- Myth 1: Gays already have the right to marry; they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. I call this line of reasoning the “Elisabeth Hasselbeck defense,” because the statement is parroted ad nauseum by the popular, conservative co-host of The View. The argument is ridiculous for obvious reasons. In Hasselbeck’s world, marriage has everything to do with gender and nothing to do with sexuality, unless, of course, you are heterosexual. What I find most deplorable about this argument is that it denigrates the very institution that anti-gay-marriage advocates trample on rights to “protect.” As a Communication scholar, I have worked extensively to chronicle the lives and behaviors of older gay men. MOST of the older gay men I interview were once married to women. After years of marriage, the men came out of the sexual “closet” and divorced their wives. As a relatively young gay man who grew up in the very red state of Texas, I have witnessed gay male peers who, after years of social pressure, marry women. These marriages overwhelmingly end in divorce, broken homes, heartache, and shared custody of children. Mrs. Hasselbeck, remind me what were you saying about the current right of gay people to get married and your wish to “protect” the institution of marriage.
- Myth 2: Allowing gay marriage ignores the will of the electorate, and, as a result, subverts the basic workings of Democracy. Checks and balances are an essential part of our Democratic structures. The “will of the people” is REGULARLY kept in check by the judiciary, especially when the tyranny of the majority infringes upon the rights of minorities and other marginalized groups. Anti-gay-marriage advocates can’t arbitrarily PICK AND CHOOSE which parts of the constitution apply to the current debate. When two laws conflict, the judiciary relies on precedent and judicial interpretation to determine prevailing constitutionality. The history of civil rights in the United States has been shaped by such judicial legacy. The recent emergence of the label “activist judges” and calls against “legislating from the bench” OBSCURE and MINIMIZE the role of the judiciary in interpreting law and protecting minority rights. For the record, the California State Legislature has approved gay marriage one two separate occasions, only to have the legislation vetoed by a Republican governor. The governor vetoed the legislation because he believed the electorate OR the State Supreme Court should determine the legality of gay marriage. The State Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Despite his vetoes, California’s governor is against Proposition 8, suggesting the state’s leader believes the judiciary trumps the simple, decreasing, and slight majority vote that eliminated the right of gay people to marry. OVERWHELMINGLY, the DEMOCRATIC structures at work in California support gay marriage.
- Myth 3: Comparing the struggle for gay marriage to the struggle for integration is a “slap in the face” to black America. Pointing out likenesses between the two movements is not the same as EQUATING the movements. People compare the movements for a variety of compelling reasons. Democratic protection of marginalized groups tends to come from the judiciary, a governmental body that relies on PRECEDENT. Judicial precedent constrains and enables rulings of the court. When asked to consider the question of gay rights, judges are obligated to look at subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The state of California has created domestic partnerships to appease gay rights advocates. Domestic partnerships are, in theory, a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL institution. The unions are said to provide rights NEARLY equal to marriage, but the institutions are separate. Moreover, heterosexual men and women have access to BOTH institutions, meaning they may become domestic partners OR marry; gay people only have access to ONE institution. The emergence of the “separate but equal” institution of domestic partnerships corners gay America into making obvious connections between the gay marriage debate and Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.
- Myth 4: Gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. Rightfully categorizing gay marriage as a civil right is not the same as saying gay marriage is the Civil Rights Movement. Civil rights refer to protection against public (government) and/or private sector discrimination. Period. ELIMINATING the right of gay people to marry is a CIVIC issue. The California State Supreme Court leaves no room for interpretation; the court rules that, “The right to marry is not properly viewed as a BENEFIT or PRIVILEGE that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the RIGHT constitutes a BASIC CIVIL OR HUMAN RIGHT of ALL people.” Eliminating that right because a simple, rapidly decreasing, and SLIM majority find gay people to be categorically different than heterosexuals is prejudicial. One more time: Civil rights are not exclusively tied to the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Civil rights are not the exclusive purview of black America.
- Myth 5: Gay marriage is a white, elitist gay movement. Before I dispel this myth, I would like to throw full support behind anyone who might critique racism in the gay community. Gay organizations and leaders certainly need to conduct more race-targeted outreach, both inside and outside the gay community. That said, the marriage debate’s exigence was created by state organizations legislating anti-gay discrimination in the form of marriage “protection” laws. This is the bittersweet irony of the gay marriage debate. Homophobes put the issue on gay radar. After Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled sodomy laws violated the 14th Amendment, I distinctly remember religious leaders suggesting gay marriage would be the next “battle.” Numerous religious and state organizations, in turn, began legislating gay marriage bans. In response, gay people challenged the constitutionality of such bans in the judiciary. Gay people, across the board, have been cornered into the gay marriage debate. Keep in mind, gay marriage is incommensurable with Radical Feminism and the Queer Movement. Several people who identify as “queer” have had to rethink their stance on identity politics, because homophobic legislation incited many of them to say, “ I may not want to get married, but I certainly don’t want the state to deny me that right based on prejudicial attitudes against gay people.”
- Myth 6: Black people are a PRIMARY reason why Proposition 8 passed. When I first read that 70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8, I was hurt and angry. Let me clarify: When I read the news, I was already hurt and angry that Proposition 8 had passed. I think it’s human nature to want to point the finger and play the blame game when you’re in the midst of being humiliated and scorned. For the past few days, I have felt utterly conflicted about the 70% statistic. I have walked a line between anti-racist critique and genuine concern for a statistic too salient to ignore. The black scapegoating meme is like wildfire, burning through the gay blogosphere and fanning flames (so to speak) of racism that are and have been ever-present in the gay community. The statistic doesn’t tell us much; it’s based on a relatively small sample size and exit polling, a statistical medium that has, time and again, proven faulty. NUMEROUS communities polled at, close to, or above the 70% statistic. Singling out black men and women is prejudicial and racist. The number opens up a world of opportunity. The gay community needs to improve lines of communication with black people.
- Myth 7: Promoting gay marriage promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. This is another paradox in anti-gay-marriage logic. Opponents of gay marriage frequently cite studies that suggest gay men are more promiscuous, and therefore more prone to disease. They then use this information to justify their homophobic stance on the marriage issue. Here’s the paradox: Marriage, as an institution, promotes monogamy, which in turn transforms gay marriage into a public health issue. In other words, promoting monogamy in the gay community would probably decrease promiscuity and, as a result, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Note: I don’t mean to judge promiscuous behavior. I simply hope to point out the flawed logic of the “gay lifestyle” argument.
- Myth 8: If gay marriage is legal, children will be exposed to the “gay lifestyle.” I assure you that, if gay marriage is re-legalized, students will not be bussed to gay bars and forced to engage in gay sex acts. California has very strict “opt out” laws that guarantee parents the right to opt their children out of educational themes they feel may violate their religious and moral beliefs. When a person challenges the idea that gay marriage rights and the curriculum of children are different issues, he or she tends to fall into a rhetorical trap set, perhaps inadvertently, by pro-8 men and women. Responding to the argument usually results in accepting the flawed logic that teaching children about gay people is wrong, immoral, and unhealthy. The trap reminds me of many pro-Obama supporters who fervently deny their candidate is Muslim but never seriously address the question, “What difference does it make if he IS Muslim?” Keep in mind, teaching children that gay people exist DOES NOT TURN CHILDREN GAY, nor does it indoctrinate them into the “gay lifestyle.” If things were that easy, I would have been indoctrinated in the heterosexual lifestyle a LONG time ago.
- Myth 9: If my religious leader doesn’t perform a gay marriage, he will be thrown in jail and my church will lose its tax-exempt status. Wrong. This is a red herring and fear tactic used by anti-gay-marriage bigots to obscure the issue. When the California State Supreme Court ruled in re Marriage Cases, they explicitly state that no religious leader or institution has to perform same-sex marriages. Finally, denying gay marriage rights infringes on the will of religious institutions that recognize and perform gay marriage. Denying these rights also potentially forces thousands of gay people to divorce.
blog comments powered by
Bad Behavior has blocked 555 access attempts in the last 7 days.
