Symbols are the greatest driving force behind human behavior. Throughout history, entire cultures, nations and races of people have chosen to die rather than surrender their symbols, even when those symbols were embodied merely in a single word.
In the movement to legalize same-sex marriages in the United States, it often seems that the fight comes down to disagreement over a symbol - over the meaning of the word "marriage." And in fighting to protect that symbol, the religious right has proven a formidable and unwavering foe. Their recent victory in delaying the repeal of California's Proposition 8 is persuasive evidence.
A Step Back
Since the same-sex marriage movement began in earnest some 40 years ago, religious leaders have prevented all but five states and the District of Columbia from making it legal, and it took nearly 30 years for the first state to do so, in 2003. They have helped defeat similar bills in every state that has put it to popular vote.
If anything, the same-sex marriage movement appears to have lost substantial ground. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage specifically as the union of a man and a woman. Meanwhile, thirty states have implemented constitutional amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Now, in California, two years and $80 million later (the amount spent by both sides to fight the issue) - having been implemented and repealed several times already - the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban remains as contentious as ever. Technically repealed recently -- making gay marriages legal again -- the religious right quickly won another stay until December, so that same-sex marriages remain illegal. But there's no guarantee the amendment will ever be repealed, and even if it is, that it won't be enforced again down the road. The religious right has vowed to take their fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if it has to. And as it has proven repeatedly, it has the financial resources, the determination, and the absolute conviction in its beliefs to succeed.
A Word of Warning
But could same-sex marriage proponents be fighting on the wrong front? These groups seek the more than 1000 federal benefits for same-sex marriages that are automatically accorded opposite-sex couples, and view the religious right as their mortal enemy. Yet, religious leaders and social conservatives have repeatedly insisted that they have no objection to gays and lesbian partners enjoying the same legal rights as married spouses. They just don't want them to call their relationship a "marriage."
"It's about restoring the traditional definition of marriage," says Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8.
"The Church cannot approve of redefining marriage," which is intended "to nurture and support new life," say U.S. Catholic bishops. But they assert that all people, including gays, are "holy," regardless of their sexual orientations, and must be accepted "with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
It would seem that they can't make it any clearer that they're only asking for gays to use another word other than "marriage" to describe what they're after. Yet same-sex marriage proponents refuse to do so, and, rather, dig their heels in deeper, and demand nothing less than a legal redefinition of the word.
A Double Negative
Gay marriage supporters would say that the fight isn't that simple. They point to the hypocrisy of religious leaders and organizations like ProtectMarriage, whose court arguments are really a thinly veil attack on the gay lifestyle. In courts, religious organizations summon up vast volumes of dubious data to "prove" redefining the word marriage will destroy the fabric of society and allow gays to run wild in the streets and in the classrooms. However, these same organizations drop all pretenses to tolerance in their churches, where they whip their followers into a frenzy, warning that, should gays be allowed to marry, gay teachers will turn their children into homosexuals and society will devolve into the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
But why not take religious opposition at face value and simply use a different word? Wouldn't that circumvent the churches' objections in courts, where the fight really belongs? Or at least it would call the churches' bluff and force them to admit that, yes, they actually consider gays to be damned, and that's why they so adamantly oppose the legal sanctioning of their fornication, no matter what word they call it?
Instead, gay marriage proponents -- and even the judges -- repeatedly take the bait, and bent themselves all out of shape debating the meaning of the word "marriage," with proponents offering equally shaky reasoning as to why changing the definition won't destroy our social and cultural values. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the Herculean task of trying to change prevailing public attitudes -- which is what they would need to do to succeed -- rather than staying focused on their mission, which is to change the law.
Courting Failure
In calling for the repeal of Proposition 8 last week, for example, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker argued, "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."
But why should the legalization of same-sex marriages be based on whether or not two consenting adults are capable of living together happily ever after? It's not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriages. In fact, using such an argument, it makes more sense to repeal heterosexual marriages, since more than half of all opposite-sex marriages appear to end in acrimonious, financially ruinous, and psychically devastating divorce (see: Mel Gibson). More to the point, it is not even a legal argument, but purely hearsay. It's the kind of logic that leaves the door wide open for religious opponents to argue against the validity of the statement -- which they do with unrelenting fury, and nearly flawless success.
Certainly, the church's argument is fundamentally hypocritical, so it is temptingly easy to get drawn into a futile debate with them -- and perhaps that's why same-sex proponents continue to do so. For example, the church insists that marriage between two people is only valid if the two partners can procreate, or "nurture and support new life." Yet, it has no qualms with blessing and accepting marriages where the man or woman is physically incapable of having children, thereby being incapable of supporting new life. What is the different between such childless marriages and that of same-sex marriages, where the partners are also physically incapable of having children?
And this may be at the core of the LGBT groups' inability to make consistent headway in the legal system. In attacking the double standard in the church, they validate the church's attack on them. In doing so, they unfortunately confuse the public - and the church plays up the confusion, convincing the public that if they were to grant gays the complex array of legal benefits they seek, it would be at the expense of "sullying" the "purity" of the religious, cultural and symbolic meaning of the word "marriage." That's a position the general public adamantly refuses to be put in, and a choice they stubbornly refuse to make.
A Rose by Any Other Name
As a sign of progress in changing public attitudes, same-sex marriage proponents point to surveys showing increasing public support for gay marriages, with some surveys finding a slim majority in their favor -- the first time in history. However, a careful review of these surveys reveals that most people actually didn't have a problem with same sex couples receiving legal recognition; they just balked at supporting any constitutional amendment that implicitly sought to redefine the word "marriage."
This explains California's Field Poll, taken in May 2008, which found that 51% of the residents supported same-sex marriages; yet later that year they approved Proposition 8, banning gay marriages. Last year, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that 49% of Americans favor gay marriages, up 10% from three years earlier. However, in the past year, gay marriage bills have been defeated in all 31 states that put it up to popular vote.
Perhaps it is time that same-sex marriage proponents accepted that, after decades of frustration, they need to take a new route. They must strike the word "marriage" from every single document they introduce in court, as well as statements they make to the media, which are filtered, sometimes incorrectly, to the public. At the same time, too, they should demand that, since the church treats "marriage" as a religious word with a special, narrowly defined meaning to them, the U.S. government must therefore strike this "religious" word from all its laws, as it violates separation of church and state principles. All U.S. laws must now use a generic, non-religious, alternative term for "marriage" that offends no one and doesn't favor one group over another.
As long as same-sex marriage proponents continue to fight for their rights using the word "marriage," their challenges will remain almost insurmountable, because they fight a symbol, not a law. If the U.S. constitution is founded upon the separation of church and state, they should be ignoring the church and attacking the state. Of course, religious leaders will continue to throw up formidable roadblocks, but their arguments will be substantially weakened. The public, meanwhile, will feel less confused about their demands and therefore less reluctant to grant them.
Stripped of the convoluted arguments of both sides, at the fundamental core of the debate, the question is really whether the U.S. Government can refuse to recognize a contract drawn up by two consenting adults of legal age -- their sex is irrelevant -- that in terms of their expectations of each other and legal recognition, precisely mirrors what is currently recognized as a marriage contract. Call the contract what you will.
Editor's note: This article was modified from its original form and includes some reformatting and editing for clarity.
Follow Mario Almonte on Twitter: www.twitter.com/almonte
"We're not trying to force gay marriage down your throat...even though we're desperately trying to get a sympathetic judge to overturn the popular vote"
"We're not trying to attack religion and churches...unless you're apart of the LDS church we've been vandalized, harassed, and whose tax-exempt status we've tried to revoke"
Studies in New Jersey have shown that there are simply too many places "married" confers rights, from public (taxes, estate law) to private (work benefits, insurance) and that civil unions have FAILED to provide equality.
In other words, the only -- only -- way to be equal under the law is marriage.
And why is this Catholic so interested in handing out guidance to gays and lesbians? Are we really supposed to believe he's so very, very caring and concerned?
Consider the source.
P.S. Only one side of this issue has convoluted aguments.
And the article smells worse to me, than it did yesterday. I can't read Almonte's mind, so I cannot quite decide between
1-- He just wrote this condescending analysis for the benefit of his co-religionists, so they can feel generous in THEIR solution to someone's else's problem. Unlike the thug church in Utah, Catholics have no choice but to acknowledge that Gays exist --- after all, the supply of priests and nuns nearly dried up, when Gay lib happened. I think Catholics are better at accepting human variations than the Evangelicals or the Moroni Mussolinis.
OR
2. He just wrote it in an attempt to splinter, delay, and divert the cause, because anyone with clear thinking, especially after reading the Judge's decision, knows marriage is close to happening.
Earlier, there were articles from naysayers of other groups, but the big player, the Mormons, have stayed silent, except in some obvious snipes in other posts. Perhaps they are laying low, and are reflecting on their tremendously evil deeds in 2008 --- but I doubt it. They don't like to call much attention to their huge business and land empire.
He's probably more concerned with the branding issues than the actual ones.
Another point is the SHEER ARROGANCE of his suggestions -- "Here, put this on, you should wear this, whether you like it or not!" He, 3000 miles away, feels he understands what we need better than we do.
And last, to you --- he keeps saying "call it by some other term", People replying just fill in the most obvious term.
1) "religious leaders have repeatedly insisted that they have no objection to gays and lesbian partners enjoying the same legal rights... just don't want them to call their relationship a "marriage." WRONG. A LIE. Religious and crypto-religious groups (NOM FRC etc) interfered in Hawaiii, Wisconsin, Costa Rica against civil unions too. They pretend to only want the word "marriage" but they are actively anti-gay.
2) "in demanding the legalization of gay "marriages," they are ... creating confusion in the public mind between the complex array of legal benefits they seek and the religious, cultural and symbolic meaning of the word "marriage."
WRONG.
We want it all just like straight people -- the legal, the benefits, the cultural, the symbolic. It meant more to me than I ever thought it could to call my husband "my husband". MARIO: There are churches that do marry gay people and bless them: United, Unitarian, Episcopal, Reform Synagogue. Why do you exclude these from your definition of "Religious institutions"?
3) " at the fundamental core of the debate, the question is really whether the U.S. Government can refuse to recognize a contract" WRONG. Mario, did you read the ruling? The core is about whether the State and Federal governments can create a class of people arbitrarily denied these equal benefits -- descrimination. The Constitution and the Judge say no.
In conclusion: I have seen these same tactics and scenarios played against the gays and lesbians back in 1976-1977 with the Dade County, FL equal rights for gays in housing and employment ordinance. It became known as the Anita Bryant issue and became the smoke screen by the pseudo-conservatives to deny the gay and lesbian citizens of this country of their God and country given rights.
I say to the BGLT community:
Get organized as one voice.
Communicate to your families that you are the same person as you were before the self realization of being sexually orientated as a homosexual instead of being a heterosexual.
If your church will not accept as you are go to one that will. They are out there.
Become a part of your local BGLT social and political groups.
Work for the common good for your BGLT sisters and bothers. Your future life and happiness will depend on it. Nazism is alive and flourishing. Let's not repeat history by not being involved.
Up to this week I have always agreed on the position that same gender marriage should be changed to full legal unions. Ref. my web: www.lambda76.us.
In actuality, at this time, all heterosexual marriages in the church are legal unions.
These people who are against same gender marriages are the same people who will not even accept same gender legal unions as they are opposed to any gay and lesbian unions being sanctioned by the state. These pseudo-conservatives have even gone to companies and government bodies and demanded that same gender benefits that were currently available be removed or they will take action to have them removed This type of action has occurred more than once since 2001.
Therefore, for the proponents to back down to the use of full legal unions status will not still give the gays and lesbians full constitutional rights. I contend the pseudo-conservatives goal is to keep the gays and lesbians as fourth class citizens and they will go to any means to get what they want.
Many churches and religious bodies do not agree with the statement that marriage belongs to the church. And considering the votes against Prop8, that percentage would have to be at least 48% of the religious people in this country do support marriage and equality of rights for gays and lesbians.
See following post for my conclusion.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/article_cbb1018a-ab0b-11df-8d15-001cc4c002e0.html
In you great wisdom, see if you can explain that part again to us who aren't quite as bright as you, about those conservatives and Christians supporting gay civil unions and domestic partnerships if gays would just stop trying to "hijack" the sacred word "marriage"?
Your commentary was woefully ignorant and misinformed the day it was written and it's proven to be more and more misinformed by the day.
I suggest you stay out of the marriage discussion until you get yourself at least minimally educated about the FACTS.
Gay marriage will likely come to California in 2011.
Now imagine being told that you can have all the food you possibly want. Except that you have to
eat it in the kitchen. Nothing against you, mind you. It's that the integrity of the dinner table needs to be preserved. People might not want to sit at the table if you're sitting at it. After all, you will no
longer be hungry. Isn't that what matters?
Are we supposed to be thankful? Hell NO!
Aren't we good enough to sit with everyone else? Hell YES!
And when you look into the kitchen, you see that there's no table there. Or food either.
You can't be serious, surely! Reading comprehension FAIL!
"they are unfortunately creating confusion in the public mind between the complex array of legal benefits they seek and the religious, cultural and symbolic meaning of the word 'marriage.'"
That confusion was already there, it wasn't created by same-sex marriage advocates! The "religious, cultural and symbolic meaning of the word" is subjective, and as such differs from person to person. There is no single, monolithic definition that everyone will agree with. A large part of the public's "confusion" comes from the repeating of this meme over and over again.
It takes much, much more than that to deny tax-paying citizens their equal rights! Same-sex marriage proponents also have these things.
"Yet, religious leaders have repeatedly insisted that they have no objection to gays and lesbian partners enjoying the same legal rights as married spouses. They just don't want them to call their relationship a 'marriage.'"
They are liars. They say this over and over, and then again and again turn around to oppose those very "marriage in all but name" measures. Every. Single. Time.
Also, please note that there are MANY Christian churches that will marry same-sex partners *right now*! What about the religious freedoms of that group? Don't they count?
"Or at least it would call the churches' bluff and force them to admit that, yes, they actually consider gays to be damned, and that's why they so adamantly oppose the legal sanctioning of their fornication, no matter what word they call it? "
Already been done. Read the news sometime ...