Marriage
A lot of talk recently about what marriage is because of the California Supreme Court Ruling legalizing gay marriage. I was listening to one report in which an advocate for gay marriage said that the Court's decision was about more than the legal rights and benefits accorded to gay men and women, but about recognizing everyone's right to marry the one they are in love with. And that person is certainly voicing one view of what marriage is--a lifelong bond/commitment with the one person one is in love with. A somewhat different definition was being used by someone who wrote a letter to the editor here in response to the court's ruling. The letter was titled "A secular issue" and advocated a separation of church and state when it comes to marriage. Here's the text of the letter for reference: "TO REALLY respect the First Amendment, Massachusetts and California should not be giving out marriages to anyone, gay or straight. If you want a baptism, bar mitzvah, or marriage, then go to your church, temple, whatever. If you want a civil union, then get a piece of paper from city hall. Keep the government out of the marriage business. The problem is that marriage is to a large part a religious thing. This is something that the state should keep out of, and that the people can't be expected to agree upon. If the secular parts of marriage could be distilled out and labeled a civil union, then that is something the state could officially recognize, leaving houses of worship to do the rest."
I'll throw in here for the purpose of discussion my very limited knowledge of the history of what marriage means. I think initially it had very little to do either with the kind of individual rights/benefits that the state accords, or the more personal definition of commitment based on romance--but on establishing connections between kinship groups. Romance I think enters primarily through the courtly love narratives of the Middle Ages. Those stories originate in the Middle East and come into Western culture through the crusades. They were controversial at the time for a number of reasons. First I think the very idea of romantic love was controversial and opposed by the church because it put too much emphasis on this life rather than the next, and on love for another person rather than love for God (idolatry). And then it was also controversial because it was not at all a part of the marriage definition--the romantic lover was always extramarital. These conflicts come up a lot in stories that I teach from the period. In "Gawain & the Green Knight" for instance--Gawain owes allegiance to The Lord, to a Lord, and to a Lady (the Lord's wife)--a conflict between his bond to God, to his sovereign, and to a romantic interest.
Marriage at that time was primarily for the aristocracy and had most to do, again with alliances, and also with rules of inheritance (which is why it didn't matter whether serfs married). This is also why female chastity was supposed to be absolutely governed by marriage, but male chastity not required at all. The Lord of the Manor could have all the illegitimate children he wanted, but his Lady wife had to be chaste in order to guarantee the legitimacy of succession. (That's why Anne Boleyn was charged with treason.) Marriage is essentially about property--and wives are defined as property because they are the means by which property passes from one generation to the next.
The courtly love tradition actually gives the women a lot more power--as I said above, a power in which she vies with the Lord of the house over which one controls the dedicated knight.
Now to me the interesting thing that then happens--which I think leads to the definitions I first cited--is that first, the romance narrative gets grafted onto marriage. What happens there is that women gain more power within marriage--power based on the old idea of being worshipped/valued by the courtly lover. But the courtly lover became the husband. And then the chastity of the wife, which before the addition of romance was only about legitimacy, became instead tied into the idea of romance. This made the idea of romance more palatable for the Church--it becomes a reinforcement of chastity on both the husband and wife's part--instead of a story of extramarital love. And this is also where the idea of one love comes from--that is, romance+chastity=the love of one's life. That idea of the one love is not there in the original Middle Eastern romances.
If you come down to the 19th century then--when church and state roles for marriage begin to separate--you can see how women's role in romance as the emotional object of worship work both for and against them. It does give them more power--but the power is based only on their ability to inspire romantic love. It's not based for instance on their own ability to own property (which in fact they didn't have). If women are romantic heroines, they will attract a man who cares for them--they have to be the object of male romantic attention in order to have value. (Kind of the plot of Jane Austen's novels.) The man is the one who defines the woman's value by loving her. And what gets hidden in that romantic exchange is that he literally defined the woman's value still by being the one who had financial means. And as far as exclusivity--women's fidelity still much more strictly policed. Women who committed adultery lost everything, men nothing. In fact male infideility was usuall seen as the wife's fault--since she was the one in charge of the emotional part of the bond, if he failed in his emotional tie to her, she was the one who had screwed up.
However, women's emotional power and thus voice in the family also probably led to women wanting more of the same rights (like property rights) afforded to men. Though on the flip side, the emotional argument was often used to deny women's rights--they didn't need rights to things like divorce or to property or to the vote--because their husband (and husband and wife are like one being/one flesh) was the protector, the property holder, the voter. And also women's emotionalism would make it impossible for them to think through things like political issues.
Interesting though that what finally led to marriage being separated out into church/state was women gaining more of an equal status in marriage. (The founding of the secular divorce courts for instance.)
Well I'm sure that that was more than people probably wanted to hear :-) Once I got going I couldn't stop, heh....
Feel free to take up any of the above or throw in something else from a completely different angle.
The absurdity of defining marriage partners by gender
I do get the point of this article and I think it makes a good point. But what I think it best points out is just how absurd it is to have the government - federal or state involved in what is clearly a personal, moral issue.
I can't help but think though, that people who oppose this sentiment about the confusion with the laws are merely going to say that it's being transsexual that is the problem. The solution - to outlaw these surgeries and you'd get rid of most of the "freaks" causing this "disgusting" issue.
Yes, actually you got to the most central issue
By having it be a legal issue with certain rights accorded--one then has to come up with legal definitions, just as one had to do with "race" when racial identity was important as far as what one's rights were.
I also think you're right about what people opposed will say--though again making it about a law and defining transexuality as the problem doesn't deal with the fact that there is gender blurriness that falls outside of things like the technology now available for sex reassignment (like androgen insensitivity).
gender blurriness that falls outside of things
Family Equality
Gay and lesbian parented families have been invited to participate in the Easter egg hunt this year by the Obama administration.
" 'The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization, and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric,' said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Boston-based Family Equality Council, which is helping spearhead the effort to organize families to attend."
(Note, this story is part of three stories in the "Political Notebook" section of my paper, so the headline you'll see at the top of the linked page is about a different story.)
Historic Victory for Marriage Equality in Iowa!
Source: OneIowa.org
High Court clears the way for committed gay and lesbian couples to marry
Today the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that committed gay and lesbian couples must be allowed to marry in Iowa. Join us this evening at your local rally to celebrate this momentous decision! Rally times can be found below, following a statement from One Iowa Executive Director, Carolyn Jenison.
Statement from Carolyn Jenison:
I want to begin by saying how great it is to be an Iowan! Today, the Heartland proves again to be fitting of its name. The Iowa Supreme Court, in clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry, recognized that love and commitment are at the heart of what makes our communities strong. As Iowans, we pride ourselves on our strong sense of community and fairness. It’s only fair that two caring, committed people are able to take full responsibility for one another.
I grew up in the small town of Randall, Iowa. Like most kids, I had the same expectation of meeting that special someone to share the rest of my life with. More than the legal protections and security of marriage, today’s decision is about recognizing that love and commitment are not defined by the gender of the participants involved. It’s about couples like David and Larry from Urbandale or Reva and Ingrid from Council Bluffs -- couples that have stuck together through thick and thin, who have raised strong families, and been active in their communities. Today, the message the Court sends is that these families are worthy of the same recognition and hold the same value as any other couple.
As a lifelong Iowan, I have never been as proud of my state as I am today! Not only will we join Connecticut and Massachusetts as the third state to offer marriage licenses to gay couples, but Iowa will set the standard for fairness and equality in the Midwest. I encourage all Iowans, whether you agree with the Court’s decision or not, to respect the important role that the court plays. While we may not all agree with the decision, I think we can all agree that it’s unfair to stand in the way of someone being able to take care of his or her long-term partner. I invite those who disagree to engage with us in a conversation. I encourage you to visit our website at oneiowa.org to read the personal stories of Iowans affected by today’s decision. Moving forward, One Iowa will work tirelessly to see that marriage equality in Iowa is protected and valued with the same vigor that we pursued it.
I want to thank our wonderful partners at Lambda Legal for bringing this case before the Courts and all our supporters across the state. We would not be here today without your support and guidance. I also want to thank my staff at One Iowa. Our slogan is “together we are One Iowa” and I know our success is due in large part because of our commitment to work as a team.
That is...
very cool news. Thanks for posting!
I also like the spirit of this document--the invitation to those who disagree to engage in conversation.
Excerpts from the Court's rationale on the role of religion
I found these excerpts from the Court's ruling to be very smart about the role of religion in opposing gay marriage, why religious views should not bear on civil rights, and conversely why civil rulings such as this one should not impact on any religion's definition of marriage.
"While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.
It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical interpretation. The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.
Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage...
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires."
Same-sex marriage bills in New England
"In a special session, the Vermont Senate yesterday voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Later this week, a similar bill is scheduled for a vote in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Next month a legislative panel in Maine will hold a hearing on a bill to allow gay couples to marry, just as lawmakers did last month in Rhode Island."
VT legislature overrides Governor's veto
The Vermont legislature voted 100 to 49 today to overcome the Governor's veto of same-sex marriage legalization. This makes Vermont the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative rather than judicial process.
Wow, it's not even a week since the Iowa supreme court decision! From two states to four within the space of 5 days!
Same sex marriage legislation in NH and Maine
Yesterday a same sex marriage bill passed the NH senate with an ammendment that "distinguished between "civil marriage" and weddings sanctioned by religious groups, spelling out that the state would not force those groups to marry same-sex couples. " It is not clear whether Gov. Lynch will veto the bill or not (there are not enough votes to override a veto). In Maine a legislative committe recommended a bill go to the full House and Senate for a vote.
Maine becomes the 5th state to legalize gay marriage
Maine! Aaaaayuh...you hurd right.
New England's character and same-sex marriage
Thought this was an interesting analysis of what it is about New England that makes it conducive to legalizing same-sex marriage. 'Cause it's not just a liberal demographic--that would not explain Maine or New Hampshire (or maybe even Connecticut). I like what this Trinity College Professor said about Yankee practicality: "These are little towns where people get together to talk about snow removal," he said. "If people are different, you figure out how to live with them."
Of course, it can't just be that either 'cause that would be true in other areas as well--so some of the other factors: seeing religion as a private/personal experience rather than part of the public sphere, large number of Catholics in some areas, and one that isn't mentioned in the article but I think might make it different from areas to the West is lack of space and arable land.
News in VT
marriage laws
re: Same-sex marriage bills in New England
Challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act
15 spouses in Massachusetts are filing a challenge today to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Among the rights being denied them under the act are the right to survivor benefits and health insurance.
Editorial on DOM Act
Editorial today is a follow up on this court challenge and gives some details on what the challenge is based on. Could be interesting because as they point out--marriage is supposed to be a state decision.
Justice Department defense of DOMA in Smelt case
I found this to be a very good representation of the recent actions by the Obama administration in defending DOMA in the Smelt case. The author, Michael Dorf, examines justifications for the administration's position like the separation of powers in the three branches of government:
"Did the government's brief in Smelt betray the President's campaign promise? Not necessarily. One can think that a law such as DOMA should be repealed by Congress, but also think that it is constitutionally valid so long as it remains on the books. Moreover, the executive branch arguably has a duty to defend the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes.
Nonetheless, as I shall explain below, the particulars of the defense mounted by the Justice Department in this case are troubling. Although the government's Smelt brief does not flatly violate candidate Obama's promise to seek DOMA's repeal, the LGBT community is right to view it as a betrayal of the spirit of that promise."
He goes on to show that the Justice Department could easily have presented an argument in this case based on procedural questions alone, but went on to argue "an enthusiastic--and problematic--defense of the substance of DOMA."
"Perhaps most jarring is the government's claim that DOMA does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: "Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations," the government asserts, "but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage."
In other words, the government contends that DOMA treats gay and straight persons alike because it offers federal marriage benefits to everybody--including gay persons--willing to enter into heterosexual marriages. Anatole France nicely ridiculed this kind of merely formal and perfectly useless "equality" when he wrote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." "
The Obama Administration Defends the Defense of Marriage Act
more on Dept. of Justice defense of DOMA
"The brief also flirted with comparing gay marriage to incestuous marriage. As a precedent for states' declining to recognize marriages made elsewhere, it mentions a case in which Connecticut declined to recognize a marriage between a man and his niece, a marriage that Italy had approved."
Defense of Marriage Act
I read an article this morning about New York Senator Chuck Schumer, saying he not only now supports gay marriage but also backs a full reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Like a majority of New Yorkers, Sen. Schumer recognizes that only marriage equality provides same sex couples the status, protections and rights afforded to all other Americans. We look forward to working with him to win marriage equality in New York State and around the country."
I'm embarassed to admit...
That I am afraid.
I've posted up and down on this forum the deepest moral issues I've ever struggled with... but the most extreme being my position on homosexuality. Yet when it comes to simply standing up by posting my beliefs in a place where I can be readily identified - I almost chickened out. I was and am still terrified of what is going to happen. All I did was to change my facebook picture to promote a group that shows the personal struggles of the people facing the challenge of being validated in a society that doesn't want them.
Even with as much as I know about this issue, I did not know that it was 1138 federal laws that gays are excluded from. One thousand one hundred and thirty eight.
The stories are heartwrenching. I simply cannot imagine what it must be like to be together with someone for 18 years and not be allowed into the hospital room when they are dying - even when the proper power of attorney forms are faxed to the hospital. Only to be let in the room for 5 minutes while the priest gives last rites. I cannot imagine what it must be like to live with my partner whom I would have married (but was not allowed to) for 3 years and then not be allowed to attend their funeral... despite the last wishes of the deceased. Those are just a few. The ones that made me cry. And yet, I'm afraid to stand up by their side.
Afraid of what my family will say - afraid of what they will assume. Afraid of losing friends, being disowned, questioned, accused, discredited in every facet of my life. I already belong to several devalued classes of people, if you rate my value on a social scale. I am afraid of losing what little I feel like I have. I am afraid of what it means for my family.
And what will I do if my family asks me if I'm gay? To me, it really shouldn't matter to them if I am or if I am not. Do I take the safe route? Point to the relationship I am in to quell both their fears and mine? Or do I tell them that I will not confirm or deny for the sake of making a point? I prefer the latter option... but will I cower in the face of my conviction?
The most difficult thing to face in all this is for me to admit that I started into this topic with a prejudice. I used to see gay people as merely sexual deviants. Defined them by their actions instead of seeing them as individuals. My response to gay content in anything was to say "gross" and not deal with it ever. The word 'gay' was taught to me as an insult. But I now see that these people are no different from us - sin or no.
I had to step aside from the notion that this was in some manner a Biblical issue for me in order to see it. Even if it homosexuality is a sin... (and I'm not sure I still feel it is) ... the point Jesus made was to "love the sinner, hate the sin". Being repulsed is not something I associate with love. So I guess I felt I was the one falling short there.
I changed my Facebook picture. God help me through this and forgive my struggles and shortcomings.
I share the dream
In some ways it is a lot like the notion I wrote about here:
Fear and Loathing and Making a Difference
It comes down to a fear of public scrutiny.
I asked in that post: Violence, prejudice... at the root of it fear... how do we make it go away?
So far my thoughts have led me here:
How to stop a war - which can also be "How to change a social prejudice", or even a more general "conflict resolution".
But also - maybe just as important: The Power of Stories.
I think the answer does lie there. Individual purpose can change the world and have a larger impact than we could imagine.
Fear and Understanding
DL, I want to thank you for sharing both the emotional side of this struggle and your insights. When I went back and reread "Fear and Loathing" I was struck by the quotation from "Batman Begins" about fearing what we don't understand. And I was thinking that maybe the biggest hurdle there is in what understanding means. As someone who was always good at one way of understanding--being logical, using language, being able to abstract from particular circumstances to general principles--I can say that there's a kind of security that that kind of understanding seems to offer. If we're all storytellers--then this kind of understanding is the storyteller who sees herself in charge of the story--who can categorize, define, analyze and thus control what's happening (or so we falsely believe). I think our whole culture tends toward overemphasizing that kind of understanding. And the problem with that is that we think the categories don't change, or we ignore the individual for the generalization, and we elevate ourselves as the one in charge, the one who's doling out the definitions. We fear death, so we read up on the causes of illnesses and when someone dies, part of us asks--what did they do wrong? Did they smoke? Overeat? I know I've done things like that--tried to make myself feel safe by trying to figure out the right thing to do. But of course no amount of understanding like that actually protects us, or controls our future.
Visibility/Categorizing: The way in which these labels make us visibile or invisible--it affects everyone. If my hair is too short--that seems to some people to make me visible as gay, in fact it's making me invisible. If I'm wearing a ring on my left-hand ring finger, that means I'm married (and to most of my students still--even though we live in Massachusetts) and straight--but again invisible as to who I really am. Of course some of my students look at the simplicity of the ring and think I'm a nun :-) (I teach at a Catholic School). All of those labels seem to me to be a reaction to the fear of sexuality by projecting sexuality onto someone else and trying to control that person--is she available sexually or not? If she is, who is she available to?
To me that's the root of prejudice--categorizing in order to combat the fears of the person who's doing the categorizing. We try to overcome fear through a dogmatic approach to understanding. It kind of reminds me of something I wrote in "Elements of Computer Mediated Interaction" -- about the way in which, in the history of the novel, a sense of the person emerges as always in conflict with others, and the others always being defined by categories, while the hero of the novel transcends categories and is better than everyone else.
And it reminds me of a very different storytelling experience. When my son was in elementary school, I was on a committee that organized a showing of "That's a family." Along with the film, we had a project in which all the kids drew pictures of their families and wrote stories about them which we put up all around the school. It was so great to see all the different ways in which the kids thought about family, and made "family" a communal definition (a family definition of family?) instead of something defined by outside and imposed.
More stories: MassEquality has a lot of great personal narratives about what the 5+ years here have meant to people since gay marriage became legal. Equality Matters
There are also lots of great personal stories in this documentary about the failure of a campaign in Wisconsin in 2006 to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment. Better Angels
Homosexual privilege...
I'm a single man. I went to a party last night and met a single woman. She was so articulate and intelligent and her manner so easily exposed her inner beauty that, as the evening wore on, I became more and more convinced that she was the most beautiful woman I'd ever met.
It was very difficult for me to hold back my emotions. Not to smile too much. Not to let the fire in my eyes show too much. Not to flirt. Because, after all, I didn't even know if she was straight or if I'd offend her if she wasn't.
And, let's face it, even if I found out she was straight, what kind of straight would she be? Was she the kind of straight that would be OK with holding hands in public? Did her family know? Did her place of work? Or would she be more open about her straightness even than I am with mine? Would she be constantly pressuring me to be more open about it?
And even if THAT all worked out, what would my friends and family think? Many of them aren't aware I'm straight and I don't want them to know because they'll cut me off if they find out... they've told me as much! But even the ones who know and act OK about it will likely begin to behave oddly in ways they won't even realize once I actually have a woman around. They can routinely bring their lovers to social and family gatherings, even if they haven't been dating the person for very long, but I bring my girlfriend somewhere and I'm flaunting my sexuality.
And what would be wrong with flaunting it, anyway? They flaunt theirs all the time! Even at work they flirt openly or talk in suggestive ways about people they're attracted to. But I know I don't dare talk about my attraction to a woman unless I want to alienate my coworkers. Many don't know I'm straight and I'd like to say it's fine because it just isn't any of their business. But in my silence people just presume I'm gay. I was friendly with a guy who got the wrong idea and he became angry with me when he found out I was straight. He accused me of being deceptive about my sexuality...a lie of omission, he called it. And here I thought I was SUPPOSED to keep it to myself!
And on the topic of flaunting it, what about the media? A good portion of the popular films and TV shows that are made are homosexual romances, and even if I can avoid those films nearly all the rest of them have romantic subplots that I often, naturally, find distracting. And if I go to a film with friends, they want to talk about how hot the guys were and get me included in the conversation. Sometimes I've nodded in agreement or made vague affirmative comments just to get the spotlight off of me.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem in principle with homosexual romance in media. Sometimes I can even relate strongly to the emotions being portrayed. What bothers me is that when the very same emotions are being expressed by a straight couple in the media it's commonly regarded as edgy and/or deviant. Like when a straight person has these feelings they aren't as good or pure. I find myself wondering if the whole world thinks I'm filthy.
A few weeks ago I went to see a film that had a straight-romance subplot. It was rated PG-13 for sexual themes. The only sexual theme I could spot was that the featured couple was straight. There wasn't a sex scene in the film. The couple didn't even kiss, although they were portrayed in bed together with pajamas on talking about something non-sex related. I'm certain that if the romance had been gay, the film would have been rated PG even if it wasn't a particularly good relationship. Apparently I should understand that having a healthy straight couple in a film is more damaging to children under 13 than having a dysfunctional gay couple in a film.
Which brings me to what was my next concern about this stunning woman I'd met... where would I take her on dates? Aside from the movie problem, there's the problem of where to eat. We can only go to fancy places so often before going to a sports bar or something is more appropriate. But I hate going to those places. "Breeder" is such a popular synonym for "stupid" these days that you hear it said just about everywhere you go, and I can't help but react to it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I do sometimes think that if there was some easy way to tell straights from gays... some way we straights couldn't hide... there'd be some places that wouldn't even let us through the door.
But the clincher was when I started thinking of where dating would lead. What, we'd live together? Move to a state that had "civil unions" and limit ourselves only to living in similar states forever? All while still being afraid to hold hands in public for fear of who might see and what they might do?
Most of the straight guys I know have been beat up for it at least once. Of course, hardly any of us told anyone about it because it would have only made our attackers angry. Hell, I know a fair number of gay guys who have been beat up because someone thought they were straight! It's hard to grow up around that kind of hate and feel safe when you're an adult.
By the end of the evening I knew I was in love with this woman. But I feigned my best look of mild interest, bid her farewell without shaking her hand (my palms were all sweaty) and I'm certain I'll never see her again.
I know... I'm just being a big baby about all of this. But falling in love really does seem so much easier for gay people. I hope they know how great they have it.
re: Homosexual privilege
Not to trivialize...
I just thought I might interject a little humor Prop 8 The Musical
a little more interjection...
California
Attorney General Jerry Brown is reversing his former position on Prop. 8--he is now asking the California Supreme Court to void it.
For those of you who understand matters of the heart
San Diego Mayor stands up for marriage equality
The sentiment here speaks for itself.
New Jersey Commission finds civil unions to be unequal treatment
A panel appointed by the governor of New Jersey presented their findings yesterday that civil unions constitute unequal treatment under the law: "Full marriage is the only way to meet a state constitutional requirement for equality, said the 13-member panel of public officials, clergy, lawyers, and same-sex marriage advocates."
Iowa-Gay Marriage Cases
Iowa's supreme court will hear challenges this week to the state ban on gay marriage.
To me the larger issue that these cases keep coming back to is how do we determine individual rights. I don't think the answer can ever be through the vote.
Cops Investigate Brutal Rape of Lesbian
Cops Investigate Brutal Rape of Lesbian
I don't even know where to post this article, and I know it's a presentation of the extreme and not the norm. Speaking only from my emotions here I am immensely sad that this type of crime is still not on the list of "unthinkable" in a socially acceptable sort of way. It's almost like being transported back to the 80s when there was a big controversy about that Jodie Foster movie "The Accused" - whether as a rape victim this woman was 'asking for it' or not. I think we've made some social progress from that point, but still have a long way to go. If women as a whole have a difficult time asserting their human rights - what chance does a minority have without social support?
I have to admit, at one point I was against gay marriage only for the sake that I believe marriage is a religious institution that the state should have no hand or rights in. If I had my way, hetero marriage wouldn't be recognized or encouraged by the state either... no tax breaks... no special laws. In the eyes of the state every union would be seen as a 'civil union' and that should be the end of their stake in it.
After watching the arguement for the defense for the first time I finally get it. It is because marriage is such a loaded and powerful social word that gays must be able to share in that same right. (Not to mention that "separate, but equal" laws do not create equal protection or rights on a federal level the way using the word "marriage" would.) Anything short of that is no different than the Jim Crow race laws.
Until gay marriages are seen as a respectable and valid social choice - it's my opinion that violence against this minority will increase and be further justified. It is a religious matter, one that should be protected under our "freedom of religion" clause.
No, making this a law won't fix all the prejudices either. But it will be a step forward in the social healing process... much in the same way as when women got the right to vote in this country. Things aren't perfect, but they are getting there.
Please allow me to interject at the top of these chains...
... and say first of all that I've really appreciated the quality of this discussion. On an Internet full of flame wars and sloppy reasoning it's so awesome to come here and read posts from folks who really know how to think and form compelling arguments. I love you guys! 
In fact, I'm reluctant to interrupt the flow of things here, but I might have something meaningful to contribute. (Or... I hope I do, anyway...)
As I read what each person has to say, it seems to me that the root of disagreement is not about faulty logic on the part of one party or the other, but, rather, it's an issue of a difference in assumptions.
ESi, please allow me to use one of your assertions as an example of what I mean.
You've asserted that the exclusion of same-sex unions from the "marriage privilege" doesn't discriminate against homosexuals because the exclusion applies to all, including yourself, a man who admittedly isn't inclined to desire a same-sex union.
I would point out, though, that to many this logic is the same as if you'd asserted that a law against abortion wouldn't apply only to women, since men wouldn't be allowed to get abortions either.
Now, ESi, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you'd reject this analogy, pointing out that the in-born capacity to bear children isn't remotely the same as being homosexual. But I think this is precisely the point of disagreement. There are many who believe that homosexuality is an inherent quality of a human being (whether one is born with it or it emerges from intractable social factors or some of both) and it, therefore, should be regarded just as one would regard a heterosexual orientation (whether one is born with IT or IT emerges from intractable social factors or some of both).
From what I can tell, jaz and DominaLuna are both coming from a perspective that sees homosexuality and heterosexuality as belonging to the "same class" of human experience. In contrast, ESi seems to place homosexuality in a different class, as if heterosexuality is the rule and homosexuality can only be seen as an exception (rather than being seen simply as a "different" rule, albeit a less common one).
Again... please, anyone correct me if I'm mistaken... and please know I'm not criticizing one perspective or the other... I'm just sharing my humble observations and I welcome correction from either side if I've missed the mark.
However, if I'm correct, then it's difficult for me to see how this discussion can ultimately be resolved. These differences of opinion regarding the status of homosexuality in human life are long-standing and are impossible to nail down with empirical fact. In fact, very often, in the absence of provable propositions, the various sides are forced to defer to anecdote or religious sentiment, which only deepens the disagreement.
Anyway... that's my take on the whole conversation... y'all can tell me I'm full of baloney if you want.
My two cents
I've been following this thread for a few days (see I'm on winter break and I have time to lurk on message boards now YAY!). This is an interesting discussion about same sex marriage. I think that there has been a lot of good discussion without letting "moral" arguments get in the way, which is what I often see happen in these types of debates. There have been quite a few logical errors that Esi has made, I won't go through and pull them out mostly because I think it has already been done and I think that some of the arguments have taken the focus off of the actual reasons for or against the legalization of same sex marriage. In Esi's defense however I think that he makes a valid argument that when we broaden definitions we also must look at the ramifications.
While I think it is ridiculous to say that if we broaden the current legal definition of marriage to include a union between a man and a man and a woman and a woman then that will open up marriage to include unions between a person and an animal or an adult and a child. However, I do agree that once you open up marriage for redefinition you must also accept that it may be up for redefinition in other ways such as polygamy.
In order to determine what ought to be a right and to whom it ought to be granted we must first look at the function and purpose that it serves and how we define who fits the criteria. More precisly what is marriage today? What does it mean to be married and why do people want to be married? Then, since marriage currently in most states is defined as a union between a man and a woman, what does it mean to be a man or a woman?
Changing definitions of marriage
I'm pulling this discussion back to the front page 'cause it was getting so slinky and hard to find the "new" on page two.
One main point I wanted to address is this one that ESi made which I think might be at the crux of the argument that legalizing gay marriage might mean that "people should be allowed to marry whomever they want." The argument ESi made was that allowing gay marriage would make the definition of marriage arbitrary. By making the definition arbitrary there would be nothing to prevent incestuous couples, polygamous groups, or adults wanting to marry children from making the claim--"hey you changed marriage to mean something else to include gay people--why not change it again?"
Here are two of the points ESi made:
"The precedent set will be that "marriage" does not have a fixed definition like "sunrise", but one that can be freely redefined just by moving the law around at will, like the definition of "small claim"."
And in response to the GC saying this: "For one thing, the definition of marriage between a "man and woman" doesn't, by itself, exclude polygamy or incest or marriage to minor-yet-menstruating-women now. Extra laws are required for that. "
ESi responded: "All of those are arbitrary decisions. If we make one thing arbitrary, then we can make anything arbitrary. 18 as the age of maturity is one thing that is entirely arbitrary. Nothing magical happens on your 18th birthday that makes you not being a minor anymore, the law just draws a line there."
My point in response is to partially agree--all of these are arbitrary decisions. The law is a social and cultural construct. It is subject to change. There is nothing absolute about it. So laws change from culture to culture. Or even from state to state. In Mississippi, a girl can marry at 15 without parental consent, whereas in most states she would need to be 18. Does this mean that in the states where it is 18 that something magic happens upon the 18th birthday and maturity and ability to rational consent sets in? If only that were true...
Where I would disagree is in thinking that by legalizing gay marriage--"marriage" will move from some absolute definition to a new "precedent" in which it becomes all blurry and subject to the whims of whoever wants it to mean "marry whomever you want." This to me is where I disagree with ESi's assumption--I don't think marriage has ever had a fixed definition like "sunset" (if even that is fixed--what exact moment would that be?) It's definition as a social contract has always been arbitrary.
And a point I was trying to make elsewhere is that there have actually been much larger changes to its meaning in the past. The change from our current definition of the contract, from the past definition in which women became non entitites by law was a much, much, greater change because it changed the very meaning of what the contract was rather than who it applied to. The previous contract said that women in effect became their husband's possessions and had no legal rights of their own. A husband's rape of a wife was under the contract meaningless. Domestic violence against a woman was meaningless. If a woman left her husband and tried to support herself--her salary went to him--she had no existence, no ability to sign contracts, no ability to support herself...(I could go on, but will stop myself).
Because it is arbitrary does not mean it is meaningless or that by deciding to change it one way, we open it up to mean anything willy nilly. When the drinking age was changed to 18, it did not mean that 12 year olds could drink. Because the driver's licensure laws were changed in Massachusetts to make them more restrictive by age--so that 16 year olds can't drive after sunset--it doesn't mean that 20 year olds can't drive after sunset.
So there's nothing about the laws pertaining to marriage that make them absolute. There are very good arguments to be made as to why marriage should not be extended to include adult/child relationships and laws in place beside the marriage laws that bar those relationships. The main argument to be made against incestuous marriages is not about genetics, but about not having incest socially sanctioned. Marriage is essentially a law about property--and there are good arguments to be made as to why property laws are not going to work in polygamous structures. The only argument that can be made as far as not allowing gay people to marry is the same one that is made about incest--that there is a perverse difference about homosexual couples that should not be socially sanctioned. If this is untrue, then it is unjust not to allow them the same right as heterosexual couples. I would hold it that is untrue and therefore it is unjust.
Unjust
Actually I also wanted to address a couple of points in relation to how I changed my mind on this topic inevitably.
I used to be of the opinion that the civil union option was an appropriate alternative. I first thought it would be more likely to pass and thought it would be important for gay couples in particular to address issues such as not being able to apply for family health coverage on their insurance forms and things like being considered a relative in order they be allowed into hospital emergency rooms and such. In my mind for a long time I had the impression that this would indeed give gays equal benefits and protections under the law (comparable to heterosexual couples) and felt to pursue the marriage issue was reckless especially given that it is not a religious issue for some gay couples. Even today, were I to have complete comfortability, I would prefer the state choose to apply the term civil union to all couples heterosexual and homosexual alike. To do this would keep the framing of the issue on contract law and keep church and state separate as they should be (in my opinion).
However regardless of what I'm comfortable with, the state does name the contract joining the family rearing unit "marriage" and that's not likely to change for heterosexual couples now or in the future. So we have a situation where on the surface it looks like what is suggested is that the same contract is given different names. What importance is a mere word? But is it really semantics? I think this has come out rather clearly in the forum discussion of "separate but equal" as pointed out by ESi. Words have a powerful effect on society and culture. They have a powerful impact on acceptance. Separate but equal does conjure up images of the bigotry of the past. The GC brought up the example of facism also, and I think that reasoning does apply. The question I have to ask is isn't the word "marriage" an equally powerful word? It is because the word marriage is such an emotionally laden word that makes it important in some respects.
For the state to use the term marriage, it is validating the implied emotion and respect given to a heterosexual union. Any person can call themselves married, this is true... however in a debate about whose word is more valid in a contract dispute, the partner who is married in the eyes of the state has the law on their side and the person giving only lipservice has more to prove from a legal standpoint. And that's the real point to consider afterall since currently (thank God) we don't legislate emotion. So the question to ask would be - does the creation of a civil union contract offer the same legal protections as a marriage contract?
I was surprised to figure out that the answer is "no" ... and that legally the differences (from my perspective) are not trivial. I had not considered the implication of the fact that the marriage contract in law is tied to a great deal of other laws, custody laws and the like. In fact - not only would the all the same forms have to change (in order to include "civil union" as well as husband/wife whatnot), a whole new body of law would have to be created to deal with custody issues and other related laws. Not being a lawyer myself, I can't even fathom how complicated that must be, having looked beneath the surface to find it's more complex than I had first imagined.
And further being a state jurisdiction, the reciprocity issue as it applies to marriage would not apply to civil unions. I thought it was a valid point for the court to mention that without going into the technical and logistic depth of the law and debating every statute - you can easily judge the equity of a law by changing the positions of the groups and applying the same rule. If heterosexual people had to apply for civil unions and homosexual people were covered by the contract of marriage - would heterosexual people be bothered by the differences? They would not be able to move to another state with a guarantee that they could have a civil union in the first place. In one state they might be able to get health coverage - another not. Not to mention federal tax implications hitting their pocket books (to the tune of $5000 or more a year)... and how would all that affect their children? Would they be able to live with the military "don't ask, don't tell" proposal? Or that same proposal applied to your child in school on family day? What about living in a state or locality where its legal for them to be fired from a job simply because they are heterosexual (up until 2007)? Or where it's still legal even today to be evicted simply because the are?
And really those are only a few points to apply to that analogy. It's clear that laws that cover, for instance, black people from getting evicted do not cover gay people. That kind of discrimination is still legal... and not the only case of inequity. In truth it does not matter whether it is a right vs. a privilege. (If you can forgive the comparison...) Even with Jim Crow laws - not everybody has an inalienable right to eat at a particular restaurant, but issues were made with that notion in the civil rights movement. Restaurant owners responded by creating a black section in that restaurant. They didn't exclude blacks from eating the restaurant food because of their race. It was even put forth that blacks were still eating the same food - just in a different part of the restaurant. However not many would argue that there is a fundamental problem with white privilege.
I've personally concluded that there is a heterosexual privilege and it has the same fundamental problem as racist bigotry.
From there - how widespread is it really?
Consequently the ENDA reference brought up some interesting points that most likely helped the law to pass in 2007:
"special rights" argument does not apply to a group subject to widespread prejudice. According to a study published in 2001 by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, reports of discrimination based on sexual orientation are roughly equal to those on race or gender.[6] There are also studies showing that local anti-discrimination laws are ineffective, and federal law is needed.[7]
--------
^ Rubenstein, William B. (January 30, 2002) Do Gay Rights Laws Matter?: An Empirical Assessment The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Accessed October 20, 2007.
^ Flatt, Victor. (November 21, 2006) We need Federal Law to Protect Gays and Lesbians from Discrimination University of Houston Law Center Faculty Blog. Accessed October 20, 2007.
--------
I believe that the bigotry against homosexuals is widespread enough to be significantly relevant on a federal level.
Now to be clear... I'm not saying the ENDA law is perfect, mind you. I've only glanced over it (and duly noted that specific protections were given to religious institutions... interestingly the same exceptions as were given in the matter of race which I hadn't known had been done).
My point is that a lot of people share the perspective that I have - which is that even with the emotive connections "separate but equal" does indeed apply to the gay situation and I extend that logic to the legal marriage contract. Now I know that just because a lot of people agree with me (even "important people") does not mean my position is necessarily "right". It does however mean there are enough facts out there to statistically make a point that deserves due consideration. I've concluded from a rational basis after reviewing the facts that marriage is part of "heterosexual privilege". Empirically it's what makes the GC's story above so difficult to frame when you read it because it's simply difficult to imagine a reversal of the situation.
So I'm convinced... that's all I'm saying. I am speaking not because I have expectations about what people will do or say in response - but because I believe this so deeply I feel I must express it regardless of who "loves me" or "hates me" for it.
Re: Unjust
You made some excellent points I thought, DL. One thing I wanted to pick back up on was what you were saying about segregation in restaurants. As you said, this was not an inalienable right. And in fact blacks were not denied the right to eat. But by restricting blacks to a particular area, the segregation of restaurants validated the cultural idea that blacks were a separate and lesser group. And in the same way, restricting gay people to civil unions validates the cultural idea that homosexual unions are separate and of less value, as well as giving state sanction to discrimination against gay people.
The idea of black being "less" than whites--this is where some of the emotiveness of the term "separate but equal" comes from--because it originates in slavery. And the right not to be owned--I would consider that inalienable. So that is an important way in which the term "separate be equal" has an emotive history for race that it does not have for sexual orientation. But, anytime discrimination reaches the levels that someone will kill another human being based on that discrimination--then dehumanization is going on. I heard an interview with Frank Schaeffer (Crazy for God) in which he described a meeting between himself, his father, and Jerry Falwell in which Falwell, talking about homosexuals said that if his dog was gay, he'd shoot it. So, though gay people have never been enslaved for being gay--the roots of the kind of hatred I think are the same.
The ENDA law made an important point in regard to employment--that is that it is merit, not race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. which should decide matters of employment. So by opening up marriage to gay people--the state would be saying that orientation has nothing to do with what marriage is. At the level of contract it is about various rights and responsibilities. At the level of cultural meaning it is about who is considered valid as a family which should have nothing to do with orientation.
The clause about religion organizations and schools answers the same question as to why discrimination laws by gender do not open the way to women in the priesthood.
Right not to be Owned
It's interesting you bring up "the right not to be owned" and slavery. Though there are significant and astounding differences in the methodology of oppression, I would beg to differ with you on that point - that the gay marriage issue does not tap the same emotional history in that context. Ironically the history of marriage is suggestive of a similar methodology in the past, as it's roots do stem from property law. Despite our "progress" in the women's rights movement the expectations created by the construct of this intereaction are still violently enforced by our society. Though there are some outdated expectations, like "it is ok and of no consequence if you beat your wife", the expectation that you must be heterosexual in the least remains.
Conditioning behaviors of what is expected of our sexuality begins at a very young age.
It can often be a brutal lesson to deviate from the norm, and the permitted behaviors in order to prevent a homosexual situation have become more and more strict. To have a girl get beaten up on the playground simply for holding hands with her best friend, or disowned by her parents and family sends a powerful message to every young person who witnesses those events. To have schools never correct students who use the term "gay" as a viscous insult. I'm sure I could go on. Gays are getting killed and all manner of brutilized simply for their orientation.
The result I've seen is people that I've known personally who got involved in a heterosexual marriage simply to protect themselves from the violence. They resign themselves to a fate of learning how to numb their pain enough to tolerate forcing themselves to engage in sexual acts to which they are not predispositioned or inclined to have by their own desire. Their fears so great that in order to simply survive, they feel they have to willingly submit themselves into sexual slavery. Most accept their position as unchangeable. Beat themselves up because for whatever reason they can't force themselves to be "normal" or "good enough" to be straight. I expect this is the reason there is a relatively high rate of suicide among gay teens as compared to heterosexual teens. Up until rather recently there were only a handful of gays that felt at any point in time that they had a valid right to express what they wanted for themselves in this regard. Their parents surely didn't present them this choice. So for them, a marriage is reduced to a contract exchange of safety from society for permission to be treated like a piece of property. If "lucky" (S)he finds his/her value and esteem in being seen as a valuable commodity. "A good man" or "a good woman" and the sterotypes that dictate each.
And the fact of the matter is, I've seen this kind of sexual slavery situation with heterosexuals as well. If gender corrective surgery is seen as a sign of possible mental illness... then cosmetic surgery for men or women is of the same ilk. It's all suggestive of a really dysfunctional worldview of sex and what it means... I really wonder how many of those men or women in heterosexual relationships are objectifying themselves with these surgeries out of desperation because they don't see their worth outside of society's accepted sexual context? Everyone wants to be worth something. Everybody wants to be accepted for who they are.
To me the situation with sexual dysfunction in this nation is what racial slavery might look like were it to have been justifed, legalized, and consequently ignored as a "normal" part of our society. To me just about every heterosexual romance movie is as offensive as watching old black and white "mammy" films where white people painted their faces black. It doesn't help that a lot of the people involved back in the day didn't mean any harm or ill will towards the blacks they were imitating - or that there were positive notions expressed. Neither are based on enough truth to be valid for anything but "entertainment" (laughing about something that "won't change") and conditioning; the only grain of truth in both is used to promote a particular social sterotype as the only valid and acceptable option and "how things should be". The ugly truth is that such niceties cloak the insidious and violent past where brutality was used to keep these people from escaping the rules of this social control. All's fair in love and war - right?
If the South had won there would be a list of expectations and coping skills in learning how to become "a good slave" that devolved into something as disturbing as the things I've seen men and women do to themselves and others "in the name of love". The social conventions equally as elaborate and damning.
Sometime a long time in the past - the men won their fight to make women property and establish expectations for the slaves they owned in their wives and children in marriage. Earning the right to vote did not change a woman's condition. Even today there are women who fight to keep this stereotype because they profit from it. No different from the slaves who caught other runaway slaves for their own benefit to a better living under their masters. Men who stand up for women's rights treated the way southern slave owners would have treated the freedom fighters... all under a cloak of justifications for this behavior.
Because there is still a gender war - we are all prisoners and slaves of the stereotypes that society holds as "unchangeable", just as the slave owner wished to establish an unchangeable/"inalienable" right to own his or her property.
There has been no physical war for women's rights, or for the right to have normal biological impulses that create a sexual situation which cannot be defined by a readily identifiable gender trait. But doesn't this mean these issues are less valid - it just means that we've allowed this prejudice to become comfortable.
Re: Right Not to Be Owned
Thanks for differing with me on that point DL. I agree with what you said above--and it was really helpful for rethinking my perspective to think about it in terms of "If the South had won..." That's really when prejudice becomes hard to see--when it does become comfortable, commonplace. We look at it and think, oh that's just commonsense...but it's not at all.
The way in which marriage originally absorbed the entire person of the woman into her husband and his status--made male personhood=human, where the woman was invisible--it didn't just allow for things like domestic violence. It had much more far reaching implications in gender roles which still persist. Why is male homosexuality so threatening--because of the way it gets associated with effeminacy. Men becoming feminine must be threatening to all men because it implies that there's nothing inherent in biological maleness to protect them from all the "defects" that have been projected onto women. Female homosexuality is seen as "chic" or sexy because women stand for sexuality. Though if you go back to the Victorian era there was that idea that there couldn't even be such a thing as a lesbian--because how could women have any identity at all outside the heterosexual contract.
And then those roles affect everyone--as you were saying in your example of the little girl beaten up on the playground. The enforcement of these roles--are they really about sex or orientation? I was talking about a neighbor who teased my son's high voice--he was three.
The examples you give of the way people enter into marriage to escape violence (but of course forcing oneself into a different orientation is another physical violence) . It's not just physical violence--it's violence done to one's notion of self. See yourself through this social lens or be considered perverse.
Everyone wants to be worth something--and in our consumer society your value is built upon filling particular gender ideals.
In feminism classes, I so often hear women say that it isn't men, but other women they see as being critical or oppressive of them. First I think it's important to see that gender oppression isn't about all men against all women, or one group of women against another. But second, if men have been designated the givers of value--where's the conflict most likely to take place? Unless you question that very assumption--then it's going to be between the women vying for that limited supply of male attention.
Comfortable with prejudice
I'm just generally agreeing with both of you here... and wanted to add to DL's last comment about people becoming comfortable with prejudice. I'm not aware how impressionable racial and sexual ignorance is in other parts of the U.S., so only going to speak for my region. I've lived in the south all of my life and I can definitely admit that the comfort level of prejudice is an issue down here all across the board - from gender identity to sexism to racism. Unfortunately I don't think the hatred and ignorance toward these groups are likely to disappear for many generations, and although treatment of these groups has improved, a lot of times this treatment is tolerance and not true acceptance. (Sadly, I have no doubt that my state will probably be one of the last in America to approve of gay marriage.) Further, what often is subsequent to becoming comfortable with prejudice is that people lose the ability of recognizing the prejudices in themselves.
The "escape from violence" angle - I don't recall if I previously had a discussion about this in email or if it was brought up somewhere around here as well. The "escape from violence" also accounts for a certain percentage of GLB teen pregnancies as some are reported as having sex to camaflouge their sexual identity. I'm not sure of the rates and I'm cautious with any news article, but this is a fairly recent article that I thought touched on the right points with GLB teens and sex, despite the stats they're dishing out.
Comfortable with prejudice and GLB teen pregnancy
I hadn't realized that impact on teens but it makes sense. People talk about teen sexual behavior in response to peer pressure--how much greater that has to be when the pressure to prove something about oneself--about how "normal" one is--isn't just coming from peers but from family? So the very people who are supposed to be helping you learn how to avoid risky sexual behavior might be tacitly (or I'm sure in some cases, openly) encouraging that behavior to prove that you're still acceptable to them. (*Ugh* that is so sad.)
I have seen how quickly things can turn around though and people become comfortable--not just tolerant--but comfortable in a way that sexual orientation doesn't seem to register much. I'm somewhat aware of that in relation to gay marriage, but even more in relation to the school system here. When my son was in elementary school, there was a big controversy when a gay male teacher mentioned his partner to his class. Now my son is in high school and has out of the closet teachers and it's not a focus of attention at all that I can tell. In fact, I wouldn't know anything about any of his teacher's orientation (and why should I?) except for the fact that my son mentioned a male teacher's husband the other day in a context that had nothing to do with being gay or not being gay. I posted this article about the change in the atmosphere in schools around here awhile ago, but I'm going to repost it here ('cause I can't remember where I put it :-().
Generalizing
Can't edit, but I'm realizing that one sentence there didn't express exactly what I was trying to get at.
"Men becoming feminine must be threatening to all men because it implies that there's nothing inherent in biological maleness to protect them from all the "defects" that have been projected onto women. "
When I said "all men" I was thinking that effeminacy is threatening to men generally whatever their orientation. But it would be a false generalization to say that all men are threatened by effeminacy.
Masculinity and attacks on American's Youth
Individual cases
Right. Pertaining to individual cases (and the emotions involved) it is important to make those distinctions about each particular situation and consider the weight of the culture/societal forces bearing on them in order to not belittle either position in the process.
It's equally important to note that the law is not made in order to define these events within the particular frame or case presented, but to establish generalities of law that apply to all people as they are necessary. Unfortunately, it seems necessary for the government to create laws to address widespread prejudice and create a rule in addressing such cases. But to say this specific rule of law "separate but equal" applies to a situation, is by no means the same thing as saying that the cases being compared have the same culture/societal forces bearing on them. It simply means that it has been established by the preponderance of the evidence that a particular case falls into a class that makes a given rule of law applicable (not even necessarily equal in grievance).
Definitions
Hey Devinity, thanks for adding in your two cents.
I was thinking about your questions at the end, and at first was thinking that defining wasn't going to help because I didn't see how one could reach a consensus about the definition. And even if one could reach a general consensus, I don't think it can be imposed as a legal definition. For instance, people might generally agree that marriage involves a bond of love between two people. But how could that become part of the legal requirement of marriage?
But the process of thinking about that made me think that for the purposes of what we are talking about here--that is the legal right to marry and to whom it applies--that all the other things about marriage that we generally mean culturally (that is questions of love, raising children, sexual intimacy, etc.) are irrelevant. Marriage in that context is a license granted by the state which gives permission to be considered legally in certain ways--for example as a "couple" on income tax returns, or as a beneficiary in the case of death, or as liable for child-support in the case of divorce.
If this is the definition, then I do not see the inclusion of male/male or female/female couples as an expansion of the definition. Polygamous marriage, on the other hand, would be an expansion.
The absurdity of defining marriage partners by gender
I loved this article written by a postoperative male to female transsexual about her marriage. She was originally married as a man and remained married to the same woman after her legal gender identity had been changed to female. If laws regarding marriage rest on gender--what happens when we realize that gender has no absolute definition?
In some states (but not all)--gender is legally defined by presence or absence of a y chromosone. So a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome, as the author points out, would be considered "male" even though they might be completely female in appearance.
This quotation from the lawyer representing a self-identified woman, Mrs. Littleton who chromosonally was male really gets at the absurdity of trying to legislate around something like gender identity. (The case involved Mrs. Littleton suing a physician in regard to the wrongful death of her husband--the court found that her marriage was invalid and she could not sue):
“Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
Is My Marriage Gay?