Recently in Marriage Equality Category

On occasion, I've written about the emotional manipulation and lies that Eugene Delgaudio uses in his fundraising emails.  Today marks another one of those occasions.  I received another email about how he's helping to fight the good fight to help repeal marriage equality legislation in various states and even fighting to aid the appeal to the Proposition 8 decision if it goes before SCOTUS.  It's all his pretty standard claptrap.

But what really draw my attention and spawned this post is the subject line he chose for this:

Real marriage outlawed

I'm so awestruck by that line, I feel the need to repeat it:

Real marriage outlawed

Okay, let's ignore the fact that Eugene Delgaudio and his band of merry hate-peddlers don't actually get to define what marriages are "real" and what ones are "shams" and force that definition on the rest of us.  Let's just for the moment pretend that only marriages between one man and one woman are a "real" and the other marriages (including those of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) are cheap knockoffs, presumably being sold by hucksters standing on NYC street corners alongside the hucksters selling Rilex watches and Guxi purses.

That subject line still makes no sense.  Nothing has been outlawed.  There are no special agents bursting into churches to interrupt man-woman marriages and arrest the priest trying to perform such a thing.  The IRS isn't lining up to audit men who mark "married" on their 1040 and list a woman as their spouse and accuse them of fraud.  Newspapers aren't refusing to print marriage announcements for man-woman couples out of fear of being charged with conspiracy after the fact.

Men and women are still happily getting married to one another and the population at large is freely and happily celebrating those weddings.  The idea that such marriages have somehow been "outlawed" is ridiculous to the point of me wondering what color the sky is in Mr. Delgaudio's world.  Because anyone who can write that subject line in any sense of seriousness -- and there's no sense that he's being ironic or intentionally engaging in hyperbole -- is not someone I can picture as living in reality.

Sadly, this kind of bizarre thinking seems to be prevalent among the anti-equality crowd.  They are convinced that allowing same sex couples to marry will somehow outlaw or destroy man-woman marriages.  To their way of thinking, the peaceful co-existence of same sex marriages as an additional option alongside man-woman marriages simply isn't possible.  This is "us vs. them" thinking at its most extreme.

Some opponents of marriage equality say it's not about being against gay people.  But when most opponents of marriage equality -- and gay rights in general -- hold this extreme "us vs. them" mentality at the heart of their arguments, it's nearly impossible to believe that claim.  After all, as my mother used to tell me, "Actions speak louder than words."

Last Friday, I explored some of the flaws in some equality opponents' argument that lowing same-sex marriages will further weaken heterosexual marriages.  I think it's equally important to understand why it's important to actually tackle this argument despite the fact that it's not quite as commonplace as (more overtly) religious arguments against same sex marriage.  It's importance is best understood in light of some equality opponents' attempt to rebrand themselves as "defenders of traditional marriage."

You see, some anti-equality organizations have figured out that being openly identifiable as anti-gay casts them in a bad light.  The National Organization for Marriage explains this with surprising candor on their "Talking Points" page:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, 
they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to "People have a right to live as they choose, they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don't use it. Say we're against "redefining marriage" or in favor or "marriage as the union of husband and wife" NEVER "banning same-sex marriage."

They go on to explain that it's important to stress that they defend traditional marriage no the grounds that, in their opinion, the best families have a man, a woman, and children.  Their desire is to prove that they are for this rather than against gay people having equal protections and rights.

However, there is a slight problem with this.  You will not find a single press release on NOM's site that isn't about stopping, banning, or repealing same sex marriage.  You will not find any press releases about them doing anything to improve the state of marriage, the rights of married couples, or providing support for struggling families.  You will not find Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown teaching a workshop on how spouses, parents, and children can develop better communication skills, create a safer environment for honest discussion, or deal with troubling issues like peer pressure, substance abuse, or domestic violence.  The only thing NOM wants to do to "protect" marriage is keep QUILTBAG people from enjoying its benefits.  As such, their claims about "protecting marriage" are already flimsy at best.

Challenging the idea that same sex marriages would destroy "traditional marriage" - or that "saving traditional marriage" is the burden of QUILTBAG people in the first place - serves to drive the final nail into that coffin.  When organizations like NOM can no longer fool anyone into thinking that they're doing anything productive to protect "traditional" families, they will have to admit that yes, they really are just about stopping QUILTBAG people from enjoying the same rights and protections as their favored "in-crowd."

Or they'll have to come up with a new lie.

I'm sure that by now, all of my readers are well aware that Kim Kardashian's marriage ended this past Monday.[1]  Most of you have also probably seen one of the snarky jokes in support of marriage equality suggesting that it's not gay people who cheapen marriage.  I've even seen photographs edited to add such comments.

This isn't the first time a celebrity's failed marriage has been tossed about like this by marriage equality advocates.  A similar flurry occurred when Britney Spears had her marriage to Jason Alexander annulled a mere 55 hours after they tied the knot back in 2004.  And it's certainly understandable why those of us who want our relationships protected by law would enjoy a certain amount of pleasure in pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing QUILTBAG people of being incapable of taking marriage seriously while heterosexuals -- and prominent ones at that -- don't seem to do much better.

But by Wednesday, I was getting tired of all the snark.  To be honest, while I can certainly identify with the sentiment behind it, I'm not convinced that "heterosexuals treat marriage like a joke, so quit blaming us" is a good or effective argument.[2] And it's certainly not our best argument.

I think we need to get back to talking about how the legal protections of marriage are numerous and impossible to duplicate.  I think we need to continue to point out that SCOTUS has already determined that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right and challenge the anti-equality crowd's arguments for denying us that fundamental right.  I think we need to remind people why marriage matters.

And let's live Kim's, Britney's, and any other heterosexual person's failed marriage alone already.  We don't need to resort to pointing out that we can "do better" than them.[3]  We're better than that.

Notes:
[1]  Seriously, I heard about this already, and I normally don't find out about these things until someone living under a rock mentions it to me in passing.

[2]  Some might argue that it's not meant as a real argument but as a joke.  The problem with this argument is that, like most jokes, it's gotten old through repetition.  So while I might accept the "it's a joke" stance on the face, I'd still argue it's time to put this one to bed.

[3]  Seriously, isn't that what the argument boils down to?  A snarky reply of "well, we can do better than this loser"?  And talk about judgmental!

Barry Deutsch wrote a guest post over at Family Scholars Blog in which he talks about the most common argument he heard against same-sex marriage while cold-calling Oregon residents and asking them to support marriage equality.  It's well worth reading, as was his approach to continuing the conversation with these people.

At the beginning of his post, he describes one of the arguments against marriage equality that he roll-played with a fellow volunteer, but never actually heard while making his calls:

I explained that I didn't think that there was anything wrong with gay sex or gay relationships per se., but that I was concerned with how changing the definition of marriage would alter the country's already fragile marriage culture. If there's no longer a special status set aside for generative relationships, how will we continue to say that every child needs and deserves a father and a mother?

While I'm not surprised that Barry did not hear this from the average person he called, this argument is commonly forwarded by professional equality opponents like the folks at the National Organization for Marriage.  Indeed, it's basis of their attempts to repackage themselves as "marriage defenders."  The problem is, it's an argument that doesn't make a lot of sense.

At its most basic, the argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual people's ability to keep their marriages intact hinges upon what gay people do.  To put it more succinctly, if a little harshly, the founding premise is that other people are responsible for heterosexual's couples morality or lack thereof.  The very idea that allowing two men or two women will suddenly cause heterosexual people to decide that their own relationships matter -- and make no mistake, the above and similar statements are implying exactly that -- suggests that heterosexual people aren't taking their relationships very seriously to begin with.

If -- and I think this is a rather huge if -- heterosexual people are not taking their relationships seriously to the point that it has become a problem, then allow me to suggest that this is not the fault of QUILTBAG people, nor should the burden of changing that state of affairs or prevent it from worsening.  That is the sole responsibility of the heterosexual people in question.  To make this the burden of QUILTBAG individuals is unreasonable and unjust.

Furthermore, robbing heterosexuals of the responsibility for their own choices -- which is ultimately what this approach does -- is unjust towards heterosexual people.  To suggest that heterosexual people do not have the integrity or ability to treat their own relationships with care is to suggest that they are severely lacking in moral fiber.  It is an insult, and the suggestion that such people should be allowed to continue with such a deficiency is injurious on top of that.  One often gets what one expects out of people, so if anti-equality advocates wish heterosexual people to treat marriage more seriously, they should be addressing heterosexual people, telling them, "We expect better from you."  They should quit scapegoating QUILTBAG people.

This morning, I read an article by Michael Gormley about the status of New York legislation that could bring about marriage equality here in the Empire State.  I've been following this story pretty closely in my private time and am excited that my state may soon allow me to marry my (hypothetical) partner rather than requiring me to elope to Massachusetts[1].  I practically cheered to learn that they only need one more state senator to sign on to guarantee passage.

Gormley reports that the current hold-up is discussions over religious protections:

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night.

By the sounds of it, Cuomo and supporters are trying to take the teeth out of the old arguments currently be raised by the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists.  I'm a bit troubled by that, as the arguments about religious freedoms are all based on lies.  Truth be told, churches and religious organizations already have plenty of protections.  A minister or church cannot be compelled to host or perform any marriage -- even any opposite sex marriage -- they do not approve of.  Any stories about such nonsense (such as the Ocean Grove pavilion controversy) are usually misrepresented, and a careful examination of the facts demonstrate that the situation is not about religious freedom at all.  To be frank, the Religious Right crowd is fond of spreading misinformation to make themselves look like martyrs and to drive fear-based political action and decisions.

My pragmatic side almost wants to just shrug and give a thumbs up to the unnecessary "religious protections" that may get put into the new legislation.  After all, if such legislation forces NOM and company to shut up (or at least makes it easier for people to see their lies for what they are), then it's not all bad.  But then, I read this part of the article (emphasis mine):

More protection for religious organizations such as adoption agencies and marriage counselors is sought by undecided Republican senators who are key to the vote.

You see, the mention of adoption agencies tells me that someone is thinking about situations like what's going on with Catholic Charities in Illinois[2].  And this is the exact kind of lying that I'm talking about.  You see, NOM would have you believe that Catholic Charities in Illinois is being forced to close their adoption services if they continue discriminate against same sex couples.  However, that's not true, unless you assume that the rich and powerful Catholic church needs government assistance to do its charity work.

You see, that's the part that NOM and company fail to mention:  Catholic Charities operates their adoption services in Illinois (and elsewhere) under a government contract and with state funding.  And the state regulations require that any organization or business who uses taxpayer money to provide a service must not discriminate against anyone who seeks out that service.  This isn't a case of Catholic Charities losing their religious freedom.  When it comes to their adoption services, they gave up that freedom[3] when they became a contracted agent of the state funded by that same state.

If the religious protections in this new legislation goes on to say that religious groups can offer state-funded and state-contracted services and still discriminate, then those clauses are no longer about religious protections.  They are about state endorsements of religious privilege.  They are about using taxpayer money -- including gay taxpayers -- to support an agent of the state who is allowed to engage in discrimination while acting as an agent of the state.

And that's just not cool.  It's also why even my pragmatic side cannot get behind these so-called "religious protections," even if they do bring marriage equality to my state.  Because marriage equality that still allows religiously motivated agents of the state to discriminate against me isn't actually marriage equality.  It's still a form of second-class citizenship.



[1]  Seriously.  New York would consider me married right now if I went and had the ceremony in a state that already performs same-sex marriages, but will not currently allow me to have the ceremony here among my loved ones.  That's just a strange state of affairs.

[2] This also took place with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and looks like it will be a common theme across the country.

[3]  In fairness, they only gave up that right in terms of how they conduct their state-contracted and state-funded services.  They're still free to give homily's about how gay people are inherently disordered to their heart's content.