Views » February 6, 2004
In Defense of Gay Marriage
The enemies of equal marriage rights have an agenda that goes far beyond their attack on LGBT people. These are the same people who rail against a woman’s right to choose abortion, who support state murder in capital punishment, who demand religious intrusion into public education, and faith-based delivery of vital social services.
Jim Rinnert’s failure to grasp the significance of the struggle for same-sex marriage equality is troubling. Why is it that a gay man fails to see the issue as clearly as the presumably straight Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? Her ringing declaration of the equality imperative for same sex-couples before civil law ought to inform or reinforce our struggle.
While some gays may seek assimilation to a mainstream that Rinnert and I may agree is badly polluted, this ought not blind us to the very real life and death benefits that accrue to the civil contract of marriage. Particularly for working-class lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people, equal marriage rights means getting substantial benefits, such as spousal Social Security and private pension payments, making medical decisions, inheritance rights and hundreds of other tangible, material benefits.
For the minority of LGBT people who are wealthy, many of these issues can be resolved by paying attorneys to set up elaborate legal agreements. It is no accident that years before the issue was so heavily in the news, polls of LGBT people consistently showed that equal marriage rights was our #1 issue of concern. A few years ago the most thorough poll of African American LGBT people, presumably mostly working class, found that it was a close #3 amidst a multitude of issues polled on (incidentally, that same poll found that an overwhelming majority of African American LGBT people loath the word “queer,” so beloved by Rinnert and LGBT academics).
So what is his alternative? Rinnert prefers to set up a parallel, separate institution to marriage just for same-sex couples—astounding that someone now writing for a progressive magazine could advocate a “separate but equal” institution! In 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas taught us that no parallel set of rights and benefits can ever overcome the inherent inequality of a second set for second-class citizens. Let’s quickly reaffirm this truism from 50 years ago, and move forward.
As to the matter of timing, if oppressed peoples ever looked first to the forces arrayed against them, or us, there is never a “right time” to struggle for equality. Beginning in the 1950s with Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, and continuing with the Stonewall rebellion in 1969, the self-mobilization of the LGBT community has brought us to equal marriage rights in Belgium and the Netherlands, and to court decisions for equality in Canada and Massachusetts.
Rinnert complains: “The backlash has already begun.” Duh, of course it has! As the Civil Rights Movement of the early ’60s began to make headway against Jim Crow, many more conservative African Americans complained that the civil rights workers were just stirring up a hornet’s nest. After a year’s worth of tremendous court victories for LGBT people, Rinnert’s complaint sounds eerily familiar and just as backward. Any oppressed people making strides will prompt an opposition that organizes for the status quo ante.”
Like it or not, the battle has been joined.
But we are not just fighting for ourselves. The enemies of equal marriage rights have an agenda that goes far beyond their attack on LGBT people. These are the same people who rail against a woman’s right to choose abortion, who support state murder in capital punishment, who demand religious intrusion into public education, and faith-based delivery of vital social services. They rant about AIDS as a divine punishment and endorse a murderous U.S. foreign policy as a way to deliver “Christian values” to the heathen.
We cannot allow them to roll over us as some of us abstain from the struggle while saying, “Let them have it.” They will take our equality and a lot more.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Bob Schwartz is a member of Chicago Anti-Bashing Network (CABN), a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and liberation organization. CABN is a local affiliate of DontAmend.com, a nationwide organization fighting to stop the proposed anti-gay amendment to the Constitution.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
While I support equal rights for gays, and favor civil unions, I am reluctant to support the proposal that would allow gay marriage. My reasons are complex, but in one aspect, I fear the government’s interference in reliqious matters. This would clearly breach the prohibition cited in the constitution barring the government from legislating church practices. Perhaps the European—or more specifically, the German model of marriage—should be adopted in this
country.
Posted by Schniggelfritz on Feb 8, 2004 at 3:29 PM
I overlooked clarfification of what I meant by the European or German model on marriage. At one time, the German government recognized only civil marriages as valid. It was left to the couple’s discretion or choice to marry in the church also. This distinction came about in the late 19th century under von Bismarck, and is the only vestige of the so-called Kulturkampf remaining.
Posted by Schniggelfritz on Feb 8, 2004 at 3:33 PM
This “argument” truly exemplifies our youth as a nation. Students will undoubtedly study this time period in awe that this was an issue. It will parallel the oppression of all “groups of people.”
It is a good thing the fanatics use “the sanctity of marriage” argument, with our impressive divorce rates among heterosexuals?
“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
-Anais Nin
Posted by michael mallozzi on Feb 8, 2004 at 6:46 PM
Let’s say, Bob, that instead of a “failure to grasp the significance of the struggle for same-sex marriage,” we have a different point a view on the subject and how that struggle should be waged.
In my reading of it, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruling recognizes that the “civil union” contract (such as now practiced in Vermont) does not provide same-sex couples with the same rights and protections as the marriage contract; therefore either legalize same-sex marriage or legislate complete equality through civil union. The ruling challenges the Massachusetts legislature to provide what you call “the equality imperative for same-sex couples before civil law.”
The ruling is only a victory if it can be built upon to reach real equality. It’s only a victory until rendered moot by an action of the Massachusetts legislature or the passage of that congressional amendment the threat of which will come to a crescendo if Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage.
My concern is that by trying to appropriate the term (as apart from the substance) of “marriage,” gays are challenging the status quo with the wrong strategy. The term “marriage” is freighted with so much core-value, family-value, biblical, religious baggage that it will put the battle at such a high emotional pitch that only the loudest, shrillest voices will be able to be heard.
You’re correct when you say the battle is now, so let me modify my comments about the timing of the fight. In saying that the “timing couldn’t be worse” I was thinking of the disposition of the current administration and Congress. But let’s focus on the next presidential term. Let’s take the battle forward into a new Democratic administration:
Between now and the Dems’ convention in July the time is right for some deal-making. It’s time to put the clout of gay votes behind the candidate who will fully commit to “the equality imperative for same-sex couples before civil law” with a specific proposal for specific remedial action to achieve equality. The time to make that deal is now. After the nomination we’ll have less deal-making strength because any Democratic candidate can assume that voters concerned about gay rights will definitely NOT vote for George Bush.
The goal we must struggle for is equality in substance. By calling that substance “marriage,” by trying to appropriate that heterosexual terminology for the legal status we seek, we are damaging, perhaps damning our chances of success.
Posted by Jim Rinnert on Feb 9, 2004 at 11:58 AM
Jim- Fair debate and great response. Just as an FYI-
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/7913036.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
This will be a wedge issue and polling data suggests Republican gain at this point. I actually favor civil unions ASAP and possibly marriage later. Humor, facts and honesty always carry the day.
Ty
Posted by Ty on Feb 9, 2004 at 7:37 PM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.