The politics of gay marriage

By Kathy G.

When GLBT activists first began pressing for gay marriage, and when in fact many GLBT groups made gay marriage the top priority on their political agenda, I thought it was probably the wrong decision on their part, both strategically and substantively. It's not that I opposed gay marriage -- in fact, I strongly supported it. But I thought that other concerns -- such as the right to be free of discrimination in jobs and housing, and even the right to serve in the military, were more important.

I also thought that pushing for gay marriage was too radical. Face it, gay marriage is a lot of conservative folks' worst nightmare. Wouldn't it be better to work up to that gradually? To ease people into it by first advocating for less controversial measures, like a statute outlawing job discrimination against GLBT folks? Or by not asking for anything more, for now, than civil unions?

Gay marriage as an issue didn't sit right with me for another reason: it seemed not only too radical but also too conservative. There are radical traditions within the GLBT liberation movements that are sharply critical of marriage for being a conservative, bourgeois, heteronormative institution. I always found those critiques useful, as I did the (similar) feminist anti-marriage critiques. I never entirely embraced the anti-marriage ideology, but I thought there was much truth in the anti-marriage arguments, and much reason, for me and other feminists, to be deeply skeptical of marriage as an institution, and and to view the romanticized portrayals of marriage that saturate our culture with a gimlet eye.

But then two things happened. One is, I got married. Ever since I was in my teens, I was never certain that I wanted marriage for myself, though I knew I wanted to be in a lifelong, committed relationship. And when I got married, I felt some uncertainty as to whether I was doing the right thing. It's not that I doubted for a moment that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with my husband. But I worried a little if marriage would change the nature of our relationship.

I also had some concerns about entering an institution that arbitrarily granted instant social status. Why should getting married make me suddenly more worthy of respect? Why did having a wedding (which I also felt ambivalent about -- had it not been for my husband's wishes, I would just as soon have eloped) instantly make me the center of attention? Weren't all my fabulous single friends just as worthy of celebration and admiration? And what about my gay friends, who were forcibly denied the right to marry? Where was the justice in that?

Btw, I'm not kidding when I say that getting married grants you instant social status. It really does -- if you're a woman, at least. You're no longer condescendingly viewed as the sad, lonely maiden aunt. You're no longer patronized as one of those "terrific" single women who "has it hard" (because of the supposed lack of marriageable men). Oh no no. Once you're married, you're treated as one of society's winners. You've made it, you've snagged the biggest prize there is -- a dude. And just about any dude will do, really.

Anyway, here's the thing: once I got married, I discovered something that surprised me about myself: I really love married life! I'd always cherished the quotidian joys of spending every day with the person I love most in the world -- that didn't change. But what I love about marriage (or my marriage, anyway -- Maude knows your mileage may vary!) is the security of it. If my husband and I had agreed to live together and made a lifelong private commitment to each other, I think that eventually I would have felt insecure. I would have thought, why does my partner not want to make that ultimate level of commitment -- marriage?  Even if we'd chosen not to marry for political reasons, I believe that those doubts would have gnawed at me.

So, yes, the personal sense of security I get from being married -- a security that I'm sure many other happily married folks also share -- is definitely one of marriage's benefits. As is the social status -- because, as uncomfortable as I may be with that kind of undeserved privilege, it certainly redounds to my advantage. Not to mention the legal rights and benefits that accrue from marriage -- all 1,049 of them (and counting).

All of which brings me to the change of heart I'd had about gay marriage. It now seems obvious to me that focusing on gay marriage was a stroke of genius on the part of the GLBT groups. It was daring, because it dramatically took issue with conventional wisdom (the same kind of conventional wisdom that has so sagely counseled us that, among other things, Democrats shouldn't oppose the Iraq War, or they'll look weak, and that Democrats shouldn't "go negative" against the President, because that will be unpopular. And on and on). But it was brilliant, because it gets people right where they live. It exposes the evil lie on the part of conservatives that being gay is about some debased, sinful lifestyle, and makes it crystal clear that what the whole gay rights debate is really about nothing more than the right to love, and to live in dignity.

I was in Cali last week, and one day after the gay marriage decision came down I met a gay man who told me that the previous day, his partner of 38 years had asked him to marry him. I was so touched I started to mist up.

So here's to you, D., and your future husband. I hope you two crazy kids are sure about what you're doing -- wouldn't want you to try anything rash! Many, many happy returns to both of you.

And while I'm at it, my compliments to the California Supreme Court, and especially to all the fierce, dedicated, visionary activists out there who are making GLBT equality less and less of an aspiration and more and more of a reality.

Comments

[Brian Schmidt]

I wouldn't give out the political accolades until we see the result of the November initiative to overturn the Court. I went door-to-door to campaign against the 2000 anti-gay marriage initiative, and we wuz stomped.

I figure we'd be reasonably safe against the initiative if it were happening in 2013 instead of today, but if it passes now, then it will be ten years or more before voters will be ready to overturn their prior vote.

[Blondie Writes]

Your story is touching, somtimes it takes time to understand what marriage means and why same sex marriages are no different from a man and a woman. The only difference is the sex of the parties involved not the commitment or love.

[LT Nixon]

Frankly, it's sad that this issue even came up in political debate. What right does the government have on who someone marries?

[Charlotte]

Well being a gay activist gay marriage was just one of 1/2 rights like ENDA & LGBT Hate Crime Legislation etc but for some reason gay marriage raised more attention. LGBT equality will slowly pass worldwide on all our issues. It's going to take some time. Congrats to everyone in CA who's about to tie the knot!! We just celebrated 4 years of gay marriage in Massachusetts. We just suggest that CA gay couples planning to marry chat with a lawyer or counselor & get the facts about your State's marriage laws before making it legal. It could save you a lot of $$$ & grief in the long run. Check OUT our short on gay marriage: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

[Charlotte]

Well being a gay activist gay marriage was just one of 1/2 rights like ENDA & LGBT Hate Crime Legislation etc but for some reason gay marriage raised more attention. LGBT equality will slowly pass worldwide on all our issues. It's going to take some time. Congrats to everyone in CA who's about to tie the knot!! We just celebrated 4 years of gay marriage in Massachusetts. We just suggest that CA gay couples planning to marry chat with a lawyer or counselor & get the facts about your State's marriage laws before making it legal. It could save you a lot of $$$ & grief in the long run. Check OUT our short on gay marriage: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

[MikeT]

I think what makes it so persuasive is that it is simultaneously so mundane. Too often gays are cast as the Other in our culture, and that's the excuse used to justify discriminating against them in various ways.

But when the right being demanded is the right to marry the person you love and form a family, the most ordinary joy in the world, its hard to cast the person demand that right as some kind of deviant. It's an issue that emphasizes our sameness.

Oh, and bonus points for "quotidian joys of spending every day..." Nice play with the literal and connotative meanings.

[Thomas]

While on the gay marriage topic, I just wanted to throw out some congrats for George Takei!! (Mr. Sulu from the original Star Trek...gambling that there some trek fans out there...)

check it out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7410431.stm

[Philip Chandler]

The decision handed down by the California Supreme Court on Thursday May 15 was brilliant. The majority opinion was extremely detailed and well-researched, with a depth of analysis that was truly amazing. The majority quoted from Chief Judge Judith Kaye's dissent in Hernandez v. Robles (the New York gay marriage decision which went against the gay community last yar), making it clear that the issue of gay marriage was an issue implicating a fundamental right, and that such rights cannot be denied to a group of people simply because they have been denied to that group in the past.

What is also very important, and what has not been widely discussed, is the fact that the majority also held that gay men and lesbians constitute a "suspect class" for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Even if the voters approve a referendum that constitutionalizes opposite sex only marriage, this holding will remain intact. This is crucial, because in holding that gay people comprise a "suspect class" for the purposes of equal protection analysis, the Court has become one of the first appellate courts in the nation to reach this conclusion. The California Supreme Court is one of the most highly regarded state supreme courts, and other state courts frequently look to decisions handed down by the California Supreme Court for guidance, particularly in the area of family law.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[FearItself]

I agree with MikeT. I think the focus on marriage is a brilliant piece of strategy on the part of LGBT activists because being married is a cultural marker of individual responsibility and conventionality. Yes, actual married people are not necessarily responsible or conventional in the real world, but still, that's what marriage MEANS to most Americans, especially conservative Americans.

Thus, the fact that TLGB people were demanding the right to enter into that institution flies directly in the face of wingnut stereotypes of BTLG people as fundamentally irresponsible and unconventional. The tortuous logic wingnuts have to use to try to show that GBTL marriage is somehow a "threat" to traditional hetero marriage is a clear sign of the bind they find themselves in.

[Yuri Rennenkampf]

"I also thought that pushing for gay marriage was too radical. Face it, gay marriage is a lot of conservative folks' worst nightmare. Wouldn't it be better to work up to that gradually?"

I am sure many made such arguments in 1948 over desegregation of the military, during the 1950s over school desegregation and in 1964 during debates over the Civil Rights Act. Pretty shameful line of reasoning that a group of citizens should be treated less than equally to appease "conservative folks".

[Kathy G.]

Yuri, that is a serious, and indeed seemingly willful, misreading of what I wrote. I never advocated that anyone be treated as "less than equal" -- I always strongly supported the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered folks to marry. I just said I thought that going for civil unions first might be a sounder route, strategically.

My thinking was, that not only would civil unions offer most of the benefits of marriage, but they would be more likely to be successful politically -- because I believed they'd be less likely to attract strong opposition.

As I freely admit in my post, I was dead wrong about that. And I am very happy that I was. All props to the visionaries who able to see this issue with far more clarity than I did.

[Tom Hilton]

What is also very important, and what has not been widely discussed, is the fact that the majority also held that gay men and lesbians constitute a "suspect class" for the purposes of equal protection analysis.

Yes, that's exactly right. Even if the vote goes the wrong way (and I'm optimistic about it--I think we'll see a substantial shift in opinion once people are actually getting married), the legal foundation is there for full equality.

And one measure of how well-crafted a decision it is is that not one person I've seen argue against it has been able to make a coherent arguments against the specifics of the decision--as opposed to just mouthing platitudes about 'the will of the people' and such.

[Terrance]

Thanks for this. It makes me wonder why anyone who has experienced the best of marriage and married life -- which I feel I have, though my husband and I are not legally married, and can't be in our state -- would want, or feel they had the right to deny it to anyone else.

What's amazing is that we make commitments to each other at all, considering that right now we're penalized for doing so. Loving makes you vulnerable. Marrying and starting a family adds more personal vulnerability even as it encourages social stabilty, because every day you watch the people you love go out into a world that seems a lot more dangerous unpredictable.

That's why we protect families who've made a commitment to -- and taken the risks of -- loving and caring for one another. We, however, are not protected or supported. We're penalized instead.

[Matilde]

Great post Kathy. As the partner of a wonderful person for the last nine years, we've often thought, 'why get married?' I mean we're happy as we are, and we've outlasted several of our straight married friends. It's nice to see another perspective, from another marriage-skeptic.

Your post made me think of a story a friend of mine told me once, when her partner was beginning the transition from female to male. As soon as her partner began to pass as man, the public reaction to them completely changed. Old women smiled at her in the street, people cooed when they kissed, salesmen ran right up to them in stores. It was a horrifying revelation, that all of a sudden a few hormones changed completely society's reaction to them as a couple. And it wasn't just that they were no longer perceived as gay, but the fact that her status had now gone way up because she was traveling with a man instead of a woman. It's not often we get such extreme lessons in how subtle discrimination can be.

But most importantly - kudos to the California Supreme Court! Despite being ambivalent about marriage for myself, I had tears in my eyes.