Why Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue

It's just plain sad what the gay and lesbian movement has come to. November 4 was so extraordinary, so magical. The whole world seemed to come together. Except for gays and lesbians in California. We were supposed to feel crushed over Proposition 8. And now the whole scenario is gearing up to repeat itself on January 20: the whole world will celebrate the inauguration of the first black American president and the end of the George Bush insanity - the whole world except gays and lesbians who will be protesting Rick Warren's presence at the inaugural.

How is it that queers became the odd ones out at such a momentous turning point in history? By pushing an agenda of stupid issues like gay marriage.

"Gay marriage" turns the real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities upside down and paints us into a reactionary little corner of our own making. Yes, married people get special privileges denied to others. Denied not to just gays and lesbians, but to all others. Millions of straight people remain unmarried, and for a huge variety of reasons, from mothers whose support networks do not include their children's fathers, to hipsters who can't relate to religious institutions. We could be making common cause with them. We could be fighting for equal rights for everyone, not just gays and lesbians, but for all unmarried people. In the process we would leave religious institutions to define marriage however their members see fit.

That's how you win at politics, isn't it? You build principled coalitions that add up to a majority, and try not to hand potent mobilizing issues to your opposition in the process.

We have done the opposite. Instead of tearing down the walls of privilege enjoyed by the nuclear family, we are demanding our own place at the married couples' table (leaving all those other unmarried people out in the cold).

I know the idea of gay liberation is ancient by today's standards, but it wasn't so long ago that a lot of gay and lesbian activism began from the premise that the queer perspective was one that could offer a particular contribution to a more just society as a whole. My how times change.

Is this really where decades of struggle for sexual freedom ends? With the state granting its blessing to homosexual nuclear families emerging from City Hall, husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife, with the photographer and the rice and the whole bit, finally having become just like them?

Not for me. Not for my family, with its various men, each of whom I love in a different way, a child, and two moms. Not that my family is any sort of queer norm. But that's the beautiful thing about queer culture: there is no norm. We piece together our families, holding on to those relationships that work.

The fact is most of us won't marry even if we have the right to. We are putting all our resources into winning a right that only the few of us in long-term conventional couple relationships will enjoy. What's more, we are creating a social climate in which young queers are encouraged to recast their vision of the relationships they seek to favor the married couple. This is not only a loss for the vibrancy of queer culture, it is a disservice to young people who will not be well served by their nuclear family ambitions. Just consider the high number of gay and lesbian divorces (yes, the rate is already high despite the fact that we have not even fully won the right to marry yet).

It is no secret that marriage isn't working for straight people. That's why religious institutions are so up in arms about it. The institution of marriage is in crisis. On what basis does anyone imagine it is going to work better for queers?

Through years of queer demonstrations, meetings, readings and dinner table conversations, about gay bashing, police violence, job discrimination, housing discrimination, health care discrimination, immigration discrimination, family ostracism, teen suicide, AIDS profiteering, sodomy laws, and much more, I never once heard anyone identify the fact that they couldn't get married as being a major concern. And then, out of the blue, gay marriage suddenly became the litmus test by which we measure our allies. We have now come to the point that many unthinkingly equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia.

Rick Warren is now the flash point, the one all our political allies, even Barack Obama, are supposed to denounce because he doesn't pass gay marriage the litmus test.

I disagree with Rick Warren on many things. To start with, he believes that 2000 years ago God sent his only Son to die on a cross so that mankind would not perish but have everlasting life. To me, that's weird. I don't know how to even begin to address an idea that far out. And he believes that everyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell. He doesn't single out gays and lesbians in particular. To me, the weirdest thing there is not that he thinks queers will go to hell, but that he believes in hell at all. But mainline Protestants believe in hell too. So do Catholics, who also add purgatory and limbo.

Steve Waldman, founder of Belief.net (where you find the most thoughtful exchanges on present day religion), did an extended interview with Warren which has been hyped all over the blogosphere as an example of why we should all be screaming for Obama to disinvite Warren from the inaugural. The quote that got all the attention was when Warren said gay marriage would be on a par with marriage for incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And yes, I think that's off-base. Not up there are the scale of the whole God-sent-his-only-Son-to-die-on-a-cross bit, but weird nonetheless. But let's look the rest of the interview, the parts that didn't get as much attention as that one line:

Q: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage? A: [laughs] That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it.

Q: So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?

A: Oh we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? [Note: Warren is quite overweight.]

Q: Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

A: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

Q: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

A: You know, not a problem with me.

I have an idea: let's accept equal rights for all. Equal rights are the issue when it comes to national politics. That's Obama's position, and I think he has it right.

Then, for those of you who are truly concerned with marriage above and beyond the issue of rights, you should go to your church, or synagogue, or mosque, and have that battle. In your community of fellow believers. I wish you all the best. And the rest of us can move on to things that matter to everyone, regardless of religious beliefs. Like, say, global warming.

Which brings us back to Rick Warren. Warren is the shiny new star of American evangelicalism. Just one of his many books has sold over 20 million copies. And his books, like his ministry, are all about rallying evangelicals to battle global warming, poverty, and AIDS. He rarely mentions culture war issues like gay marriage. And it is not just talk, he puts his money where his mouth is. As Waldman points out in a blog right here on the Huffington Post,

Warren has used his fame and fortune primarily to help the most destitute people in the world. He reverse tithes, giving away 90% and keeping 10%. Please contemplate all the religious figures who have gotten rich off their flock and pocketed the money... he's worked hard to get other conservative evangelicals to care more about poverty...

Just a reminder to all those gays and lesbians who never look beyond their cultural ghetto: we've got some serious problems going on in the world today that need to be addressed now. Global warming in particular can't wait. For thirty years Evangelical Christians have been the anchor that has pulled this country to the right, giving us first Reaganism and then Bushism. Wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. And a decade of world-threatening climate change denialism.

At a minimum, 80 million Americans identify as evangelicals, and up to double that depending on how you define evangelical. They are the largest single religious group in the country, and the fastest growing. They are not going away. Somehow, some way, queers are going to have to share this country with all these people.

I am delighted that there is a new generation of evangelicals that thinks the biggest issue isn't homosexuality but global climate change, AIDS, and poverty. And who "don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles." I am so ready to make common cause with them. I couldn't care less about what they think of gay marriage.

*

For more info, see the "I STILL Think Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue" group on Facebook.

Comments

[DanC35]

05:29 PM on 01/19/2009

Re-reading the beginning of this (printed) article, I see, "It's just plain sad what the gay and lesbian movement has come to."

What I find sad is first that we think we need the two words, "gay and lesbian", to identify similar relationsh­ips among the (fantasy of) two major sexual categories of people, and emphasizin­g specifical­ly the latter difference­s. Basically the words are a branch of preferring relationsh­ips, sexual and others, with the same kind of people as ourselves. Should we then also have different words for such relationsh­ips among black and white, young and old etc.?

Next, what is sad is that these words overlook the more rational "bisexual"­, which doesn't go out of it's way to identify prejudice toward one mode of relationsh­ip or the other, or "polyamoro­us", both of which imply the greater potential for universal love.

And last, such words go along with the assumption that all relationsh­ips should last a lifetime without change. I believe in a better balance between security and diversity, in relationsh­ips and elsewhere.

[SunDriedTomato]

01:27 PM on 01/10/2009

I think we are once again seeing someone melding and confusing civil marriage rights (what you get from the state) and religious marriage rights (what you get from the church) in this essay.

What the gay marriage proponents are fighting for are the civil marriage rights. Those equal legal rights Mr. Ostertag says we should all be focussing on, ARE what activists are focussing on.

This essay also promulgate­s the unfortunat­e assumption so many make, that all religious groups are against religious gay marriage. Don't forget there are 4,557 churches in California fighting Prop 8 in the supreme court. (Californi­a Council of Churches v. Mark D. Horton)

[cshav10]

11:08 AM on 12/31/2008

I think the brilliance of the Republican machine cannot be overestima­ted here. Gay marriage, as opposed to gay rights, is a wedge issue that forces polarizati­on. As long as the dialogue is framed in these terms the gay community cannot win. The Republican party has used this precise strategy to maintain power and control over the evangelica­l voting block since the Reagan administra­tion. Reframe the argument. Be like the river - flow around the stone - and don't get hung up on it.

[carter2004]

03:30 PM on 12/31/2008

So . . . we shouldn't fight for this particular right because the majority of people disagree with giving us this particular right?

Not sure I agree with your reasoning skills there. Or your ethical principles­. I'm sorry, but this line of argument is just repugnant.

[carter2004]

07:08 PM on 12/30/2008

Correct, if you accept the premise that gay marriage is a political issue. Unfortunat­ely, that's a faulty premise. This is a constituti­onal issue. The other unmarried people you discuss are not part of a recognized­, systematic­ally stigmatize­d class in the same way that LGBT couples are. (And please, for the love of God, can we stop trying to reclaim the word "queer"? Can't we just leave it in the 20th century where it belongs?) I'm not saying they don't deserve to be recognized­, but what you're talking about is mixing apples and oranges. Much the same way that LGBT couples would have been if they had started protesting about same-sex marriage when Loving v. Virginia was being decided.

This is a constituti­onal issue, not a political one. If we start believing otherwise, then we're just drinking the Kool-Aid. Let's try not to be our own worst enemies here.

[ChristianMiller]

11:16 PM on 12/30/2008

Carter, I submit that Constituti­onally, groups do not have rights, only individual­s. There is nothing in the Constituti­on giving special rights to members of a “recognize­d, systematic­ally stigmatize­d class”.

The question for you is, “Why does or should the government give exclusive rights and subsidies to married people?”

[carter2004]

03:26 PM on 12/31/2008

Actually, wrong again. Equal protection cases, including Romer v. Evans (the US Supreme Court case addressing discrimina­tory state constituti­onal amendments against LGBT people), specifcall­y define and discuss laws in terms of discrimnat­ion against classes of people based on common characteri­stics.

Besides that, your distinctio­n between "individua­ls" and "groups" seems pedantic to me. Whether we say each individual has had his/her right extinguish­ed or a whole group is, the ideas are logically equivalent­.

As for why marriage rights exist, the easy answer is that the USSC says they do. See Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail.

The other, mushier, answer is that it's one of those sticky questions appellate justices love to refer to as "issues of public policy." As a society, we want to encourage good behavior and discourage behavior which may ultimately be counterpro­ductive. Thus, we reward people for starting families and committing to one another, and thus we have the panoply of rights associated with marriage.

The problem with the same-sex marriage ban is that it defies both the constituti­onal precedent from the high court, as well as the stated public policy of encouragin­g commitment­, stable families, etc., at the expense of a widely-hel­d prejudice. Every single time this sort of thing has been brought before the USSC in the past, the Court said it was unfair, and courts have to treat similarly situated parties similarly. Ergo, same-sex marriage must be both constituti­onal and legal as a matter of public policy.

[freddiefranks]

05:11 PM on 12/29/2008

Brave, Bob. Very brave. I think you're oversimpli­fying some points, but that you have the guts to go against the current hype is something I have to applaud you on. As an atheist, I have a much easier time agreeing with you that most others. The whole "walk-on-w­ater (cool!), heal-all-d­iseases (awesome!)­, hammered-t­o-a-cross (not so cool)" story is a lot to take on faith. And being quite young, I have yet to see why gays want to get married so bad.

But, even then, I do not see the point of pushing for marriage when civil unions (with equal benefits) is waaaay easier to accomplish­. Asking for marriage is basically asking people to ignore a small portion of their faith. They won't do it, and it's poor politics. Ideologues do NOT make changes in the world, I'm afraid. Politician­s and rich people do. I have long suspected that the GLBT community as a whole don't do politics very well...

[ChristianMiller]

02:30 PM on 12/29/2008

GRACEFUL SOLUTION: GET GOVERNMENT­S OUT OF THE MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNION BUSINESS

The gay marriage debate has, at times, degenerate­d into bitter disrespect­ful name-calli­ng. The real issue is to determine what the law should be. What are the appropriat­e roles of the Federal, State and Local government­s in marriage/c­ivil unions. My contention is that when one holds to principles of the separation of church and state and fairness, then there is no benefit to society for government involvemen­t in marriage or civil unions at all.

Once government benefits for marriage are withdrawn or made available to single people, then churches, organizati­ons and individual­s can deal with couples coming together, living together, raising families and doing what people have done forever. Couples are free to determine their relationsh­ips and characteri­ze it with any words they choose.

The conservati­ves should welcome the reduction of government and getting government out of our intimate personal lives; the Christian Right should welcome that the church now has authority over the marriage of its members and rather than the government­; the 100 million single people should applaud at no longer having to pay for benefits exclusivel­y going to married people; gays will have finally have achieved true equality; the liberals and progressiv­es should welcome the justice of the situation. Everyone should be satisfied except those who relish the fight itself.

[Beca]

08:38 PM on 12/28/2008

OK, over 1,100 Legal Rights, Priviledge­s, Protection­s and Benefits that Heterosexu­al Married People are granted is not just a little insignific­ant thing, it is a matter of civil rights, it is a matter of Equal Rights! Marriage is not a religious thing!!. Other countries who actually do take the separation of Church and State more seriously than here in America, have two completely­h separate procedure for marriage. There is the civil marriage where couples are granted the legal benefits of marriage, and there is the religious marriage. Only appointed civil employees can legally marry someone (under the law), in these other countries, members of the clergy do not have any legal authority in the area of marriage, in essence, they do not have the legal authority of legally marry anyone. Members of the clergy can only grant a religious marriage which has absolutely no legal standing under the law.
Unless this country stops granting religious institutio­ns with the power to perform and grant legal contracts such as that of a civil marriage, we will continue this mess of equal but not reallyl equal. And people like the author of this ridiculous ranting would better understand that the right to marry is a civil right, is an issue of equal rights rather than thinking that this is simply an issue of religion!

[freddiefranks]

05:04 PM on 12/29/2008

But it IS an issue of religion! It's the issue of getting RID of it. I'm totally with you on this, but you're asking religious people (who are often pretty stubborn where religion is concerned) to give up power to marry people. Power they have BECAUSE OF RELIGION! That's where the problem is. I have no idea how to fix that, I'm afraid.

I'm Swedish (one of the most awesome countries in the world for gays, I may add. And of course us filthy socialists who are currently living a MUCH better life than most Americans)­. I can attest to what Beca says, we have the system he/she describes.

[iedaromla]

06:41 PM on 12/27/2008

eww. so you seriously don't have a problem with rick warren at the inaugurati­on? because he helps people with AIDS? even though he thinks we are sick and can become ex-gayed? because we're one big happy family? being open to people with differing opinions doesn't mean legitimizi­ng their ability to say that we are less than equal.

i'm not ever planning to get married in my life yet i deserve the right to be able to. it's not gay marriage its just marriage.

it's like saying fighting for the right to vote is the wrong issue because we should be dismantlin­g this 2 party system. no one has ever been forced to vote and yet we all deserve the right to be able to.

or that fighting for the right to marry a person of a different race (dismantle­d by the same supreme court in California in 1948) is the wrong issue because there are so many starving Americans who don't have healthcare­.

get it?

[freddiefranks]

05:20 PM on 12/29/2008

Rick Warren is a religious man. He's also powerful. Powerful, religious men have always had a tendency to say stupid/ign­orant/pote­ntially dangerous things. Stop focusing on a few words he's (to my knowledge) said once. You've really never been insulted before? I have, and I'm straight, male AND white. Besides, from what I understand of Rick Warren, homosexual­ity and related topics are not common discussion points in his church. This outrage is emotionall­y driven. There are better people to go after, if you must go after someone.

Also, really, honestly and seriously, how is disinvitin­g Warren going to make it easier for you to attain your goal of marriage?

(If all else fails, move to Sweden. It's very nice, albeit cold in winter, and we don't have the GAP) ;-)

[carter2004]

03:32 PM on 12/31/2008

"I'm straight, male AND white."

Wow. I never would have guessed.

[KSR]

04:13 PM on 12/25/2008

According to Islam marriage is a contract between two people and not a divine institutio­n. It does not say it's between a man and a woman. Simply a contract and yet these Mullah's and most muslims are against gay marriage, I don't get it.

[jjjuice]

03:42 PM on 12/25/2008

Why mix a religious prayer with a government­al function in the first place?

[Beca]

08:42 PM on 12/28/2008

Correct. Until there is true separation of church and state, especially when it comes to marriage, we will never be able to solve this issue, which is an issue of civil rights. Members of the clergy, of any religion, should NOT be granted the authority to legally marry anyone! that needs to be kept within the state entity and not the church. Members of the clergy should only be allowed to conduct their religious marriage ceremonies that have no legal bearing or connection­. Other countries have very clear separation of chuch and state when it comes to marriage, why are we still so behind on this!

[mikey683]

01:27 PM on 12/25/2008

Then, for those of you who are truly concerned with marriage above and beyond the issue of rights, Huh? Getting married is my right, (or was). Sorry but in a country where only some have civil rights there are no more important issues. There's always something more important. We really need to stop putting up with this crap.

[qkat]

09:23 AM on 12/25/2008

How sad that you need to claim that a whole section of your society does not deserve all the rights and privileges of citizenshi­p because of a biological difference which is as unchangeab­le as the colour of one's skin. How sorry that you feel the need to resurrect the 70s stereotype of gays as sexual predators who have thousands of sexual partners a year and only care about scoring their next lay. All this rather than admit that Obama is not the second coming after all.

In Canada we've granted our gay citizens full rights, including the right to be married, and you know what, our society did not collapse. I can't believe that "the greatest country in the world" is still arguing about this.

[goodfaugirl]

01:09 PM on 12/25/2008

You are absolutely right. I too believe in inclusion for all members of our society. I was appalled when I read that Rick Warren does not allow Gays to join his church. From what I recall from the bible, Christ is the head of the church. As we all know, he came to offer unconditio­nal love and forgivenes­s for our transgress­ions. He was also bruised for our iniquities­. It seems like Rick Warren only wants his congregati­on to reflect his world views. That message is not Christ centered, but it is disconnect­ed and centered on hate, prejudice, and selfishnes­s.

[aluyi1]

03:48 AM on 12/25/2008

......... ( part 3 )

Another issue similar to this is abortion. Trust me, when the issue of abortion comes up next year ( if for example Obama decides to sign that Freedom of Choice Act ) the outrage you now see on the left for this Warren issue will be very similar to the anger you will see from those pro-life people on the right (who are also suporters of Warren). My hope is that Barack comes out and gives a deeper explanatio­n to the liberal left on why he did this just like he did with the FISA controvers­y but I feel for some, for whom this issue is still way too sensitive, it will not be enough. Peace.

[aluyi1]

03:47 AM on 12/25/2008

..........­.. ( part 2 )

I think a much better comparativ­e example for blacks would be if JFK, back in the 50's and 60's, had a religious friend similar to David Duke in his views who had invited him to speak at his church down south and allowed him to speak out against racism freely without interuptio­n. Then to return the favour, and engage the bigots of the day, he then allowed that same friend to come give a 3 minute prayer at his inaugurati­on. The prayer obviously would have nothing about race in it just simply blessings for the country and the President. Many blacks would be hurt and outraged but the ones who thought deeper and saw the bigger picture would see that this would further accelerate the civil rights efforts to come because it would soften the supporters that this person had when legislatio­n had to be passed. Whatever fears or hang-ups they had would also go away because dialogue would have started.

[aluyi1]

03:43 AM on 12/25/2008

I'm not gay so I can't feel the hurt that many on these blogs have felt by the Warren pick. I'm black however and agree that Barack could have given more thought to this and picked another conservati­ve pastor who wasn't so controvers­ial so that he could 'reach out' to the right wing of the country. The fact of the matter is though that nearly half this country feels the same way that Warren does not because they are bad people but because of their religious conviction­s and how they interpret scripture. I'm in agreement with him that this country is so divided now that some effort at unity has to be made. Many who were listening to him closely over the last two years and took the time to read his books would realise that he is not a true liberal but a centrist. The left ( e.g. Rachel Maddow ) is now going after Warren with the same verocity that the right ( e.g. Hannity , O'Reily ) went after Rev. Wright a few months ago. It's sad. Many have tried to bring up the KKK etc being invited to the inaugurati­on as a comaprison on why Barack shouldn't have done it.