In the Massachusetts decision, the three vote minority opinion, written by Martha Sosman rejected the appropriateness of judicial determination of this issue, saying rather, as in the N.Y. Decision, that it belongs rightly to the representative branch, the legislature. This decision prompted a spate of constitutional amendments to be voted on during the election of 2004. Ohio was lost by Kerry by 60,000 votes, a margin that most commentators attribute to those who came out to cast a vote in favor of the amendment to prohibit gay marriage in that state.
Was this Martha Sosman who voted to deny gay equality some sort of right wing fundamentalist? Not quite. Before being selected for the high court she spent eight years as head of Massachusetts's Planned Parenthood. The Federal Gay Marriage Amendment that recently was voted down, is almost universally depicted, even among some moderate Republicans, as a pure wedge issue, of no legitimate purpose other than to rally the conservative base. It is often paired in this category with it's twin, the Flag Burning Amendment. This is not political analysis, it is the echoing of a simplification that ignores any deeper understanding.
Passage of the Flag Burning Amendment would have had no substantive consequences, but its symbolism would have been enormous. Judicial imposition, or it's converse, constitutional prohibition, of Gay Marriage has consequences, both to the specific target population, party politics and to society at large. The focus of progressives has been exclusively on the effect on gays, at a sacrifice, I would argue, of a more productive overview. This happens to be a wedge issue, but that is coincidental to it's meaningful societal implications.
What would have been the consequences had Sosman's dissent in the Massachusetts case garnered a single additional vote. Would Gays have been persecuted and driven from their homes? Would those with children have them taken from them? Would squads of goons break down their doors to make sure they were not in bed together? None of these things would have happened. The similarity between prohibition of same sex marriage and laws against marriage across races is often made to reinforce the moral imperative of breaking down this last prejudice against gays. But before miscegenation laws were voided, where applicable, the horrors just mentioned were exactly what would have happened to a black and white couple. Had the Massachusetts decision gone the other way, gays could have availed themselves of civil unions and lived exactly as they are living as married couples. Well not exactly the same.
There would have been a difference, a lack of a state imprimatur of complete acceptance. There would have been financial costs in taxes and governmental benefits. And it would have been more difficult to get other advantages of spousal relationships, such as hospital visits and end of life decisions. And, perhaps, there would have been a delay in further progress toward complete acceptance. During this delay, if in fact there were to be one, gays would have been merely couples, partners rather than spouses. Stigmatization? Whether the decision ultimately increased or decreased it, is an open question. My guess is contempt for gays is not dependent on a court decision, any more than acceptance is. Stripped of the passion of outrage, that would have been pretty much the totality of the cost of a different decision.
The benefit, it turns out, is that John Kerry (all things being the same) would have won Ohio, and the election. We would have been out of Iraq. We would have been talking to N. Korea. We would have started to tackle the structural deficit. We would have re staffed FEMA to have better responded to Katrina. And there would be a billion more people throughout the world who respected the United States.
It is my personal opinion that the decision today in New York, and in Georgia, affirming the validity of an amendment prohibiting Gay Marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the Progressive movement. Read the complete Massachusetts's decision that I have linked above, especially Sosman's dissent, for the best articulation of this position.
There is a deeper argument to be made against same sex Marriage under the rubric of heterosexualism. It is not a brand, or even a meme. It is now subsumed under homophobia or religious fundamentalism, and as such will be treated with the contempt felt for those concepts. Heterosexualism has no formal articulation that I am aware of. Its argument resting on intra psychic and sociological concepts, arouses no passions. With no victims or villains, it is barely heard above the din of those who see this issue as a central front of our national culture war.
I am not even asserting that the argument of heterosexualism should prevail, only that it should be aired. At the very least it will temper the contempt that many express for those on the other side with some understanding of their motivations. If I don't get too beat up for this diary, I may give expanding on this concept a try.
I firmly believe that the thrust of the progressive movement in this moment of time has history, morality and reason on its side. There is nothing to fear from expanding any discussion. We will only lose if we hunker down and hate our enemies they way they hate us.
----------------------
This dailykos diary recieved over a hundred comments, and three recommends, but not a single TR (a mark of rejection) I have only looked at this four years after writing it, as DK3 is about to be resolved. I hadn't the heart to re-read it, remembering that I had been castigated. But forgotten were the respectful, thoughtful, and erudite comments from those who were gay, but could understand (while strongly disagreeing) with my presentation. Here's an example- as long as the original diary:
---------------
Hmm (12+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- Maryscott OConnor, Ahianne, GN1927, snakelass, nasarius, homogenius, vansterdam, lgmcp, Topaz7, pico, esquimaux, Mophio
There isn't any one issue you can point to and say, this is the most important thing if our cause is justice. It doesn't work that way.
What you're asking for, essentially, is for a whole bunch of people to just tacitly accept discrimination that directly affects their ability to live their lives freely, so that we can focus on what you deem "more important", right?
Equality is not a bargainable political poker chip. That's what you're missing here.
Would those with children have them taken from them?
Actually, legal cases like this do come up from time to time. People have lost their children over this stuff. I don't enjoy the continual comparisons with the Black civil rights struggle, either, because I think there are important differences in the challenges our communities face -- but that in no way minimizes the importance of equality under the law.
My guess is contempt for gays is not dependent on a court decision, any more than acceptance is.
These things work like a gigantic feedback loop. Social change and legal/political change both have to happen, because they feed each other.
The benefit, it turns out, is that John Kerry (all things being the same) would have won Ohio, and the election.
Um, probably not. They'd have picked a different wedge. Like abortion, say. They've got plenty of wedge issues.
Speaking as somebody who believes that none of us has real, meaningful freedom until we all do, I'm rather glad when we don't throw any group of people under a bus to improve our electoral prospects.
I certainly don't think you're a troll. I just think you're wrong.
What you're asking for, essentially, is for a whole bunch of people to just tacitly accept discrimination that directly affects their ability to live their lives freely, so that we can focus on what you deem "more important", right?
Equality is not a bargainable political poker chip. That's what you're missing here.
Would those with children have them taken from them?
Actually, legal cases like this do come up from time to time. People have lost their children over this stuff. I don't enjoy the continual comparisons with the Black civil rights struggle, either, because I think there are important differences in the challenges our communities face -- but that in no way minimizes the importance of equality under the law.
My guess is contempt for gays is not dependent on a court decision, any more than acceptance is.
These things work like a gigantic feedback loop. Social change and legal/political change both have to happen, because they feed each other.
The benefit, it turns out, is that John Kerry (all things being the same) would have won Ohio, and the election.
Um, probably not. They'd have picked a different wedge. Like abortion, say. They've got plenty of wedge issues.
Speaking as somebody who believes that none of us has real, meaningful freedom until we all do, I'm rather glad when we don't throw any group of people under a bus to improve our electoral prospects.
I certainly don't think you're a troll. I just think you're wrong.
Thank you (3+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- Spit, vansterdam, lgmcp
for your courteous and thougtful response.
[ Parent ]
I think you mean well (4+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- homogenius, vansterdam, lgmcp, Topaz7
though we disagree -- but in the future, I would suggest that before you write a diary like this, you take a good, deep breath and spend a lot of time focusing yourself on a particular point. Because I think the point you're trying to make -- which I still vehemently disagree with, but is a valid argument -- is getting lost in a lot of the side issues you bring up here.
Some topics are very difficult, and this is one of them. Particularly since there are a lot of us, myself included, who are directly affected by these sorts of legal decisions -- that makes it hard to argue abstractly, because these aren't abstractions in many of our lives.
Please don't censor yourself, but please consider carefully how best to make your point.
Some topics are very difficult, and this is one of them. Particularly since there are a lot of us, myself included, who are directly affected by these sorts of legal decisions -- that makes it hard to argue abstractly, because these aren't abstractions in many of our lives.
Please don't censor yourself, but please consider carefully how best to make your point.
[ Parent ]
right by Leggy Starlitz, Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:30:36 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
I did (1+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- lgmcp
I gave this several deep breaths before sending it out.
The problem is that increasing numbers of the right simply reject, instinctively, viscerally, any liberal argument. They don't care whether it is to promote Gay Rights, End the war in Iraq, or deal with Global Warming. If it is from the Liberal camp, it is simply rejected, our imune system fights a virus.
Many on dailykos react to the gay marriage issue with the same emotion as if abortion were being curtailed, or other issues where lives are on the line. Many do not make a distinction between limiting Gays to psuedo marriage, civil unions, and forcing them back into the closet of fear and shame.
There is a difference. A big difference. But if it were I who felt that the tide of liberation were being reversed by a court decision, and this ending of the movement towards acceptence was being promoted by some bloger like myself, I could be just as enraged as those who revile my diary.
Not sure if I really could have done it much differently. But thanks for the suggestions and the respectful response.[ Parent ]try again (1+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- vansterdam
Your thoughts are not new; similar diaries have been posted in the past. The difference being is other diarists had cogent arguments for their beliefs. You do not; rather you have a weak argument that swirls around a dissenting opinion in MA.The thing is (4+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- GN1927, vansterdam, lgmcp, Mophio
where lives are on the line
it's hard to figure that out. Lives sometimes are on the line, as far as social acceptance goes, for example. The suicide rates among gay/lesbian/trans teens continue to be outrageous, and while lethal hate crimes have been blessedly going down in the last few years, they do still happen.
Personally, I'm pretty damned mellow about the whole thing, but then I've been involved in gay activism since I was a teen. So I can look at it and say, man, 10 years ago, I didn't think gay marriage or even civil unions were going to happen in my lifetime. Now we've got one state doing the former, several doing the latter, and we're making slow progress all the time.
Many do not make a distinction between limiting Gays to psuedo marriage, civil unions, and forcing them back into the closet of fear and shame.
These are all related things, is where we disagree. I think that until being queer is exactly as acceptable as not being queer, we're going to be an unjust country. While I don't expect perfection all at once, I do expect us to always move toward greater justice -- which can't always happen in little comfy baby steps, because people start to demand their equality. Which is something they have every right -- even responsibility -- to do.
Even abortion, BTW, isn't just about "lives on the line" to me; that's not even the most important piece of the issue as far as I'm concerned. Abortion rights are fundamentally about equality for women, about freedom to control their (our) own bodies and life-altering decisions. I think one of the places we differ is that you're looking at this in terms of impact physically (life, finances, hospital visitation) and I'm looking at this in terms of impact socially (Women are equal adults, and must have control of our lives. Gays are equal adults, and must have control of our lives.). I think viewed the way you seem to be looking at it, your opinion makes more sense -- but viewed more holistically, not just as a physical set of things but as a message of one's social worth, mine makes more sense.[ Parent ]Good Point (0 / 0)
I suppose nothing is more infuriating than someone who tries to impose rationality (me) on something that is very personal.
I do understand, and expect every attack that I recieved. Actually most were rather reasonable and only a very few personally denegrating.
But what if people like me kept silent, as I probably should have. You would never know that there are people who are not accepting, lets say for now, of gay marriage, but are quite accepting of gay, whats the word "lifestyle"
There are large numbers, perhaps half of our country, who do not have the hostility towards Bush that precludes my being a Republican. If they are ambivalent on other issues, and feel that anything short of full acceptance of Gay marraige will be seen by liberals as a hated "homophobe." They just may figure, screw it, I'll join the other camp, where no one hates me for having the values that I have.
I am disturbed that I have not gotten a single recommendatin for my diary. Not that I give a shit since they are not convertable to frequent flier miles, but it indicates the reluctance of liberals to deviate from the party line.
This is dangerous for a movement, especially one that prides itself on openenss to ideas and an emprirical view of the world.[ Parent ]Recommendations (2+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- vansterdam, Mophio
are a bit much to ask for something that IMO you probably could have laid out better. It's hard to get an unpopular view recommended here, but it's not impossible if it's extremely well argued.
It's also not just about "the party line". It's about what most of us feel is fundamentally right -- the equality under the law that is supposedly guaranteed to all americans, even those with whom we disagree. I don't really care whether you approve of "my lifestyle" -- given how strange my lifestyle actually is, I can almost guarantee you wouldn't. But I do care about whether you think I have the right to live my life as I wish, so long as I'm not hurting anybody.
Believe me, I don't live in a gay liberal paradise, and I am never, ever allowed, not even for a second, to forget that:
there are people who are not accepting, lets say for now, of gay marriage, but are quite accepting of gay, whats the word "lifestyle"
Still, I don't think you should remain silent. I just think that, like many controversial and personally charged issues, you do have to be careful with this one if you really want people to see what you're trying to say.[ Parent ]Come on (0 / 0)
Can you honestly imagine any argument that expresses my sentiment that you would recommend. Just what kind of an argument would you find well crafted as to be worth recommending. Give me some hint!
When the words that we need to discuss an issue all become so politicized that common ground is precluded we are in trouble as a society. I used quotations for the word lifestyle because I was aware that that word is considered insulting to many gays.
But just what word is there to denote what I refered to as "lifestyle" in contrast to marriage, which is lifestyle with governmental approval.
If any group contributes to making discussion of any topic impossible, they are perpetuating the cultural divide that we all suffer from.[ Parent ]
Here's another question for you (2+ / 0-)
if one purpose of the courts is not to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority, then what exactly else are the courts for, and what body of the government protects us from establishing laws that strip the rights of any group that is 49% of the population or less?[ Parent ]Your point (1+ / 0-)
- Recommended by:
- Spit
is well taken. In principle I agree with you, the courts are the bulwark against oppression by the majority.
I can't lay out my entire case here, or maybe not at all. Sosman's dissent conveyed her conception of the proper place for the legislature and of the courts.
Majority rule certainly can be oppressive, it must be checked. The question that was decided in two different ways in Mass and in MY is which theory of government allocation of power of the three branches should prevail.
See my previous comment for a more personal response.[ Parent ]Agree with you on this (0 / 0)
they're working under very different theories of the role of the court. I tend to agree much more with the MA decision -- I think that the most fundamental and important role of courts is to protect individual freedoms, unpopular opinions, so forth. I believe very firmly that this was also the opinion of many of the founders of our country, who very much saw and debated the dangers inherent in a "majority rule" system that had no concept of fundamental rights or a body to make sure those were not infringed upon.[ Parent ]
