Marriage? Or equal rights for all relationships?

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ I have been working on a News Letter and Web Site. In the process of looking for materials and inspirations, I came across a Booklet distributed anonymously during the Gay Pride Parade 2005 New York City, and transcribed by actup/New York. I have been reviewing the claims, and besides updates and reformatting, trying to document any claims I can find documentation for. The following claim gives me cause to think, and I wonder what this wonderful group thinks about this statement.

But check out your motivation: Are you fighting for straight society’s blessing?

Or are you fighting for equal rights and opportunities? Because if you’re concerned about hospital visitation, child custody, immigration and asylum, health insurance, and the hundreds of other material benefits marriage brings, then fight to make them available to everyone, Not just married couples. The state should encourage bonds of mutual support with whomever we trust — friends, lovers, roommates, relatives, neighbors, comrades, you name it — Not just husband or wife. Isn’t a point of our movement to give people more options, Not fewer?

[pnggrad79]

Hey Dragon,
Your quote has some valid points. I will have to ruminate on it some more. I don't necessarily want straight society's blessing, I just want my relationship to my wife to be sanctioned and blessed. I think there is a difference between the relationships a married couple has and that of friends. Inherent in a marriage relationship is the concept of commitment, love,perseverance, etc. In some, not all, friendships, you have those same concepts, but it is not "till death do us part". It seems to me that friendships come and go, and marriages should have a stronger level of commitment.

My whole problem with this marriage debate is that the straight people want to belittle our relationships and tell us that we can't possible have the same feelings and levels of commitment that they do-that is preposterous at best.
Some of the marriages I have seen have so little commitment and love, but the state sanctions that as holy and how it should be. My question is "Who the hell does the state think they are telling me who I can love?"

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by pnggrad79

I think there is a difference between the relationships a married couple has and that of friends. Inherent in a marriage relationship is the concept of commitment, love,perseverance, etc. In some, not all, friendships, you have those same concepts, but it is not "till death do us part". It seems to me that friendships come and go, and marriages should have a stronger level of commitment.

» Thom says: ☛ Funny thing, according to the wording of the First Amendment, Government cannot really tell a religious society who they can or cannot join in union. The Government is in the business of granting legal sanctions, and this is where our fight is, really. As an Ordained Minister, I can Join a couple in Marriage: It is a religious rite of passage, not one the government can get involved with. The problem starts when I put my signature as Minister on the Licence so it can become a legal document.

[novaseeker]

Are you fighting for straight society’s blessing?

Or are you fighting for equal rights and opportunities? Because if you’re concerned about hospital visitation, child custody, immigration and asylum, health insurance, and the hundreds of other material benefits marriage brings, then fight to make them available to everyone, Not just married couples. The state should encourage bonds of mutual support with whomever we trust — friends, lovers, roommates, relatives, neighbors, comrades, you name it — Not just husband or wife. Isn’t a point of our movement to give people more options, Not fewer?

With respect, this isn't our struggle. As I see it, our struggle is on the much more narrow issue of equal protection for LGBT people under the law, period. It isn't being the labouring oar on a broader political agenda that seeks to alter the entire playing field of human relationships, and undermine the admittedly privileged position that marriage occupies. That's exactly what the most vocal and fierce opponents of gay marriage accuse us of trying to do, and when we actively pursue that strategy, we merely confirm their worst fears.

Of course, I'm fairly biased about this, because I'm a big believer in the institution of marriage. I think that the state does have a legitimate interest in encouraging more stable, long-term relationships for numerous reasons running from the stabilizing effect these relationships have on society and social relations, to the economic activity encouraged by such relationsips (including home ownership, long-term investment, etc.), the raising of children, and the like. Marriage (or whatever other word we choose to use for a long-term committed relationship acknowledged by the state) deserves to be encouraged by the state by the basket of benefits, obligations, duties and consequences that inhere in marriage under current law. Marriage isn't the problem, as I see it. The problem is that some people (namely LGBT people) are being -- wrongfully in my view -- excluded from those same benefits attaching to their own long-term committed relationships.

My whole problem with this marriage debate is that the straight people want to belittle our relationships and tell us that we can't possible have the same feelings and levels of commitment that they do-that is preposterous at best.

I agree that it is preposterous, but I think that the argument generally revolves around fecundity and children -- in other words, the argument is that even though gay and lesbian couples may have the same degree of commitment to each other as straight couples, the state shouldn't place gay and lesbian relationships on the same level as committed straight relationships because the latter are fecund and (can) produce offspring, whereas the former cannot, and the state has a clear interest in perpetuating the population and thereby "encouraging" heterosexual marriage by making it exclusively available to heterosexuals. Among the many problems with this, gof course, is the reality that not all straight couples have kids (or even can have kids), and that plenty of gay and lesbian couples have kids either through adoption or in-vitro as Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are now famously doing. As the conservative commentator Joshua Goldberg has himself admitted, the argument against gay marriage based on children is now very weak because of the de facto proliferation of gay and lesbian couples with children all over America.

So when the children argument falls away, what you're left with is the bare bones of bigotry -- either based on religion, as we see in Dobson and similar folks, or based on non-religious heterosexism and what I like to call the "ick factor". The former we're all pretty well aware of, I think. The latter is what I like to think of as NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Backyard-ism) as applied to LGBT people. In other words, it's fine for LGBT people to do what they like, live with their partners and so forth, but don't pretend that you're on the same level as we heterosexual couples are, because if that happens, you'll be living down the street in suburb X, attending my kids' birthday parties, showing up at the pool party with your "partner", coming to the PTA and all of that, and while I do not mind what you do in your own time, I do not want you in my face like that. That's, I think, the biggest non-religion-based bias against allowing gay marriage that we face.

[pnggrad79]

I agree that NIMBYism is our greatest struggle,and the more we hide our lives and give their fear and bigotry some fuel, we give them the idea that we really do have something to be ashamed of. We need to be their neighbors, and we need to be at the PTA meetings, and the soccer games. It's like we need to remove the differences and show them that we lead normal lives just like they do. The problem as I see it is we fight a terrible image-the one that says we have committment problems and we are promiscuous drug uses and drunks, and our relationships don't have much on which to build.

Not only does the straight community not want us in their backyard, they don't want to live next door to a driveway that has a different car in it every night. That is the image I think that we need to fight. Many times the same could be said for straight people, but again we are forced to live in a double standard.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

With respect, this isn't our struggle. As I see it, our struggle is on the much more narrow issue of equal protection for LGBT people under the law, period.

» Thom says: ☛ Technically, the 14th amendment already grants us the rights we need. The 13th through 15th amendments took over a century before being to humans, and it took that long and a lot of blood shed to enforce the 13th amendment. It also took a special amendment (19th) to apply suffrage to women. This, I think is where our political battle actually is, ensuring that we don’t go back to the days when some people could be classified as second class humans. If they take our constitutionally guaranteed rights from us, who will be next? Africans? Irish? Women?

Amendment XIV ∴ Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[novaseeker]

Technically, the 14th amendment already grants us the rights we need.

I believe that, too, but constitutional law is a bit like revelation ... that is, the truth of the 14th amendment's application to same sex marriage has not been "revealed" yet ....

This, I think is where our political battle actually is, ensuring that we don’t go back to the days when some people could be classified as second class humans. If they take our constitutionally guaranteed rights from us, who will be next? Africans? Irish? Women?

It's true enough, but most Africans, Irish and women don't see it that way. LGBT is, taken as a whole, a very small minority, and other, larger, minority groups often resent it when LGBT people refer to our issues as civil rights issues, for example. So while the risk is there, the effort to convince others of that risk is disproportionate to the results. Tactically, I think we're better off focusing on our issues as we have been doing: on the state level in the courts and state houses and, once we have a favorable line-up on the Supreme Court and a case with the right facts, on that level as well. I don't think it will be anytime soon that we will convince other minority groups, to a large degree, to be in solidarity with our issues, based on my own anecdotal experience.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

I believe that, too, but constitutional law is a bit like revelation ... that is, the truth of the 14th amendment's application to same sex marriage has not been "revealed" yet ....

» Thom says: ☛ True, we have abused and misused the constitution. The 14th amendment took over a century before being to humans, and it took that long and a lot of blood shed to enforce the 13th amendment. It also took a special amendment (19th) to apply suffrage to women. But it did happen.

Originally Posted by novaseeker

It's true enough, but most Africans, Irish and women don't see it that way. LGBT is, taken as a whole, a very small minority, and other, larger, minority groups often resent it when LGBT people refer to our issues as civil rights issues, for example. So while the risk is there, the effort to convince others of that risk is disproportionate to the results. Tactically, I think we're better off focusing on our issues as we have been doing: on the state level in the courts and state houses and, once we have a favorable line-up on the Supreme Court and a case with the right facts, on that level as well. I don't think it will be anytime soon that we will convince other minority groups, to a large degree, to be in solidarity with our issues, based on my own anecdotal experience.

» Thom says: ☛ Religious Fascists would have us eliminate the 14th amendment from applying to some citizens simply because of whom we love and whom we are intimate with. When they are finished with glbtq, who would be next? Blacks? Jews? Don’t think it would happen? We are still treating Native Americans like prisoners of a war they did not start. The rhetoric used against glbtq, was once used against Africans, Women, and even Irish and German immigrants.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.
Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.
And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
(Martin Niemöller)

We are really the canaries. In NAZI Germany they started with the Fags. Each of the Crusades started with an assault on Fags and Jews together, then the Gnostics and Heretics. We know this, some Jews know this. We need only remind the rest of the alleged minorities of this review of history.

[novaseeker]

Religious Fascists would have us eliminate the 14th amendment from applying to some citizens simply because of whom we love and whom we are intimate with. When they are finished with glbtq, who would be next? Blacks? Jews? Don’t think it would happen? We are still treating Native Americans like prisoners of a war they did not start. The rhetoric used against glbtq, was once used against Africans, Women, and even Irish and German immigrants.

I don't disagree ... but the problem is that many Africans/women/immigrants, etc. are also (1) anti-LGBT and/or (2) resentful when LGBT people compare our own struggle to theirs because "your behavior is a choice and not like my gender or skin color". That's what I mean. From our perspective, it's easy to draw parallels, but in my own anecdotal experience of trying to draw these parallels with people in my own life who suffer from other kinds of discrimination, there is often disagreement and/or resentment encountered that we would view ourselves in a way similar to them. More education is needed, clearly.

[nmwolfboy]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

I don't disagree ... but in my own anecdotal experience of trying to draw these parallels with people in my own life who suffer from other kinds of discrimination, there is often disagreement and/or resentment encountered that we would view ourselves in a way similar to them.

This is reflected in my experience as well. In addition, i've sometimes encountered a similar resentment from acquaintances who have stated that they don't believe that gay white men provided any appreciable help in the civil rights struggles of people of color and/or women. Kind of an "oh, NOW you're a part of the civil rights struggle. Where were you when we were/are demanding OUR civil rights?"

Of course, the civil rights struggles of women & people of color don't occur in a vacuum. There have always been people of all racial backgrounds and all genders and all sexual orientations engaged in those battles.

i've reached the realization that i have been and still am a benefiiciary of male privilege, white privilege & class privilege. It's part of the background of our society, and i was benefitting from it before i even knew it existed, and that other people were excluded. So, once that realization occurs, do i joyously follow the example of Christ and challenge the injustice, or meekly continue to accept the unfair benefits granted by an accident of birth?

The truth is that i try to challenge the injustice and also increase my understanding, but i know i often fail. So, i seek the help of God. i pray. i keep trying. Work in progress....

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by nmwolfboy

This is reflected in my experience as well. In addition, i've sometimes encountered a similar resentment from acquaintances who have stated that they don't believe that gay white men provided any appreciable help in the civil rights struggles of people of color and/or women. Kind of an "oh, NOW you're a part of the civil rights struggle. Where were you when we were/are demanding OUR civil rights?"

» Thom says: ☛ I guess they will ignore the blacks and women who resisted suffrage because they didn’t want to see anything changed. And I guess they don’t know about Harvey Milk, and others like him. And I guess they ignore the fact that just about every woman involved in the suffrage and abolition movements were involved in a Boston Marriage.

I guess they think they are the only ones who have ten to twenty tie them to a post and smash their heads in and then kill them again just for good measure.

True, it is easy to hide if you are a gay WASP, and not queeny or fairy or just slightly effeminate. I wonder, though, who are all those queens of color? Are they just WASP with an incredible makeup job?

I find it funny that being black and queer was not a problem until being black was no longer a legal problem. Now, the “Legal” blacks have a problem with Queers regardless of color?

I know, history lessons are often lost on those who have learned to hate, especially if that hate is useful for making “Us” look better than “Them.” And pointing out that this was one of the crimes of Sodom according to Ezekiel 16.48 would also be lost on them.

[Diane Vera]

As for same-sex marriage vs. extending various benefits to other kinds of relationships, II would say tha both are desirable goals. I favor same-sex marriage because it's something a lot of GLBT people passionately want, and because, in at least a few states such as New York, it's a politically feasible goal, probably attainable within the next few years if not this year, so we might as well go for it. But, like it or not, there are a lot of people -- and, in particular, a lot of gay men -- whom the monogamous marriage model just doesn't fit.

Some people in this thread have argued for same-sex marraige on the grounds that gay men and lesbians should try to win acceptance by proving that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else. Although I do favor same-sex marriage, I most certainly do NOT favor the strategy of trying to prove that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else.

Problem with this strategy: Where do you draw the line? Who do you have to throw out of the movement in order to squeeze lesbians and gay men into the Procrustean bed of "normality"? For example, should butch lesbians and "effeminate" gay men be thrown out of the movement? Back in the 1970's and 1980's, there were big fights about this sort of thing within what was then called the "lesbian and gay rights movement." There were fights about bisexuality, and there were fights about gender. Eventually, pretty near everyone in the movement saw the light about the need for inclusiveness, and the "lesbian and gay" movement becaume the "LGBT" or "GLBT" movement. Various other segments of the GLBT community, too, had to fight for their right to march in Gay Pride parades. Eventually, at least in the more liberal major cities, it was decided to allow groups representing just about every segment of the GLBT community except for pedophiles.

It seems to me that the GLBT movement should stand on the principle of the right to be different from the norm in matters of sexuality and gender as long as one lives one's life in a responsible manner. What does it mean to be responsible? Obviously, a man having "bareback" sex with a whole bunch of strangers is irresponsible. But this doesn't mean that monogomous marriage is the only responsible option. It seems to me that the GLBT community needs responsible nonmonogamous alternatives to be promoted as well.

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ ‹Waves ecstatically toward Diana and shouts “Hay, Diana, didn’t expect to see you here! Glad you could join us!” Then feeling the various stares on him, sheepishly pulls his hand down and tries to find a rock to hide under.›

Originally Posted by Diane Vera

As for same-sex marriage vs. extending various benefits to other kinds of relationships, ... Some people in this thread have argued for same-sex marraige on the grounds that gay men and lesbians should try to win acceptance by proving that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else. Although I do favor same-sex marriage, I most certainly do NOT favor the strategy of trying to prove that gay men and lesbians are just like everyone else. ... It seems to me that the GLBT movement should stand on the principle of the right to be different from the norm in matters of sexuality and gender as long as one lives one's life in a responsible manner. What does it mean to be responsible?

» Thom says: ☛ I think I am in agreement with the PinkTank, that marriage equality is not in our best interest. Statistically speaking, a Christian Fundamentalist is 50% likely to get a divorce for reasons of inequality and sexual infidelity. On the other hand, there really are no laws that prevent a couple from getting married regardless of the gender mix. The laws only determine what marriages we legally recognize.

It is in that legal recognition that some of us think the fight ought to rest on. Why should we punish or privilege a couple for being married? And who said marriage is necessary for children to be born? Many a child goes without one of their parents for many reasons. Should the remaining parent wish a family member, friend, or nanny to watch over their child in the hospital until they can get there, why should we refuse them? What, because their genes aren’t in the child? And with so many children weighing the welfare system down waiting to be adopted, why should the gender combination of a couple be so big a concern? Wouldn’t the desire to have the child — which is the only way a gay couple will have a child — be preferred over “Oops, sorry, didn’t see that one coming. Well, we can see the doctor about that, can’t we?”

Like yourself, Diana, I think there is a line where my beliefs on a subject must remain on paper with no authority over anyone save myself. I believe our fight is a little fuzzy, just now, focusing on marriage and military rights. We can change the laws until Ragnor Rocks the skies; without changes in attitudes the laws will continue to go unenforced. I mean, technically, the rights are already there, written within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. And yet, it took over a hundred years to get the emancipation amendments to be applied to the people they intended it for, or any people (we fought for labor rights under this aegis).

fwiw, though, I think in a round about way, fighting for marriage and military rights will get that job done. The more we struggle for these symbolic victories, the more the loyal oppression will fight, violently, and lose more credibility among the uncommited and those just leaning in their direction. Give them enough rope and the jenny-ass will run free.