thomascwaters.com

This is an article first published last year, and written by John Micek of the Morning Call. Published here with permission.

Have attitudes changed here about same-sex marriage?

Explain It to me!

May 06, 2009| By John Micek Of The Morning Call

Q. Are attitudes changing about same-sex marriage? The hot-button issue that was once front and center in the Culture Wars recently has been in the headlines. Iowa and New Hampshire have sanctioned same-sex unions, and legislation is moving in New York and Maine. How do people feel about that now?

A: Pennsylvania law bans same-sex marriage, and foes have made repeated attempts to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

But a recent Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows that public attitudes statewide are softening on the controversial issue.

Fifty one percent of Pennsylvania residents oppose granting same-sex couples who marry the same rights as traditional marriages, down from 54 percent in a 2004 Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll.

More people today (42 percent) say gay marriage should be recognized, up from 35 percent who said that in 2004.

Similarly, public support for civil unions has increased from 54 percent five years ago to 61 percent in 2009.

“In many ways, gay rights issues remain highly polarizing in Pennsylvania,” Muhlenberg pollster Christopher Borick said. “But, when you look over time, you see a gradual acceptance of both civil unions and gay marriage.”

Residents remain divided on whether to amend the state Constitution to outlaw gay and lesbian marriage. Forty-five percent oppose such an amendment, 44 percent support it, a statistically insignificant difference.

Despite the ambiguity, Pennsylvanians are united on one thing: Same-sex marriage isn’t a campaign issue. Six in 10 respondents said a candidate’s stance on the issue would not determine whether they support the candidate, compared to 34 percent who said it did.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg canvass of 446 adults was conducted from March 9 to March 31. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

– John L. Micek, Call Harrisburg Bureau

The linked article is about the mayor of Turin Italy who performed a symbolic wedding ceremony for two lesbians. My first thought when I read it, was how big this was given the control of the Vatican in Italy. But another aspect of it then settled into my head.

Here in the US, a few strategies have been tried when it comes to selling same-sex marriage. One of these, is to focus on the “civil” part of civil marriage. Same-sex couples who already live in committed relationships,  but they are denied the 1400+ rights and privileges that straight couples take for granted. In other words, it is a simple issue of equality and being treated the same as others. Another strategy has been to focus on the fact that gay families do already exist, and are all around us. Ads such as those used in the Maine battle showed same-sex families- they brought a real human face to the issue.

I have for the most part, focused on the first. It is logical, and non-confrontational. I have felt that it is also the best argument when trying to battle the religious fanatics because it has nothing to do with moral judgement. I have believed that the second strategy is as important, if not more important, but promoting the message, “our families are just like your families” has never really sat well with me. How I am alike a straight person is not why I deserve to be treated equal. My similarity or difference is not the deciding factor. All americans deserve to be treated equally. Period.

But another side of this issue is every bit as real as these, and one I have known, but haven’t really addressed, and it is this one that has all the religious crazies in such a tizzy. Getting married is a way that humans validate their commitment to each other, and set the stage for building a life together. The CEREMONY of it, including all the ritual and hoopla is important and meaningful and these things are every bit as valuable as the 1400+ rights that follow.

I have written quite a bit about the gender role basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage: God the Father and Son; the dutiful virgin mother; the church understood as Christ’s bride; even Adam and Eve. So much of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy relies upon gender roles and a male dominated power system. Same-sex marriage defies those gender and power dynamics and threatens the very nature of the Church’s (as institution) control of our lives.

The ceremony of marriage itself, spare and minimal expressed as a set of questions before a Justice of the Peace, or elaborately expressed through a series of rituals and vows called a Wedding, does something essential, by bonding two individuals together  within a community to be something that didn’t already exist. To be a family.

In some regard our oppressors are correct- same-sex marriage is a redefinition of family. Where they are wrong however is in suggesting that without same-sex marriage , family only means what they claim it does. Family has been redefined by many for a very long time. We are just giving voice to that reality. They are also wrong when they suggest that a redefinition of family will invalidate the meaning and value of their own marriages. The success or failure of straight marriages  is based entirely on the individuals within them, and not on some rule about what is supposed to be. This is why the “sanctity of marriage” argument is so laughable. Even if there was never a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to marry, it isn’t hard to look around and see the institution of marriage crumbling – families destroyed by lies, selfishness, betrayal,all that goes with these behaviors.

The creation of family happens regardless of the gender of the participants. Straight couples and gay couples, and the strength of those commitments over time are not dependent on the gender differences of the two participants. Doesn’t every family deserve the right to begin with a ceremony?

My partner and I have been together for 12 years, but we are not married in the legal sense. If one day we get married, it won’t be the ceremony itself that defines us as a family. It has been 12 years of work that has done that. The strength of our commitment to each other, and how that bond has been strengthened  or tested through the bad as well as the good times. We have not had a perfect relationship. But there is no doubt that it has been a strong, meaningful, and enduring relationship.

I remember as a young man just coming out as gay, reading that I would never be happy. The straight powers that be, have tried to define who we are as gays and lesbians, and tried to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable. Yet, they have been utterly wrong at every turn.  I have had a full , happy and amazing life that I wouldn’t trade for anything! For gays and lesbians, demanding same-sex marriage is one more step in the process of gays and lesbians defining themselves instead of allowing others to define us. For our culture around us, allowing same-sex marriage is simply an act of acknowledging what already exists- that family already means more than what a rigid gender-role definition suggests.

Turin, Italy Mayor ‘Marries’ Lesbian Couple in Symbolic Ceremony – Towleroad, More than gay news. More gay men.

“The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage,” said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church’s public affairs office.

The Mormon Church has been extremely active in supporting anti-gay marriage battle, and may be recognizing how their previous strategy is a recipe for a back fire, because the strategy has changed. The accusation is that those who are opposed to Marriage Equality do so, because they really want to discriminate in any way against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Proponents of full equality and equal rights have labeled the opposition as bigots, and now, they are recognizing that label as damaging to their goal. The church is not speaking of this as a change in strategy, claiming that it was articulated in an August 2008 statement.

But August 2008 is really not that long ago.

The LDS identifies their goals here:

…the LDS Church “does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

“The church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman,” he said.

This may be a more gay-positive stance than that taken by far-right groups like the National Organization forMarriage (NOM) and draws a line in the sand that everyone should be able to understand. But the real problem is that Marriage Equality does neither, and so their arguments against it are irrelevant. Marriage Equality doesn’t force any church to do anything against their religion, so the second point is moot. Their first point, gets a bit muddier, because 1) it assumes that the “integrity of the family” is a set concept easy to define, and that currently exists, and 2) is linked solely and completely to the gender of the parents of a family. The integrity of the family, in other words is all about procreation, at least for the Mormons.

Before going any further, this is a positive development to see the LDS take a public step forward for the rights of gay and lesbians. But otherwise, this is the same old stuff we have been battling and must continue to battle. There is no mention of bisexual, or trans rights in this ordinance, and no protection in public accommodations. So, at least gay people can work, but they can still be refused a hotel room or a seat in a restaurant.

A more interesting story appears if you read down through the comments following the blog post. Here, in the comments is where we see the actual position of Mormons begin to be expressed. Some folks are outraged that their church would say anything supportive of gay people at all. Other see this very matter-of-factly and support it- for them the church is acting fairly and reasonably here, and except for the failure of the ordinance to protect bisexuals and trans people, and failure to include public accommodations, I completely agree.  The line in the sand, is the biblical and/or church ownership of marriage, and GLBTQ activists need to come to grips with that. If we continue to fail to understand the line in the sand, we will continue to fall short in ever battle against our opponents.

I am not suggesting we should accept their line in the sand, rather we have to quit fighting against the wrong enemy! We can say this is hate-based and use the catchy “NoH8,” but in doing so, our attempt to reframe the battle as one of love vs hate misses the mark. They are winning the battle when it comes to framing the issue! The real enemy is a restrictive and unsupportable notion that marriage is between one man and one woman. The enemy is the false notion that the integrity of the family is dependent upon a household with a male and female parent. This is the framing of the issue and the rhetoric we must learn how to confront and beat.

via Deseret News | Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City.

Saw a short blurb about this on Gayapolis, and the link below is to the original post on FiveThirtyEight.com. Nate Silver re-examiones his model for marriage bans to consider the upcoming Maine election. The piece is a good read, and the bottom line is that Nate feels it could be a very close race.

I think there are two things that may make the difference in this election: turnout and message. Because it is an off-year election, no one is quite sure who will get more voters to the polls. Without a doubt, those opposed to gay marriage will be working hard on this one. Their TV campaigns are designed to initiate a fear response which can easily translate into votes. As an off-year, an older population is also more likely to vote, and that may be a group more opposed to gay marriage. The anti-gay fringe of the Republican party really really needs a big win too, and the party is looking for something to get them back on track. A win against gay marriage will enbolden them to see themselves as the family values party again, and help them sweep under the carpet recent sex scandals. I don’t think we should underestimate how crucial a win is for the family values folks, and they are willing to do almost anything to get it.

The other important issue is message. Nate’s work is all about the numbers, but what is happening on the ground. As a commenter noted, in California, the pro- Prop 8 folks “…outmaneuvered from the very beginning. We (No on Prop-8 supporters) had enthusiastic supporters and actually outraised our opponents, but the leadership and messaging was abysmal.”

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Analysis: Gay Marriage Ban is Underdog in Maine.

Really awesome blog post linked here, written by Paul Hogarth about why he has decided to take a 10 day trip to Maine and volunteer to help with the No on 1 campaign. I’m thinking of going as well, but I will only be able to swing 1 week and closer to the end of the month if I can get away from work.

I’m thrilled people are going to Washington, but I think going to Maine or Washington is probably the single most important thing anyone who supports equality could do this Fall before election day. As issues and rights go, there are a number of priorities for me that come before same-sex marriage. Hate Crimes legislation, Inclusive ENDA and other non-discrimination coverage, ending DADT, and ending DOMA. But even with those as higher priorities to me, I still believe helping in Maine and Washington is extremely crucial, and here is why.

On one level the battle in these two states are about practical rights. Keeping the ability to marry in one state and have a domestic partnership in the other. but the battle is far bigger than that. If the Conservatives win either of these, I’m afraid we won’t see any progress on any LGBT issue at the state level anywhere across the country except where it is brought up to public vote. Because of the way the laws in each state came into being, it will have a huge cooling affect of legislator’s willingness to risk bringing new GLBTQ/LGBT legislation forward. And in addition to this impact, the far right and conservatives will be adequately reinforced so that they will be more aggressive and go after all sorts of queer laws all over the place.

Maine is critical. After the loss in California, another los in Maine will slow any movement on Marriage in a big way, but Washington is possibly even more important. If they can win in Maine, they wil continue with the claim that no one wants gay marriage. But if they win in Washington, they have a new tactic to use: “no one wants any type of same-sex recognition” will become their battle cry.

Washington DC politics are a mess right now with Health Care taking most of everyone’s attention, and the conservatives resistance to anything progressive is only going to grow unless we see some big progressive wins. And the way blue dog dems are acting, I’m not sure we are going to see any progressive wins. So the state level battles are a place where we have a greater likelihood of having some success that will pay off in the short term as well as impact the long term.

So, how about it- a trip to Maine? Check out what Paul has to say about it:

BeyondChron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily News » Why I’m Going to Maine.

If you either do a search or use the Marriage Equality category on my blog, you will see it has been a fairly frequent subject for me. IO most often make a point to differentiate Civil Marriage from Religious Marriage, as the battle for same-sex marriage is one for allowing all couples, including same-sex couples to have the same legal rights and privileges as straight couples. I’m of the belief that the government shouldn’t be in the business of telling Churches what they must be, and vice versa, churches shouldn’t be dictating what government should be doing. But I wanted to post this link and talk about it a bit, since it is an example of an Iowa church offering same-sex marriage. Yes, the push for same-sex marriage is about over 1000 legal rights, but at the same time, marriage is very much about becoming a joined couple- a family- and for many, a church is a space in which that can happen.

Check out the linked story, it is a very good read. Aside from the detailing of these 9 Minnesota couples, the story contains some data about the number of marriage certificates being issues.

The most important take away message however is this:

Brad Sears, executive director Williams Institute of the University of California-Los Angeles Law School, said the views of Americans are changing rapidly. He predicted less and less resistance to gay marriage in Iowa the more time Iowans are around it. That’s what has happened in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for five years.

“In the end, same-sex marriage is not that exciting,” he said. “It tends to look like marriage in general, and it hasn’t really caused any waves in any communities.”

Groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which should really just be named the National Organization Against Gay People, spread fear by suggesting dire things will happen if gays are allowed to marry, but the reality is nothing bad has ever happened in any of the communities where gays can get married. No heterosexual marriage has been harmed or impacted in any way.

Wedding unites 9 gay couples at Des Moines church | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register.

This is a thoroughly delightful, well written and informative article about the transitional nature of heterosexual marriage and the push for same-sex marriage.

Back when Nixon ran for president in 1968, conservatives realized that the only way to get a majority was to convince these people to vote against their own economic self-interests, and the best way to do that was to threaten them with the loss of a lifestyle they cherish.”

via Seattle News – Are Gays Too Late to Destroy Marriage? – page 1.

In one regard the battle for Marriage Equality is won, although far from over. With 6 states allowing same-sex marriage, it is just a matter of time before more do, and at some point, more will become all. Although during this next phase of the battle- as more and more states come on board, and federal laws such as DOMA are challenged, the far right’s next move will be to try and reframe the debate. This is not a new move, they have been trying to reframe the debate all along, and now, the frame seems to be shifting. It was more about  maintaining traditional marriage and/or biblical marriage. This hasn’t been too successful except within their own ranks. Even a casual look at the Bible demonstrates that marriage has changed dramatically over time from a polygamous male dominated owning of a wife.

Two blog posts I have read recently try to place marriage equality into a frame of individual rights like the one linked here:

Now pro-homosexuality advocates are seeking to radically redefine marriage, reducing it to a relationship between any ‘two people who love each other.’

In reality, this is already a straight (pun intended) conventional understanding of marriage and not some new definition concocted by gay rights advocates. On some level the writer (Jeff Walton??) knows this already as he writes:

By many measures, marriage has weakened in our society. Fewer people marry. More people divorce. Increasing numbers follow a pattern of ’serial monogamy.’

Thismust already be understood as the predominant collective understanding of marriage as he suggests. But no matter if this definition is considered a “redefinition by homosexuals” or the prevailing societal understanding- it fails to properly address the actual claim of the pro- same-sex movement.

Same-sex couples do already exist and have existed. These relationships are based upon all the same things that straight people form relationships. Not all couples marry for the exact same reasons, but generally they  including mutual love, the desire to build a family, and the desire to raise children. Advocates for same-sex marriage demand that all people are treated equal and not discriminated against because of the gender of the partners. Gar rights activists demand equality, and point out that this will strengthen families by treating gay and lesbian families as having the same rights and privileges. Recently, I highlighted 2 different examples of unequal treatment of same-sex couples:

• In the comments to a post about homophobia, I discussed briefly the financial losses experienced by Annie Liebowitz from the death of her long time partner Susan Sontag, because inheritance taxes and other legal estate issues protect opposite sex couples, but not same sex couples.
• The other day, I posted about a woman and three children who were denied access to their beloved partner/mother as she died in a hospital.

Even if you think the individuals involved in these situations are sinners and will burn in hell, I think anyone with a modicum of compassion has to grasp why it is unfair that these people must suffer in their real world situations.

The linked article concludes this way:

“U.S. Christians have three options. They can yield to the trends devaluing marriage. Or they can admit defeat in society but try to maintain traditional teachings inside the church. Or they can swim against the current and insist that both church and society lend a hand in strengthening marriage. We believe that only this last option is faithful to the Scriptures and conducive to the long-term good of society.

“The battle for marriage is far from over. The question is whether U.S. Christians are ready to move from a defensive position (defeating efforts to redefine marriage) to a more proactive posture (working together to strengthen marriage).”

The most obvious point to make about this is that the United States is a democracy where we enjoy freedom of religion but also freedom from religion, so the values and moral ideals of a single and shrinking faith background can not dominate the civil  and legal structures of our country. Same-sex marriage advocates have never asked for more than Civil Marriage- the elements of marriage that are provided by the government.

IRD Asks, ‘Is Marriage Worth Defending?’.

This was posted to Facebook, and decided I would respond here on my blog:

I had a conversation with an old friend about equality. My friend is a Christian and he’s someone who was a student at a Christian university in Florida I once did a theatre workshop at. My workshop had nothing to do with me being gay, it was purely a preparational workshop for students looking to enter a theatrical career. But I recall specifically never denying who I was and hoping the students could be themselves when we were working in groups together.

I asked my friend if any of those kids I’d worked with had come out of the closet as they’ve grown up and I was a bit baffled to learn that several were “in recovery.” I asked him what this meant and he told me that they were trying their best to not act on their choices and their friends, families and loved ones were praying over them so that they could become straight.

In his defense, my friend is a Christian who has many gay friends and in his opinion, thinks others should “mind their own business” when it comes to affairs of the heart. Working in the industry he works in, it’s pretty difficult to start making assumptions about others’ attractions.

We then spoke about marriage and I was so happy to have such an honest and open discussion with someone with such a strong Christian background. In his opinion, where marriage is concerned, he doesn’t think the state should be involved at all and I am curious as to how some of you, my friends, feel about that.

I’ve said this before and I’d like to encourage discussion on the topic as well. Not saying that this is absolutely how I feel or what I personally endorse, but I’m interested in hearing what others have to say. If the Federal and/or Local governments were to say, “The government no longer will recognize marriages but only civil unions for all citizens,” how would that make you feel? The government would only preside over “Civil Unions” and the word “marriage” would be a word that was a religious institution, not unsimilar to “Communion” or “Bar Mitzvah.” Equality in the eyes of the government would reign, and religions would be able to have the word they seem to covet and seemingly we would have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

Please write to me and let me know your thoughts on this. I’m truly fascinated by it.

I have expressed the opinion before that separating the legal from the religious was one potential direction for this go go, because on the surface, it looks like a win/win for everyone. But in reality, it wouldn’t work for a few reasons (not in any specific order):

1. Some within the religious communities who claim to only care about “protecting marriage” will still fight tooth and nail to keep GLBTQs from having any rights. For some claiming to care about marriage is really just a smokescreen for anti-gay bigotry. Others, will claim that civil unions for same-sex couples is just a  trick and that queers only want marriage, so they must fight cicl unions as a way of fighting the bigger gay desire for marriage.
2. Not all religious faith communities want to keep same-sex couples away from marriage. There are denominations even now, that perform marriage ceremonies for male couples and female couples. Would these churches be forced to stop offering these ceremonies?
3. Everyone will still talk about whatever their relationship is, by using the word “marriage” since marriage, married, husband, and wife of such well understood terms to describe committed relationships. Maybe not EVERYONE.. but almost everyone. The religious who get ownership of “Marriage” according to this idea, will be forever pissed off as same-sex couples and opposite sex couples who choose (or are forced to) the Civil Union option, still use the “M” word to describe their status.
4. This approach will hurt the institution of Marriage, depending upon your perspective. But without a doubt the number of marriages will decline or at least fail to grow at the same rate. An article published last February about Civil Unions in France discusses this very situation.
5. While most same-sex couples who seek marriage do so for all of the civil protections and benefits, some seek marriage because they want to be like straights. These queers won’t be happy with just Civil Unions.
6. Civil Unions offer many benefits to same-sex couples and families. But some may argue, that only marriage truly offers the foundation and support for healthy families. This may or may not be true, but my guess is that over time, we may see it as true for both same-sex as well as opposite-sex families. In a marriage ceremony, there is a part of the ceremony which is about each partner’s vows to the other partner, but there is also a part that is about the community of faith’s vow to support the couple. This placement of the newly formed family within a bigger context of community is important. This may be possible within Civil Unions, but will it be a standard?

I seem to remember from a grad school class, that historically, there was a time when the government played no role in marriage at all, and at some point that changed such that the government issued a license: a permission to get married. I seem to remember that the change had something to do with protecting people, which the church wasn’t doing, but don’t find any mention of that in a quick search.

The friend’s declaration of marriage as an “affair of the heart” is a great illustration  of why this simplistic viewpoint is so flawed. Marriage has little to do with the heart at all when you consider the heart is a body organ that pumps blood. Even if understood more generally, as dealing with “Love,” marriage is far, far more than that. The notion that love had anything to do with Marriage is a concept first raised in the 12th century. Marriage is about so much more than that, even if we all agreed that love was the starting point from which 2 individuals choose to make a commitment to each other and form a family (with or without children.)

My own views on all of this have changed much over the last few years. Today, I don’t believe any real change is needed anywhere, except for governments to stop discriminating against people based upon the gender of the two partners interested in being married. If everyone recognized “Marriage” as having 2 possible components: Civil Marriage, which entails the marriage license, and some public commitment of two persons to each other; and Religious Marriage where religious denominations conduct ritual or ceremony in accordance with that faith background . This separates what churches must do from what must happen for the legal rights and responsibilities. If any religious group doesn’t want to offer Religious Marriage to same-sex couples, they would have that right, but same-sex couples would still have the opportunity to be treated equally in the eyes of the government, and society overall. and, if any religius group does want to offer religious marriage to same-sex couples, they could.

Refused Visitation to Dying Spouse : Why Same-Sex Marriage Matters

So, you are most likely wondering what Same-sex MMMM (SSMMMM) is, or you have decided it must be a typo. But no, I meant exactly what I typed. Since a term that belongs with an “M” seems to stop all dialogue because people get afraid that we (gays and lesbians) are trying to redefine it, I thought I would get around that by using the term MMMM. I want to talk about a linked blog that I think illustrates one of the many reasons why SSMMMM is so critical. There are well over 1000 rights and privileges that straight couples enjoy. But is “enjoy” the right term at all? So, I’m emailing a conservative guy I exchanged comments with last week, and asked him to read this post and hopefully add his ideas about the story presented here. I propose that we need equality for gay and lesbian couples to protect families from this type of pain and suffering. That’s why I’m not sure “enjoy” is the right word. I doubt anyone enjoys the right to be with a loved one in extreme sickness or as they are dying.

My question is, is it worth it? Is keeping same -sex couples legally apart worth it when it can cause this type of pain? Or is there a middle ground where equal rights and religious liberty can both exist? I have my ideas on what that middle ground might look like, but I wonder what you think.

Please read the linked story and then add your comments here on the blog.

Refused Visitation to Dying Spouse : Queer Visions | Gay Rights Media.