My good buddy narrioch and I have been discussing ‘Proposition 8′ over the last few days, and I thought I would jump on the bandwagon and post my own thoughts on this matter. In a few weeks, a Californian ballot will be held to determine the success or failure of Proposition 8, which intends to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Over here in Europe, it is quite difficult to fully comprehend the nuances of this matter, because it simply seems so bizarre that this could even be an issue in California; a state which not only encompasses the gay mecca that is San Francisco, but which is regarded by many to symbolise the encapsulation of the American Dream of freedom. It is illogical that the proponents of Prop 8 are demanding a regression, a move backwards in time. Most disappointing of all is the fact that opinion polls suggest the likelihood that the Proposition will indeed be passed.
The fact that Proposition 8 is even being entertained as a possibility compounds that humanity still has a very long way to go, but it would be inexcusable to reverse progress in this way. It is staggering to think of just how recent have been the fights for equality by all ‘minorities’, not just those defined by sexuality. Already, it is sufficiently abhorrent to consider that the rights and desires of a supposed ‘out-group’ are denied. It will be as perplexing for future generations to consider that same-sex marriage was disallowed as it is for us to imagine that inter-racial marriage was illegal until a few decades ago. That is, of course, to make the general assumption that humanity progresses through time, and that future generations will be increasingly enlightened. If Proposition 8 is passed, that will be one obstacle to such progress.
Supporters of Proposition 8 contend that marriage is a sacred and sanctified union which may only be valid between a man and woman. Many of these supporters simultaneously claim that they do not wish to deny the rights or privileges of those in same-sex relationships, and that their standpoint is not indicative of homophobia on their part. Of course, it is perfectly evident that the opposition to same-sex marriage is entirely indicative of homophobia, albeit covert. It makes no logical sense whatsoever to suggest that the participation of same-sex couples in marriage will somehow corrode the significance of this sacrament. The marriage of same-sex couples neither devalues nor intrudes upon that of heterosexual couples; it is merely a mutual participation in the same activity. Nevertheless, it evidently proves problematic for many that heterosexual and non-heterosexual couples are engaged in the same activities. This is because the long-held belief that non-heterosexuals simply do not have the same rights as heterosexuals has not yet been eliminated; and still has sufficient cultural currency to be accepted by a significant part of the population. To see non-heterosexuals assuming a ‘privilege’ which has previously only been the purview of heterosexuals evidently still rankles too many people. This is perhaps because marriage, supposedly, legitimises a union – to ignore for a moment the fact that countless marriages, between same- or opposite-sex couples, are less than legitimate. Apparently, then, it is distasteful that a same-sex union should be legitimised in this way; that it should become not only officially sanctioned, but visible, tangible and even celebrated. It is distasteful that non-heterosexuals should be as open as heterosexuals about their relationships and their joy in each other. And it is definitely distasteful that the visibility of such relationships might offend and intrude into the lives of others – particularly the impressionable children who will subsequently be so indoctrinated into the well, gaiety of gayness that they will instantly choose to be homosexual. These are the anxieties which have allowed Proposition 8 to get as far as it has, and these are the indicators of an insiduous homophobia which is made all the more dangerous by its insiduousness, and by the failure or fear of its proponents to openly articulate their true beliefs.
No doubt, many of those who support Proposition 8 would argue virulently that they are not homophobic. Some would even support the concept of union for non-heterosexual couples in the form of civil partnerships; but, to my knowledge, those have a long way to go before they truly afford the same rights as marriage to those who participate in them. And it is almost more ludicrous to suggest that civil partnerships should be entirely synonymous with marriage. If the difference is in title alone, then it merely compounds the invalidity of the concept that same-sex couples should be allowed certain privileges, but not others; when the difference is only one word, it only illuminates the groundless paranoia and fear of those who want to keep marriage to themselves.
It would be interesting to know of the gender bias in the arguments surrounding Proposition 8. I would speculate that there is a much greater anxiety surrounding the union between two males than that between two females, as has always been the case (think of Queen Victoria, who penalised ‘homosexual contact’ but contended that there was no such thing as lesbianism). Contemporary culture does little to contradict the notion that a union between women can be more than an extension of a desexualised friendship – or a fantasy for heterosexual men. However, fear of the threat which homosexual men are perceived to contain, however, is still terrifyingly prevalent. The occasional film of ‘Brokeback Mountain’ proportions aside, the media does very little to encourage society to overcome these anxieties – and there is no doubt that the media is the most significant educator for most of humanity. The idiotic statement , ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’, which is so often repeated by opponents of same-sex marriage, mentions nothing of Eve and.. er.. Niamh. This is because, two decades of ‘Cosmopolitan’ aside, women’s sexuality still matters very little – and the traditions of marriage do nothing to encourage change in this respect. The customs with which marriage has traditionally been associated – for instance, the ‘giving away’ of the bride by her father, or the union between ‘man and wife’, are abhorrently misogynistic and are by no means made innocuous by their prevalence, or their relegation to the status of quaint tradition. Many couples, of course, choose not to include such elements, which are regarded by many as out-dated and unacceptable. Therefore, it is acknowledged that times have changed since the institution of marriage was first conceptualised. To enable same-sex couples to participate in such unions is only to further acknowledge the progression that our society has made. Similarly, the reversal of this progress would be, to adopt the rhetoric of Prop 8 supporters, a truly illogical and unnatural action. It seems increasingly likely that a true signifier of social progress would be the dissolution, or gradual abandonment of the institution of marriage. Despite that, we should defend the rights of anyone who wishes to participate in it.
Edited to add: links to some other sites which are also discussing this matter.
Bamboo Nation
Torschlusspanik!!
The Liberal OC
Chouchou, this site (linked from The Liberal OC) elaborates on the differences between civil union and marriage.
Well said! Allowing same-sex couples only to hold civil unions does continue to deny them the same rights as hetero-couples. I keep seeing this phrase dotted around the net ’second class’ and that is how votes ‘for Prop 8′ view same-sex couples. There is so much quibbling over the definition of marriage, when this is clearly a word being used for the purposes of power. Marriage does not have to be in the eyes of ‘a God’ to be a binding form of unity. It’s all about fear, paranoia, will your child ‘catch gay’ at school, and is that man standing next to you at the urinal really staring at your willy?? Sorry, i’m injecting some humour because I’m tired and no doubt the pups will wake us up at 7.30am. Don’t forget the straight man’s fear of the big, gay, rocket shaped penis floating through the galaxy, heading directly towards them! I might draw that out actually and scan it in here.
Would you please enumerate the rights that married individuals in California have that domestic partners do not? I have asked and asked and have yet to receive a response.
The amount of money being spent on each side of this PROP 8 “debate” is SICK. I personally do not think my civil rights are up for debate.
I KNOW I HAVE A RIGHT TO CIVIL MARRIAGE.
OUR marriages would not cause any families ANY grief beyond challenging THEIR spiritual arrogance. THEIR desire (the “RIGHT” and anti-equality bigots) to deny OUR family civil marriage HAS-IS-and-WILL cause(d) trauma and harm to countless LGBT Tax-Paying Americans.
This is a culture war, and we’re using the right weapon in the wrong way. DON’T SPEND MONEY for civil rights, WITHHOLD MONEY for civil rights.
And for any gay young ones out there who can’t wrap their brain around this alleged pain and the need for legal equality, you may not experience it yourself until MUCH later in life, through issues with estate-planning, pensions, hospitalization, property, and death, for starters….creating emotional and financial pains worse than you could ever possibly imagine. Have you not seen the films TYING THE KNOT or FREEHELD?! If not, do so.
But let’s keep marching and chanting, and now paying….for the “chance” of justice and equality. Look, I understand why people are paying for good PR. But can we step back and look at the precedent it sets for the next 30 years?
Let’s hold an EQUALITY FUNDRAISER! Pathetic.
Chouchou – generally speaking, a civil partnership is a legal, social contract without religious aspect, whereas a marriage is also a religious bond. However, in certain places (including California) religious officials have been performing same-sex marriages, which would therefore differ from civil partnerships because they would include that aspect. To get the specifics about the difference in California, you would be better off asking a local person, as I can’t find access to the intricate details over here in Europe.
Johnbisceglia – I completely agree that this should not even be a matter for debate, and it is deeply disappointing that not only is this still a problem for so many people, but that the proponents of Prop 8 actually wish to reverse the progress which has already been made. However, as it is, unfortunately, a reality that this debate is still raging, let’s try and retain sufficient fortitude to keep fighting for what is right.
I find this confusion over the word ‘marriage’ and definition a bit complexing. Ok – relating this just to the UK: if a straight couple have registry office union, ie non-religious they are still ‘married’. On paper they are married, and socially and culturally accepted as married. But that wasn’t a religious serivce, with no religious minister presiding over.
But if a gay couple have a registry office union, they are not married and perhaps do not receive the same rights, legally. Or they loose out socially/culturally because some people would still look down their noses and sneer because they aren’t ‘technically married’.
I don’t know the specifics about rights either though, ie the legal implications such as John was writing about. But it seems there are still difficulties.
Forget the rhetoric about who thinks who is wicked. There are practical and real religious freedom consequences. Check out this website http://www.prop8info.com. It has real news clips about real consequences, including Catholic Charities withdrawing adoption services from MA. This is not rhetoric or predictions, this is factual.
Blimey! The exact same comment I got on my blog! Ps – I very much doubt that a gay couple would even want to adopt from an agency that had negative opinions about them.
You may doubt it, but check the facts. They actually have requested to adopt from Catholic charities. Easy to disclaim it, but this denies the actual facts.
VJohnson – I am struggling to see the relevance of this point for gay couples. Do you mean that Catholic charities will withdraw adoption services from heterosexual married couples, if Prop 8 does not go through? That seems illogical. And if they will withdraw adoption services from homosexual couples (which I doubt they provide in the first instance) then I guess that is unfortunately just the way it will have to be. Surely no homosexual couple would want to be complicit in hypocrisy and oppression just to benefit from the services of a charity which detests them.