Marriage and Gays: What Would Lincoln Do?

Abraham Lincoln may have been the first American to write about a same-sex couple getting married. His 1829 poem recounting the marriage of Nate and Billy was "perhaps the most explicit literary reference to actual homosexual relations in 19th century America." Lincoln's most important early biographer, William Herndon, initially included the poem in his Life of Lincoln, but as so often with gay subjects, it was subsequently omitted and largely ignored by later scholars.

Recently there has been greater willingness to debate evidence that our greatest president may himself have had same-sex attraction and even acted on it, as the iconic Lincoln biographer, Carl Sandburg, intimated in 1924 when he wrote of Lincoln's "streaks of lavender." In 2005, C.A. Tripp's Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln marshaled accounts of Lincoln's relations with men such as Captain David Derickson, including a November 1862 diary entry by the wife of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy that reads, "There is a Bucktail soldier here, devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!" Like other scholars, Tripp explored Lincoln's singularly intimate relationship with Joshua Speed, who told Herndon, "If I had not been married & happy -- far more happy than I ever expected to be -- [Lincoln] would not have married."

But it's not because of Lincoln's sexual orientation or other "stuff" that February 12, Lincoln's birthday, has for 12 years now been the centerpiece of National Freedom to Marry Week. Lincoln's strongest connection to the freedom to marry cause lies in the values he embodied in his life, and embodies in ours. He was committed to equality, freedom, and lifting people up. He called Americans to the "better angels of our nature," and he combined a deep moral integrity with a determined and strategic focus on achieving what is most important and right.

In the wake of last November's Proposition 8 temporarily halting marriages in California, and with marriage equality shimmering within reach in other states such as New York and New Jersey, gay and non-gay people and organizations across the country will spend Freedom to Marry Week asking our fellow citizens to, in Lincoln's words, "think anew" about how exclusion from marriage harms gay families while helping no one. Freedom to Marry Week in this Lincoln bicentennial year recalls his admonition, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

In Lincoln's Virtues, William Lee Miller described Lincoln's distinctly independent mind and great empathy (both as a child and adult). Young Lincoln rejected much of his world (hunting, fighting, chasing girls, slavery, churchgoing, cruelty to Indians, etc.) and yet remained engaged in the world, embracing and non-dismissive of others. Lincoln's ability and determination to put himself in the other's shoes -- to say of Southerners, as he did in numerous speeches as a candidate and as president, "they are just as we would be in their situation" -- while holding steadfastly to his lifelong belief that slavery is wrong, offers a lesson to those of us seeking to further move the public toward marriage equality.

Lincoln's combination of tactical maneuvering and incremental action with consistent articulation of a clear moral standard over time helped elevate public understanding and commitment to what is right. Even while biding his time or falling short of "purist" demands for immediate and extreme steps -- he was a politician, not philosopher -- Lincoln understood that "explicit public clarity...that slavery is a great moral evil was essential to the permanent solution to the problem of slavery."

Now slavery was an exceptional injustice, and I don't equate the wrong of marriage discrimination to it. Likewise, the challenges confronting President Obama and our country today are many and serious, though not of the existential scope as those confronting Lincoln. Still, Obama, like me a fervent admirer of Lincoln, would do well to ask himself what Lincoln would do faced with the question of whether to continue the denial of the freedom to marry to these committed couples.

As a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, a body in which Lincoln also served, Obama in his own hand supported the Marriage Resolution now on Freedom to Marry's website. He said, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." I believe Lincoln, with today's understanding of who gay people are, would, too. And once Lincoln had taken such a step, he would have stuck with it, as when he courageously refused to retreat from the Emancipation Proclamation even when facing a difficult reelection battle in 1864. As Lincoln said, "The promise, being made, must be kept."

In recent years, Obama has wavered on marriage equality, while expressing commendable support for gay families and substitute legal status such as civil union -- getting the what (equality) right, but not the how (marriage). Lincoln, however, would not have abandoned a clear commitment to the right result even when, where necessary, moving by intermediate steps.

President Obama seems determined to embrace Lincoln's empathy model -- "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.... We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." I hope he and other politicians also embrace Lincoln's courage and lessons on how to combine strategy with moral education, moral leadership, that prepares and moves Americans in fulfillment of our deepest values. After all, as a recent Freedom to Marry study reported, no legislators who voted for marriage equality or against anti-gay measures lost their seat in the last several election cycles.

As Lincoln's words and actions skillfully paved the way for America's "new birth of freedom," he returned again and again to the Declaration of Independence's promise that "all should have an equal chance." Lincoln didn't expect that promise to waft in by itself, or solely on the work of others. He led.

Comments

[omo]

What this debate really boils down to is those who believe that what people do sexually matters versus those who believe that what people do sexually does not matter. If you think what you do sexually does not matter, fine, have at it in all the freaky ways you can think of. But don't get mad at me when I dare to point out that your behaviors are a breeding ground for physical, mental and spiritual diseases.

It seems that the people who truly do believe that what we do sexually does matter in many ways and on many levels and affects many more people than ourselves and our mate are the real minority these days and as such maybe we should demand protection from those who believe and act out the belief that what we do sexually does not matter . . .

[mercury613]

"your behaviors are a breeding ground for physical, mental and spiritual diseases."

That is merely your opinion.

[omo]

So then why is HIV/AIDS the biggest killer of black females between the ages of 24 and 36? (Info from Black Aids Day, February 7th, 2009). I can guarantee you that they are NOT giving this disease to each other. They are getting it from the downlow males in their lives. Women are more at risk because of the stresses pregnancy and motherhood put on the immune system. They also do not know to protect themselves because they do not know what they are being exposed to. . .

This is fact, not opinion.

Now the argument here would be, 'oh but the men are only behaving that way because of our homophobic society, everything would be fine if not for the homophobia.' Right.
But what if this argument is a reversal of cause and effect ? From a female perspective, from those who are responsible for trying to raise healthy families while the men in their lives are living a lie which is fully supported and endorsed by the queer community, 'homophobia' is really the only rational response to such behavior.

(Note that phobia means fear, not hate as in the common use of this particular word.)

Also google MRSA USA300 for a new antibiotic resistant problem endemic in the queer community which is spread easily by casual (not intimate) contact. And realize this story was killed by none other than the CDC in response to protests by activist gay males.

[Pie7]

What did Lincoln do to help the gays here in American and around the world?

[Giada]

There is a clip of Biden on you tube discussing California's Prop 8. He is asked about his position on 8 and Obama's as well. He states that both he and Obama are against Prop 8.

What Obama and Biden are able to do sucessfully is state their Christian beliefs as personal, yet uphold Constitutional equality as a professional responsibility.

I know little of Lincoln, but I do know the passion of Paine, for equality and human rights. In matters of human freedom there is no difference.

[kaukerc]

I think Lincoln would support gay marriage, and whether he was or wasn't gay really isn't the issue. And I think Lincoln wouldn't even recognize the Republican party of today and would in all likelihood be a democrat. Only when science is able to isolate the gay gene (if it even exists) will we know if Lincoln possessed "streaks of lavender."

[TiredOfLiars]

If same-sex couples were meant to be together then at least one couple would be able to produce a single off-spring.

[onagadori]

Blah, blah, blah,..... in that case, marriage needs to be illegal for heterosexuals who can not reproduce. Is it illegal? If not, then by your logic (?) you need to get them evil non-reproductive heterosexuals banded from marriage, post haste!

[randyjet]

The reason is that the category is man/woman and ALL such people in that class and situation MUST be treated equally under the law. Now if gay sex acts were to result in offspring, I would be IN FAVOR of gay marriage. Until such time or you can get the legislature to pass laws for gay marriage, I can see no reason for it. The state legislature can do what it wants in this matter since it is NOT a right.

[bbbtmenw]

That is a ridiculous comment.

My mother remarried after her uterus was ripped out, and my brother married a woman who was infertile and was happy with that.

Should they be able to marry?

Anyway, have you ever heard of artificial insemination?

You might just think that God made Gays in order to keep you guys from overpopulating the planet. With 6 billion people and this single "straight" mother popping out 8 at a time, you might hope that Gays are more than 10% of the population.

[mercury613]

"Should they be able to marry?"

TiredOfLiars will not answer that question. Those who use procreation to argue against same-sex marriage never seem to be able to defend that position.

[AbbieXHoffman]

And if anti-gay voices like yours had any validity than at least one of you would be able to make a rational argument.

[marxmarv]

If there's only one thing that scares the Church witless more than abortion, it's female couples mixing their genes and producing offspring, thus making the Holy Staff and the woman-haters so often attached to it irrelevant.

[mercury613]

So I guess that means that menopausal women should be prohibited from marrying?

[randyjet]

The FACT is that gay marriage is NOT a right in the Constitution, unlike Civil rights for black Americans which IS explicitly in the Constitution. Not only does this writer take virtually ANY little thing to make a case that Lincoln was gay, he stretches the law beyond recognition and common sense. Hell, I used to have a purple shirt, so that must mean I am gay. I have gay friends, THAT must mean I am gay etc.. GET REAL!

Marriage is a state granted license for ITS own reasons and benefits, NOT only for two peoples benefit. There is NO reason for the state to grant such a license. There has to be a perceived benefit for the state, and I can see none. It is up to the state legislature to grant such contracts. The justices who approved some gay marriages have it backwards, since they overlook that fact.

The states have the right to grant subsidies to businesses, and they do. Just because one business gets a state subsidy, does NOT mean that ALL other businesses are therefore entitled to them as well. It is NOT a denial of their rights to not grant them subsidies. The same is true with the gay marriage argument.

[bbbtmenw]

Nothing I say will change your mind because you have a "belief" that is wrong and bigoted and will not change.

If you really have a gay friend and you don't believe they should be allowed to marry the one they love, than you are not their friend.

Gay marriage would bring an extreme amount of revenue to this state. Every Gay would love to come here and get married, we love celebrations, and we spend money; Remember we are usually DINKs, Double Income No Kids.

[randyjet]

I don't let my friends drive DRUNK either, even though they wish to.

[Pie7]

Thank you for stating why there shouldn't be gay marriage. You want to get marry for the tax benefit and not for why God stated.

[TiredOfLiars]

I agree.

[Pie7]

co-sign

[mercury613]

You're wrong. The 14th Amendment is not race specific. It states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ALL persons. There's no footnote that says "homosexuals are excluded."

P.S. There's no "perceived benefit" to allowing infertile couples to marry, if we follow your "logic."

[JohnBisceglia]

Attention Heterosexuals - YOU CAN HAVE YOUR COUNTRY and its special PRIVILEGES.

YOU WIN! IT'S YOUR COUNTRY NOW!

Just don't EXPECT any gay person to pay a dime to the I.R.S.

[dwamikayla]

Great article, but one problem ...

The issue of gay marriage can't be settled constitutionally by the President. Only the courts (usually the U.S. Supreme Court) can ultimately determine the constitutionality of laws. Of course, Obama may play a large role in term of his S.C. appointees -- depending on the timing of when the question finally gets to that highest level of our justice system.

[AbbieXHoffman]

True, but he can use his pulpit to talk about it to raise awareness if he wanted and he can appoint liberal SC justices.

[Pie7]

Thank you, these people assumed President Obama can solve there problems with a stoke of a pen. Go to the courts.

[bbbtmenw]

He can LEAD.

He can be loud, voice his opinion, ask for a Bill, go around the country like he did for his bailout plan, mention how wrong D.O.M.A. is, or just begin to make policy. Clinton is doing it for her department, which will allow gay rights to government officials.

Oh, and by the way....A gay bill went into congress today, while everyone was talking about the stimulus. The Dems and Obama are working.

[Pie7]

Nothing President Obama say will change our mind on these issues.

[Pie7]

Just me that bill won't go anywhere. Congress considers equal immigration rights for same-sex couples - lol

[loper2008]

Lincoln was forced to do every progressive thing he did. You have to create the environment for Obama AND Congress to do this.

[bbbtmenw]

Yes, the south pushed too far and needed to be stopped. Bush and the GOP created a mess and Obama and the Dems needs to clean it up.The environment was already created.

[tr24]

"The Gay marriage fight does equate to slavery in many ways."

Unadulterated BS!

[AbbieXHoffman]

It says "in many ways" NOT in ALL ways.

[bbbtmenw]

and it is Gay Rights Struggle compared to African American Struggle.

They are very similar.

We were burned at the stake.
We were in concentration camps.
We are on the top of the Hate List for Conservatives.
We are still denied EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
We are discriminated against.
We had laws up to a few years ago that would jail us for being who we are.
We are murdered, our funerals and parades are picketed, tear gassed and threatened.
We are imprisoned and murdered in other countries and our government won't work with the U.N. to stop this.

[PippiLongstocking]

You're arguing the "African American Struggle," while he's arguing Slavery. Big difference.

[onagadori]

Got some issues there?

[Pie7]

Why is it if someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage you're not acting like Lincoln? What did Lincoln do to help gay Americans and the world? Why are we NOT allow to have difference of opinions or should we all be robot program to think alike?

[bbbtmenw]

So, you are saying it doesn't matter how Lincoln thought. OK. What are your thoughts? Should people have Civil Rights or do you discriminate?

[tr24]

co-sign

[AbbieXHoffman]

"Why are we NOT allow to have difference of opinions or should we all be robot program to think alike?"

You're entitled to any opinion you want. But your opinion should have no weight on the rights of others. The constitution is here to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[AbbieXHoffman]

AND people have the right to think whatever they want of your opinion and say you're un-Lincoln-like if they way. OR are you saying that they are "NOT allowed to have difference of opinions and should be programed to think alike"

[Pie7]

I don't worship man, I worship God. God said you shouldn't put anyone above him. But of course you don't care for religion or God.

[randyjet]

I see that you did not read Kearns book,, since she DID mention the fact that circuit riding lawyers usually shared beds since there were so few available. She also stated clearly that it was NOT a gay thing at all. I also shared beds with other men when I was in the anti-war movement and we had little funds or accomodations. That was NOT a gay thing either, but one time a gay man woke me by fondling me while I was asleep. THAT is why I am against GAYS being in the military among other reasons.

It is obnoxious to state that Lincoln position would have been the same as yours given NO evidence. He also did NOT consider blacks to be equal to whites at any time. So I seriously doubt he would share your views on gays.

[Pie7]

co-sign

[tr24]

co-signing to your co-sign, Pie!

[bbbtmenw]

So, use your one bad experience to eliminate rights for all Gays.... Is everyone straight in your life perfect? And what were you doing passed out with a gay guy anyway?

[bbbtmenw]

Oh, and it is common to have a straight guy share your bed when your wife is away?

[AbbieXHoffman]

I don't believe you and even if it were true then there are legal means to achieve justice in this instance. You could have prosecuted that person. We have laws for that. Frankly it is possible that any human can fondle another regardless of whether they are openly gay or straight. We don't need to deny peoples right to be open about their homosexuality for an extreme and unlikely case that only promoted homophobia.

[midknightryder13]

If ANYONE "woke you by fondling you while you were asleep" without your consent -- that's called SEXUAL ASSAULT, and is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter if the person was gay, straight, bi or asexual -- so the bigger question is, why didn't you press charges? In other words, your 'logic' is a bit skewed.

And please stop trying to equate unwanted 'advances' to a committed, CONSENTUAL relationship.

[bbbtmenw]

Yes, we may have had a gay president (Buchanan) and possibly a bi-president (Lincoln) and that is great that the GLBT community has been a part of our nation's history at high levels, BUT only because they kept it hidden.

Lincoln's accomplishments are no greater or less for me because of his sexual identity, BUT it is sad to think that, if believed and true, many in our country would look to his accomplishments and Lincoln in a less bright light.

It is sad that today there would be no way for a president, or anyone, to have an openly gay relationship without prejudice, harassment and discrimination.

[bbbtmenw]

Part 1

The Gay marriage fight does equate to slavery in many ways. The Gay Rights Struggle equates as well to the African American struggle. Today the Gay Civil Rights Struggle is more difficult.

When looking at these issues we look to the past to learn and we look at the present to see what is happening and who is suffering, and then we look to the future and decide where we should be.

Slavery was a horrible part of our nation’s history. Much of our countries wealth and our nation building was done on the backs of a people subjugated, harassed, and manipulated. People were killed, tortured, imprisoned/confined for just who they were. Our use of slaves created a world market that caused wars and killing round the world, especially in African Nations where we paid men to kill and enslave people to export to the U.S. for our benefit. We supported killing, hate, and discrimination around the world for money.

[bbbtmenw]

Part 2

Throughout history Gays have been arrested, subjugated, forced to hide, and killed and tortured for being who they are. We were burned (hence the word fa*ggot), we were in the concentration camps, only recently our love life was still illegal in some states (sodomy laws, which were only used against gays and not straight people who violated them), hate crimes against gays are on the rise and in some cases accepted by communities, we are on the top of the HATE LIST of the GOP, conservatives and religious organization, and U.S. policies are affecting and causing death in other countries, TODAY.

In our own country hate for Gays is the leading issue for most religious organizations and they have set out to take away and keep us from receiving EQUAL Protection, Equal Rights, and full equality as U.S. citizens. This crazed need to blame Gays for the declining straight society and the amount of failed “straight marriages” in our country is reminiscent of the Nazis blaming the Jews for all of their problems.