Elizabeth Edwards: Preeminent Hag of the Frontrunner Crew?
Elizabeth Edwards made headlines yesterday by coming out in support of same-sex marriage, a position that places her at odds with hubby and Democratic “top 3″ candidate John Edwards. Unless Michelle Obama has parted ways with her husband on this issue and Google and I just don’t know about it, this makes Elizabeth the only declared gay marriage supporter among the three Democratic frontrunners and their spouses.
What might this mean for her husband’s campaign? Like blacks and Jews, the gay community can carry considerable sway within the Democratic Party, especially when it manages to coalesce around a single candidate. And with so many LGBT voters feeling jaded about their supposed political champions stopping at civil unions, a courageous pro-gay marriage declaration from one-half of the Edwards duo could move a lot of gay and lesbian voters to the Edwards column.
But how likely is it that Mrs. Edwards will actually become Queen Elizabeth of the gays? There is little distinction between the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns on LGBT issues—they all seem fairly pro-gay but not particularly inspiring as advocates—and of course there is the likelihood that if nominated, the socially moderate Giuliani will pull a decent number of pro-gay but otherwise moderate-to-conservative voters to his side. After all, Rudy’s already managed to charm Brian’s semi-liberal mother even though he now opposes the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and recently came out against a New Hampshire law legalizing civil unions. (Karen, if Brian and I stay together for the long haul, I hope you’re as excited as I am about our “domestic partnership/alternative lifestyle” ceremony—maybe we can even have a certified witch officiate!) At this point, it’s going to be an uphill battle for any single primary candidate to win over a majority of LGBT voters.
She faces some awfully tough competition. Even though the Clintons are about as aggressively uninspiring as the next mainstream Democratic politician when it comes to their collective record on LGBT issues, they have carefully cultivated a solid relationship with influential gay Democrats, and David “Sassfest” Geffen jumping ship is hardly an indication that Hillary’s gay foundation is in danger of collapsing. Hillary has won the long-term admiration of much of the LGBT community with her credentials as a woman of power. But Elizabeth is nipping at her heels; just look at AmIAnnoying.com, where both women enjoy membership in the category “Fag Hags [Women Loved by Gay Men].” For as long as Clinton and Edwards both remain in the race, gay voters looking for an alpha hag might be hopelessly torn.
But how far can a surrogate go? Elizabeth Edwards is not running; her husband is, and policy positions aside, the whole “straight white male” thing doesn’t resonate very well with LGBT voters. Sorry.
And what about Obama? This is perilously anecdotal, but a super-majority of my gay friends and acquaintances—as the former president of PRIDE, UIUC’s largest LGBT student organization, I do know quite a few—appears to have lined up behind Barack. Just like other voters in my generation, they are inspired by his “new era of politics” message, and in their view, Obama’s seemingly innate ability to “get it” amounts to a total eclipse of Hillary and Johnny E. In terms of tangible position-taking on gay issues, he isn’t running ahead of the pack, but his language on gay rights just seems more modern and thus creates an image that he is more “in touch” with younger gay voters than either of his top two competitors. Personally, I find it aggravating that the younger LGBT generation might be valuing style over substance, but I’m a skeptical curmudgeon, and regardless of my views, I’m well aware that this perception has been spreading.
As for this Rainbow Panther (thanks, Augur), I was largely behind Hillary because I’m easily dazzled by the Clintonistas, but I don’t mess around on gay issues; I favor substance over style any day of the week. If, like Hillary and Bill, Elizabeth has the ear of her husband on critical policy decisions—and I think she does—I am certainly tempted to jump ship and declare my support for Edwards, since gay issues rank so high on my political priorities list. I do know that a lot of politically active gays won’t be satisfied by anything less than marriage, so there is a decent chance that Elizabeth’s speech could shake the LGBT voter bloc up a bit. I feel a bit shaken up myself.
Comment by Lally on 25 June 2007 at 8:05 pm:
this is about me: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/lax/336540406.html
Comment by Brian on 25 June 2007 at 8:28 pm:
Lally: that link is fantastic.
Jon: I agree that when I heard Elizabeth announce her support for gay marriage, I was a little tempted. I don’t know how many true things John Edwards has to say before either I start seriously considering voting for him or his campaign self-destructs, but he got my attention when he said the war on terror is a bumper sticker and my ears pricked up again with this. Ultimately, though, I choose not to let this sway me in any significant way. Teresa Heinz-Kerry, after, was uber-liberal, which did nothing to affect the fact that her first husband was a Republican and her second was the thoroughly uninspiring John Kerry.
Thanks to this development, if I had to pick who my favorite first spouse would be, I’d have to pick Edwards, even though I previously would have probably chosen Michele Obama. But ultimately I have to stand by my man, Barack. And I don’t believe the distinction is purely stylistic, or at least stylistic in a way that is meaningless to cultural progress. Obama is by far the most persuasive candidate running in either party. The more persuasive a candidate is, the less politically calculating and compromising he or she has to be, and the easier it is to push your electorate forward rather than let your electorate drag you backwards.
Comment by Brian on 25 June 2007 at 8:32 pm:
Also, what do you have to say about a potential Bloomberg candidacy? I suspect a ton of gays would line up behind a candidate like him. Any temptation there?
Comment by JayBandit on 25 June 2007 at 8:33 pm:
I think this is interesting because in “real” marriages, people don’t always agree. I know in my family, my father is a very “rush limbaugh” type conservative, while my mother is pretty moderate. Needless to say, they disagree on this particular issue.
Anyway, nothing really exciting to add, I just found it slightly refreshing to see a couple that is comfortable in agreeing to disagree to the extent that the edwards are.
However…I’m still not voting for him…haha.
Comment by Karen Pierce on 25 June 2007 at 9:40 pm:
Jon,
Actually, I was thinking of switching to Bloomberg since I heard he was in favor of gay marriage.
But, my reason for going for Rudy in the first place is that I think his waffling on gay issues is just the necessary pandering any Republican candidate has to do to get elected. My hope would be that if a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican won, then that would speak volumes–it would tell Republicans they can win without the Religious Right. That’s my strategy–if Rudy or Bloomberg were to win, I think even you and Brian should vote for him just to defang the RR. I think that would move gay issues along a lot quicker than if a Democrat won because, as you noted, they also are hedging on gay issues for the same reason.
Comment by RealPolitik on 26 June 2007 at 7:55 am:
For every gay vote this pulls to Edwards it will cost him about a vote and a half from moderate Democrats.
Gay marriage is a losing issue. Hardline homos are somewhat like Christian crazies, in that you tend spook some moderates in your party enough to want to support whoever you don’t. Gay marriage is a losing issue for Democrats.
This really illustrates John E’s overarching problem, he is a pansy. Man cant even keep his gal in line.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2007 at 8:16 am:
Lally, that link is a total hoot.
Karen, no Republican can win without the Religious Right–hell, they can’t even keep Congress if the Evangelicals stay home, as evidenced in 2006. That’s why the Republican Party is about to split, they’re going to peel off the capitalist NE wing of the party and go populist.
I think that it’s a mistake for gays to expect government to help them with this issue. Had the Massachusetts legislature allowed a referendum on the subject, I have no doubt whatsoever that it would have gone badly for the current law. (And so do the legislators, since they pulled out every stop to keep the referendum from happening.)
I think that the workplace is going to supply the economic benefits of marriage to same-sex couples to an increasing extent. A lot of the rest can be accomplished with contract law.
I don’t believe that something as precious as marriage should be in the hands of the government, anyway. Ptui!
If you guys ever want to really get married, I can supply you with the names of the Priest and Priestess that married us.
Tom
Comment by Jon on 26 June 2007 at 3:05 pm:
Brian:
“I don’t know how many true things John Edwards has to say before either I start seriously considering voting for him or his campaign self-destructs.” I would suspect that since you are a shameless Obama hack, Edwards could spend the rest of his days speaking nothing but the truth and you’d still dismiss him in favor of quoting The Audacity of Hope in your sleep. Like most people who have sworn loyalty to a candidate roughly two years before the election actually occurs, you are likely to see what you want to see.
THK is a liberal woman who married a liberal Republican—he really was quite different from most Republican senators we see today, and this is widely known. You act as if Sen. Heinz’s status as a Republican proves that there was no considerable liberal influence by THK on policy decisions he might have made. Check his record first. And as uninspiring as we both found John Kerry’s presidential campaign to be, he is currently one of the U.S. Senate’s most liberal senators and a committed advocate for various progressive causes. There’s certainly room to suggest that THK’s liberal views have positively impacted the legislative records of both of her husbands. But don’t let THAT sway you.
Is Obama’s persuasive ability the main reason you’re supporting him? If he has more success than the other candidates when it comes to persuading the electorate to accept his agenda, is that automatically the best thing? What if his agenda naturally stops at civil unions? That is where the cultural progress would be likely to end, then, under his leadership. What I’m wondering is whether or not Elizabeth’s support for gay marriage will make it more likely that gay marriage would be on President John Edwards’ agenda. I’m inclined to think that it very well could, and I’m not convinced that Edwards, who made his millions convincing people to accept his arguments, is so ineffective when it comes to persuasion that he couldn’t bring the electorate closer to accepting gay marriage. I see no evidence that gay marriage is going to be a priority for an Obama White House at all—not even a peep from his wife on this issue—so his ability to persuade doesn’t necessarily lead to cultural progress in terms of gay marriage rights.
Bloomberg. The temptation is there, but I’m not a single-issue voter with no party affiliation. I’m a gay Democrat, and neither part of this label is really all that negotiable. Should he actually run, I do think he will win the support of a ton of independent and moderate voters, including gay independents and moderates. I think he’ll attract a decent chunk of gay liberals as well, since he is both pro-gay and generally liberal, but for those gay voters who do remain deeply affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Parties and presumably agree with several different parts of their party’s platform, I doubt that most of them will abandon ship for a longshot Bloomberg candidacy. Looking at the full range of their values, it’s probably asking too much. In other words, I predict that most gay registered Democrats will still vote for the Democratic nominee and most gay registered Republicans will stick with the GOP.
Karen:
I’m not fiscally conservative—I’m essentially liberal across the board. Therefore, candidates like Giuliani and Bloomberg who attempt to capture the presidency by begging upper-middle class and upper class voters to prioritize their alleged fiscal conservatism are going to be so unattractive to me that their victory and any message it sends to the Religious Right simply are not worth it to me. And I say alleged because I don’t think there’s anything fiscally conservative about Rudy wanting to pour billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars into a war that only the most stubborn of hawks still support.
Comment by Jon on 26 June 2007 at 5:04 pm:
Lally: Indeed your link is a “hoot” and a “holler.” It reminds me of several different conversations you have had with me:
1) When you told me you had a crush on me but then found out I was gay and plummeted into total depression.
2) When you asked me if I was sure I was gay, and I apologetically told you that I was. That was my favorite.
3) When you ask me to hold you every night.
No matter what that cranky Craigslist gay says, we actually love the attention. Don’t stop. Plz.
Realpolitik (Augur?): I disagree. Edwards the candidate did not declare his support for gay marriage; his wife did. Gay voters, I would have to assume, care A LOT more about gay marriage rights than the average moderate Democrat. Since they care a lot less, I assume that most won’t be very bothered by a candidate’s WIFE declaring her support. A lot of gay voters, on the other hand, care so much that they will respond to even the smallest morsel on gay marriage, in the case a gesture of support from Elizabeth. This will move a lot more extremely passionate gay voters than it will relatively apathetic moderate Democrats who aren’t even hearing an endorsement from the candidate himself.
Gay marriage may have been a losing issue for Kerry, but so was Kerry making a sad horse face and not saying a word when a bunch of right-wingers attempted to tell the country that he betrayed his fellow soldiers in Vietnam. But that’s what happens when your moronic campaign manager tells you to “rise above” deep character attacks and just let them slide without a response. Gay marriage won’t doom the Democratic Party–Kerry was vocal in his opposition to it–pathetic, weak-kneed candidates will. And just decades ago, not being white trash regarding civil rights was a losing issue for the Democratic Party in the South–did LBJ make the wrong decision? Perhaps you think so. ;) What price glory, Realpolitik?
Tom: You have to understand something. I’m angry that I should have to rely on the whims of my employer for “equal” marriage benefits as a gay person. You’re not gay, so you haven’t experienced that specific injustice. I don’t want my marriage to be connected to any priest or priestess–I want a secular ceremony, a marriage certificate and everything that goes along with it. You don’t. And I don’t just “want” the government’s help–I DEMAND that it do the right fucking thing for once, and I’ll keep stomping around with my ever-growing tribe of angry gays until the government I throw my earnings at starts to exercise some responsibility on this issue. I have time to wait–I’m a vegetarian and I’ve been told we live 7 years longer than meat-eating conservatives, on average.
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2007 at 5:13 pm:
Lally: Get your prying hands off him.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2007 at 7:12 pm:
Right, Jon, I’m not gay, but two of my wives identified as such for years. Hell, Elderwife lived with, loved and owned a house with another woman for eight years. They even raised a child together.
Don’t you DARE presume that I don’t understand what the problems are.
And goddamn it, I would love to be married legally to each and every one of my spice!!!!
Shit, the discussion we had last night over the dinner table concerned trying to come up with a legal fiction that would get Elderwife health insurance. We live with the problem of lack of legal recognition every day of our lives.
You have no more hope of getting this recognition than I do, so it’s time that you stop trying to abdicate your responsibility on the issue. Right now, you’re trying to hand it off to some mystical group of people in Washington that’s going to invent rights for you and me. We need to instead seize those rights ourselves by tossing the government completely out of the damn picture.
We *have* these rights already. All governments can do is take this particular one away from us, as the US government has done since its inception.
Sorry about getting hot, Jon, but you done seriously pissed me off for a moment there. I have gotten so much abuse from gays over the years on this issue, that it boils out sometimes.
You could start right now. If someone asks you who Brian is, tell them that he’s your fiance. Have a ceremony, sans certificate, but leave a spot on your fireplace for it.
Every time you fill out a form, do a job application, go to the hospital, go shopping and someone asks, write Brian in as your husband.
It’s the Alice’s Restaurant Massacree Conspiracy. If you can get gay couples all over the city, then the county, then the state then the country to do this every day, you will get people to act as if it is reality.
The only reason those pieces of green paper we use every day are worth anything is because people believe they are.
If you can convince the country, one person at a time that you and Brian are married, then IT WILL HAPPEN with no action on the part of Washington whatsoever.
Remember incrementalism, Jon.
Tom
Comment by tet on 26 June 2007 at 7:25 pm:
One last thing:
I have had a fucking husband since nineteen fucking ninety-seven, so I never, ever EVER want to hear that I don’t understand this problem again, capiche?
Tom
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2007 at 7:59 pm:
Tom,
“You have no more hope of getting this recognition than I do, so it’s time that you stop trying to abdicate your responsibility on the issue. Right now, you’re trying to hand it off to some mystical group of people in Washington that’s going to invent rights for you and me. We need to instead seize those rights ourselves by tossing the government completely out of the damn picture.”
Are you implying here that it is less likely that in the near future the government will legally recognize gay marriage than that the people will rise up, overthrow, and effectively eliminate government? If so, you’re nuttier than I thought.
Jon’s central point, incidentally, was that your conception of a “real” marriage, one that is fundamentally religious, is not a conception either he or I have any interest in. We care about social acceptance, and in that regard thanks for the tips on how to manage as a lifelong committed couple, though I assure you they were thoroughly unnecessary to both of us. But we also care about legal recognition from the government – a government both of us believe in, whether you do or not.
I have no doubt you acutely understand the difficulties of living an alternative lifestyle. What I have absolutely no faith in is your ability to understand what living that life entails when you don’t fundamentally reject almost everything about the government and the society in which you live. You have an attitude toward social living that suits you well, an attitude that is indifferent to those who choose not to accept you, and you have a philosophy and a psychology that is countercultural enough to live happily that way. It doesn’t work that way for almost any of the rest of us, and you have repeatedly proven yourself unable to understand that. So drop the self-righteous outrage, eh?
Comment by kofi the accused of hating gays in 3... 2... on 26 June 2007 at 8:27 pm:
What Brian and Jon are trying to say, Tom, is that they can’t get their “ever-growing tribe of angry gays” fired up about fighting for your right to your alternative lifestyle. This is simply another example of where minority groups -brothers in arms for 95% of their march – turn on each other when it comes time to decide who deserves the cross the finish line more.
And as Jon and Brian have made clear, this is about them. “I’m angry”, “I don’t want”, “I want”, “I don’t just “want” — I DEMAND”, “We care about”, “we also care about”. Underneath their elitist, idealistic, civil-right-for-all shell they are worried first and foremost about themselves. This isn’t about civil rights for all. This isn’t about tolerance for everyone. This isn’t about social acceptance of all alternatives. Well, it might be… it’d be nice… but if there’s only one ticket to ride, they’ve called dibs.
I’m also bewildered by the anti-religious ranting. The demand for secular ceremomies, certificates, and recognition. As if there aren’t religious gays for whom recongition within their churches is more important to them. Once again, more about Jon and Brian’s personal preferences than those of other homosexuals.
Really the best way out of this is to just dissolve secular marriage. Create “domestic partnerships” or whatever people want to call them and allow as many consenting, adult men and women to join as they wish. Leave “marriage” to the religions, whether they be headed by popes named Benedict or priestesses named Sunburst.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2007 at 9:12 pm:
Wow, Kofi, you get it.
You seriously get it.
Jon, Brian, you want your cake and you want to eat it, too. You want to be accepted as different, but not THAT different. Doesn’t work, watched people try it since the 60s.
The government will NEVER give you equal rights. Not now, not ever, never, because they don’t want to pay you social security benefits (among other things.) If the Massachusetts referendum had been allowed, gay marriage would have ended there.
So, join Kofi and me. Call for the end of secular marriage. This is the quickest route to equality for you two.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2007 at 9:44 pm:
Kofi,
You and I have had this debate before, and I don’t really care to rehash it. But I do think it’s worthwhile to note that, to the best of my recollection (and Jon can correct me if I’m wrong), Jon disagrees with me on legal recognition of polygamist relationships. So if your argument is viable at all (which it isn’t), it’s only viable against me.
I also think it’s worthwhile to note that the exchange here between Tom, Jon, and myself has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Whatever our views may be of the moral and legal equivalence of homosexuality and polygamy, the discussion here relates to what approach we think is appropriate to gain marriage rights. Jon and I think it is to gain legal recognition from the government. Tom thinks it is to dismantle the government. Whichever side you fall on, it has NOTHING to do with Jon’s or my view of polygamy. It also has nothing to do with whether Tom, as an individual (not as a polygamist), has an adequate understanding of the plight of men and women who live alternative lifestyles but do not share his bizarre and inadequate (to most of us) political and social philosophy.
I also don’t know what anti-religious ranting you’re talking about. Tom was suggesting that we take an approach to marriage that does not apply to us since neither of us is religious. Nobody anywhere said anything about how religious gays should handle their respective church’s attitudes toward homosexuality, or what they should care about.
You’re chasing red herrings here, Kofi. Try addressing the points we’re actually making next time around.
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2007 at 9:47 pm:
Tom,
Time will tell, I suppose, but the political trends and the public opinion polls all favor my side of the story.
Comment by Elderwife on 27 June 2007 at 12:34 am:
IMHO, there are two reasons to get married. One, to make a lifelong commitment to the other partner(s)and have that commitment be formalized in some meaningful way. The other is for legal rights.
When I was partnered with another woman (which we thought would be a lifelong commitment) our main concern was the legal issues, especially since we were raising my biological son. We were living in Massachusetts at the time (1987 – before domestic partnership was even a gleam in someone’s eye) and there was a lawyer who offered a package deal to unmarried couples. It consisted of five legal documents which would together give the couple all of the legal rights of a married couple. They included naming the partner as next of kin for visitation rights in a hospital if only immediate family were allowed to see the patient, in a prison under similar circumstances, the right to make end of life decisions and health care decisions if the partner were unable to do so him or herself, funerial and burial instructions with the partner to have final say in any decisions concerning such, and wills naming the child being raised by both of us as our child. This last one was a tricky bit, because even if I stated in my will that should I die while my son was still a minor I wanted my partner to be given legal custody (adoption by a same sex partner was not legal at the time), the courts were not required to follow my wishes and could award custody to a legal relative if that relative demanded the child be placed with a “family member”. The advice we were given was for her to go to a judge and ask for custody based on my will *before* informing my family of my death so it would be a done deal.
So yes, I do know how difficult it can be not to be able to be married legally. But I agree with Tom (and not just because he is my husband) – if you want a legal marriage, construct one within the bounds of current law. Do not wait for the government to give it to you. It ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 6:46 am:
Public opinion polls have little to do with law, Brian, or we’d all have prayer in schools and there’d be no immigrants in the US right now.
Since the fight for legal gay marriage began, state after state has voted to expressly forbid it.
You’re calling that progress? I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
My lovely wife has summed up the situation above much better than I can at this point. I can’t think of much more that would actually be constructive.
Tom
Comment by Hanno on 27 June 2007 at 9:07 am:
“Really the best way out of this is to just dissolve secular marriage. Create “domestic partnerships” or whatever people want to call them and allow as many consenting, adult men and women to join as they wish. Leave “marriage” to the religions, whether they be headed by popes named Benedict or priestesses named Sunburst.”
You’re touting the left-wing line there Kof ;-). I hear it pretty often that we should change the government-recognized document to another name and let churches confer “marriage.” What I think Tom , Brian, and Jon are not talking about are the economic benefits of government-recognized marriage particularly in terms of tax benefits and reciprocal benefits. Yes, employers can grant reciprocal benefits, but there are a million little legal perks in marriage that aren’t available without it. Sure you could create a legal fiction that has a lot of those perks, but it’s super expensive compared with a shotgun wedding in Vegas.
Personally I think the way to go is to have states begin to recognize same sex marriage and then sue under the full faith and credit clause to make other states recognize gay marriages. Once a few states do it and individuals successfully litigate the full faith and credit angle it’ll be a domino effect.
Comment by Augur on 27 June 2007 at 9:26 am:
For fear of setting of the Rainbow Panthers, I wont launch into my analysis about how the gay rights movement for the last 30 years has lacked pragmatism and undermined itself, but it has. On second thought, I’ll take a brief stroll in that general direction. If gay rights advocates would have incrementally asked for piecemeal legislation that say 1) granted hospital visitation rights (hospitals cant discriminate by having one visitation policy for straight couples and one for gay couples); 2) granted automatic inheritance rights (yes Tom, i know this can be handled through contracts, that isn’t the point); 3) removed other minor discriminatory barriers, etc, this sort of progression could all be framed as simply “anti-discrimination” and had the building blocks been laid without a clueless-spookems asking for “a recognized marriage” we would likely have full domestic partnership benefits in every state a few years ago, and the next step to recognizing their marriages would seem like a small step, not a quantum fuckin’ leap. I know it doesn’t seem like it’s asking much to Jon and Brian, but they are too quick to dismiss how strongly Christian America feels about this, and it’s not just the far right wing Christians who object. However, had the issue been framed in terms of discrimination, good Christian men and women would have had a hard time advocating against letting gay partners of 20 years have hospital visitation rights, and have their belongings automatically go to their life-partner. Opposing incremental anti-discrimination measures would have appeared hateful and unchristian like. The gay rights movement, not surprisingly, lacks discipline and vision.
Brian – this is where you respond with some bullshit about ideals and values and not compromising, but guess what RPs, you cant get a marriage license today because those who came before weren’t effective advocates, and you’re failing to learn from their mistakes.
That should incite some fun responses from my favorite Rainbow Panthers.
Now, what if Justice Augur were named to the Court. This is probably a screwy way of framing the issue, and as far as I know it isn’t one that any serious jurist has ever formulated, but I still believe it to be true.
The first amendment establishment clause prohibits the government from preferring one establishment of religion over another. (Although the framers probably only intended it to mean we cannot have a national religion). This is why on some courthouse lawns you’ll see both Jewish imagery and Christian imagery around Christmas time. You have to let anyone who wants to play take a swing. Public schools cant loan classrooms to baptists and not catholics or even *gasp* mormons.
Here’s what I don’t get. There are churches and denominations that recognize gay marriage. For the state to recognize the official marriage ceremonies of some churches and not others seems to prefer one “establishment of religion” over another. Justice Augur would vigorously dissent from any decision that denies a right to gay marriage because he believes the Establishment Clause provides such a right. This is a screwball theory that I wouldn’t normally put to paper, and yes, I know that it invites a debate about whether marriage is a legal or religious institution — it’s both. If a church saying you’re married were enough, Jon and Brian’s only problem would be living with each other :) But so far as it’s a legal institution that recognizes some religious ceremonies, it’s troubling that the law only recognizes certain religious practices.
Comment by Augur on 27 June 2007 at 9:39 am:
Hanno – Full Faith and Credit isn’t ironclad, there’s sort of a built in exemption for anything that offends the moral compass of the state that’s expected to grant full faith and credit. It’s not as iron clad as something in the bill of rights. There is very little chance of successful litigation on gay marriage based on the full faith and credit clause.
Congress could pass a law letting the states decide, I think that’s as good as it could get in the next 10 years. People (like Hanno) will try to argue full faith and credit should apply (despite that being a losing argument Constitutionally), so such legislation should clearly state that full faith and credit doesn’t apply to marriage to make it more politically viable.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 9:51 am:
Wow, Augur, I hadn’t thought about the Establishment Clause. The Episcopaleans are not some half-assed bunch, either, they’re leftish, but still mainstream. The UUs comprise a lot of urban intellectuals and there’s a lot of money there. They should consult the ACLU. It’d be an interesting tactic.
I remember watching the debates between the two wings of the gay rights movement thiry years ago. There have always been the radicals within the movement that wanted to DEMAND action now as well as moderates who wanted to work with incrementalism.
Let me give you an example of how badly the radical route can backfire:
Back in the 1992 election, Barney Frank (as well as similar powerful gay people) worked tirelessly to deliver a large percentage of the gay vote for Bill Clinton. They definitely were a factor in his election.
So, did Barney use his influence with the President to effect incremental changes that were possible?
Hell, no! Immediately after the elction, hell, right after the inauguration parties, Frank began DEMANDING that gays be allowed in the military and that this be done with an Executive Order.
Everything erupted in disorder within the Legislative and Executive Branches because of this. Instead of Clinton being able to start in immediately on his liberal (at that time) reforms, NOTHING got done in Washington until the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was instituted.
That policy was a major step backwards. Prior to the policy, the military followed the 11th Commandment and kept it wholly. The services had had a long tradition of looking the other way if a gay soldier was competent because they were too valuable to lose. By bringing the issue to the forefront, it required military officers to confront the issue.
Had a course of incrementalism been followed and discrimination been the watchword, as Augur suggests, it is very likely that the state referenda forbidding gay marriage would never have been passed. (They probably would never have been conceived, even.) The radicals have set the clock back by a generation or more.
Tom
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 10:05 am:
Hanno, just a paragraph to address your concerns.
I think that the governmental economic benefits are actually the (unmentioned) reasons that the gay movement wants the laws passed.
A legal writer once said that there are a thousand benefits to being married. (My research into her statement seems to indicate that she has been quoted extensively in spite of that fact that she never intended for that number to be used as a quantitative measure. However, let’s forget about the exact number and just say that there are quite a few.)
If it were merely freedom and dignity, then any way in which marriage was solemnized would be adequate. I hold that it is the economic benefits, not the human dignity ones that are the primary reasons for seeking the legalization and that the “human-rights” aspects are the real red herrings.
This is not a flattering picture. Rather than Rainbow Panthers, it places the gay activists in the position of Rainbow Pomeranians, sitting on the lap of the government begging for scraps in the hope of getting an ort from the table of government entitlements.
Better to be a Rainbow Wolf and reduce the difference between secular marriage and what is available under current law with contracts. It could certainly be done incrementally, it would reduce government power and lower taxes.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 27 June 2007 at 11:36 am:
Augur,
“Brian – this is where you respond with some bullshit about ideals and values and not compromising.” Does that sound like me? Are you under the impression that the gay rights movement hasn’t been asking for domestic partnership benefits without marriage for quite some time? And are you suggesting that “Christian Americans” are too stupid to understand that’s a step in the direction of gay marriage? Do you think discrimination against gays has always been seen as counter to the sensibilities of good, compassionate, mainstream America? And if so, where were you during the debate over any of the other far more minor efforts toward gay rights that happened before gay marriage was ever a widely discussed issue (gays in the military, hate crimes legislation, non-descrimination legislation)? Hell, gay people STILL aren’t included in federal anti-descrimination legislation. You think the only hang-up Americans have with homosexuals is with the notion of their getting married? It is far deeper and far wider than that, Augur, and that’s why progress has been as slow as it has been, not the fact that when given a realistic opportunity to have gay marriage succeed (in Massachusetts), gay people took it.
I think your understanding of public opinion toward homosexuality is woefully idealistic. There are a TON of people who don’t want to afford ANY rights or benefits to gays. And there are many people who want to afford ALL rights and benefits to gays. And, yes, there is a sweet spot in the middle, and the gay rights movement HAS taken advantage of that, as evidenced by the rapidly increasing number of states affording the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples, and as evidenced by the rapidly increasing number of presidential candidates (all Democrats, a couple Republicans, and potentially the most viable Independent since Perot) who support offering the legal benefits of marriage on the federal level. Perhaps you don’t understand how big of a leap forward we have seen on this issue since the Massachusetts court ruling only four short years ago.
Comment by Augur on 27 June 2007 at 12:02 pm:
BJP –
Where was I, lets see, with Gays in the Military I was 12, so you were about 8. You weren’t anywhere either fucko. :) But I was involved w/ a lot of activism here supporting domestic partnership benefits, and I quietly pushed that issue in private discussions with General Assembly staffers when I was working in Splfd and the state law was passed, so step back bucky. Writing a few columns that no one reads and participating in a debate doesn’t make you the queer rosa parks, you self-righteous punkass :)
It’s curious how whenever someone disagrees with you it’s presumptively based on a lack of their understanding, you little tweak.
Here’s an example of BJP’s argumentation skillz: “You think the only hang-up Americans have with homosexuals is with the notion of their getting married?” This is the “BJP pretend your opponent made a totally different argument than they made, so he is capable of countering it” fallacy.
What I pretty clearly laid out was that the central message of the gay rights movement has tried to push people too far too fast, and consequently, they haven’t advanced as far as they could have by now. Now, as brian’s email reinforces, people think about gay rights as being incremental steps towards allowing gay marriage, instead of incremental steps away from hateful discrimination. That is the key error in terms of message.
Requests for domestic partnerships benefits are often framed in terms of being a step towards marriage, that’s what freaks people out. Mainstream America doesn’t change their minds overnight. Progress in this issue over time is natural, the only question is how fast that progress will take place. It’s a little like learning how to skate board. If you stand on it and slowly push yourself along, you can get where you’re going. If you try to grab onto a car, you’re going to fall the fuck down.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 12:11 pm:
So, how many more states offer benefits versus, say ten years ago?
And how many states have now forbidden gay marriage by referendum during, say, the same ten years?
You might take a look at this list for current numbers for the former. Please note that a vast majority of these government agencies make absolutely no distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples–therefore they are “contract partners” rather than gay marriage partners. If the same benefits accrue to non-legally married as to married, they have essentially done away with the institution of marriage from a secular point of view–exactly the suggestion that I’ve been making (except for the cost in stolen money to the taxpayers).
Partners Legislation
Prior to 1996, there were four states that specifically forbade gay marriage by law.
Since then, an additional thirty-five states have done so.
This cannot be called progress by any stretch of the imagination!
Tom
Comment by Jon on 27 June 2007 at 2:22 pm:
KOFI: I think Brian took care of you for the most part, but I’ll play. Do tell me more about my motivations and my apparent status as a single-issue voter, as soon as you and Tom are done jacking each other off for believing you co-discovered my lack of concern for anyone but me and my ilk.
I said that I wanted a marriage certificate and that I don’t care
about a religious ceremony; if other gay people desire the latter, I’m 100% behind them. And Brian’s right–I do support Tom’s right to
legally marry all three of his wives and his husband. I’ve met three of his four spouses, and they’re a solid bunch. The buck doesn’t stop at gay marriage for me, Kofi. How have I indicated otherwise? Just by expressing my passion for marriage rights for gays? To quote Lewis Black, after hearing just two paragraphs of your logic about my commitment to equal rights for people who aren’t gay, all I can say is, “Fuck, I don’t have enough bread crumbs to get home.” Try again.
TOM: I believe what I said was that YOU specifically have not
experienced a denial of rights on the basis of your sexual
orientation. It’s an obvious point, and I’ll apologize for that, but
I’m not wrong. You having a male hetero life partner–that’s how you
introduced him to me, at least–does not counter any argument I made, since I never said you don’t *understand* the struggles associated with gays not having marriage rights. I understand and appreciate your
separate struggles, and I’ll back you up any day of the week. Your
outrage is unnecessary.
I struggle with incrementalism on this issue because it’s so
disgusting to me that I don’t have the right to marry in the first
place, but I do understand its virtues. Sometimes I’m a little too
Malcolm X (prior to the twilight of his life when he calmed down a
lot) when it wouldn’t hurt to be more MLK Jr. What can I say? I’m a
fallible human being.
Hanno is right about the pile of economic benefits associated
exclusively with a marriage license and NOT civil unions or domestic
partnerships. I hope the full faith and credit clause strategy
succeeds, and I’ve heard a decent case made for it by a legal expert
at a gay rights conference a few years ago, but the more I learn about the pitfalls there, the more I’m inclined to agree with Augur that it won’t do the trick.
AUGUR: A decent portion of Christian America also had religious objections to blacks having equal status with whites. You can remind me of Christian objections to gay marriage until you lose your voice (which would make me dance with glee), but that doesn’t make them any less horrific and dangerous. I will do my best to have an open dialogue with the anti-gay inhabitants of America, but at the end of the day, they are the ones responsible for coming around, and I truly hope they do in the same way that many Americans have come around on racial equality. The bulk of the blame regarding homophobia falls on
the shoulders of the gay rights advocates who have preceded me? Keep telling yourself that–you’re not the first heterosexual “ally” to do so.
Still, you are definitely on to something with the establishment cause argument, and you are not the first to outline this approach. It’s not totally a screwball theory.
You write: “Mainstream America doesn’t change their minds overnight. Progress in this issue over time is natural, the only question is how fast that progress will take place.” Eh, I’m not sure that major progress has to be all that slow or difficult. Back in 2004, Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques echoed a theory proposed by American civil rights attorney Evan Wolfson that the American public is truly more evenly split on same-sex marriage than it appears, with one-third in favor, one-third against it and one-third undecided.” Wolfson argued during a guest lecture at the University of Illinois that we simply are not focusing enough on the undecideds. They can be
won over–we just have to engage them, and we should be doing that on multiple fronts, INCLUDING making a steady, heartfelt case for why marriage is important to us. If you never start getting serious about explaining why it matters, the undecided 1/3 will never start seriously considering why it matters.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 2:58 pm:
Ok, Jon, I think we’ve got an understanding now. I realized at the time that I was pissed off that I was probably somewhat irrational–kitten and Sean were both giggling at me as I went around the laundry room raving. Part of what set me off was the witch comment.
I want you and Brian to be able to get married as much as I want to be able to marry my family. We’re mostly arguing about tactics here, I think, and in doing so, colliding with my well-known (if not well-understood) lifelong conflict with government.
I really think a combination of incrementalism, working with the center third that you mentioned and not giving the opposition any more ammo than necessary will serve you best.
We’ll see. I don’t have a lot of hope for the change coming from above, but you need to be appreciated for who you are.
Tom
Comment by kofi the KOFI? do all caps look good me? on 27 June 2007 at 3:19 pm:
Jon: To be honest, I don’t really felt “taken care of.” Brian’s response basically consisted of “wha wha you didn’t address our points wha wha.” Wasn’t sure how to reply to that so I’ll just shrug it off. As for your response, I was not attempting to tell you about your own motivations or stances. I was telling you how your and Brian’s posts sounded. Maybe that’s now how you intended them to sound. I don’t care. It’s how they sounded. You either didn’t express yourselves as you intended (my bet, considering they sounded like emotional responses to Tom’s comment) or I’m simply way too dumb to understand what you wrote (probably your guys bet, but considering I’m smarter than the average joe you’re attempting to convince to support your cause, maybe you should reconsider how you articulate your message). Really this isn’t an argument that’s worth having. I’ll continue to contend your posts sounded selfish and you’ll both continue to whine “you can’t tell me what I think.” Fine. Great. Have fun with that.
Comment by Brian on 27 June 2007 at 3:30 pm:
And so we conclude with Kofi kinda-sorta admitting he’s wrong while still finding a way to act like a superior jackass because we “sounded selfish” to him. Could it be Kofi naturally makes negative, if unfounded, assumptions about the people contributing to this blog? Almost certainly. Will Kofi ever cop to that? No, he’s too busy finding ways to avoid conceding defeat.
Comment by KOFI the i feel taller on 27 June 2007 at 3:39 pm:
Don’t get confused, Brian. In no way was I admitting I was in the slightest bit wrong. I am not trying to avoid conceding defeat. I don’t think I was wrong at all. My original post was all about how your posts sounded.
What Brian and Jon are trying to say, Tom
And as Jon and Brian have made clear, this is about them. “I’m angry”, “I don’t want”, “I want”, “I don’t just “want” — I DEMAND”, “We care about”, “we also care about”.
I’m also bewildered by the anti-religious ranting.
It’s pretty obvious I was commenting on how your posts sounded. Do I need to rent a billboard on Neil Street to make it clear to you? Nowhere did I ever claim to possess some sort of innate knowledge of the internal workings of your minds. Every time you guys respond you’re attempting to turn this into a debate about how to accurately characterize your positions. This is a debate i have no interest in entering (I don’t really care and don’t see the point to it) and it is one that I would obviously lose (who else can determine the correct answer but yourselves). So take whatever morsels of victory you want, but you and I haven’t been talking about the same thing since this post began.
Comment by Jon on 27 June 2007 at 4:03 pm:
Tom: Please know that I was being playful with the witch comment–you’re referring to what I said to Karen, right? I would certainly have a witch preside over my wedding before a Christian, but really, neither option appeals to me. I meant it to be just as light-hearted as Kofi’s “Sunburst” remark. What I don’t like is that adult gay men and women are relegated to “alternative”/side show status when it comes to their wedding ceremonies, whether they like it or not (and I’m sure some DO like it, which is OK with me). A lot of gay people are just as boring and traditional as the next person, and if they want to assimilate, I think they deserve to be able to do so. Brian, for instance, is far more traditional and conservative–not politically speaking–than either my ex or I. Should he want his marriage ceremony to reflect that, that should be OK with people.
Kofi (kofi?): The caps were merely a way to make it easier for the reader to see when I was beginning to address a specific person. I know you “just don’t care about this thread,” dude, but could you please explain how it’s selfish of me to say I want equal marriage rights, and soon? Should I wait until I have to walk with a cane or something? WHAT. IS. SELFISH. ABOUT. MY. POST. OR. COMMENTS?
And trust me, I never thought you were conceding defeat, because you almost never do that. The one exception I can think of was the time I playfully corrected your grammar. Oh, and could you point me to my anti-religious ranting, or do you just make a habit out of merging my comments with Brian’s? Seriously, if you can handle the trouble, I would like for you to clarify.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2007 at 9:21 pm:
I see where you’re coming from, Jon, and I realize it now. The witch reference combined with the statement that I didn’t understand opened some old wounds.
I’ve been campaigning for the ability of all American adults to marry whomever(s) they choose for about 15 years now. The problem is that my family (and people like us) have been consistently held up in the press by gay activists as people that they’re “more normal than.”
Needless to say, it gets old after the first decade or so. When you made each of those comments so close to each other, it triggered old memories and brought out the fight in me. Turns out there was no need for that to happen at all.
You said that you wake up every morning and are angry that the government has not granted you the right. I wake up every morning believing that I was born with the right and that the fucking government has chosen to try to take it away from me.
We’re both angry, and have been for a long time. We also agree that the rights aren’t currently present. That’s an awful lot of common ground there, Jon. I knew there was a reason that I liked you from the start.
In any case, I was looking over Brian’s new bloglist on the sidebar and surprised to see that he was a reader of Reason. kitten told me that they were writing about Heinlein.
Cool.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 27 June 2007 at 10:19 pm:
I read Reason; I do not, however, regularly agree with it. Always nice to expose oneself to a little ideological diversity.