Gay Marriage: The View from Post-Everything America

My wife and I, a heterosexual couple, are both "peach-colored," according to our 5-and-a-half-year-old daughter. Her best friend from Brooklyn, where we used to live, has two Mommies, a peach-colored same-sex couple. These two Mommies got married in Massachusetts because New York recognizes same-sex marriages from that state. These women have been a couple for 20 years, have two kids. They are in love, they're partners, they're great parents.

Meanwhile, here in New Jersey, where we moved, our daughter has a friend who has two Mommies -- one African-American and one white, a mixed-race same-sex couple. Their daughter is African-American, or as our daughter says, "brown." They're a great couple, community people, one of them (the peach-colored one if you care) is a social worker in the rough ghetto town of Irvington.

There's a family we've met here in town who have an adopted "brown" son. The parents are two "peach-colored" Daddies. One of the peach-colored Daddies is not a U.S. citizen and would love to be able to settle here, work here freely and raise his son here, but of course New Jersey, unlike neighboring New York (35 minutes on the commuter train) won't recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts.

Are you beginning to get my point? I live in 2008, in Barack Obama's America. It is a post-everything world -- but the laws of the land haven't caught up with the people. All the characters in this little intro worked hard to get Obama elected. All the characters in this story are hard-working people, strong parents, loving and kind members of their communities. How ridiculous is it that our Brooklyn friends went out of state to get married but are recognized as married by their state, which won't let them get married, while our New Jersey lesbian friends can't be recognized and our New Jersey gay male Canadian guy can't get a green card ecause he lives one state away from New York and two states away from Connecticut?

So, this is the good old states' rights world we're supposed to get misty-eyed for. Oh, the good old days when black folks were slaves a mile down the road but free here, and the borders were all fuzzy and dangerous.

I have been accused elsewhere of "scapegoating" the Black community in Californina for the passage of Prop 8. And I've been accused of drawing a false equivalency between the struggles of Black Americans for civil rights and the struggles of the LGBT community for gay marriage. (See the comments section of the linked post.)

Let me respond simply: THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION. Remember the desultory arguments between Jews and blacks about which was worse, the Holocaust or Slavery? Please. This just in: Oppression is bad. And the point I want Barack Obama to make is this: in America, the story of progress is the story of more and more people coming under the full shelter of the increasingly big tent that is the Constitution. A wealthy gay couple doesn't have to have the scars of a sharecropper to deserve civil rights. And an African American who voted for Prop 8 does not now deserve to have N-bombs rained down on him by frustrated gay activists. Civil rights is not a zero sum game. The struggle for civil rights is universal.

Hey, my Dad was a straight white guy like me. In 1949 he was on the Board of the Radio Writers Guild, and he co-authored a proposal that the Guild should publicly fight blacklisting of its members by the red-baiting groups AWARE and Red Channels, both part of the McCarthy era witch hunts. The proposal was put to the membership and passed overwhelmingly, making the Radio Writers Guild the only union with the spine to stand up formally to the blacklist. Guess what? no more work for my dad for a while. And he refused to clear his name by naming other names -- which in those days was the only way to get yourself "exonerated."

He happened not to be a Communist, or even a member of any Socialist front groups. He was an FDR Democrat and a believer in the words of the Constitution. But his civil liberties were denied to him too. He lost his livelihood for a decade, more or less. (Maybe if he'd had the Internet back then, all of McCarthy's cronies would have been as quickly exposed as morons as was Michele Bachmann this year, but forget you not that 64 percent of our Republican friends would like to see Sarah Palin run for President. Two steps forward, one step back.)

The point is: if we are going to make our politics look more like our gloriously diverse country, we need to stop viewing civil rights as a Black thing, or a woman thing. It's everybody's thing, all of our struggle -- and right now the cutting edge of that struggle is gay marriage. I would like my daughter and all her friends to grow up without insecurity about whether their parents will be able to stay together, be forced to move to be a couple, share benefits and property rights, and be treated with equal respect as people making families. Obama doesn't have to try to risk all his political capital on this. He just needs to help create a climate where people can see clearly that gay rights are civil rights.

Comments

[Davwbaird]

Obermann gave a most great slam upon those who voted yes on 8.

[ramal]

"AND-- also ensure that this evolutionarily self-destructive behavior doesn't become widespread.' ???

Your statement is not rational. If a behavior is evolutionary it cannot at the same time be self-destructive. Evolutionary development is made to ensure the that the species does in fact survive. Homosexuality is as old as mankind and is found in every species of animal on earth. If the state of modern marriage in America is so fragile that it is severely threatened by the actions of approximately three percent of the general population wishing to marry someone of the same sex then marriage is probably not an institution worthy of keeping for anyone. Now that would be an evolutionary progression.

[mmerose]

Wonderful post. It's hard not to get caught up in the competition thing. Derek McCoy of the Pro 8 campaign was quoted in t he Washington Post yesterday saying: "The gay community was never considered a third of a person." I can't get over the disconnect by the religious AA's, that they seem to have forgotten that the Bible was used to justify slavery!

You remind us of the journey. How recently women had no vote!

I think the issue of tax-exempt status of churches actively campaigning for political issues is a serious one, thrust into high profile by the Prop 8 campaign but needing attention for some time. The Mormon church may have been the main agency defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, as well: see the book "From Housewife to Heretic." Just how flagrantly can the tax-exempt status be flouted before there are consequences? oh well, see under teflon Joe Liebermann and unimpeachable George Bush!

[MagisterLudi]

A different narrative: it is difficult to deny that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. The question is how to balance the protection and acceptance of people who engage in this behavior. AND-- also ensure that this evolutionarily self-destructive behavior doesn't become widespread. This is a little blunt but certainly describes the essence of the issue.
I welcome rational discussion of the issue.

[LeftRight]

Since it hasn't been spreading in the last 30 years or so as it becomes more acceptable..... I think that we're probably good. I will grant that it would APPEAR to be "spreading" but what we are seeing is people more willing to admit to themselves and others that they are gay.

[Davwbaird]

You know magisterlundi, gays have been around as long as humankind. It seems to be a naturally occurring phenomenon through the world. Observation and record history relating to our hunter/gather phase indicates that diversity was valued and essential. Same sex persons have played central and vital roles in their small bands.

We are the result of natural selection and are here to add to the mix. I must add that a common belief exists that there is a correlation between bi polar mood disorder, heighten degree of intuition, natural born artist with that special gift and gays. These are elements that are useful in survival.

[mmerose]

It is crystal clear that homosexuality is not a deviation from the biological norm of the species homo sapiens. Only if you define "norm" as a cultural artifact is there a deviation, and that is merely a matter of a dominant, but not universal, superstition. The ancient Greeks evolved culturally quite successfully, we are led to believe by most textbooks on Western Civ, with a relatively high level of the fell behavior, and acceptance thereof.

[MagisterLudi]

Ancient Greeks tolerated homosexuality up to a certain point. Nonetheless grown men were fully expected to get married and produce little Greeks.
The notion of marriage between a man and a man would have been incomprehensible to them.

[NickOLess]

By using the term "evolutionarily self-destructive", your post suggests that social and legal acceptance of homosexuality will somehow lead to everyone deciding to be gay. It just doesn't work that way. Some people are gay, and some are straight, and that's that, and it hasn't harmed the evolution of our species. However, oppression has.

[MagisterLudi]

"Your post suggests that social and legal acceptance of homosexuality will somehow lead to everyone deciding to be gay."

I did NOT suggest such a thing. I merely stated this notion common to many ( not all) societies through out known history.
I SUPPORT many social and legal rights and privileges enjoyed by GL community, EXCEPT MARRIAGE.

My opposition is based on a rational notion ( genetic cul-de-sac ), a visceral reaction which may be instinctual and my own moral stance. Sorry.

[ozzie]

Being left-handed used to be considered a deviation from the norm. Left-handed kids were forced to use the wrong hand. They were punished if they didn't. Not anymore. This might seem like a silly comparison, but the point is that our opinions on what is the 'norm' and what isn't, and how we should make people conform or not, change over time.

Am I a deviation from the norm? I live in a house with my partner of seven years. Go to work everyday. Pay taxes. Spend time with family and friends. Boringly, terribly normal. So my partner is a man, not a woman. So what?

As for 'evolutionarily self-destructive', well, I'm gay not infertile. Plenty of gay folk have kids. Just look at the post above. It is more difficult, sure, but far from impossible.

As for it becoming widespread, I sat next to a left-handed kid at school for years. Didn't make me left-handed.

[MagisterLudi]

"Civil rights as... everybody's thing, all of our struggle"

You seem to suggest that societies have no right to regulate behavior of its members.Yet societies consistently and collectively reserved its right to decide what behavior was acceptable and which wasn't, especially as related to s exual mores and lifestyles.
A less charitable explanation would be that you consider SOME minorities are deserving of full rights because they are 'cool' and politically powerful ( GL community), Whereas other minorities ( bigamists, polygamists child marriage) don't deserve full rights because... what?... are less fashionable, less politically powerful'?

[realityczech4u]

I'm right on board with the point you make, Magister, since it hits close to home. Now I have male ge n italia but I currently "identify" as female. (gender labels are so archaic and oppressive anyway,). Lest I digress, I am in love with two women (does that make me a les bian?) and we would all like to get married. One of the women is my first cousin. Now the peach-colored/chocolate flavored 2 daddy utopia that Pete is so enamored of would seem to have no room for us to develop our full potentials and exercise our human rights. And I ask, what about OUR rights? We got 'em. I just know we do. The Constitution, after all, grants everybody the right to do whatever they please with whomever they please. Pete makes no mention of situations like ours and I can bet that he doesn't approve of them. Pete demands "rights" for just those warped perambulations that he and others like him are comfortable with. For those of us who exist a bit further down the path away from conventional mores than his mind has "progressed", it seems that he is willing to stand by while we remain "opressed".

[MagisterLudi]

"The Constitution, after all, grants everybody the right to do whatever they please with whomever they please. "

This is absolutely and emphatically not the case.

[Davwbaird]

other folks that you mentioned are following a belief system. Sexual orientation, in spite of misinformation is not a matter of choice. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? Likewise gender and race.

[NickOLess]

You predicate your arguments on the idea that homosexuality is a choice or a lifestyle. It ain't. Apart from the scientific evidence to the contrary, the very idea that one would "choose" to be a repressed minority at the age of ten or twelve despite often violent or deadly societal disapproval is downright absurd.

As for the "other minorities" you mention, I frankly have no beef with bigamists or polygamists -- not a choice I would make, but live and let live, I say. We're talking about consenting adults in those cases. As for "child marriage", that is an unequal affair, and therefore reprehensible for obvious reasons.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

For Jimbo, from a comment I made elsewhere:

This is about realizing the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. It's pretty simple. If some people "equate" a particular struggle to another struggle, that's pointless. There is in my mind one larger struggle -- the struggle to realize the promise of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for all citizens. I think gay marriage falls under that rubric. It has nothing to do with who has more, bigger, or deeper scars.

[hiprogloho]

Funny how some scars are left unattended...while others receive all the attention.

[MagisterLudi]

There is a legitimate debate whether or not sexual behavior constitutes a civil right.

[DMHopper]

The SCOTUS settled that debate pretty well, at least as far as United States law is concerned, when it declared sodomy laws unconstitutional in its 2003 Lawrence v Texas decision.

[LeftRight]

When that sexual "behavior" is hardwired into the person just as skin color, or gender, are, then it DOES constitute a civil right!

[Davwbaird]

Behaviour or behavior (see spelling differences) refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment. Behavior can be conscious or unconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.
thought we ought to be aware of what things mean when we toss them around

[realityczech4u]

It's not pretty simple. Intelligent people spend years, lifetimes studying the Constitution. They are neither arrogant nor foolish enough to whip out their handy dandy pocket Constitution, read a passage, and proclaim "this is what it means". The learned jurists of the SCOTUS spend the better part of every year applying the Constitution to the cases brought before them and they rarely, rarely ever agree unanimously on the outcome of any of them. No, interpretation of the Constitution is anything but "pretty simple". The complexity lies in what "realizing the promise" actually means and to whom.

[hiprogloho]

Oh, we are in a post everything America for celebrity minorities whom it will always be cool to protect against discrimination. But despite a man of color soon to ascend the White House, all is not right for everyone who suffers from socio-political alienation.

Remember that family TV show The Waltons from the 70s? The matriarch of that All American clan had Italian roots from the old country. Yet not once in the 9 year history of the show and in various holiday specials was it revealed. That my friends is discrimination. When you are either unworthy...or INVISIBLE.

To this day voweled surnames are mostly reserved for anti-discrimination documentaries or dead oldie crooners specials on PBS. Prime time has room for self depreciating comics, the usual black hats or low brow stereotypes. But by and large, fair play in media for the 5th largest ethnic group in the US is bad history or a sad thing of the past.

The land of the free named after an Italian explorer still has a long way to go my friends. We ethnic middlemen can get married. But in the pop culture we are a 2nd rate supporting cast missing normal positive portrayals while celebrity minorities get all the copy, the airtime and the love.

Some people it is a cause celeb to defend. For others who have no voice, respected beef or mainstream agenda, it is trendy to forget them.

[Herders4Me]

I'm so tired of this fight. I'm tired of the heartache I feel - and the horrible sense of persecution.

*I am as God created me.* If God loves me as his child, how can others who profess to know Him treat me so badly and deny me 'equal rights' under the law?

The reason we want 'marriage' is because our LAWS use the word 'marriage' in granting so many rights and privileges.

Change every law that refers to 'marriage'. Or allow us to use it, too.

[mithras93]

Hooray for Prop. 8! The people have taken back marriage. It is an outrage that a small minority of people should be allowed to redefine something as fundamental--and eternal--as marriage. Three cheers for Catholics and Mormons and Evangelicals!

[PlantGod72]

And how about a rousing chorus of HUZZAHS for Ignorance, Intolerance and Bigotry! Hip, hip HOORAY!!!

[Davwbaird]

well some bigots have with evil intent made this a much more polarizing issue then need be.

[dumitch]

I think your article is a good one, but I think if you check your facts even in states where marriage is allowed international couples have no federal rights including immigration rights. Your Canadian who is married to an American could not get a green card even if they lived in Massachusetts. The federal government does not recognize gay marriage.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Point taken. Thank you!

[mmerose]

The Canadian was born neither American, nor with an innate nature of needing to marry an American.

[JimboSlice]

No offense but comparing gay marriage to the holocaust and slavery is a bit of a stretch. Actually its pretty disrespectful to the victims of the holocaust and slavery.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Read a little slower, my friend. Here's what I wrote:
"Let me respond simply: THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION. Remember the desultory arguments between Jews and blacks about which was worse, the Holocaust or Slavery? Please. This just in: Oppression is bad."

Just b/c this is the 24-minute news cycle doesn't grant you a license to be this sloppy in your reading comprehension, OK? You know that I did NOT compare gay marriage to the Holocaust or slavery, and if you would be less intellectually l. a. z. y. and re-read the paragraph in question, you might be less quick to make such an inflammatory comment, with all the potential game-of-telephone misunderstanding that comes with it.

[JimboSlice]

IAlright, just because this is a 24 hour news cycle doesn't mean you need to act like a cable pundit and get nasty and go to personal attacks. You are attacking ME, I was attacking your article, its a big difference.

And to your actual point: you are making a COMPARISON, you may not be making it a COMPETITION, but you are making a COMPARISON. I read and re-read your article before making a comment, and you are in fact making that comparison. There are no two ways about it, you are comparing gay marriage to the holocaust and slavery.

So please, lets not get in the 24 hour cable mode of personal attacks, and please do not compare the holocaust and slavery to gay marriage, please. If you continue to make that comparison all you will is make people think "wow gays really have it good in 21st century America"

[bilmardre]

Oppression of anyone is bad. Fight for federal civil unions which have ALL of the rights and responsibilities of marriage and you will increase greatly the amount of people who would support this. There are many people who do not approve of homosexuality and also do not approve of oppression. Do not force them to basically sanction homosexuality by changing the meaning of the word marriage. Also do not suggest they sanction oppression because they disprove of homosexuality.

[dumitch]

If I remember my history right gay people were also victims of the holocaust.

[PlantGod72]

You do, and thank you very much!

[JimboSlice]

So were catholics, jews, slavs, the disabled, and a lot of other people. The point is not who was the victim, it is the scale of the injustice. If you compare the holocaust to gay marriage you will just make people think that gays have it wonderful in 21st century america, and I am pretty sure that is not your goal.

[NiagaraFalls]

Prop 8. Finally - a step in the right direction. I think everyone can benefit from a little help in the romance department. The gays/lesbians should thank us for keeping them from making a BIG mistake.

But - I don't think we should stop there. I think it would be an excellent idea, since humans are prone to increasingly poor judgment and senility as they age, if parents must have the permission of THEIR CHILDREN if they choose to re-marry after, say, age 45. Families and family fortunes are often ruined by late term re-marriages.

And, while we are at it: parents must also have THEIR CHILDREN'S permission to get a DIVORCE in the first place. Maybe require any LIVING PARENTS and the MINISTER to sign off on it, too. Make the Catholic church happy.

But wait - require ANYONE UNDER 35 to have THEIR PARENTS' permission to get married. Our youth are marrying the wrong person (witness: the divorce rate). Now the period of responsibility is age 35 to 45. A real bonanza. That's protecting marriage and good for the country.

To ensure financial stability to be happily married, let's require a financial planner to sign-off...

ALL SARCASM, of course. Once someone is an adult, why can't we treat everyone as an adult and allow them to marry and divorce as they wish? Why is something like Prop 8 put to a vote?

[Davwbaird]

8 is the product of fearful and demented individuals and organizations that use fear as a tool to enslave.

[NewsJunkieLA]

Marriage may have started out as a religious institution, but it's not anymore. A heterosexual couple can get married in front of a judge in a civil ceremony. It's legal and subject to laws and regulations that have nothing to do with religion.

Despite that, the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus financed a campaign in Calfornia in support of the ban that literally spread false information in order to sway voters.

Marriage is regulated by the government. There are rights that are afforded married couples that single people do not have.

Gay marriage has already been legal for years in Massachusetts. Interestingly enough, life goes on there as it did before. In fact, most people don't even notice it, except for the occasional same-sex couple walking with their kid to school or the park.

The campaign being used against gay marriage uses words and phrases like "impose" and "force us to accept it." When, in fact, it is them, the religious groups, who are IMPOSING their religious views on the rest of us and FORCING US TO ACCEPT IT.

It's time to put a stop to this. I hope the courts do the right thing and overturn Prop 8. Civil rights should NEVER be left up to the majority to vote upon.

[Balancement]

As long as people (who believe in an Invisible-Sky-Thingy who answers all their prayers and sits around waiting for adoration) exploit fear for money, rationality on this topic will never be achieved. People can believe whatever foolishness they want--but religion has no place in government--and until the believers learn--or are *taught* that, equality in this nation will never be achieved.

[SunDriedTomato]

"If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, work for equality. If you want equality, love thy neighbor."

Don't follow the numbers on Prop 8, follow the money. Who paid for the leaflets and ads targeting the African American churches? Who paid for misleading ads? Who spent a lot of money to confuse the meaning of voting "Yes"? Who was spreading the (false) idea to voters that Obama approved of Prop 8?

[realityczech4u]

Though you are careful to refer to them as "African Americans", your implication is stereotypical, that they are somehow too stupid to think for themselves and can be manipulated by some leaflets and TV ads. Black folk are socially conservative and they voted accordingly. That's it. Get used to it.