Circa75.com -- Gay Marriage Should Be The Biggest Election-Year Issue

Home | About circa75 | Articles | Links | Contact Us

Posted by gustav at 05:00PM, Tuesday, December 02nd, 2003

Gay Marriage Should Be The Biggest Election-Year Issue

Lots of talking heads, nominally on both sides of the issue, are shouting that gay marriage mustn't be a big issue this election year. They're on the wrong side of history.

First of all, making gay marriage and gay rights a central issue in upcoming campaigns will demonstrate the unabashed bigotry of the party in power in this country right now. I believe people are smart enough to know that a Republican Party which claims compassion, but practices extra sentences for gays (for instance, the Romeo-and-Juliet laws in Kansas), and pushes to create the first amendment ever to the U.S. Constitution that will remove rights, isn't compassionate at all, but just as bigoted, intolerant, and suppressive as it demonstrated in such shining historical moments as the McCarthy witch hunts and Watergate.

Similarly, requiring candidates to be clear about their positions on gay rights will help demonstrate the bigotry of many who claim to be the alternative to the Republican Party. People like John Kerry, again, claim to be pro-gay rights, regardless of their voting records, and their vehement opposition to gay marriage. This is a nonsensical position, and its use demonstrates that politicians are trying to play both sides of the fence. "I'm not intolerant -- but don't worry, I wouldn't let those gays marry!" is what they're saying. Many of us who are gay say that not allowing us the same rights these married politicians enjoy is intolerant and bigoted, and demand to know how, exactly, allowing us to marry will hurt all the heterosexuals in America.

That's one of the biggest galls about the debates in Massachusetts: almost all of those railing against gay marriage in the legislature already have the right to marry, and most of them have exercised that right. A breakdown of voting trends published in the Boston Globe showed that, in last week's votes on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, married legislators overwhelmingly supported the amendment, while unmarried ones overwhelmingly opposed it. Those who claim that forbidding us a right that they enjoy will not and cannot hurt us are glaring hypocrites. If they really believe that, they should divorce before voting for such legislation.

The urge to purge us from the issues this year is about fear. Politicians are frightened of being seen as the bigots they are, so they say they're pro-gay, regardless of their past actions. They're also frightened of being seen as pro-gay by these hypothetical bible-belt middle-state voters they claim to need, so they make sure everyone knows exactly how anti-gay-marriage they are. They really just want us to go away. People like Jesse Jackson -- people who, having supposedly fought discrimination for decades, should absolutely know better -- claim that our issues aren't their issues, that gay marriage is much less important than jobs and the economy and fair housing. By saying that, they're saying that issues that are important to gays aren't important to the country in general -- because gays aren't important. What could be more bigoted? We all share some enemies -- the Bush administration and its helpers in the press -- but we as gays are also opposed by those too scared to stand up and oppose injustice, even though they claim that's their entire reason for engaging in politics. It's hard to tell whether people like Kerry are really anti-gay, or just too scared about other people thinking they're too pro-gay to stand up for their beliefs. I'd like to think it's the latter, but either way, the result is the same.

I don't think our enemies within the Democratic Party realize that their lack of conviction on this issue is what's killing the Party. The Democrats have moved away from their core identity -- the party of the working man, which stands up against big business and its fascistic ideals, and against intolerance in general. People who have been paying attention know that the 2000 Presidential election wasn't just lost to Bush II; it was also lost to Nader. If Gore had received the support of the thousands who voted for Nader in just a couple of states like New Hampshire, then Florida never could have become an issue. Party loyalists would do well to remember that if they continue to try to imitate the Republicans, the party will continue to disintegrate, as the people who are at its core, and have experienced injustice first hand, turn away from a party that has abandoned them.

Do the Democrats of today want to be remembered like we remember Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett, a Democrat who disobeyed the law, and, in 1962, tried to keep Ole Miss racially segregated in violation of a Supreme Court order? Do they want to be remembered as joining the Bush administration in condemning "activist judges" -- like those in that Supreme Court case, or those in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, argued by Thurgood Marshall, or the 1956 ruling banning bus segregation, brought on by the actions of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.? It is simply wrong to suggest that the Judicial Branch hasn't been historically necessary for breaking down intolerance and barriers to civil rights. We proudly remember Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1968 -- but we must not forget that one of the landmarks of the civil rights movement happened 14 years earlier because of "judicial activism." Such are the principles upon which our government is built, and we should deride any man who rejects them.

Right now, I wish more than ever that I lived in San Francisco. That city has often been one which actually practices liberal politics, rather than giving lip service to them, and Mayor Gavin Newsom's actions this month will come to be seen as a shining moment American civil rights history. I should think any politician would be thrilled to have his name forever tied to such a legacy. In contrast, George Bush, and all of those who let him have his way with the Constitution, will eventually be regarded as central or complicit figures in one of the darkest times for constitutional rights and liberties in the U.S., more frightening even than McCarthyism. It's time to ask whose side you are on, and to ask that of anyone who wants your vote this year.

It's time to stop sweeping us under the rug. It's time to stop equivocating, in the absense of any actual evidence that gay marriage will harm anyone. It's time to regard us as people, to recognize that the things that are important to us are important in general. If defeating the rights of gays is an easy victory for the evil that is sweeping this country, those who direct that evil will be emboldened in their attacks on others: Jews, Blacks, Arabs, environmentalists, drug users, civil libertarians, Hispanics, liberals, humanists, librarians, and academics... It's time for people, particularly for those who would claim to be Democrats, to be proud to say that they support gay rights, and to point out the gulf between their demonstrations of humanism and the Republican opposition, who never regard us as people. Continuing to try and push us and our issues under the rug is continuing to make the mistake of saying that we're not people, and that our votes and issues don't count as much as other people's issues -- that they're not really important. Politicians are free to do so, of course, but they must realize that we will take our votes elsewhere, if they do, and that history will vindicate us.

Messages:

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's

Posted by Veritas at 2004-02-22 14:25:42
NOTE: NOT SURE HOW TO FORMAT THIS PROPERLY...And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, "Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?"
But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, "Why tempt ye me? Bring me a penny, that I may see it." And they brought it. And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?"
And they said unto him, "Caesar's"
And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. (Cf. Mt 17:24-27)

I've been working for John Kerry's campaign since July of '03. I've met the Senator and his wife several times. When evaluating candidates, I was encouraged by the Senator's long support for GLBT rights, which has been strong since the 1970's, when it was unpopular to support gay rights causes.

John Kerry is in full support of civil unions for same-sex couples. Civil unions extend the same health benefits, inheritance rights, Social Security survivor benefits, and all other legalistic rights granted to heterosexual couples.

Yesterday, while working a booth for the Senator in San Francisco, a lesbian asked me about his stand on the issue. At first, when I explained to her that he supports civil unions, but not gay marriages, she stated this was "not enough." Then, I explained the rational behind it, and she left the booth understanding the distinction, which I will detail.

Those who criticize civil unions as not going far enough have little understanding of how our government was established by the Founding Fathers. After living under the failed theocratic systems the Puritans had instituted in early America, the Founding Fathers decided that Separation of Church and State would be a key axiom of our system of government.

The separation of church and state is the fundamental reason why Senator Kerry and others do not support defining marriage, but rather support the definition of civil unions. Kerry understands that while it is the place of the state to define legally the rights of same-sex couples, the state’s rights do not extend to the definition of marriage.

The word marriage is deeply imbued in religious connotation, and has been claimed as a sacrament by the church for thousands of years. This is why people should be disturbed when they hear Scott McLelland, President Bush’s press secretary state that “the President believes that marriage is a sacrament.” McLelland goes on to state that Bush believes that marriage should be protected, and defined legally as existing only between a man and woman. This is disturbing because the President is attempting to define, for the American people, what is sacred. In a country where separation of church and state exists, this should never occur.

To prevent America from moving in the direction of a theocracy, where there is a blending of religious and governmental affairs, we must be careful not to co-opt definition of religious sacraments into the public space. The proper separation of the spheres of church and state are upheld when government defines the legalistic rights of same-sex partners, and assures equality with their heterosexual counterparts. When government attempts to define the proper boundaries of sacramental matters, such as marriage, the distinctions between church and state become blurred, and America steps once again closer to the dangerous state of Theocracy.
- Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
  
  Posted by gustav at 2004-02-23 11:18:28
  
  This is obviously a tricky issue, and while I don't want to offend people, I have a couple of points which I think are worth repeating.
  
  The first is the use of the word marriage. There's a fair number of lawmakers in MA who are suddenly pushing for something the-same-as-marriage-but-named-differently. These are lawmakers who, a year ago, derided the notion that gays were even worthy of civil unions. Now they're dancing on ambiguous semantics, claiming that we should be happy to have civil unions, since they're the same in all but name, and we should be overjoyed to be offered the option to enter into civil unions -- but at the same time, that the word marriage is some holy sacrament into which we can't possibly be admitted. Pardon me, but didn't they just tell us the name was irrelevant? What's the real deal? I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is simply hypocrisy -- saying the name should be irrelevent to you, but it's important to us. The implication, as always, is that the "us" is more important than the "you." I have a problem with that.
  
  The second is that the SJC ruling in MA specifically pertains to civil marriage as it's defined by the state. This issue has nothing to do with religious definitions of marriage, and I agree that everyone should want to keep it that way. However, like it or not, the word marriage does now have very specific meanings and connotations in government and society in general. The state constitution doesn't define common-law civil unions for heterosexual partners. Why should it define them for me, when marriage law could be extended so that marriage, with all the rights it currently confers, applies to gays and lesbians?
  
  The third is the guts thing. I understand that many people think that it's too politically risky to back marriage for everyone. On the other hand, I'm not sure there are a lot of people who will be turned off from a Democratic candidate who supports marriage enough to make it change their vote. I'll vote for someone who's willing to give me the same rights as he enjoys in the primary, but in the general election, I'll vote for whoever's not Bush. There are a lot of people who think that way out there. Those who would be so repulsed by a candidate who supports gay marriage -- well, they're going to be voting for Bush, anyway. No Democrat could win them over. However, there are a number of us -- long-time Democrats -- who are getting disgusted at a party that prevaricates -- about the War, about economic and budget issues, about health care, and about civil rights. Those are the votes that the Democratic nominee stands to lose; they're the ones who voted for Nader in 2000, because they didn't see Gore differentiating himself adequately from the Republicans, on issues including his administration's support for DOMA. A few thousand write-ins for Kucinich in any state might decide this next election, as the votes for Nader did in 2000. It would be a shame to suffer four more years of Bush tyranny because the Democratic nominee was too scared to stand up for what is right.
  
  One thing that I think is worth noting is that civil rights in Massachusetts and the U.S. have made progress since the initial marriage ruling in November. As I've said, many many state lawmakers who were vehemently opposed to recognizing gay couples and extending them any rights conferred by government have dramatically changed there position, now that civil unions are seen as a compromise. Those gains have not come about because of timidity. They've come because of hard-won legal challenges -- Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge vs. Dept. of Health -- brought in order to compel judges to stop skirting the issues. These have been gutsy challenges, and there were many supporters of gay rights who opposed them, fearing backlash and repurcussions. And they have made this a better country. Whether the weddings being performed in SF right now will stand or fall, they've happened because of lawyers and advocates willing to bring those lawsuits, and because of a few politicians with the balls to stand up for what they believe.
  
  Lastly, the formatting thing... I know, I know. I finally gave in and put in some auto-format-conversion code in the article submission section here. I haven't gotten around to doing that for posts yet. If you want formatting, you've got to use proper HTML (well, preferably, XHTML) for now.
  - Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
    
    Posted by Veritas at 2004-02-23 22:59:44
    
    You make good points in your post.
    
    Politics is the art of enacting what is possible at a given point in time. Change must occur incrementally and gradually over time.
    
    The differentiation of gay marriage vs. same-sex civil union is indeed semantic in nature. However, in the spirit of incremental change, it is an attempt by supporters of gay unions to move the debate out of the auspices of the religious right, and away from the language of religious rites. If a semantic differentiation can help promote advancement in this area, then so be it. We all know that separate but equal does not work, and is un-constitutional. Eventually, the matter of gay unions must be tried before the Supreme Court. I'd rather have a justice nominated by President Kerry that one nominated by p(R)esident Bush deciding on the matter.
    
    I live two blocks from City Hall in San Francisco. I’ve experienced the events of the past two weeks first hand. I must say that the GLBT community is overjoyed by Mayor Gavin Newsome’s recent activities in support of gay unions. As a mayor not elected with a mandate (52% of the popular vote), Newsome has made great strides in winning the alliance of a sizable and powerful constituency in San Francisco.
    
    At the same time, we're skeptical of Newsom’s true motivations. Many in our community did not vote for Newsome. Instead, we supported Matt Gonzales, the Green candidate, who we saw as the liberal, progressive choice. We saw Newsome as a scion of privilege, who used his family’s political connections to obtain the favor of the Geddy family, and access to their tremendous wealth and influence.
    
    We’re well aware that Mayor Newsome has designs on higher office, either at the state or federal level, and that he is co-opting the gay union issue to launch his political career through the media. We can't help but feel used in the whole process. Already, we see far right groups filming at City Hall, seeking visual material for election year attack ads. Only time will tell how this issue will play out on the national political stage.
    
    Now, while we're very pleased with the progress that the events in San Francisco represent, we're somewhat concerned by the backlash that might result. The election of 2004 is one of the most important in our history. The countless crimes of the Bush administration must be the first item on our national agenda. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive, non-constitutional war, the erosion of civil liberties, and the fragile state of the economy are all paramount issues. When I prioritize concerns in my mind, I place these ahead of my right to civil union or marriage. Not everyone in the GLBT community agrees with my prioritization, and believes that this election should be a referendum on gay marriage. I believe that it should not be, and that it will not be. Americans tend to vote on economic matters first. Matters of national security, and social issues, such as Gay Rights, are secondary and tertiary concerns.
    - Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
      
      Posted by gustav at 2004-02-27 08:57:58
      
      So much for Kerry being pro-gay.
      
      http://advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11466&sd=02/27/04 -- "Kerry backs Mass. amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage."
      
      I think it's absurd to claim that anyone who supports this kind of legislation is pro-gay. That's like saying people who supported anti-miscegenation laws weren't racist. This also illustrates what seems like the perennial problem with Kerry -- it's impossible to tell where exactly he stands because his positions can be contradictory. He criticizes Bush for wanting to write this kind of legislation into the U.S. Constitution, but backs it for the MA one -- how on EARTH can that make sense? In a state where support for same-sex marriage is growing, this is a politically foolish move. In a world with a gay population, this is just stupid. He can kiss my vote in the general election goodbye, assuming he gets the nomination and doesn't reverse this opinion. Yeah, George W sucks. But fucking A, way to paint yourself as an "alternative."
  - Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
    
    Posted by Veritas at 2004-02-23 22:58:35
    
    You make good points in your post.
    
    Politics is the art of enacting what is possible at a given point in time. Change must occur incrementally and gradually over time.
    
    The differentiation of gay marriage vs. same-sex civil union is indeed semantic in nature. However, in the spirit of incremental change, it is an attempt by supporters of gay unions to move the debate out of the auspices of the religious right, and away from the language of religious rites. If a semantic differentiation can help promote advancement in this area, then so be it. We all know that separate but equal does not work, and is un-constitutional. Eventually, the matter of gay unions must be tried before the Supreme Court. I'd rather have a justice nominated by President Kerry that one nominated by p(R)esident Bush deciding on the matter.
    
    I live two blocks from City Hall in San Francisco. I’ve experienced the events of the past two weeks first hand. I must say that the GLBT community is overjoyed by Mayor Gavin Newsome’s recent activities in support of gay unions. As a mayor not elected with a mandate (52% of the popular vote), Newsome has made great strides in winning the alliance of a sizable and powerful constituency in San Francisco.
    
    At the same time, we're skeptical of Newsom’s true motivations. Many in our community did not vote for Newsome. Instead, we supported Matt Gonzales, the Green candidate, who we saw as the liberal, progressive choice. We saw Newsome as a scion of privilege, who used his family’s political connections to obtain the favor of the Geddy family, and access to their tremendous wealth and influence.
    
    We’re well aware that Mayor Newsome has designs on higher office, either at the state or federal level, and that he is co-opting the gay union issue to launch his political career through the media. We can't help but feel used in the whole process. Already, we see far right groups filming at City Hall, seeking visual material for election year attack ads. Only time will tell how this issue will play out on the national political stage.
    
    Now, while we're very pleased with the progress that the events in San Francisco represent, we're somewhat concerned by the backlash that might result. The election of 2004 is one of the most important in our history. The countless crimes of the Bush administration must be the first item on our national agenda. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive, non-constitutional war, the erosion of civil liberties, and the fragile state of the economy are all paramount issues. When I prioritize concerns in my mind, I place these ahead of my right to civil union or marriage. Not everyone in the GLBT community agrees with my prioritization, and believes that this election should be a referendum on gay marriage. I believe that it should not be, and that it will not be. Americans tend to vote on economic matters first. Matters of national security, and social issues, such as Gay Rights, are secondary and tertiary concerns.
  - Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
    
    Posted by Veritas at 2004-02-23 22:58:15
    
    You make good points in your post.
    
    Politics is the art of enacting what is possible at a given point in time. Change must occur incrementally and gradually over time.
    
    The differentiation of gay marriage vs. same-sex civil union is indeed semantic in nature. However, in the spirit of incremental change, it is an attempt by supporters of gay unions to move the debate out of the auspices of the religious right, and away from the language of religious rites. If a semantic differentiation can help promote advancement in this area, then so be it. We all know that separate but equal does not work, and is un-constitutional. Eventually, the matter of gay unions must be tried before the Supreme Court. I'd rather have a justice nominated by President Kerry that one nominated by p(R)esident Bush deciding on the matter.
    
    I live two blocks from City Hall in San Francisco. I’ve experienced the events of the past two weeks first hand. I must say that the GLBT community is overjoyed by Mayor Gavin Newsome’s recent activities in support of gay unions. As a mayor not elected with a mandate (52% of the popular vote), Newsome has made great strides in winning the alliance of a sizable and powerful constituency in San Francisco.
    
    At the same time, we're skeptical of Newsom’s true motivations. Many in our community did not vote for Newsome. Instead, we supported Matt Gonzales, the Green candidate, who we saw as the liberal, progressive choice. We saw Newsome as a scion of privilege, who used his family’s political connections to obtain the favor of the Geddy family, and access to their tremendous wealth and influence.
    
    We’re well aware that Mayor Newsome has designs on higher office, either at the state or federal level, and that he is co-opting the gay union issue to launch his political career through the media. We can't help but feel used in the whole process. Already, we see far right groups filming at City Hall, seeking visual material for election year attack ads. Only time will tell how this issue will play out on the national political stage.
    
    Now, while we're very pleased with the progress that the events in San Francisco represent, we're somewhat concerned by the backlash that might result. The election of 2004 is one of the most important in our history. The countless crimes of the Bush administration must be the first item on our national agenda. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive, non-constitutional war, the erosion of civil liberties, and the fragile state of the economy are all paramount issues. When I prioritize concerns in my mind, I place these ahead of my right to civil union or marriage. Not everyone in the GLBT community agrees with my prioritization, and believes that this election should be a referendum on gay marriage. I believe that it should not be, and that it will not be. Americans tend to vote on economic matters first. Matters of national security, and social issues, such as Gay Rights, are secondary and tertiary concerns.
  - Re: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
    
    Posted by Veritas at 2004-02-23 22:58:01
    
    You make good points in your post.
    
    Politics is the art of enacting what is possible at a given point in time. Change must occur incrementally and gradually over time.
    
    The differentiation of gay marriage vs. same-sex civil union is indeed semantic in nature. However, in the spirit of incremental change, it is an attempt by supporters of gay unions to move the debate out of the auspices of the religious right, and away from the language of religious rites. If a semantic differentiation can help promote advancement in this area, then so be it. We all know that separate but equal does not work, and is un-constitutional. Eventually, the matter of gay unions must be tried before the Supreme Court. I'd rather have a justice nominated by President Kerry that one nominated by p(R)esident Bush deciding on the matter.
    
    I live two blocks from City Hall in San Francisco. I’ve experienced the events of the past two weeks first hand. I must say that the GLBT community is overjoyed by Mayor Gavin Newsome’s recent activities in support of gay unions. As a mayor not elected with a mandate (52% of the popular vote), Newsome has made great strides in winning the alliance of a sizable and powerful constituency in San Francisco.
    
    At the same time, we're skeptical of Newsom’s true motivations. Many in our community did not vote for Newsome. Instead, we supported Matt Gonzales, the Green candidate, who we saw as the liberal, progressive choice. We saw Newsome as a scion of privilege, who used his family’s political connections to obtain the favor of the Geddy family, and access to their tremendous wealth and influence.
    
    We’re well aware that Mayor Newsome has designs on higher office, either at the state or federal level, and that he is co-opting the gay union issue to launch his political career through the media. We can't help but feel used in the whole process. Already, we see far right groups filming at City Hall, seeking visual material for election year attack ads. Only time will tell how this issue will play out on the national political stage.
    
    Now, while we're very pleased with the progress that the events in San Francisco represent, we're somewhat concerned by the backlash that might result. The election of 2004 is one of the most important in our history. The countless crimes of the Bush administration must be the first item on our national agenda. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive, non-constitutional war, the erosion of civil liberties, and the fragile state of the economy are all paramount issues. When I prioritize concerns in my mind, I place these ahead of my right to civil union or marriage. Not everyone in the GLBT community agrees with my prioritization, and believes that this election should be a referendum on gay marriage. I believe that it should not be, and that it will not be. Americans tend to vote on economic matters first. Matters of national security, and social issues, such as Gay Rights, are secondary and tertiary concerns.

Home | About circa75 | Articles | Links | Contact Us