The Last Time We Vote For Bigotry

For many of us, 2008 will mark the last time we vote for a candidate who does not favor same-sex marriage. Hopefully, this will be because at least one candidate from a major party will support those rights, but we should also be prepared that, as in this year's presidential election, both people running are against marriage rights, and that neither will receive our vote.

This year, it was especially painful when, close to the election and to the California vote on Proposition 8 to rescind the rights of gay couples to marry, Barack Obama said he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman." This was nothing new, but certainly not uplifting, even as he reiterated his opposition to changing the California constitution.

This starkly illustrated Obama's contradictory attitude towards gay rights: he says he deems gay and straight people (all people, in fact) to be equal, but he is "against" same-sex marriage. It begs the question: if these relationships are equal, why not treat them equally under the law? In many ways, it is far easier to accept hard-core Christian conservatives' position: they think gay relationships are evil, and therefore certainly not equal to straight ones, and should absolutely not be granted marriage rights. They are of course homophobic, but so are all other opponents of gay marriage, for isn't it the essence of homophobia to say that the love between a man and a woman is different than the love between two people of the same gender?

Surely Obama knows that when he says he believes civil "marriage is between a man and a woman," he is being inconsistent, harmful and sounds (is?) bigoted. He made the calculation, as did Hillary Clinton and countless other self-styled supporters of gay rights, that taking a position that is consistent would do him more political damage than good. That is his right, of course, but it is also ours to point out the inconsistency, and to vote and contribute accordingly. Ultimately, either these relationships are equal, or they are not.

The issue is not one of semantics and, in fact, for gay couples, marriage overwhelms all else from a legal and financial perspective: the penalties that come from not being able to marry are countless and dwarf any "middle-class tax cut" promised by Obama. For instance, few people realize that health insurance granted to domestic partners by some companies is taxable income. This means that this "benefit" is out of the financial reach for many same-sex couples, a situation that would immediately be remedied were they allowed to marry and receive health insurance in a non-taxable manner the way straight married couples do. This alone would represent hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands, in savings for each couple, far outweighing anything else that an Obama administration would be able to achieve in terms of "middle class tax cuts."

One particularly misguided lesbian wrote on another blog that marriage equality was an obsession of wealthy gay white people, that she was too busy canvassing for Obama in California (a state he won by 24 points) to think about Proposition 8, and that in her community, there were bigger problems than gay marriage, including poor access to health care. Leaving aside the fact that electing Obama and opposing Prop 8 were hardly mutually exclusive, does this writer not realize that marriage equality would in one fell swoop grant health insurance to thousands of uninsured partners who cannot afford to pay anything for the benefit, or do not even have the option of such a benefit because they are not married, including many couples in her community? That the writer accurately points to gay racism and to the poorly run campaign against Proposition 8 does not negate the real benefits marriage equality would bring to all communities.

The availability of health care benefits is just one example among many of the rights that straight couples completely take for granted and do not give a second thought to. And no, civil unions are not the answer. First of all, why go through the trouble and expense of creating an entire parallel bureaucratic universe to cater to the squeamish prejudice of, basically, older generations, those most likely to oppose marriage? Secondly, as New Jersey's failed experiment vividly demonstrates, civil unions do not grant the same rights in practice. Again, some companies reluctant to grant benefits to same-sex couples are hiding behind the fact that these couples are not married, just "civil-unioned." In hospitals, there are instances of couples being denied visitation and other rights because staff didn't even understand the concept of a civil union; in an emergency, do you really want to have to explain the legalities of domestic partnerships, or would you rather just say "I'm the wife?"

A striking fact of the anti-marriage assault in California and elsewhere is that it was mostly conducted by referenda, giving voters a direct say in whether a minority should be granted a right heretofore denied it (or, in the case of California, taking away a right previously enjoyed). If, in fact, the voice of the people is that informed and important, why not put a whole bunch of other issues to the test? Why not see what voters think of, say, late-term abortion? Why not see what voters in, say, Louisiana think of abortion, period? How about whether the United States should officially be an English-speaking country? And what should happen to illegal immigrants? Whether prayer should be legal in public schools? Affirmative action banned in all cases? Sexual harassment and discrimination laws curbed? Whether Christianity should be the official religion? In fact, whether Protestantism should be the official religion? It would not be a pretty sight. Perhaps, one can dream that in its devotion to the sanctity of marriage, the heterosexual majority would ban divorce, and severely punish adultery. That way, hypocrites from Larry Craig to Newt Gingrich to John Edwards to the Clintons (basically 90% of Washington's ruling political class) could truly show their commitment to marriage.

The quandary over same-sex marriage has also presented an opportunity for politicians from both parties to rediscover the greatness of states' rights, suddenly no longer the dirty concept it had been in the decades following the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s. Here too, though, the appeal of letting individual states decide what will happen to their own citizens is very selective, seemingly limited, in fact, to the fate of its gay population. Of course, comparing the fight for same-sex marriage to other civil rights battles is often intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate, especially as it is nearly always the facile association with the rights of African-Americans that is cited (some white gay activists are to blame but, to be fair, a number of prominent African-Americans, including Coretta Scott King have made the link). That the comparison is unfortunate does not mean marriage is not a civil right, just that it stands on its own merits. It should also not be forgotten that in Washington the Congressional Black Caucus is among the staunchest supporters of gay rights, including marriage, and that the only two black governors in the nation, David Paterson in New York and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, are the most prominent elected politicians in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage.

The debate raging in California after the narrow passage of Proposition 8 focused uncomfortably on the role of two minorities: Mormons and African-Americans. The former financed much of the campaign to repeal marriage rights, and the latter, according to exit polls, were the ethnic or racial group supporting the proposition by the largest margin. Seemingly forgotten in the discussion was the role of the Catholic church, an opponent of gay rights in any form. Where was the outrage when Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said he was "grateful to the Catholic Community of Los Angeles for your commitment to the institution of marriage as fashioned by God and to work with such energy to enshrine this divine plan into our state's Constitution?" Where is the disgust at an institution far more powerful, organized and global than any other anti-gay forces? And for that matter, where is the revulsion at mainstream Protestant churches who played a quieter, but no less important role in passing Proposition 8? And, one last time, what the hell was Obama doing at Saddleback Church, a bastion of homophobic bigotry, before the election? This is not to say that the Mormon church and the black churches who actively supported Prop 8 should not be held seriously accountable, but they were far from alone in their gay-bashing. The result: in California and Florida, about 20% of Obama voters also voted to ban same-sex marriage. Not quite in the spirit of the day, right?

And so the time has come to put our votes and our money where our mouth is, and to promise ourselves, those around us and politicians of all parties that while we will especially fight the hard homophobia of the Christian right, we will also no longer tolerate the malleable bigotry of those who profess to be our friends, but also say we are not quite worthy of the same rights. We want to believe, in our hearts, that Obama does not mean it when he says he is against same-sex marriage: he is too smart, too compassionate and too open-minded for that. And, as he put it with his usual eloquence in New York this summer: "It is not for me to tell you to wait for what you deem to be your right."

Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins

Comments

[jamesinsf]

Although I agree with the sentiment, I seriously doubt this will be the last time we vote for someone like Obama, who is ideologically committed to equality for all, but is politically astute enough to realize that it cannot be his top priority. It may take the generation - or two - to come before we actually see the majority of people embracing the vision of universal equality that is at the heart of the American creed and that is embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This will only happen if the liberals, leftists, progressives, rationalists, etc., work together to make it so and to support "a more perfect Union" by actually realizing the American belief in equality for all.

This is relevant given that the two-party system in the USA only lets us vote for the lesser of two evils. Global reform in American politics must include multiple parties for true democratic representation, so that the many voices in a secular democracy can be heard. When that happens, we will see a better spectrum of political views, which will include those who have a more progressive understanding of human sexuality and equality.

James

Jimboland Jots >>> http://www.jimboland.com

The world from a freethinker, gay, green, radical, and American progressive worldview

[carsntrucks]

I bet scant few politicians are willing to fall on their swords over this issue. They might support overturning DADT, and we may see ENDA pass, but I doubt there's going to be much else done on the "gay rights" front. And especially with all of the "press" Prop 8 has generated in the past month, I think a lot of people are hesitant about getting into this as a primary issue when we have two wars, a melting planet, and an ailing economy to deal with.

[08politicaljunkie]

When there is "universal healthcare" in the US, then whether one is married or not is irrelevant.

There are many single adults who qualify for no benefits and who pay more taxes than others since they have no child or spouse deductibles.

[missbike]

The part where religion gets to open it's big fat delusional mouth on Law in this country is outrageous! If they won't pay tax- shut up!

That said, marriage as religious rite is so incredibly recent no educated person should be sucked under into these absurd arguments. Marriage is a contract (formerly, only between the rich) that governs property, inheritance, and in the old days came with a negotiated contract covering who got what and who used what property. Today that's already in the laws governing marriage. In short- the entire contract of marriage is just the prenup formalizing a name change and having babies. Religion is a cute extra. Marriage isn't even legal without the States sanction. Religious nonsense is not needed. Although a nice luncheon after the trip to the Courthouse is a festive touch.

So this man and a woman thing is senseless. If you don't want gay marriage- just marry straight. It's very simple.

Truly happy lifetime love is so hard to find and rare to see it should be encouraged, between two consenting adult and I hope very happy human beings. Aren't we supposed to be past the brain washing of religion and about the message? The positive part? A basic ethics used by people who got past being the seventh grade bully emotionally?

Lizzy

Straight, but fed up with mean spirited people who want to spread their misery. What does gay marriage hurt?

[Berettasskeeter]

As participating in sex outside of marriage directly contravenes the tenets of most religions, those establishments have every right to condemn it, and to urge their congregations to oppose any such behavior. As most religious tenets do not, in the main, acknowledge that homosexual behavior is, in any way, acceptable, they have every right to urge their congregations to oppose any such behavior, and by extension, laws that condone such behavior.
And what sources can you cite on your assertion that marriage as a religious rite is recent??
Semper fi

[mishi]

Well, it's easy to cite proof that the Bible did not endorse the "one man, one woman" model. Just look at Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon. It's quite clearly against working on the Sabbath, though, and I don't see any big push to ban THAT.

And, to quote Wikipedia, "The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties....the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required."

OK?

[Lynx234]

Part 2
We are a judgmental country of hypocrites as long as we deny rights to citizens based on a religion that most people do not follow for themselves anyway, only for judging others... for "sins" they cherry-pick. The founder of a certain religion said "Judge not!" --over and over!--and EVERYBODY disobeys that. If we just go to church and we DON'T love one another outside of it, seems pretty meaningless to me, just an ego-massage for all us hypocrites so we can feel "better than" others. Is that what it's all about?
Gay people should not be treated as second class citizens just because they love one another and want (and deserve!) equal rights. Gay people deserve the right to marry gay people--straight people shouldn't get to pick only themselves to have rights. What are anti-gay marriage people afraid of? I seriously don't get it, if it is based on religious stuff, that is just sad. Sleep in, and then just TRY to love one another. (if there IS a God the Father who loves all his children and all that, then we are TORTURING him with putting him in a Sophie's Choice position, ever think of that?)

[LMPE]

One day, homophobes will be marginalized, and gays will have equal rights.

[JimboSlice]

The government provides subsides to business that they want to promote. The government has a vested interest in creating future citizens who will become future taxpayers. Therefore it seems approriate to subsidize relationships (business) that can produce more citizens. That is why we give tax breaks and other benefits to married couples, and not to gay couples. There ya go, pretty simple.

[papapj]

"The government has a vested interest in creating future citizens who will become future taxpayers"

Boolsheeaat!

The government has absolutely NO SAY in creating anybody; that's not it's bailiwick.

The government is entrusted provide conditions amenable to the healthy upbringing of future citizens, whether they are the product of gay, straight or any other relationship.

Gay couples have kids, too...and they do just as good a job of it as straight couples, if truth be known.

"There ya go, pretty simple."

Simplistic rationale worthy of a simpleton, but not simple - just more back-handed homophobia....

[Herders4Me]

You're saying the government has an agenda to increase population?? Dear God, help us.

News for ya - *marriage* is not required to make babies. Maybe we could just import all the unwanted kids from poor nations with no birth control.

Oh - problem - only gay couples would consider adopting them. Bigger problem - states are saying now that gays can't adopt.

I think you've made me nauseaus...

[newpotusplease]

i don't care about this issue gay marriage first

i care about universal healthcare

i care about pay equity for women

then further down on the list I care about this issue

if you don't want to partner with other people on their issues that's fine

but then don't expect them to partner with you on your first priority issues.

[reedmaker]

I DO feel that I am your partner in all of the issues you list.

No one issue on this list is exclusive of, or more important than, the others. They all have to do with the equality and dignity of people--women, middle class/low-income people, gay people. Your #1 issue might be pay equity or universal health care, but all you have to do to support gay rights is to vote with us on this issue, and, if your conscience so leads you, speak up for us when others speak against us.

And I will do the same for you.

I, too, feel it is imperative for Obama to speak out on this if his unity, hope, change message is anything other than pandering and cynicism, just as McCain's choice of Palin was. I know that is an incredibly unpopular thing to say right now, but there it is--it's the truth.

Thanks for your thoughtful article, Paul.

[Herders4Me]

I am your partner, as well, on all the issues you've listed.

My priorities may be a little different - I put Saving The Earth as number one - but I'm far more complex than a single issue. (It's why I voted for Obama!)

Denying a minority equal rights under the law is SO wrong. (On a moral - if not religious basis.) It will cost you nothing to stand against it.

Please let us come together on this - not be even more divisive...

[larryaz]

I am so tired of the refrain to strip the tax emempt status of the Mormon and Catholic Churchs. You of course do not want to strip the tax exempt status of liberal Unitarian churches who opposed Prop. 8. It is of course a fact that the Mormon Church did not provide vast sums it was the Church's members who actually have rights as citizens.

[pcjnyc]

Actually, I would be happy for ALL churches to be stripped of their tax-exempt status.

[mishi]

"it was the Church's members who actually have rights as citizens."

Unfortunately, they do not have the right of unfettered freedom of speech within the Church...under pain of excommunication.

[Yermammy]

As a heterosexual man, it has always mystified me why people let this gay issue be such a thorn in their side. We KNOW a lot of Priest are homosexual. We KNOW rethug politicians practice it with shame. We KNOW that bullies will beat the snot out of gays because it threatens their impulses. I got lots of gay friends and it just has not rubbed off on me. Sorry. Why can't people mind their own business? Life is too short for all this peering through the keyhole. STOP IT.

[randyjet]

It is not a question of minding your own business. Once you ask the state to grant you a marriage license, you ARE getting the public involved. Gay marriage is not a "right" like freedom of speech since you need no license for that. As the writer pointed out, it has economic benefits and it is up to the state as to who gets it. Do you think that polygamy is also a right? Why not according to your logic that you should mind your own business. What difference does it make if some people practice polygamy?

[Cindean]

Sorry, gay marriage IS a civil right. The CA supreme court said that is in May 2008. Proposition 8 only strips away the marriage aspect, not the fact that LGBT people are a protected class. It is yet to be determined how the court will rule on the marriage part, too.

[itmaybetoolate]

Fine, gay marriage is not a right, but neither is heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have no inherent right to a CIVIL marriage - a religious marriage, yes, but not a CIVIL marriage. A CIVIL marriage is a legal contract sanctioned by the state - nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, the state, which grants civil marital rights to heterosexuals and not GL folks is creating a situation in which two groups of people are unequal under the law. This is unConstitutional. And, frankly, I don't care if people practice polygamy as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult of legal age. Why do you care?

[BCubedReg]

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy or gay marriage. It is interesting that you should bring up polygamy though.

Polygamy is still marriage, albiet plurally, and some people are willing to enter into these types of arrangements (unfortunately my wife will have none of it). What I do believe is that as long as marriage is a "contract" entered into by mutually consenting adults/partners, who are we to dispute it.

Marriage should either be a right for everybody or nobody.

[ohioan73]

No matter who we vote for and what their personal philosophies are, it is up to The People to make changes in society. Politicians don't run anything but their mouths. The sooner The People realize this, the sooner we will see a gay or atheist POTUS candidate. The more kids are educated, the more progressive and pragmatic their thinking becomes. Each new voting cycle will be less and less susceptible to being swayed by inflammatory campaigning, lies, and bigotry.

Pres. Obama clearly means for us to have our own convictions and opinions and I am sure that if the majority of the United States felt differently than he did, he would not stand in the way of legislation being passed in favor of what The People want. Once a person is trained as a community organizer, you learn to accept and appreciate that its not about yourself, its about OTHERS. I know you all have seen that speech when he said: "Its not about me, its about you." That means exactly what it implies. He will not be the one to stand in the way of what The People want. People---you don't even realize what you have. YOU are the boss. This country does not belong to Barack Obama.

Good job on the demonstrations. I hope this fight continues.

[Burnsey]

Paul-

I am so glad you mentioned the taxing of Health Insurance benefits. I almost lost my mind during the election when Obama said that McCain would tax health benefits for the first time in history. I was wondering why he didn't know (or didn't care) that LGBT people are, and have been, paying taxes on these benefits already. I guess he meant to say that stright people were going to have those benefits taxed for the first tiime. I would hate to think that he didn't/doesn't know about this fact. My husband (I live in California and am one of those 18,000 + couples in limbo) turned and asked me how it felt to be totaly dissed again when we heard that statement. It's funny that the facts change when you include everyone in the tabulations.

I want My Equal Rights!!!

[JimboSlice]

Your health benefits that you get from your employer are not taxed, and please don't lie that it is.

If you get your health insurance from your partner, then it would be taxed, because at this time your RELATIONSHIP does not have the same rights as other RELATIONSHIPS. Its about the rights of the RELATIONSHIP, and not about the rights of the INDIVIDUALS. Because every INDIVIDUAL has the right to get married to a single INDIVIDUAL of the opposite gender who is of legal age, and not a close family member. So every INDIVIDUAL has the same rights, however every RELATIONSHIP does not. You want your RELATIONSHIP to have equal rights, you want to create INDIVIDUAL rights that don't exist for anyone at the moment (outside MA, CT, VT, and HI I think)

[pcjnyc]

It is a benefit granted by an employer to be able to insure your spouse and dependent children. And if your spouse has to pay taxes on that benefit, then that benefit, in this case a health benefit, is taxed.

[RogerTheShrubber]

Huh? By your "logic", back in the days of the "Racial Integrity Act", straight folks who wanted to marry someone of a different race had the same "individual" rights ---- they had the right to marry someone of the same race. According to you, it was their "relationship" that didn't have the rights. By extension, the Loving v Virginia case was, according to you, unnecessary. It's one thing to have an opinion on something -- it's another to try to express it as legal reasoning when you're unable.

[sparkyj]

If the rights of the individual are restricted (as in you can only marry the kind of person we say you can marry), that is clearly about the individual, not the relationship. But if you must focus on relationships, the relationship of concern is that of the government with its people - the parties that are actually contracting with one another.

[SNLiberty]

ummm .. they exist elsewhere in the world! There are other countries in the world you know .. Belgium, Canada, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Lux, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay ... all recognise the full equality of gay and straight relationships

[mishi]

"Your health benefits that you get from your employer are not taxed, and please don't lie that it is."

Please don't get belligerent when you're, um, wrong.

I'm in CA, and on the health insurance of my registered domestic partner, which is provided by his employer, not by him. It counts as his INCOME, and is taxed.

[consideration]

I would prefer a different solution to all this. I would prefer that the state get out entirely of the marriage business, and that marriages have no legal benefits. Everyone - gay or straight - should only have legal rights as defined by civil unions. In other words, today's marriages should be converted into civil unions - with all the current legal rights of marriages - and then if you feel like you need a religious blessing, and you belong to a church that will do it, then go ahead and get one.

By doing this you actually separate church and state, which is what we're supposed to do.

Alas, this is impractical. But as a hetero I would rather be in a civil union - as opposed to a marriage - since I don't like the religious stuff added by the right.

[Apov]

This is the ideal solution. It is not impractical at all.
Wave the wand.

[mystercy]

Publicly supporting gay rights, like announcing you are an atheist is toxic in most constituencies in this country. The religious right's ascendency and the anti-liberal rhetoric that has found such popularity, to the point where liberals have had to go into closets or rename themselves progressives, has created a McCarthy-istic environment that forces many of us to quietly wait for their opportunity to take bold action for what we believe. Obama's election and the implosion of the conservative agenda has given us a renewed hope. Even with the mistake of Prop 8, 45 state legislators have signed a friend-of-the-court brief on behave of the case being brought against the measure, and the popularly elected Republican Governator has spoken loudly in support of LGB&T marriage; our time has come!
Obama needs successes in his administration and a favorable public opinion in order for him to publically reverse his position and take the lead in this next step in civil rights. I believe this will happen. The winds are changing.

[MorpheusXNYC]

My name is Morpheus X and I approve this message....

Dead on analysis.

The continued oppression of LGBT people is a national disgrace and one of the most pressing civil rights issue of our day, but Obama had to get into office FIRST before he could enact any of the changes we so desperately need.

When the house is on fire, that's not the time to argue about who doesn't pay their fair share of the bills. Put out the fire first, then you can address the many other important issues of the household.

First - financial solvency and universal/­affordable healthcare. Then taxes, gay rights, eduction, etc. taxes,

[JimboSlice]

First financial solvency, then eduction, then healthcare, then iraq, then taxes, then climate change ... then 100 other things, then creating a new partnership system.

[Buggins]

I am a staunch supporter of marriage rights for same sex couples. However, pointing to taxes is a weak argument, IMO. Any savings in not having to count insurance benefits as income would likely be wiped out by the "marriage penalty" built into the tax code (and I am not sure how the number of couples currently getting benefits and paying tax on them compares to the number of couples who would pay more in income taxes b/c of the "marriage penalty," but I imagine that if anything, more would end up paying the "marriage penalty" than currently pay income tax on domestic partner health insurance benefits). Of course, approximately 40% of households pay no federal income tax at all. So I can understand how a working class person would be uninterested in this aspect of marriage rights.

[sparkyj]

Buggins: in CA, Registered Domestic Partners (RDPs) are required to file a joint state tax return and pay the "marriage penalty" already - without the benefit of "marriage". Since the federal government does not recognize the status, RDPs must file separately with the IRS. Bottom line: tax prep charges go up with two types of filing (separate and joint) and we pay the "marriage penalty".

[Dave01]

What "marriage penalty tax"? Heterosexual "married" couples making the equivalent income as my partner and I pay $3000 a year less, that's right, LESS than we do because WE have to file single.

[JimboSlice]

Well go find yourself someone that you can legally marry then if all you care about is the $$.

[Buggins]

Well of course this isn't true for every couple. It depends on exactly how much each person in the couple is making (and where you live, like one person pointed out for CA RDPs). But this is true for straight couples as well (that it depends on how much each person is making... and yes, I realize the difference is in taxing benefits). If you look at the numbers on whole, though, same sex couples are more likely to have the kind of profiles that result in higher "marriage penalty." The reputable studies I have read have indicated that tax revenues would go up if same sex marriage were legal (ie, looked at as a whole, same sex couples would pay a "marriage penalty").

But my main point is that this is a weak argument. Just like I feel the argument that people are born gay is weak. It shouldn't matter. And what if we find out people aren't born gay? Or that gays aren't at a greater economic disadvantage? Then does it all of a sudden not matter that they have the same rights? No, it doesn't, but that is an argument that people on the other side would use. And basing any argument on these kinds of points weakens it. Same sex couples should have the same marriage rights b/c that is the right thing to do. It aligns with our beliefs about equality and dignity and love.