Category Archives: Same-Sex Marriage

The “Biology v. Choice debate” has no place in a discussion of sexual freedom and civil rights

I’m more than tired of all the uproar over whether sexuality is biologically determined or chosen. Actually, that’s not true. It’s ultimately more complicated than that dichotomy would indicate, and the answer has no place in a discussion of rights for gays.

It’s bad enough to hear the fundamentalists harp on the “gay lifestyle,” but LBGT groups also seem inclined to use the question of choice v. biology as a new potential litmus test for politicians. For example, In the HRC/Logo LBGT Presidential Forum, Melissa Etheridge asks Bill Richardson if he thinks sexual orientation is a choice or is biological. He’s been criticized for his answer but it’s actually not so far from mine: It really doesn’t matter. People should have rights whether they choose aspects of their identity or whether they are born with certain characteristics. (NB: There may be plenty of good reasons to be critical of Bill Richardson, but his answer to that question, which was essentially, and I’m paraphrasing, “It’s really complicated and so honestly I don’t really know, and besides it doesn’t really matter because people deserve rights either way.”)

You can see Bill Richardson’s segments of the forum here, and all the others here.

Intellectually, or scientifically, what factors shape a person’s sexuality is an interesting question. But in terms of the law it ought to be irrelevent. Discrimination against people based on the kinds of sex they have, or the genders of their partners ought to be illegal. Period. End of sentence.

It feels like another instance of where those in favor of sexual and reproductive freedom have ceded the framing of the debate to those who would like to lock sexuality down. Only this time the word “choice” has been adopted by the other side.

Conservatives focus a lot on their claim that sexual orientation is not an orientation at all but is rather a “chosen lifestyle” because they are fond of punishing people for what they see as “bad” or “immoral” choices. By that logic, they feel justified denying marriage to same sex couples because they should have ‘chosen’ differently.

That’s ridiculous. Even if sexuality is to some degree chosen — and I would argue that all kinds of sexual expression is chosen, and much is shaped by culture, even though some is likely influenced by biology — I should still be allowed to marry who I want, as long as that person is legally able to consent to the marriage. I should not be discriminated against at work or in housing matters or health care because of the partners I choose.

Why should sexual choices (between people capable of consent) be seen as somehow different from other choices we are freely able to make? Sexuality is complex and there are lots of desires that we choose to act on and explore and others we choose never to explore. And sexuality should not be reduced to sexual orientation, either. Go beyond the gender of your partner and think about explorations in bondage or flogging or sex at play parties. Do we need to argue that those desires or explorations are driven biological predispositions in order to assert that we should be free to act on them and that our rights should not be limited if we choose to do so? Should it be legal to deny housing to people who are polyamorous? Should it be legal to fire a person who is into leather and whips? Of course not. So why, when we talk about LGBT rights, which are extremely important, do we end up arguing based on biological determinism?

I think we do so because it’s easier to argue that people shouldn’t be denied rights because of something over which they have no control. The comparisons to race, ethnicity, disability should not be missed. But there are other “protected categories” that are seen as sacred in terms of rights and freedom and are certainly a matter of choice. Religion comes to mind first. Religious faith is a matter of conscience and culture and not at all something you are born with. (I know, some religions are “passed on” through families but there is generally a moment when the individual has to choose to become a full member of the religious community by way of some consciously engaged-in ritual.)

And even regarding race, which is not chosen but is a characteristic others ascribe to us based on physical appearances, there is precedent for adopting “choice” as a basis for rights, especially where sexual relationships are concerned.

In 1967 the Loving v. Virginia case made it clear that it is unconstitutional for states to prevent interracial couples from marrying. Does anybody argue about whether the partners in interracial couples are “born that way” (i.e., somehow biologically inclined to sexual attraction and love of people from other racial groups) or whether they’ve “chosen” to partner with people outside their own races? No. In fact the biology of sexual attraction never entered the picture in the Loving decision. The question was one of whether or not it was legal for the state to regulate marriage by taking race into account.

We should not allow a “biology v. choice” framing of the rights debate to continue. If we do, we will likely find ourselves backed into a very unpleasant corner. We will be forced to argue that we are helpless over our sexuality, and then will be faced with the very frightening prospect of arguing in favor of a medical definition of sexual orientation — which can then be used against us when people decide to start looking for “cures.” For make no mistake about it: if they think they can “cure” us by counseling us into making different choices, they will be no less likely to try to “cure” us of a sexual orientation that they can frame as a disease. If there is a “gay gene” we should be very wary of what happens if it’s found. It will then be possible for genetic testing to “discover” the sexual orientation of a child and gene therapy may be used to “fix” that child. We’ve been there before in less technologically sophisticated ways. Sexual orientation was only declassified as a disease in the 1970s!

Choice v. Biology is no way to have a debate about rights. When we fought for civil rights we didn’t ask what causes race (though we certainly have debated what defines race). We shouldn’t be arguing about what causes sexual orientation. Its an interesting scientific question, and probably has a very complex answer that combines biological and social factors, and I’d be very curious to know more about it. But it has no place in the politics of anti-discrimination policy.

Ultimately sexuality is a blend of biological, cultural, and individual factors. Rights, on the other hand, are determined through the political process, and sexual freedom and civil rights should not depend on whether we are born with a sexual orientation or choose how to express our sexual selves. Sexual freedom and civil rights should be granted to all. Period.

(Note: This post is also published on SexInThePublicSquare.Org, our community-building site. Come on over!)

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Filed under civil rights, culture, discrimination, inequality, Loving v. Virginia, marriage, News and politics, polyamory, public discourse, Relationships, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, sex and the law, sexual orientation, sexuality

Thoughts on Fathers Day

What are you doing for Fathers Day? My partner, a father of five children all adopted or conceived long before I entered the picture, is off sailing for two days on the Schooner Pioneer and enjoying parts of the Clearwater Festival. (Check his blog for an account, probably Tuesday.)

Our fathers and grandfathers have all passed away (my father when I was a child, my partner’s father just a few months ago) but my partner is himself a father and today I thank him for helping to shape the lives of five truly unique and wonderful individuals. I am honored to know them, and glad that they came into my life as adults so that we could develop relationships based on something other than a step-parent/step-child dynamic. (Don’t get me wrong, step-families can be wonderful! I had an amazing step-mother myself for a while, but I’m grateful for having the chance to know these people without the inevitable difficulties that come with any kind of parent/child relationship.)

I thank my partner too, on Fathers Day, for having done his child-raising before our relationship began, because this has freed me to decide not to be a parent without denying him his chance at parenthood.

Neal Watzman commented back in May on my Mothers Day Post, pointing out that the things I wished for mothers were equally applicable to fathers. I absolutely agree, and today I’m giving you a very slightly modified version of that post, tailored for fathers.

-Sexual openness, sane sex laws, and training in communication about sex so that men can enjoy their sexuality and share it fearlessly with their partners. Through sex we express desires, we communicate, we connect, and we feel pleasure. If men are socialized into a restrictive — albeit privileged — sexual role, they are less likely to be able to experience the fullness of their sexualities or to share themselves as openly, without shame, with partners. In fact, the privilege that comes from masculinity (with all its restrictiveness) makes it even harder for men to challenge the limitations placed on them, making it all the more difficult for them to experience their sexuality fully, openly and shamelessly.

-Access to contraception and recapturing the right to abortion when needed — without restriction — so that all motherhood is by choice. Men need this security as much as women do, and men need easy, affordable access to reproductive health care and education about “women’s health care” so that they can support their women parters when their women partners need care.

-High quality, affordable — dare we even say government subsidized — child care so that all parents who work outside the home — including those for whom work is a necessity and not a choice — can do so without economic penalty or fear for the safety of their children.

-Realistic part-time and flexible work options so that parents have more choices about how to divide the labor of wage-earning and child-care. I don’t mean part time with no stability and low pay. I mean part time with reasonable wages that would exceed the child care costs incurred while working those more flexible hours.

-Universal health care — not just health insurance — so that employers are no longer the ones who provide our access to health care. This isn’t just a matter of concern for the poor, either. Plenty of middle income people end up financially devestated even if they do have health insurance because the part of the medical bills that the health insurance doesn’t cover is still more than they can afford. (This is especially awful for people who have fallen prey to the “two income trap” where two parents are both working to pay for meeting the basic needs of the family and then one gets sick and the other can’t make up the difference.) Oh, and of course this health care has to cover treatment for addictions and mental illness just as it covers physical illness.

-Fair wages for all workers. This means eliminating the wage gap, guaranteeing equal pay for equal work, and providing living wages to all workers. Living wages mean that parents can work reasonable hours and spend time with their kids. And we also need reasonable paid leave policies so that people don’t lose out when they need to take care of a child.

-Marriage rights for all fathers. To exclude fathers with male partners from marriage is to exclude their children from the kinds of benefits that marriage confers on couples. While I would still dispute that these benefits ought to be attached to marriage in the first place, as long as they are attached, marriage needs to be available to all who want it.

-Peace. The costs of wars, in dollars and in lives, is too great to justify, and the paying of that cost is keeping us from doing the kinds of things suggested above — things that would make economic security a reality for many more people. War touches everybody, but in the United States men still bear the largest part of the awful burden of actually killing people in war. Men need peace because we all need peace, and men need peace so that they can stop killing people.

All people, regardless of economic status, must be entitled to sexual freedom but sexual freedom feels like a luxury when you are too exhausted from working your second job and making sure the kids got to school to even think about having sex with your partner. When we work for sexual freedom we must take into account the needs of the poor and working class as well as the needs of the middle class and the wealthy.

Health care, child care, contraception, fair wages, peace, and sexual freedom. They’re all connected.

Happy Fathers Day!


Filed under culture, Family, Fathers Day, feminism, Gender, inequality, Relationships, reproductive freedom, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, sexuality

Loving and Marriage

Today is the 40th anniversary of the landmark Loving v. Virginia case, the case that finally declared laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Many thanks to Rachel Kramer Bussel for reminding us all that not only is this the anniversary, but that an organization exists that promotes its celebration! Here’s a link to her interview with Loving Day’s founder, Ken Tanabe.

Interracial marriages were still against the law in 16 states as recently as 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing them were unconstitutional. (They were illegal in 24 states in 1958 when Virginia residents Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, traveled to Washington DC to get married.) Loving v. Virginia is an interesting case to think about. For one thing, the law being challenged did not prevent all interracial marriages, but only those that involved white people. An African American and a Native American could marry, but neither could marry a white person. The concern was clearly for protecting the “racial purity” of white people as the dominant race. Here’s an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision that quotes the law in question:

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.”

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

“Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.”

Not only were interracial marriages unrecognized, but to live together “as man and wife” was evidence of marriage and marriage was a felony crime punishable by up to five years in prison. In the case of the Lovings (aptly named!), who had gone to Washington DC to get married in 1958, the punishment had been 1 year in prison, suspended for 25 years as long as they left the state and didn’t return for 25 years. In other words, they must spend a year in prison or be banished from their home state. The Lovings pleaded guilty when they were charged in January 1959, moved to Washington DC after their banishment, and spent the next 8 years filing motions and appeals attempting to win their right to be married.

Their case is interesting also because it highlights the use of religion in decisions about marriage, and the way that God is invoked to justify socially-defined boundaries. The judge who ruled on the Loving’s original conviction wrote:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Of course many deeply religious people were activists in the civil rights movement, and that movement itself would have been impossible were it not for the part played by churches. The words of the judge in the Loving case reflect a narrowly defined understanding of Christianity and God held by a small but dominant group of people. We are seeing something very similar in our current fight for marriage equality today. When people oppose marriage between two people of the same gender, they often invoke a narrow understanding of god that is held by a shrinking but still dominant group of people.

When the Lovings’ case was heard by the Supreme Court, the question was really whether it was a violation of the 14th amendment to ban marriage between two people based only on their races. The first section of the 14th amendment reads:

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.

The 14th amendment is not one that deals only with questions of race. In fact, the only place that race is mentioned in the text of the amendment is a mention of “Indians” in Section 2 which deals with representation in Congress, and there it is not race on its own but “Indians not taxed” — read: Indians who are members of Native American Nations — and while the entire history of the treatment of Native Americans in North America is one of racial injustice, of course, the issue as presented in the 14th amendment is one of “no representation without taxation.”

Celebrating the Loving v. Virginia decision is important for at least two reasons. First, we should celebrate the step away from institutionalized racism that the decision represents. And we should notice the degree to which racial injustice still pervades our social structure, and should continue to work for racial equality. We are still a segregated society, with segregated schools and segregated social groups. We need reminders to cross boundaries we wouldn’t ordinarily cross and to make friends. Second, we should celebrate in order to reminds ourselves that injustices can be rectified, and that with courage, persistence, and activism, they are rectified.

Can you imagine if the federal government had passed a “Defense of Marriage Act” in the late 1950s or early 1960s such that no state would have to recognize any other state’s interracial marriages? Might that have changed the tenor of the Supreme Court such that the Loving case would have gone differently?

Can you imagine requiring interracial couples to endure civil unions rather than having full marriage rights?

We are again in the midst of a struggle for equal protection under the law as it relates to marriage rights, this time for couples where the partners belong to the same group, rather than to different groups.

Shouldn’t we grant couples of the same gender the kind of equal protection granted to couples of different races 40 years ago?


Bonus points: I know some of you read from other countries. In addition to discussing the specific issues raised above, can anybody provide links or discussions of marriage segregation laws from other countries, or discuss how they’ve changed?


Filed under civil rights, culture, discrimination, Family, Gender, heterosexism, Homophobia, inequality, Loving v. Virginia, marriage, News and politics, public discourse, racism, Relationships, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, US Supreme Court

Wage equality is a queer issue, too!

Yesterday I posted about Equal Pay Day, and the discussion was one that assumed heterosexual marriage as a foundation. But issues of wage inequality, and economic issues in general, are queer issues, too, and the gender wage gap is an interesting one.

Women typically earn less than men, so female-headed households are more likely to struggle financially than are male-headed households. In fact, 29% of families with female householders are officially poor. For female-headed households with children under 18, this jumps to 38%, and for female-headed households with young children (under five), the percentage that are officially poor is even higher: 47%.

How does this have anything to do with sexuality? For one thing, women are more likely than men to have low incomes, and female-headed households are more likely to be poor, so women in same sex partnerships are more likely to struggle than are their male counterparts, and women living alone are in even worse shape.

Remember the big push for marriage-supportive policies during the 1996 Welfare Reform and again during Bush’s “Faith-based initiatives” agenda? It seems that the Bush administration, especially, believes that if people would just “do the right thing” and get married (and stay married), we’d have a lot less poverty. And the data appear to support that conclusion on the surface. Only 5% of married-couple families are officially poor, and if you look only at married couple families with children, the percentage only jumps to 7%. Quite different from the situation of single mothers, for example.

But there is a correlation/causation problem here: it isn’t marriage as a state of being that makes a difference. Marriage makes a difference because of the way that it is defined and the way it is treated by the state. Married couple families are less likely to be poor and more likely to have higher incomes in part because they are by definition going to have a man’s income to add to the ledger, and they are quite possibly going to have two incomes to add together. And then there are the many rights and benefits that married couple families are given. Lesbian couples, women or men living alone, or not having the privileges of marriage, are not going to have the same chances.

Making income and poverty politically a “queer issue” is not necessarily easy. For one thing, once it’s seen as an issue for queer folk, it has the potential to divide gay men from lesbians. In fact, single straight women and lesbians have more in common, and even married-couple families have more common ground with lesbian couples on this issue than would gay male couples. (This is not to suggest that there is no poverty among gay men, or that gay men raising children don’t face many of the same challenges that opposite-sex couples or lesbians raising children will face, but just to point out that where wages and occupations are concerned, gay men tend to benefit by being men.)

There is another reason to consider income and poverty from the perspective of sexuality: people have more sexual agency when they are not constrained by poverty. Women and men make choices about whether or not to begin or end sexual relationships in part based on economic factors. They are more or less free to leave abusive relationships depending on economic options. They are more or less free to remain single. Constrained income options are also among the reasons some people perform sex work. And then, of course, people who have to work multiple jobs or take on lots of extra hours to make a living are less likely to have the time and energy to sustain a satisfying sex life in the first place.

Wage equity is an important step toward gender equality, but also an important step toward equality for queer folk. But there are a lot of other steps that need to be taken as well.

One of the most important things I think we need to do is to de-emphasize marriage as the basic ‘family’ structure, and a focusing on households. Policies that took households, instead of marriages, into account would help single moms, cohabiting lovers, polyamorous people, communal households, same-sex couples, and would level the playing field dramatically. But that would mean lending tacit social approval to people who have sexual and intimate relationships that challenge the dominant heteronormative model wherein marriage rules.

This is why I have mixed feelings about the same-sex marriage agenda. As long as marriage is the only family form that is given privileges, of course I want people to have access to it regardless of the gender of their partners, but as long as we keep marriage at the center of our definition of “legal family,” we will have to continue to deny recognition and rights to all those people who choose other forms of intimate commitment and interdependence.

Economic justice and social justice need to be considered together. Economic issues are queer issues. The politics of sexuality and the economics of family life are inseparable when it comes to social change.


Here are some links to a couple of organizations that frame economic justice issues as queer issues:

Comments Off on Wage equality is a queer issue, too!

Filed under community-building, culture, Family, feminism, Gender, inequality, marriage, News and politics, polyamory, Same-Sex Marriage, sexuality

If you live in the state of Washington…

…and I know that some of you do, please surf over to Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance for information about their very interesting new campaign. It’s not exactly what it sounds like on the surface!

What do you think of the strategy? Is it guerilla-theater-politics at its best? Is it a misguided attempt that that is likely to backfire? It certainly seems like a way to draw a new kind of attention to the issue.


Filed under activism, Gender, Homophobia, News and politics, public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, sexual orientation

Remember to Vote Tomorrow!

If you live in the U.S. and you’re a citizen, and you’re at least 18, and you remembered to register to vote, PLEASE make time to vote in tomorrow’s general election.

The people who are elected will be making decisions — or appointing people to make decisions — that affect our lives in powerful and intimate ways. There are many ways we can work on holding them accountable to us, but one of the most important is getting out there and voting in the first place.

If you need information about candidates running in your districts, a good place to start is Project Vote Smart. There you can find out who currently represents you, and how they’ve voted on issues that matter to you. You can find out who is running for election on which party lines (there are more than two parties in most places). They can even tell you what your ballot questions will be. (Don’t forget about the ballot questions! In several states the ballot questions involve constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages or and in South Dakota they’ll be voting on the banning of abortion, but in most states there will be questions that are less earth-shattering but very important in the day-to-day lives of our communities.)

If you belong to any organizations (a union, a church, a community group) or if you support any organizations, find out who they endorse. If they haven’t been calling you and mailing material to your home, you can probably find this information right on their web sites.

And if you can, take a friend with you to the polls. Make it a social event. Take your kids. Make it a special event. Celebrate afterwards. Even before the returns start coming in!

Comments Off on Remember to Vote Tomorrow!

Filed under Family, News and politics, public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage, sex and health

Marriage isn’t radical enough — why fight for it?

I’ve written way more about the same-sex marriage fights than I ever intended to write. And apparently I’m not finished yet. This morning an amazing thing happened. The New York Times reminded me of my own objections to fighting the same-sex marriage fight. Of course I’ve largely conceded those objections but I was so happy to see the argument acknowledged that I had to blog about it.

In today’s Sunday Syles piece, Anemona Hartocollis begins with a brief profile of a gay activist who believes the fight for same-sex marriage rights is misguided. His objection is that marriage is not radical enough. I absolutely agree.

Marriage is an institution that has, historically, been oppressive and limiting and not based on romantic or sexual love. It has more often, historically, been a way to preserve property rights and sexual rights for men and has depended on unequal divisions of labor which have disadvantaged generations of women. In the US it represents a legal obligation to remain monogamous, though of course many people shun that obligation. (And to digress for just a moment, isn’t it interesting that “monogamy” has come to refer only to sexual relationships while “polygamy” remains definitionally linked to legal marriage?)

If marriage is, now, about romantic love and sexual love and individual commitments made between partners, why should anybody need the state to sanction those vows? Certainly marriage does not confer significant long-term stability with so many marriages ending in divorce. Certainly many people find it difficult to remain “monogamous” in the sexual sense whether they are married or not. Why fight for what seems, perhaps, like a dying institution or one that relies on traditional, outdated, and limiting expectations about sexual behavior?

And yet…

And yet… the piece of paper that is a marriage certificate confers a great number of state-sponsored or state-supported rights and provides access to important resources. In this sense, marriage really is NOT about romantic and sexual love. Marriage is still the contractual arrangement that it has always been, but it is better understood as a contract between individuals and the state rather than between individuals and each other. And that access is currently exclusively the domain of people who are granted “heterosexual privilege.”

I am a great example of someone who benefits from heterosexual privilege without being heterosexual. I love, adore, am sexually attracted to men, women, and especially people who blur those categories in interesting ways. I am not “straight” but I benefit from heterosexual privilege because I am in a relationship with a man. I have been in relationships with women where I did not have the choice to marry or to reject marriage. I have been in relationships with men where I have had that choice. And twice I have chosen to marry.

My first marriage was an idealistic and failed attempt to renegotiate the traditional structure of marriage. We wrote vows that, if read carefully, disavowed any promise of monogamy, for example. There were many conflicts that caused the end of that relationship (and certainly being married did not prevent the end from coming). One conflict certainly involved our differing levels of commitment to living in a household that didn’t follow the mainstream script. And because our desire to marry was all about being in love with each other and with the idea of creating a radical marriage, when the radical marriage part didn’t work out, the “being in love” part was suddenly vulnerable to all of the other threats by which “being in love” is prone to being attacked.

When Will and I started our relationship we rejected the idea of marriage. It seemed unnecessary. We didn’t need the state to recognize our commitment to each other, we didn’t particularly want to follow the mainstream script. My family accepted our relationship as valid regardless of our marital status. Will’s parents wouldn’t promote us to a shared bed until we were married but we visited their household infrequently enough that sleeping in separate beds was hardly an unendurable trial.

We married for unromantic reasons, and it was that decision that made me again reconsider my own objections to the same-sex marriage fight. After my first marriage ended I had recommitted myself to rejecting institutions that were based on unjust privilege. If Will had been a woman we could not have married. Why should we take part in an institution that excludes so many people so arbitrarily? And, why take part in an institution that is all about legal obligations, really, and not about love?

As it turns out, the reason was “Exactly because it is all about legal obligations and not about love.” But not about Will’s obligations to me or mine to him. Those have not changed since we married. Nor has our love for one another. Rather we chose to marry because it clarified the state‘s obligations to us.

An event occurred in our relationship that made it suddenly very important to me that my position in Will’s life and his in mine be respected by the state, by Will’s children, and by our employers. I think it is wrong that marriage as defined in US society is the ticket to these protections. If marriage is, at its heart, a contract between individuals and the state, then why cannot any combination of people enter into that contract? I understand the need for the contract but I don’t understand the limitations placed on the number and gender of parties to it.

However, for as long as marriage-as-defined is the ticket, then we need to continue to fight for universal access. Same-sex marriage is a tricky issue. It retains the monogamy part of the traditional arrangement and it accepts the continued disadvantaging of singles. In my ideal world, things like health care and pension benefits and hospital visitation rights, for example, would not be linked to marital status. The first two would be universally provided and regarding the third individual wishes would always be respected. But I’ve come to believe in incremental steps.

In other words, I would like to see marriage-as-we-know it by and large rejected. But people can only reject something they are free to choose, and right now many people are not free to choose marriage in the first place. So, the fight need to be either to eliminate marriage altogether, or to expand the definition of marriage so that it is more inclusive. The later road seems, for now, to lead to greater equality and justice for. But it should not be seen as the end of the road!

1 Comment

Filed under News..., public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage, sex, sexual orientation, sexuality

A new “rationale” for opposing same sex marriage?!

This just in! The House of Representatives failed to find enough votes to pass a proposed amendment to the Constitution restricting marriage to one man and one woman. And this despite the introduction of a brand new rationale for opposing same-sex marriage: Peace in the Middle East!

According to the New York Times, today, Georgia Republican Phil Gingrey said that maintaining traditional definitions of marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”

Really. He said that.

I admit I’m puzzled and don’t know what he means, exactly. Is he saying that the best message we can give to the Middle East is that we’re increasing support for discrimination in the United States? Is he saying that the best message we can give to the Middle East is that we’re too busy trying to find ways to restrict access to marriage to pay attention to “all the trouble they’re having over”? Or, is he actually saying that the best message we can send to the Middle East is that we are becoming more sexually and socially conservative? If that is the message he thinks we should be sending, perhaps we ought to ask him what other “traditional” family policies he’d like to introduce or re-introduce.

We know he’d like to roll back abortion access (on his blog he calls himself a “pro-life” OBGYN) Perhaps he’d like to go back to a more “traditional” time when women could not own property, and did not have a right to their own wages? (Keep women financially dependent on men and divorce will decrease!) Would he prefer to adopt the Saudi policy of forbidding women to drive? There are, after all, many ways to limit freedom.

I wrote a few entries ago about the symbiosis between opposition to same-sex marriage and support for sexist gender roles. Representative Gingrey’s statement would seem to further support a connection between the two positions.

It may seem like a purely symbolic vote, today, given that the Senate rejected this amendment back in May, but it’s worth noting that 236 House members voted in favor of the amendment (187 voted against, 1 voted “present” and 9 didn’t vote), and that the supporters acquired 9 more votes than they had two years ago when they tried this the last time.

Retaining “traditional” marriage in the U.S. is not going to bring peace to the Middle East. I can’t imagine even Rep. Gingrey thinks that this vote has anything to do with helping to resolve the crises in the Middle East. But if this is part of an effort to move back to more “traditional” gender roles we all need to be paying very close attention because the effort isn’t likely to end with the marriage amendment.

Comments Off on A new “rationale” for opposing same sex marriage?!

Filed under Gender, News..., public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage

Homophobia and sexism

I remember the first time I read Suzanne Pharr’s book Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. It was back in the early 1990s and I was an undergraduate taking a class called “Philosophy of sexuality.” It was one of those moments when an argument instantly made sense to me. Basically, the argument is that homophobia serves not only to ensure privilege for heterosexuals but it also keeps men and women “in their places” by making them afraid of being labeled as sexual outcasts. Hence the power of the taunt “fag” among boys in schoolyards. Such taunts are certainly used to keep boys conforming to norms of masculinity and they work on the rest of us by encouraging us to stick to our carefully scripted gender roles, which are linked to gendered institutions which privilege men over women.

Why bring this up today? Because I read a post on Slate that revived this argument to explain why opposition to same-sex marriage might not be grounded in homophobia, but instead might be grounded in a fear that “traditional gender roles” have been terribly undermined and need to be restored.

Richard Thompson Ford, in the Slate piece, argues that the resistance to changing gender roles is largely about symbolism and psychological attachment to clearly delineated gendered roles like “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” and “wife.” Those symbolic and psychological attachments are there, sure, but to focus on them misses the larger issue: that is institutional power and privilege, not just for heterosexuals, but for men. “Husband” and “wife” are not just psychological constructs, they are real social expectations. To change them is to change the built-in inequality that they depend on. Once marriage roles are no longer linked to gender roles, questions of division of labor and power that translate into time and money are open for renegotiation on a grand scale. If two men, married and raising a family, can manage the housework, take care of a child, and bring in the income all without a “wife,” then there is no reason that a man and a woman, married and raising a family, can’t divide up the same labor equally instead of falling back on a gendered division of labor that puts much of the responsibility for child and household care on the wife, making it difficult for her to pursue her career with equal focus as her husband pursues his and thus undermining her own economic power and independence.

Of course I hope that you support same-sex marriage because sexual orientation should not be a source of privilege or disadvantage. But even if you don’t support it for that reason, support it because same-sex marriage is a step toward gender equality.

Comments Off on Homophobia and sexism

Filed under Gender, News and politics, News..., public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage in MA — still not settled

While MA is the only state in the US that currently permits same-sex couples to marry, those rights even in MA are still not fully settled. Today’s New York Times reports that the Massachusetts state legislature is nearly ready to vote on whether or not to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only. In 2003 the MA Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state’s constitutional guarantees of equal rights. Opponents countered with a constitutional amendment proposal which would change the constitution to specifically deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. That proposal is now coming before the state legislature. If the legislature approves the amendment, it will go to voters who will ultimately decide whether or not same-sex marriage will be permitted.

This raises important questions and I’m not the first to point them out but I can’t help repeat them. When addressing the rights of a minority, is it better to entrust decisions to a court or to a legislature or to the public? Courts are sometimes in a position to protect minority rights when “the people” still aren’t ready to recognize those rights. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, desegregation was still so controversial as to require the calling out of National Guard troops to enforce order. Had “the people” been allowed to vote, would schools really have become desegregated? Yet we look back on that as a landmark ruling in favor of social justice.

Of course I’m currently outraged that the Court of Appeals in New York did not protect minority rights in its recent decision on the issue of same-sex marriage. It has put the decision back in the hands of the legislature and given them some pretty interesting language/rationale to use if they want to continue to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

I hope that, if this amendment does in fact come before the people of MA, that they will do the right thing and support the Court’s decision to protect the rights of a minority group. I also hope this continues to spur discussion about how best to address minority rights in a democracy. We’re certainly not the only ones who need to figure that out!

1 Comment

Filed under News and politics, public discourse, Same-Sex Marriage