SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A CRUCIAL, CRITICAL, EMOTIONAL ISSUE

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A CRUCIAL, CRITICAL, EMOTIONAL ISSUE

Way back a long time ago, the general theory was that gay men were sissies. Effeminate sorts, most likely to be seen wearing red or pink shirts, drinking girlie drinks from straws, and holding their pinkies out when sipping tea or coffee. Limp-wristed and lisping. They were fodder for comic routines, and also for some roughhousing on the part of purportedly macho straight guys. ìLetís go roll some queers,î was the macho cry of stag men at bars, when unsuccessful at acquiring female accompaniment, as a guys-go-out-on-the-town final act. (More about a fellow just like that, coming soon in a post to be called Bully For You. When it is posted, a link will be inserted in this space)

Lesbians were a secret of sorts back then, and were seemingly in some closet, living a life which lacked any media coverage or acknowledgement of the existence of the gay bars the men had, and no parks in which to hang out. Of course, that cut down on the likelihood of them getting beaten up by drunken rednecks, and having their purses stolen. One shudders to think what those rednecks might have done had they encountered gay women.

These days things are different in the culture level. Gay men are portrayed as litigating lawyers on TV shows [1], as well as macho he-men who seem committed to a workout regimen that could decimate a mortal man.

There are still the red-shirt/pansy, lisping characters, either for comic relief, or as a seemingly requisite element of any group of gay men. It almost seems like a necessity, in much the very same way a buffoon or a slow-witted regular second man is required in some sitcoms, or as is an acid-sharp tongued woman neighbor or co-worker in comedies, dramadies, and even some dramatic series.

The fact is this: the emergence of gays as regular players in everyday life is reflected in television and movies as part of entertainment media, and in print media as story focus or a sidebar presence. Add to all this the Queer Eye [2] series, plus Showtimeís [3] Queer As Folk [4] and The L Word [5], and it would seem that these days there is a greater degree of acceptance, of interest, and a basic place in everyday life. If the media and cultural entertainment and information sources are an indicator, then acceptance of gays (or something that might be called "gay lifestyle" as ridiculous and narrow a term though it may be) would be a part of life as we know it.

That is, of course, unless one is on the poorly branded, ìreligious right.î But statements of that sort only further the chasm, and do so incorrectly. It is not just the ìreligious rightî who have issues and concerns when it comes to gay people, or the ìalternative lifestyle.î The feelings are also present among many of the so-called liberals and progressive minded folks. It is more pervasive and widespread than the recent wave of PC-ness would have one think.

The same-sex marriage issue will be very important in the coming campaign. Donít undersell the importance of this issue. Read on, and see how huge blocs of votes will be swayed based on the candidatesí positions on this matter.

The Clinton-era approach of ìDonít Ask-Donít Tellî enabled a silent sort of look-the-other-wayî political correctness. This only served to mask the attitudes of xenophobia and discomfiture felt by so many toward homosexuals. The mind-set that ìthereís something wrong with themî is also offset to a degree by the media embrace of gay topics for program content.

And then along comes the issue of same-sex unions, and controversy rears its head and deep-set feelings come to the surface. Various liberal-minded types have voiced this view: ìThey can live together, they can even have civil unions or spousal-like status. But marriage is between a man and a woman.î

My own initial knee-jerk thoughts on the matter were that if civil unions or domestic partnerships were available, then what was the issue? But some further consideration, thought and discussion changed my mind on the matter. And it also brought into focus why various feelings of others, even those who claim to be open-minded and accepting, see this in a completely different light.

Marriage is the one convention that combines, rather than separates, church and state. When an ordained member of a religious group administers marriage vows, they announce to one and all that in the eyes of the religious God they observe, and ì that by the power granted them by the state of _______, ì they now pronounce the couple man (or, on some cases, husband) and wife.

The state and the religious order collectively and agreeably condone and commemorate, in fact, they sanction (or perhaps santify) the union. It is validated, accepted. Church granted (blessed?), combined with legally conferred status: a wedded couple, to which all rights and privileges thereof are granted.

Once a couple is married they now enjoy (or are subjected to, as in some tax laws) a different status in life. Various laws apply toward married couples. Marriage is a legal status. It is a classification, a box to check in innumerable registries and information gathering documents. Go to an initial visit to a doctor, fill out a loan application, open a personal banking account, enroll a child in camp or a school, get a drivers license . . . oneís marital status is among the data collected.

The two big issues of great concern to many couples: health care and legacy rights. A same-sex couple may not be availed of health insurance in many (most) instances. Survivor rights (real estate, community property, joint bank account balances) are not automatically transferred or bequeathed in probate to same-sex partners in the absence of a will.

Other issues of note: declaration of status on mortgage loan applications, lack of recourse when denied room status (on some cruise ship destinations this was problem until the advent of special ìgay cruises,î although to some that seemed more exclusionary and divisive than accommodating), and sharing of memberships or other such spousal sorts of privileges.

To those who otherwise might accept the benefits and financial matters, there are issues of marriage status that cause fear, loathing and resentment. Hereís a perfect example.

A fellow I know, mildly observant in his religion, but far from a bible-thumper or a crusading proselytizer, is totally opposed to conferring marital status on same sex couples. Why? Because he perceives this as a political move by gays to not only enjoy financial parity, but to invade what he considers the sanctity of the family.

He cannot separate church from state, in that marriage confers parenting rights to couples. In his view (see above, that underlying feeling that ìthereís really something wrong with those peopleî), once same-sex couples are granted marital status, they will sue for the right to adopt children.

To his way of thinking, this legal endeavor, adoption, should be the exclusive domain of male-female couples. Or also the domain of certain single people, such as an aunt, uncle, or grand-parent raising a child that has lost its parents.

When asked why he felt that way, his immediate response was right to the point: ìBecause same-sex couples raising children just isnít normal!î

He goes on to state that he feels that public displays of affection --even as minor as holding handsó on the part of same sex couples, should be a violation of the law. When asked whether or not he is actually asking that his religious beliefs become matters of law, his retort is short and sweet: ìOne of the 10 Commandments says Thou Shalt Not Kill, right? Isnít murder illegal? It isnít just religion, it is a matter of right and wrong!î

What is the bottom line here? Simple: he is a closet homophobe, and gay couples make him uncomfortable.

Then, this same individual who considers himself a liberal, expounds further. ìJust like I teach my children that it is wrong to lie or cheat or steal, and I tell them that its wrong when people do those things, the law also tells them this. I donít want them growing up thinking that homosexuality is legally acceptable. It sets a bad standard. I donít want to have to explain to my 9 year-old that two men or two women kissing on the street or smooching in the next car at a red light are sinners, are abnormal. But thatís what Iíd have to do. Hey, the kidís just 9 years oldóhow else do I explain it to him? And it is against the religion, too.î

He then explains that in his view, gay people can share housing, live in coupledom just like ìnormalî couples. But as long as it isnít out in the open, then it is okay with him. His view is one step beyond ìDonít Ask/Donít Tell.î His view is ìkeep it in the closet, let it be your secret, and more power to you.î

But the bottom line is that he is scared, threatened by the idea of gay couples adopting children, or of his children seeing gay couples interacting within the bounds of acceptable societal mores. He makes no bones about it: ìLet them get married, and then theyíll start applying to adopt babies, and if theyíre denied, theyíll yell bias and discrimination and sue the adoption agencies. We canít let them do this. It goes too far. Let them live together, sure, they can have their lives. Just keep it private and donít ask for man-woman marriage rights, either.î

There are exceptions to his position, but he does not think quite that far. Despite his opposition to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt, he does not see that there are legal ways for this to occur. A gay man who is designated as the guardian in the event of the death of both parents would be legally entitled, perhaps even obligated, to raise any child or children so entrusted to him. If that gay man guardian were in a committed relationship, the children would be raised in a same-sex parents household.

And then there is the other side of the coin, where science and nature thwart his view: gay women can choose to be inseminated and have children. Be they single or in a couple, they can give birth, and be mother (or mothers, in couple situations) to the children. How can my friendís approach be legislated or policed in that event?

Which brings us back to the religious right. And the person who is the world leader in pandering to that group: Dubya. He says he is ìtroubled [6]î by the concept of gay marriage. And, according to news reports last week, the First Lady feels that gay marriages are a ìvery, very shocking issue [7]î for some people.

Dubya will attempt to make this a major issue in the coming campaign. He will put himself and his platform firmly on the side of ìthose who support family values that are normal and in keeping with faith-based and proper religious considerations.î This will be a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to cast his Democratic opponent as a homo-embracing/ gay-loving anti-religious type. And, he will ask, who would you rather see leading the country: a good Christian family-values guy like Dubya, or a heretic, sacrilegious homo-couple supporting heretic left-wing person like that Democrat?

Like it or not, this will ring true and have great sway with many voters. Further, it is a reason for the Democrats to support same-sex unions as Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, but not as marriage.

The ìstatesí rightsî argument is in the Democratsí favor here. Many states outlaw same-sex marriages. That is specific to marriage as a status or institution. Civil unions or Domestic Partnerships are a separate issue. Heterosexual marriage can co-exist with same sex unions. Same benefits, different terminology.

John Edwards articulates this position quite well. Marriage as a status between a man and a woman is the law in North Carolina and he supports the law. But he is not in favor of a unilateral constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage [8](which is, of course, a response by the wrongfully righteous to quell the Massachusetts same-sex marriage bill). And he qualifies his personal opposition to same-sex marriage buy adding that he believes ìgay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws [9]. î

To those for whom this is a litmus-test issue, Edwards fails for not seeking to change the law, or to openly support a movement to declare an official status for same-sex spousal rights, in North Carolina.

But in seeking to appeal to a centrist and as-yet uncommitted bloc of voters, it makes sense. This strikes me as yet another of the many well-thought out, deftly planned positions by the Edwards campaign.

They seek to stay in focus and on message about the economy, and the way the Dubyadministration has been a divisive force, separating the haves from the have-nots. While there is a credible argument that same-sex couples fall into the ìhave-notî category of the Two Americas about which Edwards orates, it remains a wise strategy for Edwards to stay where he is on the matter, holding a position in which he would not be susceptible to Dubyaís ìanti religionî attack.

The news coverage of late has been all about the Democrats. There is a race going on in that party. Over on the GOP side, there is no question whatsoever: Dubya is running again. It is a non-story, W will be the Republican candidate.

So news is made regarding how Democrats will do in each primary state. How Democrats differ from each other. How each of the Democrats has differing weak and strong points. How they raise their money; how they address a crowd . . . even what they wear when campaigning.

There are those who think Dubya is in a weaker position than just a few months ago. This is a news story, a hyped headline that is connected to coverage of the Democrates. It postulates what results would be were the election held today. Yeah, right, and Howard Dean is assured the monimation, just as the reports assured the readers, viewwers, listeners.

As pointed out in this space last week: if you believe all the hype and BS about the Democrats, and swallow the concept of Dubya having fallen beneath the front-running Dems in polls that would show him losing today if the election were held . . .then think again.

There are myriad Republican voters out there who still believe in the W message, the W manner of being President; all things W. They support the war on terror, even if there were no WMDs, and if that meant cleaning up Iraq for the good of mankind, then so be it.

Also resonating in their hearts and minds will be the reassurance that Wís strong religious conviction will provide a national resolve, keeping those abnormal homos from marrying and being able to adopt children or just come out of the closet. It will protect their children from being exposed to that behavior, that sinful activity, those unnatural acts. Dubya will protect the safe life they know.

This is not what one hears or sees or reads in news coverage. This is not the headline and hype approach. This is what a campaign war chest drives home with television spots, with rally speech coverage, with local groups sharing about what they like about their candidate.

The feelings of the the voters who buy into this concept are not covered by the sensational headline grabbing purveyors of the press and media. But the safety of life-as-they-know-it-and-want-it-to-remain: that, too, is a reason for the silent and off-the-media-coverage radar Republican voting bloc to quietly support the man.

Those voters are the central core of the Republican Party. They are not radical right-wingers, nor are they arch conservatives or gun-toting, flag waving chauvinists. They are Republicans who vote Republican and actually buy into the Dubya message. They saw him on Meet The Press and perceived him as an honest man, out to do the right thing.

So when those winds whistle with whispers of a Democratic powerhouse victory, an electable candidate who will make Bush fight on his record . . . remember, you heard it here. Those arguments mean nothing to the central-core Republican constituency. It will take a great deal more to change their minds.

It will require a message delivered from and on behalf of a compelling and telegenic Democratic candidate. Not that long faced fellow from Massachusetts with the spotty voting record and the wife who inherited many many millions from her late first husband, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania.

Edwards is looking better and better. You can take that literally and figuratively.