a quarter of the entire Main voter pool. I was speaking more to their motives behind this, because if their goal is to protect traditional marriage…they have to do a lot more than keep gays out. They would have to get rid of no fault divorce, and limit divorce itself to very specific cases.
I refuse to paint the paint the entire gay community as hedonistic and sex crazed, which is what you seem to be implying. I think a lot of gay couples are committed and would help to further the cause of marriage. I think having stand out married couples as role models for the community would go a long way. I just cannot see how letting gay couples marry, letting more committed couples marry, weakens the institution.
Are you not saying that since so many hetero marriages stink that it logically follows that gays should be allowed to further corrupt the institution?
Heliotrope, the point is that if the goal is to strengthen marriage, the focus of certain groups need to change. No, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because hetero marriage stinks (if that’s true), that gay marriage should happen. They are two separate issues. In fact, I don’t believe that same-sex marriage would corrupt the institution.
It’s interesting that the same liberals who deride “tea parties” and pro-life rallies as being stupid wastes of time somehow think that Pride parades and Prop 8 protests are effective.
Speaking for myself, Ashpenaz, I have no problem with people rallying or protesting for their cause or whatever, even when I don’t agree with the cause.
Once you have come to the simple realization that tea parties and Pride parties simply cause the opposition to retrench, then maybe a little light bulb should come on over your head: Let’s stop doing that! You know, I think that’s making things worse! Let’s try something else!
Not always. Pride has increased visibility, and encouraged people to come out. As such, people have become more accepting of gay persons. Yes, there are things about pride parades I don’t like. But overall, it has helped where it matters. As for the tea parties, time will tell how effective they are.
I have no problem with the notion of a civil union which is the same as a common law heterosexual relationship. I draw the line at “marriage”. After all, there are many heterosexual couples who are committed to each other and they never marry by getting that piece of paper.
StraightAussie, I obviously have no problem if a couple doesn’t want to get the piece of paper. I’m not sure how commonlaw marriage is in Australia, but I find that an unacceptable solution here. No, I don’t view it as equivalent. I can accept civil unions (though not optimal), which are equivalent, but different in name only.
I can imagine, even today, a daughter telling her parents that she’s not going to marry her boyfriend. They’ll just live together and have a civil union. Or even better. Just go under the stars and proclaim their commitment with each other, because they don’t need that piece of paper. Yeah, the parents will love that one, I’m sure.
In fact, same-sex marriage (or a civil union equivalent) would strengthen the institution, making the statement that marriage is so good and important that even gays should be expected to do it.
But that’s indirect. A more direct and important way to strengthen the insitution of marriage would be to abolish no-fault divorce, at least where there are minor children. As someone pointed out recently, marriage presently the only contract that one party can abrogate without penalty.
I don’t understand the distinction. The point of a common-law marriage is that, after the couple is together X years, the law treats them as married.
This is not a moral debate, it has nothing to do with involving any church….it is a LEGAL problem. What we are doing is denying one group the same rights that another group has. That by definition, is called discrimination. The argument should stop right there…You cannot deny two consenting adults the right to marry simply because they have the same body type. There is absolutely no way to support that stance, you legally do not have a leg to stand on. I have no idea why or how that part of the “debate” has been lost on everyone.
I don’t think you understand that it is exactly those changes that make it possible for ‘gay marriage’ to now be considered.
Do you really think that back in the 40’s before rampant divorce, multiple step parents and all these notions that any couple that lives together for 5 minutes is ‘married’, that any one would even consider the idea of gay marriage??
It is exactly that breakdown of marriage which has allowed this topic to surface. So before you go bashing all those evil straight people you should be thanking them for diminishing marriage to the point that it is so meaningless that marriage = equality.
And btw, if you want to invite your friends to a big lovely wedding bash – go ahead and do so, will they all look at you with scorn because the State didn’t issue the marriage certificate? If that is the case, I think you need new friends.
Meanwhile here is Charles Winecoff’s response to Sullivan for the audacity of leaving the gay plantation.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/11/05/note-to-andrew-sullivan-dont-blame-breitbart-for-my-thought-crimes/
No, Jennifer. A license from the State for marriage or anything else is not a fundamental right, it’s a privilege. The People get to set the qualifications for it (excluding ever having racial qualifications, per the 14th amendment / Loving decision).
You can’t deny their right to make promises to each other, sure. Promises are actions that reside in the freedom of the individual. But State licenses for things do *not* reside in the freedom of the individual; they put obligations on third parties, they are not rights, they must be legislated. I have no idea why or how that part of the “debate” has been lost on the Gay Left.
Leah – Great link, thanks. I don’t agree with Winecoff but that guy can write, and makes a case worth answering.
Ok, if it comes down to being a “Privilege”, how can we deny them this “privilege” based on how they were born…it still looks a lot like discrimination to me.
The People (through their legislators or whatever) get to set the qualifications for the thing. The whole point of a State license for anything is to have it available to some people (those who qualify) and not others. The big exception is that the People can’t set racial qualifications, and rightly so, because of the 14th Amendment. Maybe you can make a 14th Amendment case on the gay angle, but you have to get SCOTUS to agree with you; it’s not the law.
I agree that excluding gay and lesbian couples from State marriage licenses is silly or behind the times. It’s not the right thing to do. I support gay marriage. But I recognize that the People have the right to legislate differently from how I would, and it is up to me (and others) to bring people around and persuade them, if we want a change. If the People decide they want to legislate civil unions (instead of explicit gay marriage explicitly), then fine, I’ll take it as progress. Whatever happens, getting gay marriage through the courts is wrong because it’s cheating – since it’s not really a question of rights. That in turn breeds backlash – as we have seen in State after State.
A few more comments from a Mainer: people seem to be forgetting that just 4 years ago, Mainers voted for (55-45) civil rights for gays. To quote Darryl Worrley “Have You Forgotten?” So Maine is hardly a “hate state”. Most of the “yes” crowd have stated they have no problem with civil unions. The number of yes votes: 296,483. The population of Maine: 1,317,207. Yes, civil unions are not the ideal. But let’s keep this thing in perspective: 10 years ago if someone would have said that 47% of Maine voters would accept SSM, they would have been laughed out of the room. Sermon over. Let’s keep our heads up & keep fighting for freedom.
#17
I think the growing understanding of what it means to be gay has a lot more to do with the support for gay marriage than anything you just listed. If being gay was still considered by the majority of society to nothing but a choice or perversion, then we probably wouldn’t be at this point. The evolving opinion of what makes us who are, is a critical factor. More and more people understand now that we didn’t chose it and its a rather natural occurrence. I think you could still have had a strong marriage institution and we would still be considering gay marriage now. Straight, young people have such support for gay marriage because they believe we are just like them, and not abominations or freaks of nature or just perverts.
I am not bashing anyone, thank you. Bashing implies I am calling them hate filled bigots and what not, and thats where I am going with it. I just think its a little unfair for their to be a double standard on the issue. I don’t see why anything I brought is considered bashing either, those all valid options. They could focus on changing divorce laws and passing covenant marriage laws, and they don’t. I don’t get how pointing that out is bashing anyone.
And its like I was talking about before, we shouldn’t have to have separate institutions. America is not about separating groups, it suppose to be about uniting people of different backgrounds, religions, races and so on under common ideals. We hard this argument back in the civil rights era and it was a long and hard ordeal but the country got through.
Classic example of the gay community mentality at work.
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
Why? So you can vandalize their houses and businesses? Demand that they be fired from their jobs? Harass gay people who work with them or know them?
And btw, if you want to invite your friends to a big lovely wedding bash – go ahead and do so, will they all look at you with scorn because the State didn’t issue the marriage certificate? If that is the case, I think you need new friends.
Leah, how would you feel if one of your straight children decided to get “married” without the piece of paper? If you would be perfectly okay with that, then you are consistent with your position. My guess is most parents would not be happy with their child’s decision. And further, would not recognize their child as married.
#20 ILC, the blurring of rights and privileges and immunities started in the early 1900s. I recommend reading, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (1975) “, by Raoul berger
.
#22 Jennifer, we deny the privilege of a High School Diploma when the student does not meet the requirements. We deny the privilege of a driver’s license when the applicant does not demonstrate the competency. This is but two examples of the many privileges that are offered by the state. You have to understand that rights are not granted by anyone; however, privileges are. A license is a grant.
Pat, and all others, please stop with the comparisons. Marriage between a man and a woman have existed in every single society since the beginning of time.
So yes, I have a certain expectation of marriage versus shacking up.
The situation is very different for gays, the idea of marriage is maybe 10 years old. So if my gay son wants to make a statement and a commitment to another man, than I will respect that commitment just like marriage. I will encourage them to take every step possible to protect the relationship legally. This idea of ‘equality’ and everybody is exactly the same, is a liberal farce.
Since Americans have overwhelmingly been moving over to accepting civil unions, why not go with that. Why the temper tantrum that it’s all or nothing. Cuz what we are seeing is nothing.
Yes, the word marriage carries a lot of baggage for many people. So maybe instead of fighting over that word, we focused on getting equal rights for gay couples, on the federal level. Than maybe when people see that society hasn’t fallen apart, in 20 or 30 years no one will care if the word marriage is attached to it.
I have this crazy idea that actions are more important than words. Gay Inc. really doesn’t seem to care what’s good for people, it’s so much sexier to fight over words and of course never ever compromise, even if it hurts more gays than it helps.
What Leah said.
Viva La Fred!
30.Pat, and all others, please stop with the comparisons. Marriage between a man and a woman have existed in every single society since the beginning of time.
So yes, I have a certain expectation of marriage versus shacking up.
Leah, thanks for your response. First of all, I don’t believe that marriage between a man and a woman existed since the beginning of time, but it’s obviously existed for thousands of years in one form or another. I do believe its necessary to make the comparison. You don’t have to accept it, but it has to be talked about sometime if we want to get the ball rolling. The goal here is to eventually have the same expectations that parents would have for all their children I would hope, marriage vs. shacking up.
The situation is very different for gays, the idea of marriage is maybe 10 years old.
Exactly. Eventually the idea will be more than 10 years old. Heck, not having slavery is a relatively new idea. No, I am not saying banning same sex marriage is the same as having slavery. They are two completely separate issues. My point here is that because an idea is new does not, in and of itself, invalidate it.
This idea of ‘equality’ and everybody is exactly the same, is a liberal farce.
I can’t speak for all liberals about what equality is supposed to mean. For me it’s about equality of opportunity. I don’t view everybody as exactly the same. I don’t view all marriages the same, they are all different. However, your straight children have equality of opportunity when it comes to marriage, your gay son doesn’t. But I do understand why you would honor a non-state sanctioned commitment from your son, and not from your other children.
Since Americans have overwhelmingly been moving over to accepting civil unions, why not go with that. Why the temper tantrum that it’s all or nothing.
Maybe you weren’t talking to me specifically, but to be clear, there is no temper tantrum from my end. I accept civil unions. In fact, I entered one. And that’s fine for now. When NJ has same sex marriage, we’ll do that as well.
Yes, the word marriage carries a lot of baggage for many people. So maybe instead of fighting over that word, we focused on getting equal rights for gay couples, on the federal level. Than maybe when people see that society hasn’t fallen apart, in 20 or 30 years no one will care if the word marriage is attached to it.
I completely agree with you here.
I have this crazy idea that actions are more important than words. Gay Inc. really doesn’t seem to care what’s good for people, it’s so much sexier to fight over words and of course never ever compromise, even if it hurts more gays than it helps.
Yes, this is a problem. While I don’t agree with the strategy, I understand it somewhat. I think we all have some principles that we are not willing to compromise on. Sometimes we simply will not accept anything below a certain level. But in terms of same sex marriage, we do have to step back and see what we really want and/or should have, and really find the best way to attain that.
Anyway, thanks for your response. I really appreciate it.