I've never seen Rachel Maddow's show. I don't watch any of the commentary shows. I'm not interested in hearing the opinions of talking heads on television. I either want facts, from which I draw my own conclusions, or I want entertainment. Maddow, Napolitano or Limbaugh don't give me what I'm looking for. I read instead.
Reading is how I discovered Rachel Maddow's comments on marriage equality in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter:
Maddow keeps an apartment in Manhattan, but she decamps to the solitude of Northampton, Mass. on weekends, where she lives with her girlfriend of 12 years, artist Susan Mikula, and Poppy, their black Labrador. ...
Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, but Maddow says she and Mikula have no immediate wedding plans. "We know a lot of people who have gotten married but I don't think we feel any urgency about it."
Later she admits that she's actually ambivalent about the cultural impact of gay marriage.
"I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships," she explains. "And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture."
Maddow is guilty of blinkered thinking. Everything she says may well be true, for people such as she, but it is not true for many other gay couples -- perhaps most other gay couples.
Maddow is not saying she opposes marriage equality, just that she worries about it, because gay culture, which was created in inequality, might lose something. If you think about that, it is rather astounding. Yes, human experiences, even harmful and oppressive ones, shape a people's culture, but that is no reason to keep injustice going. Even mentioning it, in this context, shocks me.
Whether Maddow feels an urgency to get married or not is entirely subjective and personal. There certainly are people who find little reason to marry legally. And there are others who have urgent, legitimate reasons for marriage. People in Maddow's situation don't have urgent reasons to marry legally, but many gay people are not so fortunate.
Let me put it mildly: Maddow is not financially hurting. She has an apartment in Manhattan and a home in Massachusetts. Her partner is an artist who has showings around the country. They are probably rather well off financially. There are no children, just a Labrador.
She can afford to worry about whether "gay culture" will lose something if gay people can marry. Lots of gay couples can't.
Simply put, Maddow's wealth and position insulates her from many of the worst injustices of marriage inequality.
Mikula is U.S.-born. That helps. Maddow doesn't have to worry that Susan could be deported because their relationship is not legally recognized. She can afford to worry about "culture," instead of deportation. Binational gay couples might see it differently.
There are gay couples, raising children together, where one partner is the "legal" parent of some of the children, and the other is the "legal" parent of the other children. They aren't allowed to marry, and aren't allowed to jointly adopt those children. In the event of the death of one of them, their family could be split up with children being ripped away from the only other parent they know. Marriage isn't quite so urgent when the issue is custody of a Labrador.
The cost of legal contracts, mimicking some, but not all, of the protections of marriage cost gay couples between $5,000 and $10,000 dollars. A highly paid television personality and her artist partner, with homes in rural Massachusetts and Manhattan, probably don't find that onerous. Other gay couples are not so fortunate and find themselves powerless when things go wrong.
Some gay families include spouses who work full-time, while the other partner stays home and cares for the kids, the house and even the dog. When the wage-earning partner dies, they are in deep trouble. The partner doesn't receive the pension, or Social Security, of the deceased partner, as would happen with straight, married couples.
Just recently, not far from my home, a man lost his spouse. With the death of the spouse, Social Security income dropped dramatically, far more than it would have if the federal government recognized their legal marriage. The surviving spouse was denied the pension benefits that a "wife" would have received. His only option was to sell the home they had lived in for so many years. I suspect the last thing he worried about was whether "gay culture" would lose something if this were not the case.
Maddow's wealth and atypical situation insulates her from much of the reality that other gay people, in relationships, have to worry about. Based on what I know of her situation, she will probably continue to be legally secure up until either she or her partner dies. Then the surviving partner will find inheritance tax laws treat her differently and she will pay significantly higher amounts. In the meantime, Maddow can indulge herself in the luxury of worrying about "culture" instead.
What irks me most about Maddow's comments is what will be done with them. There are people, who would happily stamp out gay culture if they could, who will now latch onto her comments in order to justify the injustices they inflict on others.
Erwin de Leon: Gay Binational Couples React to DHS Deportation Guidance
Rachel Maddow On Gay Marriage: 'I Don't...Feel Any Urgency About It'
Rachel Maddow on Marriage's Threat to Gay Culture |Gay News ...
Grow up- take a weekend trip to a state you can be married in; and live your life. End of Story .
Proud to be #1. f&f
My partner is retired military and if we have a choice, we will marry. The primary reason we would do so is so I could receive survivor benefits if she predeceases me. She should be entitled to survivor benefits from my long professional career if the reverse is true.
That being said, I have always been on record that gay marriage cannot harm the institution of marriage because straight people have done so much damage to it. My partner and I will celebrate 30 years of commitment in 2013 and I find it insane that a newlywed would get survivor benefits if his or her spouse were to die and we would get nothing; but, not being legally married takes NOTHING away from our partnership.
We have created the legal protections we need for our estate ourselves. It didn't cost $5,000 and most of the forms we needed are statutory so are available to everyone for free (living will, healthcare power of attorney, general power of attorney, etc.)
I just wanted to point out that being fundamentally in favor of gay marriage doesn't mean you must avail yourself of it.
Dr. Maddow may not have been saying that she was opposed to marriage, but merely saying that it didn't make sense for her. However, saying as much was a truly "let them eat cake" moment for her.
When I watch footage of queer activists in the 60's they seemed to want to blow the roof off of everything that limited human potential. Fighting to freely love who you will was a natural calling in that context. We've maintained the fight but left the context behind. I'm hoping that now that we're achieving some major triumphs (the death of DOMA is not far off now) maybe we will be able to take stock more of where we are, what we've got, what we've lost and what we want/need to do next.
Yes, her show is factual and she does the right things and reveals appropriate truths on her show-BUT, there was always something missing. I couldn't put my finger on it until I had a problem with being bullied on her Maddow Blog. I a gay person, experienced and unusually large amount of bullying from a group of 'butch" gay females who had banded together on her site.
Because I thought she stood for courage of heart and what was right, I thought she'd surely make sure this would be taken care of and the offenders removed. After a dozen letters (they say they read all their mail), I got no response, no reparation of the problem-nothing-but was told by another that Maddow has a big ego and is driven for professional reasons and nothing more. If anything, she would be amused and it best I not return to her blog.
My admiration for her dissipated quickly, although I still watch at time because she does a good show and is factually correct.
After my own personal experience with Maddow, I came to realize that the person on the show and the real Rachel who made such a shocking statement do not match up. And that's because Rachel is driven to do a good show for professional reasons only. It is not because it's coming from her heart and she wants to change the world.
When I first found this out, I was deeply sad, for I too had thought she was more than a performer. Unfortunately that is what she is doing on the show. It doesn't mean I still don't watch the show today. I just know she's not the heroic person of heart that I had so hoped her to be.
The real Rachel would make just exactly such a comment. She is driven because she wants to be the best. That is different than coming from heart. It's for personal achievement.
And for me, heart beats a Rhodes Scholarship any day of the week.
I'm not shocked at all by her statement. As a gay person, I am just disappointed, and again find her statement to be a much more accurate depiction of who she really is.
To my sadness, not a person of heart-but a well driven machine for professional success. Yes, even gay people have their opportunists as well.
Yes, her show is informative and factually accurate. I do watch it myself for just that reason.
But many of you have associated traits with her that she does not possess. Rachel is driven for professional success. That means being who you want her to be on the show. But that is not who she is in person.
That doesn't mean her show is not worth watching. But it does mean that having courage of heart and being Rachel are far apart. I was very disappointed to find this out myself. For I have always thought heart to be a far greater thing than being a Rhodes Scholar.
But unfortunately, she is not driven by the same things others may be driven by. Her drive comes from the desire to be professionally the best. That is much different than coming from one's heart.
As a gay woman, I am more disappointed than you might know. But denying it will not make it any less true.
Sorry.
Your point that wealth and position insulate Maddow from the ramifications of their positions on issues is applicable to virtually all pundits and politicians. Frankly put, they don't care. Tax away the marriage issue and she has one less thing to Bash the GOP about on her show. Lower taxes and create jobs? Then what would Hannity or Beck talk about? Come up with real, effective jobs legislation or fixes to the economy in a bipartisan manner that wasn't a giveaway to all congresses' special interests? DC would explode.
Bottom line. No one in power really wants all the problems to be solved because than they lose their reason for being.
It's like drug companies that keep making medications that cure symptoms, but not the disease. There's no money in curing.
I can understand being hesitant to take a chance on losing cultural identification.
Mr. Peron - the things you write about Maddow seem puzzling to me. Of course she doesn't have the same financial worries as most of us.
I think the issues for people who are not allowed to marry are certainly deserving of being reiterated as you did in your article. What I found interesting was your assertion she would have a different opinion on gay marriage if she were in limited financial circumstances.
She doesn't strike me as a person living a fear based life - but I don't know her personally - so that's just my opinion.
I don't think Maddow's opinion would change if she were penniless - but that's just speculation on my part.
I too thought Rachel was of great courage and heart. But when I found out otherwise, despite my huge disappointment, I had to accept that the persona she created for appearances was not the same as who I and apparently others, wanted her to be.
If you could understand that she is motivated by being the best she can be for professional reasons only, you would understand why she made such a comment. She is not a fear based being. She is a person with huge ego and as a result, does not have the capability of actually feeling the results of such statements.
I still watch her show because it's good and factually correct-but I no longer have her on any pedestal that I once did. Her desire for professional success is causing more good than her uncaring statements and so I watch what she portrays on her show.
But in my eyes, being of heart is a far greater quality than being a Rhodes Scholar. I guess none of us are all things-despite what we may wish. For that reason, I have much more feeling for Ed and some of the others. But her show is still factual and of value. She's just not someone I would have in my circle of friends.
Thanks for responding to my comment.
You obviously know things about Maddow I don't. Would you like to share?
Read my blog to see my reasoning behind my conclusion that Rachel is faking homosexuality: http://www.thisisjohncoffey.com/2011/10/07/news-politics/rachel-maddow-is-not-really-gay/ {{-_-}}
Time for you to go back to Fox...don't let the door hit yer arse on the way out...
It always was intended as a legal move to consolidate and maintain wealth. It has outlived its usefulness to everyone but attorneys who count on the fact that 50% of us who tie the knot will be back in 7 years to hand them huge sums of money to undo the legal mess. Marriage should be a religious ceremony where vows mean more spiritually than legally. Instead, it's cash cow industry on your way in and on your way out.
Marriage as an institution has not necessarily worked out so well for a substantial percentage of heterosexuals either.
The articles author is correct that for many homosexual couples, the option to marry makes sense. But the key point of marriage law reform is not that homosexual couples should marry, but that they should have the same choice to do so or not as heterosexual couples.
Is it a bad idea? Not in itself. But what if Economic Empowerment (perhaps for DuBois' Talented Tenth) did take precedent over Integration in the 1960s?
Would we have had the Civil Rights movement as we know it? Would MLK have been relevant?