Is Gay Marriage the Wrong Issue?

[Northern_Imager]

While reading a blog on Beliefnet I read a comment about the blog written by Bob Ostertag. Ostertag is a gay man and in his comment he linked to a blog article that he had written on the Huffington Post titled "Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue." Ostertag is a historian, journalist, composer and writer on contemporary politics. Here is the link to the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_152717.html

I found his view an interesting read that I have to consider. I'd like to know what others of you think of it. Here are some quotes from the article but by all means go and read the entire article.

It's just plain sad what the gay and lesbian movement has come to. November 4 was so extraordinary, so magical. The whole world seemed to come together. Except for gays and lesbians in California. We were supposed to feel crushed over Proposition 8. And now the whole scenario is gearing up to repeat itself on January 20: the whole world will celebrate the inauguration of the first black American president and the end of the George Bush insanity - the whole world except gays and lesbians who will be protesting Rick Warren's presence at the inaugural…

"Gay marriage" turns the real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities upside down and paints us into a reactionary little corner of our own making. Yes, married people get special privileges denied to others. Denied not to just gays and lesbians, but to all others. Millions of straight people remain unmarried, and for a huge variety of reasons, from mothers whose support networks do not include their children's fathers, to hipsters who can't relate to religious institutions. We could be making common cause with them. We could be fighting for equal rights for everyone, not just gays and lesbians, but for all unmarried people. In the process we would leave religious institutions to define marriage however their members see fit…

We have done the opposite. Instead of tearing down the walls of privilege enjoyed by the nuclear family, we are demanding our own place at the married couples' table (leaving all those other unmarried people out in the cold)…

With the state granting its blessing to homosexual nuclear families emerging from City Hall, husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife, with the photographer and the rice and the whole bit, finally having become just like them?

Not for me. Not for my family, with its various men, each of whom I love in a different way, a child, and two moms. Not that my family is any sort of queer norm. But that's the beautiful thing about queer culture: there is no norm. We piece together our families, holding on to those relationships that work…

The fact is most of us won't marry even if we have the right to. We are putting all our resources into winning a right that only the few of us in long-term conventional couple relationships will enjoy…

We have now come to the point that many unthinkingly equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia.

Rick Warren is now the flash point, the one all our political allies, even Barack Obama, are supposed to denounce because he doesn't pass gay marriage the litmus test…

I disagree with Rick Warren on many things...

Then, for those of you who are truly concerned with marriage above and beyond the issue of rights, you should go to your church, or synagogue, or mosque, and have that battle. In your community of fellow believers. I wish you all the best. And the rest of us can move on to things that matter to everyone, regardless of religious beliefs. Like, say, global warming…

I am delighted that there is a new generation of evangelicals that thinks the biggest issue isn't homosexuality but global climate change, AIDS, and poverty. And who "don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles." I am so ready to make common cause with them. I couldn't care less about what they think of gay marriage.[/COLOR]

[Northern_Imager]

Here is another interesting quote from the Ostertag blog

Steve Waldman, founder of Belief.net (where you find the most thoughtful exchanges on present day religion), did an extended interview with Warren which has been hyped all over the blogosphere as an example of why we should all be screaming for Obama to disinvite Warren from the inaugural. The quote that got all the attention was when Warren said gay marriage would be on a par with marriage for incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And yes, I think that's off-base. Not up there are the scale of the whole God-sent-his-only-Son-to-die-on-a-cross bit, but weird nonetheless. But let's look the rest of the interview, the parts that didn't get as much attention as that one line:

Q: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage?
A: [laughs] That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it.

Q: So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?
A: Oh we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? [Note: Warren is quite overweight.]

Q: Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?
A: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

Q: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
A: You know, not a problem with me.

I have an idea: let's accept equal rights for all. Equal rights are the issue when it comes to national politics. That's Obama's position, and I think he has it right.

[Matt Algren]

The real issue isn't marriage, of course. The issue is equality. Marriage is just the issue that the fundamentalists pushed to the fore eight or however many years ago.

Ultimately, when this (God willing) reaches the Supreme Court, the judgement we're looking for would validate our status as equals in regard to equal protection and the Constitutional right to privacy that many (including President-elect Obama) believe is implied by the verbage and content of other rights. The ruling would affect not just marriage rights, but could be extrapolated out pretty much without end.

To make a comparison, when the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that Oliver Brown had a right to send his children to the traditionally whites-only school that was a couple blocks from his house rather than the traditionally minority-only school across town, the judgement didn't just stop there. By changing the official reading of the Constitution, it went on to fundamentally change other discriminatory policies.

[nmwolfboy]

Thanks for the link to a thought-provoking article. i'll be mulling it over for a while.

My view of the advocacy for same-gender marriage has changed over time. i used to hold a position closer to what Ostertag outlines. Now i'm for full civil marriage for lgbt couples. Perhaps it will continue to change. But the SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, and since that's the case then it should apply to gay couples as well. The unanimous 1967 SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia states:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[sauu4equality]

Valid points. However, until being gay is normalized(thru civil marriage) none of those issues will ever be explored. Many in society feel that marriage is the best place to raise children. This is why gay marriage has a chance. Eventually, we'll have to show that the nuclear family isn't the only positive environment to raise a child. Currently, two parent families (gay or straight) have been the only ones studied. This discussion shows us what a grip the church still has on our society. Single people have been discriminated against for devades w/o complaint.

[nmwolfboy]

At the risk of appearing to be someone who toadies to Andrew Sullivan's line, here's a bit more from him relating to the Warren tempest. Even though i often disagree with him, he does provoke some thought. This time i think i agree more than not.
The key point about marriage rights for gays, after all, is that they do not affect or change marriage rights for straights. No one's rights are removed. In fact, as I have discovered, straight family members often find their own marriages affirmed by their gay siblings' commitment. It is win-win - an expansion of freedom and social stability. And the key to succeeding as a civil rights movement, as King taught us, is never to give in to the intolerance of the other side by engaging in it yourself; never engage in violence or intimidation; never try to force anyone to do anything they do not want to do; always respect others' consciences.

And this is why I think gay people of faith have a central role to play now. In the battle between a frightened fundamentalism and a wounded gay community, we are called to be healers and bridge builders. This is our Christian obligation, the part we have to play. The dynamic between the short-term pleasure of power and the long-term argument for freedom affects all civil rights movements. The central element in the success of black civil rights was the role of Christianity in tempering and guiding and restraining the temptations of power in favor of the deferred promises of freedom and charity. Gay Christians are needed now as much as ever to help in that task, however hard it can be to swallow the spiritual hurt and to rise above it in charity. I know how hard that is, and I haven't met the standard always myself. I'm not preaching; I'm just saying what I've learned - in prayer and in action.

Every day, with everyone you meet, do what you can.The rest can be read here (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/freedom-or-powe.html).

[Matt Algren]

That reminds me; I was surprised when I went to the big Prop 8 protest in November and there was absolutely no faith presence. There's even a MCC and a Reconciling UMC in town. It really took me aback.

[tdogg]

That reminds me; I was surprised when I went to the big Prop 8 protest in November and there was absolutely no faith presence. There's even a MCC and a Reconciling UMC in town. It really took me aback.

We have a great affirming faith contingency here in the Sacramento area (or should I say CA). I just attended an interfaith meeting where we brainstormed ideas to proceed with our grass efforts/groundwork, reaching out and trying to bridge the gap between GLBT and moderate or split congregation churches (some members affirming, some not). We had several faith groups march in Pride this year, and are preparing to get a group for the MLK march on Jan 16th. I believe, at least in CA, we shall see more faith groups involved in GLBT events and in standing for equality.

This battle isn't about marriage rights or gay rights. It's about equal treatment under the laws of the government, whether it be local, state or federal. We have a longer way to go federally - or maybe not - but in the end we are aiming for full equality under all aspects of the government and law. Equal rights, privileges and protections.

I celebrate diversity and appreciate various points of view (even yours NI). But until we are all treated the same by our government and under the law, there will always be discrimination and room for others to blatantly treat others differently. People will always feel gays are bad and sinful and equate us with criminals and the like. Our children will get treated differently, grow up to feel differently. We shall continue to have struggling GLBT youth, drug and alcohol addictions, suicides, and hate crimes. Equality might not end it all, but it certainly will reduce our tragic stats greatly. It's not a gay issue, its a human issue.

[Daniel]

Not according to the State of New Jersey which just released a report showing that civil unions are inferior to marriage.

Matt is right, the matter is about equality. And the article, I believe, is dead wrong. 18 thousand couples got married in California alone this last year. Does that mean that every gay couple will choose to get married in the future if they can? Of course not. Not any more that straight couples get married.

Marriage, for good or ill, is the vehicle by which two people care for each other. I would posit that we will have much greater success being part of marriage than if the goal is to do away with marriage altogether. The latter course is not feasible in my opinion.

As the saying goes, if you can't beat'em, join'em. ;)

[wmanion]

That the issue is the wrong issue. Why? So, we will settle for less. What next...partial inheritance rights? Partial say so when our loved ones are in the hospital? Partial tax credits and privileges? Partial involvement in our children's future? Equal but not really? Partial equality is not equality at all...it is just a facade for the real thing.

Bill

[tdogg]

I have a friend who spent the better part of the last four years and a lot of money fighting the courts and his deceased partner's mother to settle the estate. Had he been married, there would have been no question as to his right to inherit his partner's estate. However, the mother put up a fight and because it was merely a domestic partnership, the struggle ensued, costing 4 years of my friend's life and upwards of nearly $80,000. He will end up with half of everything, the other half going to the mother.

This would probably never happen to married couples. Just another example of how separate isn't equal.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Seems to me the major error in the "marriage is the wrong issue" argument is the assumption that marriage is primarily or soley a religious issue. I think that assumption is 100 percent wrong. Marriage is primarily a secular issue. Religion should have no role in "defining" marriage in the secular law.

Another part of this "wrong issue" argument is an anti-marriage philosophy that would prefer that there was no legal recognition of marriage at all. That's an interesting argument, I suppose, for some folks--but I'm not much interested in it. I think setting out to "abolish marriage" is probably more likely to be a "lost cause" kind of issue.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

While reading a blog on Beliefnet I read a comment about the blog written by Bob Ostertag. Ostertag is a gay man and in his comment he linked to a blog article that he had written on the Huffington Post titled "Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue." Ostertag is a historian, journalist, composer and writer on contemporary politics. Here is the link to the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_152717.html

Was that satire?

[Alecto]

I've never seeen such terrible arguments for what might be a good point.
Here's the deal: I literally have an issue with the way "family" is defined. I have a friend that lives with two girlfriends. Legally speaking, the parents that disowned her are still her "family" and still have legal rights, and the two people she lives with, cooks with, eats with, laughs with and cries with have no legal connection to her. In many ways, I wouldn't mind giving up the word "marriage" (on the books) if there really was federal equality. I'm not naive enough to necessarily fall for the idea that there would be, but on a theoretical level, that would be ok with me IF there was also a way to just gain legal recognition of ANYONE as your family. We're not necessarily talking about marriage, or what that implies.

It's foolish to pretend that the word "marriage" doesn't appear on our law books. or that having a different word for the same concept for different people wouldn't present all kinds of legal problems. But I guess what I'm saying is that, if I woke up tomorrow in a world where marriage equality was a reality on a federal (or hey, since we're dreaming, an international!) level, there would still be families that are every bit as legitimate as those supported by marriage who would be left out in the cold.

[BenL]

It seems to me that what the objectors to gay marriage as the top LGBT issue are really against is what might be called married privilege.

Yes, there are all those hundreds of rights that heterosexuals now enjoy in marriage ... but why should they only be accessible via marriage? ... or so might the argument go.

Those of us who are older remember ... sometimes painfully, sometimes humorously ... being nagged by family (read: our mothers) about when we were going to settle down and get married. That suggests a new twist on the old joke about the Yiddish mama who cried out in a crowded theater: "Is there a doctor in the house?" "I'm a doctor," came the reply. "OY, have I got a gay boy for you!"

Which is all to say that being married, in a committed, legal relationship with one other person, is not the only way to live one's life. Years ago, gay men celebrated being single as part of their protest against hetero norms. Even today, many gay men don't want to get married precisely because it apes the heterosexist majority. Not to mention that they haven't found Mr. Right.

I'm married, and I think that anyone who wants to get married should have the right to do so. But those of us who are married shouldn't then turn the tables on our single friends and their ways of living their lives. I don't think we would intend to, but there can be a certain smugness about being married, especially when it seems so right for you.

We as a community need to remember that marriage is only one of many civil rights we are fighting for. In many ways, nondiscrimination legislation such as ENDA is much more basic to our lives than gay marriage as an issue.

[BruceChris]

I don't think so. It is definitely the biggest one we have, and we do seem to be winning. We've got a lot of the rest of the Western world with us. It won't go away unless we let it fail, and then we will only be the worse for allowing that to happen.

It gives us more visibility than almost any other issue could, and I think it shows us in a positive light. Our family values in many ways reflect theirs, even if that is the LAST thing they're willing to admit.

Becoming husbands and husbands, or wives and wives cannot possibly be seen as attempts to facilitate promiscuity, or any other form of irresponsible behavior.

However, by making us more visible and respectable, it would be forcing upon the Religious Right exactly what they DON'T want. We would be taking away their paper tiger.

And none of us could EVER go back in the closet, once married.

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protesters21-2008dec21,0,2720387.story

Gay couple won't let Proposition 8 steal their dream

Two men who moved from Ohio to California to marry continue to protest the measure's passage.