Recently someone asked me what I thought about gay marriage. “I’m against it,” I answered. The goal of gay activists on this issue, I said, should be a recognized civil contract that would give gay and lesbian partnerships rights equal to those enjoyed by married couples. But my quick and easy answer didn’t quite get to the complex set of feelings… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (31)Page 1 of 1 pagesExcellent commentary. I agree. The writer points out something I never thought of before, that there are two kinds of homosexuals. The dignified, who-cares-let’s-get-on-with-it kind and the strident, hair-on-fire kind that spook the hell out of us straights with their antics. And that’s why they don’t get the respect they so clearly desire. They wreck it for themselves more than they know.
Posted by Margaret Todd on Dec 31, 2003 at 12:17 AM Well, I respect your point of view but it’s a little stupid to say that “gay marriage is likely to (...)divert the real debate, herding it into a cul-de-sac inhabited by screaming right-wing fundamentalists who will use it to galvanize opposition to gay rights in any form, on every level.”
First, the opposition has ALWAYS existed, and since, for many decades the church and the right wing (at least in my country, MÈxico) have always been talking against same-sex relationships. When’s the right time to push the gay agenda? In 20 years from now? When we have another Bush or another extremist republican in office?
“With the country swept up in the culture of fear and violence encouraged by the ìbring-íem-onî belligerence of the insufferably self-righteous George W. Bush, it can lead to an unprecedented wave of gay-bashing that could take the fight to the streets.”
Well, it’s kind of sad to hear someone talk about that possibility. It may remind us the riots in California in the early 90’s by the black community. That was a situation that could be prevented and, for the shame of the american people, it’s very likely to be repeated; not by the gay community, but perhaps, another angrier and more violent minority who has been opressed for longer.
The possibility for a change in society with order and peace can be achieved. It’s a matter of common sense and political commitment.
Posted by Erich Moncada on Dec 31, 2003 at 1:49 AM Do not be fooled into thinking that “we” chose the timing for this fight, or this particular item, same-sex marriage, to fight for.
This is a big issue to “them” and their timing for using the leverage of the impossible-to-pass Federal Marriage Amendment discussion to push back rights gained so far locally and state-level, is not accidental. They have all of the force of the government at all of its levels marginalizing Queers already.
Do you really think it is beyond possibility that the street-level fighting you see in the future is happening already, right now, without rocks, fires or guns?
People should not be afraid to ignore your advice to continue hiding under their blankets for fear of “backlash.” The backlash is well underway, and if you are not fighting it you are helping it. Telling people it is “not the right time,” or it’s too dangerous or any other squeamishness is helping the backlash.
People, please ignore me and anyone else who tells you what you should be doing as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed or questioning (Queer) human being. We are everywhere, we are everyone, and we are ready for anything. We will not go back, so if they push us forward in order to defeat us, we will need to just defend that position, and if we are scared, please just say that instead of telling everyone else they should be scared and they should not consider or should quit fighting because we did not choose this battle.
There are more than two extremes, Jim, there are most of “us,” who actually fall somewhere in the middle and need encouragement in the defensive position we all find ourselves in, instead of discouragement.
I am the owner of http://www.usQueers.com, and through that address an email list called anti-FMA is available, mainly for FMA articles and notices of local pro-FMA or anti-FMA actions so those who choose to can attend.
Thanks for this article. It’s seems to be a good honest explanation of where you stand and why, which can only be helpful.
Posted by B. Allan Ross on Dec 31, 2003 at 2:25 AM This is my answer to Jim Rinnert and the candidates who want civil same sex unions: why fool around with anything else except the guarantee of equal legal rights of marriage?
Perhaps not this time but eventually the bigots will get used to it like interracial and interreligious marriages——which despite unpopularity were never downgraded to civil unions or any other secondary designation.
Stewart MacMillan
Guffin Bay NY 13634
(315) 639 6432
Posted by Stewart MacMillan on Dec 31, 2003 at 3:47 AM Here are the amendments (IX and X) I think relevant to the issue of
gay unions/gay marriage.
Personally, I think the movement should never have gone
with the word “marriage”
I know I’m opening a can of semantic worms. I acknowledge
that “separate but equal” as defined by Plessey v. Ferguson
was not equal because the “enforcers” had a wink and a nod
to see that the decision was intentionally applied in an
unequal way.
Why not have a separate law that defines same-sex relations
as having all the entitlements and responsibilities as
opposite-sex marriage and call it civil union?
All the fundies can think of is the sex act when they hear
the word marriage, even among themselves. The word
“marriage” is used by the fundies to legitimize the sex act and
any resulting progeny. A good many of them also think
marriages are primarily religious ceremonies, and that the
fundies will be forced to acknowledge all marriages performed in
churches. But of course that’s the fundi-centric way they
have of defining anything: only in terms of their own
experiences and prejudices.
I believe that Catholic dogma won’t recognize the marriage
of a man and woman who are incapable of having children,
for whatever reason. Yet civil law allows this marriage to
be the full equivalent of that between a fully randy man and
woman.
We’re allowing the religious taliban of Amerika to use
their own definitions of marriage to run roughshod over
gay/lesbian equality.
We need our OWN definition of marriage which we can achieve
by using the legislative process to write our own laws.
If you think I’m being pusillanimous about being gay, think
again.
Just go to www.oklahomastonewall.org
Posted by James Nimmo on Dec 31, 2003 at 4:31 AM I like it. I have been uttering similar thoughts myself.
Posted by Annette Bork on Dec 31, 2003 at 8:20 AM Margaret T. writes:The dignified, who-cares-let’s-get-on-with-it kind and the strident, hair-on-fire kind that spook the hell out of us straights with their antics. And that’s why they don’t get the respect they so clearly desire. They wreck it for themselves more than they know.
Response:...and there are not straights like that. If we only allowed marriage for the civilised Reno and Vegas would be out of the Wedding chapel business. And think of the poor schmucks who rent those cheap tuxedos! No LGBT would be caught dead, let alone at the altar in one so it must be tasteless straights renting them.
While marriage ( a religious term to many) is just a word, the attitude of “just let them have civil unions” as thmany advance as a realtic effort tragically supports the idea that gays cannot be religious or even traditional in every way. I know some of the most boring-home-baking-cookies for the kids and cookouts on the lawn SUV driving gays!
Sure there are obnoxious in -your face- types out there but they happen to be of all sexual persuasions. Where does the litmus test end?
Posted by Scotty on Dec 31, 2003 at 10:13 AM I’m sorry Jim that you feel this way, though I understand why. The backlash is real, and it’s true that while we’ve actually achieved abortion-on-demand for those who can afford it, for now at least, we also contributed to galanizing that movement.
No one group should have to stand alone in a backlash, and trust me on one thing: people in this country for the most part will not tolerate it again. There will be groups galvanizing to defend people against those who, whether they have a movement or not, would be getting attacked by those same right wingers anyway.
It has never ultimately helped oppressed people to acquiesce to the oppressor. There are circumstances when there is no choice, and usually it is when too many of our group have already acquiesced that we are once again chosen for a massive malicious action.
Ultimately, what pushes our oppressors into the corner and off the charts of acceptability is our resistance, not our acquiescence, so long as our resistance is non-violent. You are talking about your preference now to marry as if you have a choice. It is how we [insert the ‘we’ that comes to mind here, not just queers, but people of color, women, religious minorities, language minorities, colonized, massacred peoples, etc. - what a wretched history and still going strong, too long] spoke about taking our oppression as if there would never be anything better than ‘separate but equal’.
We advance through both those who resist non-violently and, unfortunately, those who resist violently; the latter because those who have a ridiculous level of might are setting a pretty lousy example abusing it. I trust and have seen the non-violent one work when it is organized by folks who come together and set aside their egos, for hours at a time! and get things done.
Who said “All that has to happen for evil to prevail is for the good to do nothing”? Accepting second-class citizen status on any level encourages abuse more than resistance. The abuse becomes visible when people resist, otherwise, each one suffers alone.
Peace, brother.
Posted by Inaru on Dec 31, 2003 at 12:47 PM Whatever happened to “separation of church and state”?
Why do any of us, gay, straight or otherwise, allow “the Church” to dictate what constitutes a marriage and who can enter into it?
Seems to me, the most direct solution to the situation is for the Civil Law to provide for *everyone* who wants to enter into a binding, legal commitment to do so. If then they want to solemnize their commitment in a religious ceremony, that is their choice and their right. And, the state butts out!
We all have our own reasons for choosing the life-arrangements that we do. True equality under the law would permit us all to live as we please, without self-appointed arbiters dictating what is “right and wrong” for others.
As for the comment about “timing.” If Afro-Americans had “waited” we would still have Jim Crow. If those “hair-on-fire kind” had waited, there would have been no Stonewall! And, if we all wait to rid ourselves of the neocons ...
Posted by Gerrie Blum on Dec 31, 2003 at 5:04 PM This person is suggesting not fighting the FMA. In my opinion this
is ludicrous - and this article illustrates that this attitude among the gay left - advised Democrats not to fight on this issue when it came up before in the DOMA issue.None of this explains why marriage should be restricted to straights. It
sounds as dogmatic as the “marriage is between a man and a woman” argument - along with the correlary that allowing gays to marry will destroy the institution of marriage.Fighting the bigoted FMA does not mean that gays are all trying to be just like straights to fit in. It just means fighting for equal treatment under the law.
I’m wondering if the real fear from this person is that we could win this
fight against the FMA - and against many state constitutional amendments.
Posted by Eva Young on Dec 31, 2003 at 6:44 PM As a heterosexual I am aware that I do not understand the struggle of being gay. I have several friends who are gay and as a result I feel I have tried to embrace the issues and stuggles that face gays and lesbians. I would love it if we lived in a country where diversity and personal choices were accepted and celebrated. However I do understand that it seems that most people do not look beyond their prejudices. I also understand that we live in a culture that politicizes so many issues and thereby marginalizes them. This is one issue that I hope will not be marginalized. I think it is important to accept that others have different ideas and values and that they have the right to have them. I think the issues presented here have a great deal of merit. Being a feminist I have fought the fight for choice. I also fought for the ERA. I saw that the issues became politicized and therefore marginalized. I hope we can accept for now that perhaps civil unions are less emotional and would be more accepted by more people.
Posted by Michele Nichols on Jan 2, 2004 at 12:51 AM I totally agree,it’s not to be a marriage but to be a union between 2 people and share the same rights as everyone!!!!
Posted by Marge Tucker on Jan 2, 2004 at 7:47 AM Jim, I have to respectfully disagree with your perspective.
My partner and I have been together for 32 years, live in a very quiet suburban neighborhood and lead lives that are very similar to our other neighbors. What sets us apart, is that we are not allowed the choice to marry, as they are.
We are one of seven couples, in the state of New Jersey, who are suing the state for the right to marry. We, here in the NJ case, have been all over the state, in the last year, speaking at town-hall meetings, church gatherings, etc., in order to inform an otherwise uninformed public. And it has reaped amazing results. The latest polls in NJ find increasing support for marriage equality and many of our leading newspapers have editorialized in favor of our case.
When it comes to civil rights (and that’s what this issue is) there is never a right time. Why should any of us wait to gain equal access to the institution of marriage? There will always be the fundamentalists who will want to stop any minority group from full participation in the American dream, but it should not be the reason we cower and wait. If that had been the case, third-grader Linda Brown would not have brought her case, in Topeka, Kansas in 1951. Certainly the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, in 1954, changed the face of this nation, but polling at the time showed that 75% of the public was against integration. The fight for civil rights is not about being concerned if you are making others uncomfortable. As human beings, we only grow when we are made to feel uncomfortable.
I applaud the brave plaintiffs in Massachusetts and the millions of gay and lesbian Americans, who will one day have the choice to marry, just like their friends and family.
Posted by Chris Lodewyks on Jan 2, 2004 at 8:42 PM I don’t think we could ever change the fact that gays are different from heterosexuals.
The pivot of pushing for gay unions is to reclaim equal rights for all. And I’m glad that this article reminds me of what I am actually fighting for.
I would never march with leather clad folks and those who think being gay is about hedonistic sex.
If being gay means one is not entitled to a monogamous partnership, then we probably should stop our efforts at fighting for individual rights.
I believe a gay person can and should stand up to false moral integrity of those who dictates misguided standards of living.
Posted by astra on Jan 4, 2004 at 6:11 AM I applaud Rinnert (and the rest of inthesetimes editors/writers) as this article shows that its writers do have minds of their own.
Posted by brad on Jan 4, 2004 at 6:48 AM If the gay community pushes this marriage issue and thus mobilizes the right-wing to defeat Dean or whoever, I will be one pissed off mutha.
I support gay rights unconditionally, I have gay friends (well, one, but still), and I like to think of myself as being fairly open-minded to homosexuality. But J. Rinnert is right, this is the absolute worst time to fight for something like gay marriage.
What’s the problem with waiting until AFTER the 04 elections? Is that so hard? Gays have been persecuted for thousands of years in western civilization, yet the American gays can’t chill out for one more freakin’ year?
If I get the sense that the gay community is acting as a whole in pushing for gay marriage, and if because of this Dean goes down, then it has the potential to change how I view gay civil rights in the future. As in, you had your chance, you prematurely ejaculated and blew it. Please don’t make a cynic out of me.
Posted by Donkey Show on Jan 4, 2004 at 10:56 AM It is unfortunate that in the USA the chuch and the state are comingled in marriage. The clergy act as agents of the state in peforming marriages. In my mind, we should be asking for civil marriage, but I am sure the gay Christians don’t like that idea.
In reality the marriage license grants a civil marriage, and any church can refuse to marry any couple. So civil marriage does not force any religious instituion to perform such unions.
Posted by Dick Hewetson on Jan 9, 2004 at 6:55 AM Donkey, I’m curious…do you really think that the gay community is the main push behind this gay marriage brouhaha? Do you realize how many in the gay community do not care about marriage, or voting, or anything but who is the best trick or who can take the newest party drug?
Howard Dean was always going to be hammered for gay marriage, due to his signing the civil unions bill. Gay marriage has been in the forefront for years. Just to name recent years, in the 1994, 1996, 1998. 2000, 2002 elections, there were nasty smear campaigns and lies about “so and so supports same-sex marriage” which were used to defame pro-gay/moderate Republican and Democratic candidates in national, state, and local races. These are years-old issues for Dean, decades-old for politics (same-sex marriage was used to help defeat the ERA).
If you really cared about your gay friends, you wouldn’t pin all the blame on them because you support a candidate who is continually shoving his foot in his mouth. If he loses in 2004, he is going to lose by a WIDE margin, and that will be due to a lot more than gay marriage.
It’s quite naive of anyone, gay or straight, to think that if queers sit around like good little boys and girls, we will be left alone. We are going to have all our rights taken away, every single one. We will be hated and despised by America, all races and religions, while our government stokes the fires of intolerance. Marriage will be the last thing on our minds—we will be lucky to be alive. And if some elites want to look back and say, “hey, this is all cause of those idiots who want to get married!!!” that’s fine, but that’s blaming the victim. Even if no couple in America wanted to get married, we would still be derided and hounded. The target is on our foreheads and we can’t shake it. All we can do is duck.
Posted by Jon on Jan 9, 2004 at 6:07 PM In all my ranting above, I forgot to hear how great it is to hear from one of the New Jersey plaintiffs. You’re very brave. I wish you and your partner much happiness in the New Year. And congratulations on the domestic partnership bill—hopefully the fundies won’t get that overturned in court.
I think that Jim is right about the issue being deadly for us, I just don’t think that the gay community should get all the blame, nor do I think that if we all stopped asking for marriage, the religious right and the government would suddenly leave us alone. It was only a few years ago in Texas that they were still arresting gay couples who had sex in their own bedrooms. It was only a few days ago that an NYC firefighter was riddled with anti-gay remarks and then beaten into a coma with a folding chair as his fellow “heroes” watched TV, ignored his cries, and helped clean up all the blood to make people think he’d tripped and fallen down the stairs. Marriage or no marriage, this country will hate us.
I do wish that the Mass. courts had realized the trap they were falling into and said no, no marriage, absolutely not. The issue would still be there, because this issue will be used against us even if every court in America said “NO! NEVER!!!”, but I will admit that the backlash might not have been as severe as it is right now. Someone once said that pro-gay, straight liberals have little idea of just how despised we are by so many people. And I think that was the case here. My heart goes out to them for doing what they felt was right, but they opened themselves, their careers, and gay couples up for a world of suffering.
Posted by Jon on Jan 9, 2004 at 6:16 PM This commentary reflects exactly how I feel about gay marriage. I think this is the worst possible time for this issue to be in the headlines, and will be used by Karl Rove to activate a lot of bigots who might otherwise have stayed home this November. I understand why gays want equality, but civil union, with all the same legal rights, responsibilities, and priveleges as “marriage” is equality, and for those who want, or need, “God’s” blessing of their union, let them go fight it out with their church(es). Why give the right-wing loony toons a rallying cry by using the term “marriage”. Let “marriage” be a religious thing. Why do gays need to ape a heterosexual institution that doesn’t serve even heterosexuals very well? We need to develop our own institution of what “marriage” is - and isn’t.
Posted by Richard Knabel on Jan 10, 2004 at 3:58 AM Richard, you’re right, but please remember that every time gays have tried to get civil unions or domestic partnerships, they have been shot down. So although gay marriage is a very bad issue coming at the worst time, it isn’t fair to say that gays will stop at nothing, have to have marriage, and so on. We are going after marriage because the fundies and Dubya have made it clear that this is all or nothing.
Posted by Jon on Jan 14, 2004 at 5:42 PM “allowing the religious taliban of Amerika to use
their own definitions of marriage”But is it? When did the word “marriage” or any foreign equivalent mean anything other than the union of a man and woman?
TBOMK, no one made the definition up in response to gay desire to be married.
Certainly civil union does not have to be second class. Are my friends the Ys any less ‘married’ because their civil ceremony (that’s what it was called, not a “wedding”) was officiated over by a small town mayor?
Posted by Nus on Jan 14, 2004 at 8:45 PM The debate is being carefully crafted and pushed by the Christian fundamentalists as an election year ploy. I understand and expect it. But, I think that someone should point out that the Government has no business promoting a religious concept such as marriage. The government should consider all relationships to be civil unions. And, you should be able to declare any combination of people as your civil union. Consider it to be a legally declared family. I’ve always considered marriage to be Christian, and I don’t say I got married, as it was a pagan ceremony so I was handfasted. The reply to the marriage argument should be to point out that marriage is just one form of civil union, my own handfasting is just a form of civil union. Civil union should be the legal phrase, and the type of ceremony should be up to the participant, besides, and consider this ... if civil union becomes the legal standard, marriage can be stricken from the recognized forms of civil unions because it is a religious based form of bigotry. “Gay Marriage” will never succeed because it is ramed within religious terms. Civil Union will succeed, and should be the legal standard for everyone.
Posted by Karl on Jan 22, 2004 at 2:18 AM I agree to some extent the viewpoint of Rinnert re: gay marriage. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I feel no obligation whatsoever in pursuing a “gay marriage agenda”. I (we) do not need nor desire the holy water of the government or anyone else to “validate” our relationship. Any legal benefits or advantage gained by any public policy granting such in turn has its downside also. Inmy view, the so called legal rights issue is a push. Our marriage and the emotional committment inherent therein is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, hold on, fundamentalists and ‘one step away from a goose’ dubya won’t let the issue die. The gay bashing and gay baiting has begun in the most recent state of the union “speech” setting the stage for what is to come in the fall: “Democrats are the party of fags” which will most certainly ignite a fire under predominantly bigot America and assure the return and continued rule of the fourth Reich.
Posted by Dr. Ken Currier on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:25 AM I agree to some extent the viewpoint of Rinnert re: gay marriage. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I feel no obligation whatsoever in pursuing a “gay marriage agenda”. I (we) do not need nor desire the holy water of the government or anyone else to “validate” our relationship. Any legal benefits or advantage gained by any public policy granting such in turn has its downside also. Inmy view, the so called legal rights issue is a push. Our marriage and the emotional committment inherent therein is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, hold on, fundamentalists and ‘one step away from a goose’ dubya won’t let the issue die. The gay bashing and gay baiting has begun in the most recent state of the union “speech” setting the stage for what is to come in the fall: “Democrats are the party of fags” which will most certainly ignite a fire under predominantly bigot America and assure the return and continued rule of the fourth Reich.
Posted by Dr. Ken Currier on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:26 AM I agree to some extent the viewpoint of Rinnert re: gay marriage. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I feel no obligation whatsoever in pursuing a “gay marriage agenda”. I (we) do not need nor desire the holy water of the government or anyone else to “validate” our relationship. Any legal benefits or advantage gained by any public policy granting such in turn has its downside also. Inmy view, the so called legal rights issue is a push. Our marriage and the emotional committment inherent therein is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, hold on, fundamentalists and ‘one step away from a goose’ dubya won’t let the issue die. The gay bashing and gay baiting has begun in the most recent state of the union “speech” setting the stage for what is to come in the fall: “Democrats are the party of fags” which will most certainly ignite a fire under predominantly bigot America and assure the return and continued rule of the fourth Reich.
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:28 AM I somewhat agree with the view of Rinnert on gay marriage agenda. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I - we - do not need nor desire any granting of legitamacy from the government or any other person. What matters is what WE think, fell, believe. It is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, as Rinnert points out, the fundamentalist right won’t let it die and the season of gay bashing and gay baiting has begun with dubya’s state of the union commercial, uh, speech. Americans will be reminded over and over that the Democratic Party is the party of godless fags ensuring a return of the fourth Reich.
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:34 AM I somewhat agree with the view of Rinnert on gay marriage agenda. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I - we - do not need nor desire any granting of legitamacy from the government or any other person. What matters is what WE think, fell, believe. It is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, as Rinnert points out, the fundamentalist right won’t let it die and the season of gay bashing and gay baiting has begun with dubya’s state of the union commercial, uh, speech. Americans will be reminded over and over that the Democratic Party is the party of godless fags ensuring a return of the fourth Reich
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:36 AM I somewhat agree with the view of Rinnert on gay marriage agenda. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I - we - do not need nor desire any granting of legitamacy from the government or any other person. What matters is what WE think, fell, believe. It is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, as Rinnert points out, the fundamentalist right won’t let it die and the season of gay bashing and gay baiting has begun with dubya’s state of the union commercial, uh, speech. Americans will be reminded over and over that the Democratic Party is the party of godless fags ensuring a return of the fourth Reich
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:37 AM I somewhat agree with the view of Rinnert on gay marriage agenda. As a gay man in a ten year relationship, I - we - do not need nor desire any granting of legitamacy from the government or any other person. What matters is what WE think, fell, believe. It is between me, him, and God. Screw everyone else! But, as Rinnert points out, the fundamentalist right won’t let it die and the season of gay bashing and gay baiting has begun with dubya’s state of the union commercial, uh, speech. Americans will be reminded over and over that the Democratic Party is the party of godless fags ensuring a return of the fourth Reich
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:37 AM sorry about all the repeats. I kept getting an error message and didn’t think it went. kc
Posted by Ken on Jan 27, 2004 at 3:47 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jim Rinnert
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
