Yep, I'm for gay marriage.
I've lived a lie for most of my adult life. As a statewide elected official in Kentucky -- an inner notch of the Bible Belt -- I understood that coming out of the closet for gay marriage was tantamount to political suicide: an overwhelming majority of my constituents opposed it.
But now as a recovering politician, I feel both liberated and morally compelled to holler from the cyber-rooftops: I'm proud as hell, and I'm not going to fake it any more!
Growing up in Kentucky, gay marriage was never a topic of discussion.
But late nights of philosophical experimentation in college helped me discover that I'd been for marriage equality all my life. With a father who'd marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and a mother who'd been a statewide force for women's rights, the notion that we were all created equal was absurdly obvious. As a Jew growing up in the South, I knew what it was like to feel discriminated, to be other. And that same faith taught me to "love your neighbor as yourself" and to "judge not, lest you be judged," making marriage equality a natural extension of my core beliefs.
I soon came out to my parents, close friends and ultimately, my future wife. (She was for gay marriage, too, thank God!)
For the first decade of our marriage, living on the East Coast, we could be open about our beliefs. But then we decided to move back home and in 1998, I even made the youthful indiscretion of running for Congress.
There was simply no other option: I had to shove my gay marriage views into a back corner of my closet. My consultants advised that any deviation or hesitation would immediately make me unelectable. Even my savvy gay friends gave me a pass: they understood that compromising on this issue was the only route toward the greater good. They'd rather have someone who sympathized with them and voted the way they liked 90% of time, instead of one that opposed them more often than not.
And while I didn't win that congressional bid (ironically, I lost the primary to a then- closeted, now openly-gay man, Judge Ernesto Scorsone), I soon won two terms as state treasurer, capturing large majorities in rural areas where my secret views would have been anathema.
Many of my politician-allies quietly assumed that I was for gay marriage (as I did of them). So did my rivals, some of whom began to gossip about my political lifestyle.
But I went out of my way to avoid the topic. When asked, I would parse my answers like a Clintonian deposition.
In 2004, when state voters by a margin of 3 to 1 passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- and anything that looked like it (presumably civil unions) -- I was both horrified by the policy and relieved by the personal political implication: when asked in the future, I could say that the electorate had spoken; that my individual point of view no longer mattered.
But it was a recent moment that revealed my position was no longer tenable. My 14-year- old daughter, Abigail, came home from a Young Democrats meeting flustered: she'd heard that her political hero, President Obama, was against gay marriage. How could we have supported someone with such an abhorrent position on such a critical civil rights issue?
My stammering revealed that we hadn't had the "talk" yet. Lisa and I had shared our equality views with both our daughters, and we were thrilled when they adopted these values as their own. One of our proudest moments was learning that our older daughter, Emily, had publicly defended a gay teenage friend who was being bullied. So how could I reconcile my public timidity with my private passion?
I knew it was time to come out.
Some will castigate me for waiting until it was too late to make any difference. I plead guilty.
But while such a gesture might have been noble and potentially educational, I determined that, on balance, it wasn't worth political hari-kari. There were too many battles on too many other fronts that I wanted to fight. Gay marriage is important, but so are poverty reduction, educational opportunity, environmental protection and so on. I'd be giving up on all of the latter to simply make a statement on the former.
Others will declare that my pronouncement signifies the demise of my own political future. They understand that there's no way the same electorate that gave Rand Paul a landslide victory would support a marriage equality advocate.
They're probably right -- in the short term. I deeply respect those Kentuckians who've delved deeply into their own religious or moral beliefs and reached a different conclusion on marriage equality. But I humbly and strongly disagree. And I feel compelled to fess up.
For I believe that my admission today can do some good.
First, it can help educate my daughters -- as well as my friends and readers -- about the complex, nuanced decision-making process of most well-meaning politicians. In a political system that forces candidates to the extremes, and with a media culture that portrays issues in black and white, there are a significant number of pols who struggle every day to accommodate their personal values with political realities.
Second, I hope it gives some small measure of comfort to marriage equality advocates to know that there are politicians like me -- even in conservative states -- who support gay marriage and will come forward when it no longer will disqualify them from winning office.
Time is clearly on equality's side: while recent polls show that somewhere between a small plurality and a tiny majority of Americans support gay marriage, younger Americans overwhelmingly are in favor. Last November, my hometown, Lexington -- a light blue oasis in a deeply red commonwealth -- elected an openly gay mayor, Jim Gray. And just a few months ago, a statewide poll revealed an overwhelming number of Kentuckians support anti-discrimination protections for gays. Neither would have been the case in my childhood, probably not even a decade ago.
Finally, I pray that that my endorsement of gay marriage will encourage more people -- politicians and average citizens -- to make the same admission. We are close to a tipping point, when an anti-gay marriage stance could be seen as a political liability. Today's politicians must understand that only a few decades from now, gay marriage opponents might be viewed the same way we today view civil rights opponents from the 50s and 60s, many of whom secretly supported race equality but were afraid of the backlash.
Harvey Milk, perhaps history's most influential gay rights advocate, was right: when more gays and lesbians came out of the closet -- and the rest of us began to realize that friends and even loved ones were gay -- the stigma wore off, and it became politically and personally unacceptable to preach gay hatred. Similarly, when more people discover that those they respect support gay marriage, it will help lead us on a path to full equality. Unlike Lady Gaga, we're not "born this way"-- in favor or opposed to gay marriage. Our positions can be transformed by the wisdom and examples of others.
So please join me today. Speak out on marriage equality; let your friends know where you stand. Perhaps then, they will change their minds, or even feel liberated to come out of hiding and stand with us.
Indeed, there's one politician whom I'm confident supports marriage equality, but has been afraid to admit it. I suspect he's waiting for the right opportunity to announce it, when the electoral benefits outweigh the political downside.
Mr. President, the time is now. Yes, you can... trigger the tipping point. Exercising bold leadership -- instead of waiting to follow the generational tide -- might be your most enduring legacy.
I know my daughters would be proud. And I bet yours would feel the same way too.
Follow Jonathan Miller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RecoveringPol
John Backman: Born This Way? Being, Becoming, Lady Gaga and the Divine
Tracy Baim: Obama and Marriage: Do We Need a Secret Gay-Decoder Ring?
I've got news for you, Mr. Miller....I don't buy your "it's tough being a politician bit"....you defend the fact that you sacrificed standing up for the civil rights of others so you could address "poverty reduction, educational opportunity, environmental protection, and so on"....as if one was any more important than another. There's no two ways around it....you were a coward and a hypocrite...the fact that you've come out AFTER you're a "recovering politician" is further evidence of your continued cowardice and the fact that you have the gall to encourage Obama to do something you couldn't ("commit political hari-kari") is blatant hypocrisy...especially when your stakes were your Democratic constituents in Kentucky, not the entire US.
I'm not saying Obama *shouldn't* come out in full support of marriage equality, but he certainly shouldn't be being urged to do so by someone who couldn't/wouldn't do it either.
I thought you'd be interested in the latest polling data on marriage equality, as well as my analysis, that I have posted at my web site, TheRecoveringPolitician.com. It's fascinating both in how far we've come, as well as how the generational turnover plays heavily in favor of marriage equality. Some great charts, too:
http://therecoveringpolitician.com/the-rp/the-rp-a-tipping-point-for-marriage-equality
Again with the completely ridiculous notion that someone or their opinion deserves to be respected just because they have "deeply held religious convictions". Nothing is further from the truth. If someone allows their religion to override their innate sense of morality, something is wrong with them.
"Marriage" is inherently unequal. The government creates a specific contract (based in morality) that all people are required to accept. That is not equal.
I am tired of people throwing around the word "equality" to bolster their argument. Equality is a non-moral ability to enunionize with other parties (not limited in number) and terms determined by those agreeing to the contract. Equality is the government only existing to enforce the contract through law.
"Marriage equality" is a long way off. Polygamy is viewed negatively (and assumed to only mean polygyny). Incestuous relationships are taboo and often illegal. Unions with a defined duration are not possible (no one can set a term for two weeks or twenty years if they so desire). And people are unable to amend an agreement to add or remove parties.
As long as people hold a "traditional" moral view of "marriage" it will never be equal.
As for polygamy and incest, both are demonstrably harmful (polygamy not always, perhaps, but certainly in democratic societies where every heterosexual expects an equal opportunity to marriage - and, yes, it does almost always amount to polygyny in practice). Polygamy also serves to point up the fact that morals shift and change with the changing demands of society. There's certainly nothing more traditional than polygamous marriage from a biblical point of view.
Limitations to marriage/enunionization are based mostly on moral views. The limits on number of parties and contract duration and such are moral, not practical or based upon rights.
When the SCOTUS ruled in Loving that marriage is a right, they were refering ONLY to man/woman couples, NOT gay marriage since that concept did NOT even exist back then. To thus twist that ruling to affirm GAY marriage is a right is simply dishonest and a lie. Not only that, but in the Mass. Supreme Court majority opinion,they specifically refered to the FACT that the state has the RIGHT to take away a persons LIFE by legislation if the needs of the state dictated it. Ones own life is FAR more essential than who one may marry.
PS. I'm no ideological libertarian and the majority of gay marriage proponents aren't either.
The FACT is that heterosexual sex can and does result in children and that can happen at almost any age and even so called infertile couples have found that they are not infertile in many cases. The FACT is too that one cannot deny privileges to all in the same class, such as fertile and infertile couples, or blacks, browns etc.. There is NO legal, moral, or tradition at all of gay marriage, and in most parts of the US there is NO legal possibility of that. Thus to state that there is some legal Constitutional RIGHT to it is beyond reason. It IS possible for the state legislature to grant such a thing, and I would not be terribly upset if that came about. It is the people of the state who get to decide what is legal and right within certain parameters and cannot be withholding a right that NEVER existed before. I never said that gay marriage would stop man/woman marriage, that is sillly.
They are able to take advantage of the opinions of others to get power. Which is probably why politicians can so easily change their views when polls change.
If homosexuality were normal, the homosapien species would have become extinct.
How abnormal is that?
It is not normal for a man to be attracted to another man, that is simply abnormal behavior and defies the human species.
Say what you will, however it is the Universal Truth.
Having stated this, I am 100% for civil unions between homosexuals to provide contractual and benefit rights for pensions and beneficial remainder interests.
Yes, homosexuality is normal. And believe or not so is heterosexuality, the world will not come to an end due to the lack of babies.
Normal refers to what is generally expected. You know, like "the norm"?
It is natural, but not normal. Though it does not really matter. Even "natural" is meaningless. Clothes are not natural, but they are considered normal.
Not to mention that the institution of marriage has been evolving for thousands of years. Once it was just for procreation, that was before women had any rights. It wasn't until recently that marriage has become more of a partnership than an institution that would benefit the male.
A marriage is a connection between two individuals who want to spend their life together. Not sure why someone would be against such a beautiful thing. Civil Unions and Marriages legally is the same thing, not sure why you would favor one over the other.
As for homosexuality being against nature, you might want to look at all the species that have homosexual behavior. I agree not everyone could be homosexual because the birth rate would decline. Luckily only about 10% of the population is homosexual, so I think your argument is mute.
Look at Obama's sophisitcated handling of DOMA. It is the obligation of the executive to defend acts of Congress, including DOMA. Obama's Department of Justice defended the constitutionality of the law through the trial stage in Federal District Court. Then, the president and AG decided that there was no merit to any appeal of the case. Boehner has hired a lawyer to handle the appeal. Obama has not come out and said the law is unconstitutional, but got the trial court to do it for him. He has political cover, though it is unusual to decline to prosecute the appeal through the Supreme Court and he received some criticism.
Smooth. And results oriented.