Anti-Gay Blogger Opens Up On Radio – EDGE Boston
|
Anti-Gay Blogger Opens Up On Radio
EDGE Boston … describe his blog as "pro-family," although he described Americans for Truth as being in opposition to marriage equality for gay and lesbian families. … |
Culhane: How DADT repeal will help gay marriage
Depending on whom you read and rely on, the DADT ban is or is not about to be history. Many stories have been written on the proposed law, but not much has been said about this point: If the repeal does go through, the case for marriage equality becomes rhetorically stronger. Why?
First, unlike many of the laws that seek equality for the LGBT community, DADT and the ban on same-sex marriages are instances where the government itself is doing the discriminating.
Thus, the rhetoric that’s used in one case applies to the other: Government should treat all of its citizens equally. Even an unreconstructed libertarian like Rand Paul – currently in boiling water because of his statements that the government shouldn’t tell private businesses whom they can and can’t deal with (including, say, African-Americans) – should support a principle of basic fairness and equality for all citizens. (He doesn’t, of course, so his libertarianism is born of convenience, not principle.)
Second, the most-often heard argument against allowing gay and lesbian soldiers into the military is that they will disrupt “unit cohesion.” But if this argument is ultimately rejected in the one area in which it at least sounds plausible (if only because of a homophobic atmosphere that has too often come from higher-ranking military), that rejection weakens a similar argument that’s advanced by many of those who oppose marriage equality: Allowing gays, lesbians, and transgendered people to marry will weaken heterosexual marriages – disrupt their “unit cohesion,” if you will.
But if folks in the military can somehow learn to deal with gay and lesbian troops who live and fight alongside them every day, then surely straight couples can absorb the blow inflicted by living in the same society as same-sex couples.
Sometimes the argument is pitched at a slightly more sophisticated level: While marriage equality won’t immediately affect heterosexual couples, in the long run it will change the message of marriage by suggesting that the biological connection between parents and children isn’t important.
Maggie Gallagher is perhaps the anti-equality spokesperson most associated with this argument, but I’ve also heard it made during litigation. For example, during oral argument before the Iowa Supreme Court, the state’s dramatically unsuccessful effort (7-zip) to block equality leaned almost exclusively on a version of that argument.
Courts, though, are rarely impressed by such abstract arguments – especially when they carry more than a whiff of desperation. You’ll notice that the anti-equality forces haven’t been especially vocal about opposing adoption, surrogacy, or no-fault divorce laws, all of which of course sever the biological connections between parents and their children.
Nor do they acknowledge that marriage sends a bunch of other messages, too – including that one about commitment and the raising of children, together.
Against these arguments stand the obvious and debilitating discrimination against all of us – those who’d marry if we could, and those who wouldn’t but who are constantly reminded of our second-class citizenship. Faced with the balancing of that ledger, any self-respecting court should require sounder arguments for the continued exclusion of LGBT couples from the institution of marriage.
And recently, they have: Supreme Courts in California (pre-Prop 8), Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut have all read their state constitutional guarantees of equality to require the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Are there other arguments against marriage equality?
Not good ones.
Even Justice Scalia admitted, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, that the marriage-procreation link isn’t a reason (we don’t require proof of reproductive capacity), and the related arguments that opposite-sex couples “need” marriage because only they can procreate “accidentally” (Oops! I Procreated Again!) is just plain dumb (even though it was accepted by the highest courts in both Washington and New York).
Religious arguments, of course, have no place in a public debate (for one thing: whose religion controls?)
So we’re left with this kind of discomfort with marriage equality – that somehow it will affect straight marriages, however indirectly and over time. Once this “unit cohesion” argument falls in the military setting, its demise in civilian life should be briskly achieved. Let’s begin to press this argument.
John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, science, certain sports, pop culture, music, philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. A fuller bio can be found here. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net.
Culhane: Why do gays and lesbians care about marriage?
How did marriage, of all things, become the cause célèbre of the LGBT rights movement? Let’s face it: There are good historical reasons for us to eschew and pooh-pooh this institution, which doesn’t exactly have a glorious track record.
“Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” was the provocative question that lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick raised in an influential article more than 20 years ago. Her article slammed what was then the emerging focus on same-sex marriage as a misguided effort that would secure gay and lesbian “equality” within the stifling confines of an inherently unequal and patriarchal institution.
Yet there we were, Ettelbrick and I, together in 2007 on a panel discussing LGBT legal issues, and she was arguing for marriage equality. What happened?
I had the chance to ask her about this dramatic about-face during a cab ride to the train station after the event. Had she been possessed by the spirit of Andrew Sullivan? Well, kind of. All of the same-sex couples making their clear and passionate case to have the state recognize their unions had convinced her to value reality over ideology, and (here I’m guessing) perhaps to see that same-sex marriages have the potential to revitalize the institution, and to help transform it into a more egalitarian partnership.
But why is it so important for the state to recognize our unions in the first place? Let’s start by considering the alternatives. The first of these is a religious union. For many lesbian and gay couples, getting married in their church, synagogue, or mosque is deeply meaningful. But it’s not enough. Some (straight and gay) couples don’t derive spiritual nourishment from such ceremonies. And even for those who do, “the power vested in” clergy to legally solemnize marriages can’t solemnize theirs.
So what about a “secular substitute” for marriage, such as the civil union, that confers all the benefits of marriage but not the title?
Do I really need to ask this question?
First, the civil union doesn’t confer all of the benefits of marriage. It’s not recognized at the federal level, so that even if the obnoxious Defense of Marriage Act were repealed, couples in a civil union wouldn’t have any of the federal benefits of marriage, which are the most significant ones.
But it’s not just about the benefits, either. In some paradoxical way, the civil union is worse, because it’s pure discrimination. The state has given up all of the arguments against equality in conferring the civil union status, but still insists on a separate label. In In re Marriage Cases, The California Supreme Court hit the bull’s-eye in rejecting this kind of “virtual equivalence:
“[A]ssigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples…poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.”
By this point, some of you are likely muttering: “OK, marriage, fine. But what about discrimination, social justice, and the real economic barriers to equality? Aren’t these the things that should be concerning us instead of this mostly abstract equality debate?”
Well, you probably didn’t mutter exactly that, but the point is fair anyway. Why all this emphasis on marriage?
First, many of us are, at heart, assimilationists who want to fit in with the most traditional structures. Think marriage and – the prom! Those gay and lesbian teens [1]who demanded to attend their proms are radical and traditional at the same time, as are those seeking marriage equality. It’s that scary incursion of the outlandish into “safe” structures that explains, at least in part, the sometimes vicious resistance we find in everyone from Maggie Gallagher to those parents who engineered the fake prom [2] that Constance McMillen was sent to.
The other part of this fight for equality has to do with the government’s role in the discrimination. Remember that many of the most important achievements of both the civil rights and women’s movements were ending government-sponsored discrimination in voting, unfair marriage laws, and segregated public facilities and schools. If government is willing to declare that members of a group are second-class citizens, then private and social discrimination is fair game.
Since laws prohibiting same-sex intimacy have now been declared unconstitutional, the most important state-sponsored formal discriminations we face are DADT and the ban on our marriages. So, while marriage may never be a path to liberation – much less to robust social and economic fairness – it’s a vital part of our rights as citizens. That’s why it matters.
John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, sports, pop culture, philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. Here’s a fuller bio [3]. He will be blogging the week-long Equality Forum [4] from Philadelphia later this month.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-prom-politics/
[2] http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/
[3] http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx
[4] http://equalityforum.com
Poll: California residents support gay marriage
The latest Los Angeles Times/USC [1] poll found more evidence that the majority of Californians support same-sex couples’ right to marry.
The poll found 53 percent of the state’s residents support same-sex marriage, while 40 percent oppose it.
[2]
The results are similar to previous polls. The poll cited divisions along party lines, with Democrats and liberals supporting marriage equality and Republicans and conservatives opposed.
In addition, age appeared to be a factor – most voters younger than 30 voiced support; those older than 64 were opposed to marriage equality.
Does mean this that Proposition 8 would be rejected if voted on now? Not exactly. Older voters are more likely to turn out on Election Day than younger voters, a problem gay rights advocates must contend with.
[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/majority-in-california-support-gay-marriage-times-usc-poll-finds.html
[2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-tuxedo-boys-top.jpg
Iowa gay marriage foe equates gay sex with smoking risks
The president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group that opposes marriage equality, released a statement that made gay sex appear to be a health menace.
“The Iowa Legislature outlawed smoking in an effort to improve health and reduce the medical costs that are often passed on to the state,” …
Canadian minister cuts gay rights from immigration guide
Canada’s citizenship and immigration minister removed references to gay rights in an updated guide for immigrants seeking Canadian citizenship, The Canadian Press reported.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who fought marriage equality in Parliament five years ago, ordered sections of the immigration guide removed.
His order erased sections of the guide …
Gay iPhone app give proceeds to charity
A new iPhone app game is garnering attention for its marriage equality mission.
Factory Games’ Valet Hustle, described as a mix of Tetris and Diner Dash – “multiplied by one thousand in terms of awesomeness,” the Web site brags – features two gay characters who run their own valet business. And …
Tuesday watercooler: Naked, nude and risque
It’s a good week for marriage equality as two more cities get added to the list of those allowing same-sex marriages.
In Washington, D.C., the magic day is expected to be Wednesday. (Opponents filed a challenge with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday, but I’m going to assume that …
Blacks play key role in D.C. marriage equality
(WASHINGTON) Gay and lesbian couples will soon be able to marry in Washington, but the debate over same-sex marriage has sounded different here, with references to interracial marriage and Martin Luther King Jr.
During the past year, both sides have courted the support of Washington’s black community, a majority of the …
Monday Watercooler: McCain’s love of pretzels to Ashley’s missing brain cells
All you couples better get to D.C. Want to make your mate an honest woman (or man) and be part of marriage equality history? Then grab a marriage ring and get to Washington, D.C. On March 20 up to 400 couples will be exchanging vows and tying the knot. If …
