Thursday, February 05, 2004
Gay Rights and Wrongs
On Wednesday afternoon, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that only full, legal gay marriages (and not merely "civil unions") would be acceptable under their state constitution, thereby catapulting an already contentious debate into the national spotlight in an election year. And indeed, it should be in the national spotlight, because this is not merely an issue that affects homosexual citizens, but rather all of us, and the definitions and customs and traditions we as a society hold dear. The problem is that, although many would like to see this aspect of gay rights become an election topic, John Kerry and George Bush (not to mention Dean, Edwards, and Clark) hold virtually identical positions on the matter -- all support some type of civil unions for gay couples, but strongly oppose full "marriage" rights. Indeed, only a few of the fringe political candidates (like Kucinich) support gay marriage in the way now defined by the Massachusetts courts.
And yet, the conventional wisdom among columnists and talking heads this week has been that the development will hurt Kerry, if only by association, since he's currently representing the state in question. The south already suspects Kerry's out of touch with their values, and although full gay rights is gaining support among those on the liberal coasts, mainstream America is lagging behind. Kerry is caught in the middle of a party divided on gay marriage, alienating the liberal wing if he sticks with his current Bush-supported position, but alienating the vast majority of the country if he comes around to support his own state's action. Based on his public comments in the past week, it's clear that Kerry would rather this issue just go away.
There's a weird polarity principle in American politics, a result of our rigid two-party system. Whenever a major political party takes a position on an issue, the other party gravitates to the opposite viewpoint in order to illustrate contrast. When a party shifts on an issue and adopts the current position of the opponent, the opponents either flip as well and endorse the now unclaimed viewpoint, or, more commonly, pull further to the extreme in their current direction. In the past fifty years, we've seen this happen on everything from abortion to affirmative action to taxes to the environment to immigration, and now are seeing a shift on homosexual acceptance as well. Less than ten years ago, Republicans were largely opposed to any gay rights as a matter of principle, and Democrats were only slightly to the left of that. Remember, it was Clinton who supported and passed the Defense of Marriage Act (disallowing the recognition of gay marriage) and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy (which allowed expulsion of gay individuals if discovered, but weakened active efforts to research and pursue a soldier's sexuality). The fact that now even quasi-conservative Republicans like Bush support gay civil unions, and are considering allowing openly gay military personnel, is an example of such a polarity shift.
On one level, it's truly remarkable how gay acceptance has risen in society in such a short amount of time. Forty years ago, homosexuality was universally deplored and condemned, by anyone not wishing to be called a pervert. Only a decade ago, senators on both sides of the aisle were using phrases such as "Ellen Degenerate" to lambaste gay individuals. Now, it's difficult to imagine even the most conservative right-wing politician getting away with such an offense. Whereas some television stations dropped the aforementioned "Ellen" in the early 90s due to its "immorality," nowadays "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" are among television's most popular programs -- without the fear of boycotts from networks and advertisers that would have occurred only a few years earlier.
But along with this rather rapid acceptance (or at least tolerance) by society of its gay citizens comes a bit of nervous caution, if not outright paranoia. Just as many of the arguments against gay marriage today echo the arguments fifty years ago against interracial marriage, so too are the arguments against full gay equality echoing the fears whites once had about African-American advancement. It was one thing for reasonably minded white people to see the evils in lynchings, not letting blacks hold jobs, or having to raise their families in violence. But it was much harder for whites to accept full voting rights by blacks, or seeing blacks attend the same schools as their own children, or being their equals at work -- or worse, becoming their managers and bosses. In some of these areas, the concept of "separate but equal" allowed whites to feel they weren't being racist, since most certainly agreed in basic African-American rights to be educated or to work or to be musicians which they may have even enjoyed, but they still didn't understand why blacks should intrude on white culture, rather than simply sticking to their own.
Civil unions for homosexual couples seem the perfect compromise for a well-meaning but paranoid climate, in that it allows gays legal marriage-ish protections without an interference on or threat to heterosexual culture. Gay "marriage" is just too terrifying for heterosexuals to deal with yet. "But... but we have marriage! That's ours! They can have something else! Why do they have to steal from us?" Indeed, I believe this would be the smartest position for President Bush to take on the matter, because it resonates so well with the electorate -- that gay Americans deserve equal rights and protections under the law, but there's no reason to redefine something so crucial and sacred to the vast majority of us. (Insert your own cynical comment on the modern "sacredness" of heterosexual marriage here.) In other words, gays, we'll love you, we'll stop discriminating against you, we'll let you live together and share mortgages and have hospital visitation rights and all of that, but it's selfish of you to want to steal something in our culture that's uniquely ours. To be honest, I'm even almost convinced by that. Almost.
The fact is that "separate but equal" by definition, isn't; it doesn't work, it's a cop out, and it's disheartening that virtually no political leaders in this country have the courage to intellectually combat this proposed disparity. Yes, it's an amazing step forward that the country is even willing to consider "separate but equal" in the first place, as opposed to outright hatred and persecution, and I applaud the sincere attempts of so many individuals to have a new open mind on such a controversial topic. But it's not enough. Kerry, Bush, and the vast majority of Americans who agree with them, are wrong. And truthfully, it's not even clear that the stated positions of politicians are what they themselves believe, but rather what is politically necessary in today's climate. Right now, support of gay marriage is mired in age-based division, not party-based division. Young people support gay marriage by up to 75% in national polls, whereas senior citizens oppose gay marriage by 75% or more. And seniors are the ones who vote.
Yet with those statistics, there is hope, for today's youth are tomorrow's voters, public speakers, writers, and yes, politicians. In fifty years, I believe the supporters of gay civil unions will be universally recognized as on the wrong side of history, along with advocates of race-separated drinking fountains and segregated classrooms. After all, the truly anti-gay speakers and politicians have already fallen out of favor today, after basking in such popularity only a decade ago. Someday soon, one political party may step up and have the courage to offer an unambiguous, unwavering pro-gay rights message, even in the face of remaining opposition. Right now, even the few who agree with true equality have the courage to defend it, and so our nation will have to make do with continuing gradual acceptance of gay artists, musicians, and writers, even if we're not quite ready to accept our gay co-workers, family, and friends.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that only full, legal gay marriages (and not merely "civil unions") would be acceptable under their state constitution, thereby catapulting an already contentious debate into the national spotlight in an election year. And indeed, it should be in the national spotlight, because this is not merely an issue that affects homosexual citizens, but rather all of us, and the definitions and customs and traditions we as a society hold dear. The problem is that, although many would like to see this aspect of gay rights become an election topic, John Kerry and George Bush (not to mention Dean, Edwards, and Clark) hold virtually identical positions on the matter -- all support some type of civil unions for gay couples, but strongly oppose full "marriage" rights. Indeed, only a few of the fringe political candidates (like Kucinich) support gay marriage in the way now defined by the Massachusetts courts.
And yet, the conventional wisdom among columnists and talking heads this week has been that the development will hurt Kerry, if only by association, since he's currently representing the state in question. The south already suspects Kerry's out of touch with their values, and although full gay rights is gaining support among those on the liberal coasts, mainstream America is lagging behind. Kerry is caught in the middle of a party divided on gay marriage, alienating the liberal wing if he sticks with his current Bush-supported position, but alienating the vast majority of the country if he comes around to support his own state's action. Based on his public comments in the past week, it's clear that Kerry would rather this issue just go away.
There's a weird polarity principle in American politics, a result of our rigid two-party system. Whenever a major political party takes a position on an issue, the other party gravitates to the opposite viewpoint in order to illustrate contrast. When a party shifts on an issue and adopts the current position of the opponent, the opponents either flip as well and endorse the now unclaimed viewpoint, or, more commonly, pull further to the extreme in their current direction. In the past fifty years, we've seen this happen on everything from abortion to affirmative action to taxes to the environment to immigration, and now are seeing a shift on homosexual acceptance as well. Less than ten years ago, Republicans were largely opposed to any gay rights as a matter of principle, and Democrats were only slightly to the left of that. Remember, it was Clinton who supported and passed the Defense of Marriage Act (disallowing the recognition of gay marriage) and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy (which allowed expulsion of gay individuals if discovered, but weakened active efforts to research and pursue a soldier's sexuality). The fact that now even quasi-conservative Republicans like Bush support gay civil unions, and are considering allowing openly gay military personnel, is an example of such a polarity shift.
On one level, it's truly remarkable how gay acceptance has risen in society in such a short amount of time. Forty years ago, homosexuality was universally deplored and condemned, by anyone not wishing to be called a pervert. Only a decade ago, senators on both sides of the aisle were using phrases such as "Ellen Degenerate" to lambaste gay individuals. Now, it's difficult to imagine even the most conservative right-wing politician getting away with such an offense. Whereas some television stations dropped the aforementioned "Ellen" in the early 90s due to its "immorality," nowadays "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" are among television's most popular programs -- without the fear of boycotts from networks and advertisers that would have occurred only a few years earlier.
But along with this rather rapid acceptance (or at least tolerance) by society of its gay citizens comes a bit of nervous caution, if not outright paranoia. Just as many of the arguments against gay marriage today echo the arguments fifty years ago against interracial marriage, so too are the arguments against full gay equality echoing the fears whites once had about African-American advancement. It was one thing for reasonably minded white people to see the evils in lynchings, not letting blacks hold jobs, or having to raise their families in violence. But it was much harder for whites to accept full voting rights by blacks, or seeing blacks attend the same schools as their own children, or being their equals at work -- or worse, becoming their managers and bosses. In some of these areas, the concept of "separate but equal" allowed whites to feel they weren't being racist, since most certainly agreed in basic African-American rights to be educated or to work or to be musicians which they may have even enjoyed, but they still didn't understand why blacks should intrude on white culture, rather than simply sticking to their own.
Civil unions for homosexual couples seem the perfect compromise for a well-meaning but paranoid climate, in that it allows gays legal marriage-ish protections without an interference on or threat to heterosexual culture. Gay "marriage" is just too terrifying for heterosexuals to deal with yet. "But... but we have marriage! That's ours! They can have something else! Why do they have to steal from us?" Indeed, I believe this would be the smartest position for President Bush to take on the matter, because it resonates so well with the electorate -- that gay Americans deserve equal rights and protections under the law, but there's no reason to redefine something so crucial and sacred to the vast majority of us. (Insert your own cynical comment on the modern "sacredness" of heterosexual marriage here.) In other words, gays, we'll love you, we'll stop discriminating against you, we'll let you live together and share mortgages and have hospital visitation rights and all of that, but it's selfish of you to want to steal something in our culture that's uniquely ours. To be honest, I'm even almost convinced by that. Almost.
The fact is that "separate but equal" by definition, isn't; it doesn't work, it's a cop out, and it's disheartening that virtually no political leaders in this country have the courage to intellectually combat this proposed disparity. Yes, it's an amazing step forward that the country is even willing to consider "separate but equal" in the first place, as opposed to outright hatred and persecution, and I applaud the sincere attempts of so many individuals to have a new open mind on such a controversial topic. But it's not enough. Kerry, Bush, and the vast majority of Americans who agree with them, are wrong. And truthfully, it's not even clear that the stated positions of politicians are what they themselves believe, but rather what is politically necessary in today's climate. Right now, support of gay marriage is mired in age-based division, not party-based division. Young people support gay marriage by up to 75% in national polls, whereas senior citizens oppose gay marriage by 75% or more. And seniors are the ones who vote.
Yet with those statistics, there is hope, for today's youth are tomorrow's voters, public speakers, writers, and yes, politicians. In fifty years, I believe the supporters of gay civil unions will be universally recognized as on the wrong side of history, along with advocates of race-separated drinking fountains and segregated classrooms. After all, the truly anti-gay speakers and politicians have already fallen out of favor today, after basking in such popularity only a decade ago. Someday soon, one political party may step up and have the courage to offer an unambiguous, unwavering pro-gay rights message, even in the face of remaining opposition. Right now, even the few who agree with true equality have the courage to defend it, and so our nation will have to make do with continuing gradual acceptance of gay artists, musicians, and writers, even if we're not quite ready to accept our gay co-workers, family, and friends.
