![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What I Give Up, What Straight People Give Up
I was talking with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
autumnesquirrel and raxvulpine this weekend about how I wished my journal had more in-depth conversations and commentary on things I cared about.
And then I realized I could just post about things intstead of expecting them to spring up from spontaneous generation (Theory disproved c. 1500, but I apparently just got the update).
--
I was driving home from the doctor's in the car tonight; the song "L.E.S. Artistes" by Santogold came on the radio. I hadn't heard it before, so I really listened to it. Then the chorus hit, and I decided to look up the lyrics when I got home because the post I'd been meaning to write about civil unions vs. marriages for gay people had been crystallized.
(The song is better with music, but I found the music video on Youtube both boring and disturbing, so I've decided not to post anything but the lyrics here; if you want to hear the music you know where Google is. (I think it would be great to try and mix this with David Bowie's "Changes," toward the end.))
The chorus:
I can say I hope it will be worth what I give up
If I could stand up mean for the things that I believe
Last week, I was reading a lot of opions and editorials about the California gay marriage case. I found Marriage Partners by Kenji Yoshino [originally in the NY Times] to be both interesting and disturbing.
In it, Yoshino points out that often the rights of those outside of mainstream society get secured when those in mainstream society see something in it for them, and step into the debate with something at stake.
He posits that straight people are having a hard time finding what's in gay marriage for them, because of the way the debate has been framed.
Many straight people may want to support gay friends or family members, but even those straight people who feel a deep solidarity with the cause of gay marriage probably won't stop getting married--or give up the benefits and social recognition that go along with marriage--to prove a point about a friend. And what about those who don't have any gay friends or relatives, or don't care about those they might have? An already tenuous argument is then made nearly unapplicable.
Yoshino then posits a solution which could make people more emphatic, which I find to be a fascinating, and possibly even more Christian, way of looking at the problem:
In theory, this looks great: people in states such as Massachusetts or California could just get married so there would be more incentive for states to enable gay marriage laws on behalf of both straights and gays; straight people in non gay-marriage states learn empathy and are educated by it; no one would be forced to give up any rights (denying marriage rights to everyone, another proposed solution, seems to be trying to shrug off 1000+ years of European history and philosophy in one go, good luck with that); and everyone will gather to hold hands and sing.
Yes. Well.
Here's the disturbing part:
I think Yoshino's heart is in the right place, and I agree that the issue is about individual liberty (can I marry whom I choose, or or others allowed to forbid me from it?) more than gay rights. And he's got his facts right--there is so much impeded by the denial of that right.
But I think he's missing the point: for those who truly believe that gay marriage is wrong, they believe it's correct, even necessary, to deny those rights, to impede that progress.
Experiencing those impediments and denials firsthand won't necessarily get those folks to change their mind; rather, it may entrench them deeper in their beliefs. A Temporary Domestic Partner arrangement, for such people, would make most of them rather less emphatic. It would be viewed as a strategy to get people who don't have personal connections to the issue to subscribe to an agenda they can't and/or won't believe in, a trial to be endured until it is over. It is a great way to make people resentful.
And--here's the other flaw--for straight people, it will eventually be over. They can get married, and they will. They will go about the lives--albeit delayed--they would have had otherwise, and they will be more hardened against people they may not even know for it.
Not all straight people would become angry; doubtless many would open up their hearts. We can hope for a better world. But the other straight people would know firsthand exactly how much power came from being able to have something that a second-class gay citizenry could not, and would believe it was correct to keep that power.
There's nothing in the proposal to ensure that the temporary domestic partnerships strategy would eventually lead to permanent marriages for both gays and straights, because empathy can't be government-enforced; change will only happen in the hearts and minds of those who are already willing and ready for change.
How can Yoshino think that that group of straight people--people already too afraid to entertain the thought that they might have a personal stake in the matter, people already coming from a position of power in Eurocentric tradition and history, people already believing that denying rights to gays is a correct or even divinely endorsed path--could view the Temporary Domestic Partnership as anything other than another reason to deny marriage to gays?
Wouldn't many use their firsthand knowledge of domestic partnerships as a rationale to argue that gays shouldn't have marriage, to argue that roadblocks ought to be there?
Arguably worse could be the false show of empathy, the "Let me show you how much I really felt" model: 'I went through the civil union period too; it wasn't that bad. Except for the time Bob was in the hospital and I couldn't visit. But Bob and I are past that now. No, I can't let you in to see her, just the doctors; it's the law. Tissue?')
Who's to say that the Temporary Domestic Partnerships law wouldn't make people who were already foes of gay marriage even more determined to deliberately engineer laws such that domestic partnerships would be the best option gay people might have (though not hope for)?
And here's where the song comes back in:
The Temporary Domestic Partnership model, however well-intentioned, is dangerously unbalanced.
"What I give up," potentially: the right to marry who I choose.
What straight people give up, potentially: a short time of legal conveniences, societal endorsements, and tax benefits, before those are granted anyway with marriage.
And we gay people would just have to hope it would be worth it to give that up.
autumnesquirrel and raxvulpine this weekend about how I wished my journal had more in-depth conversations and commentary on things I cared about.And then I realized I could just post about things intstead of expecting them to spring up from spontaneous generation (Theory disproved c. 1500, but I apparently just got the update).
--
I was driving home from the doctor's in the car tonight; the song "L.E.S. Artistes" by Santogold came on the radio. I hadn't heard it before, so I really listened to it. Then the chorus hit, and I decided to look up the lyrics when I got home because the post I'd been meaning to write about civil unions vs. marriages for gay people had been crystallized.
(The song is better with music, but I found the music video on Youtube both boring and disturbing, so I've decided not to post anything but the lyrics here; if you want to hear the music you know where Google is. (I think it would be great to try and mix this with David Bowie's "Changes," toward the end.))
The chorus:
I can say I hope it will be worth what I give up
If I could stand up mean for the things that I believe
Last week, I was reading a lot of opions and editorials about the California gay marriage case. I found Marriage Partners by Kenji Yoshino [originally in the NY Times] to be both interesting and disturbing.
In it, Yoshino points out that often the rights of those outside of mainstream society get secured when those in mainstream society see something in it for them, and step into the debate with something at stake.
He posits that straight people are having a hard time finding what's in gay marriage for them, because of the way the debate has been framed.
Many straight people may want to support gay friends or family members, but even those straight people who feel a deep solidarity with the cause of gay marriage probably won't stop getting married--or give up the benefits and social recognition that go along with marriage--to prove a point about a friend. And what about those who don't have any gay friends or relatives, or don't care about those they might have? An already tenuous argument is then made nearly unapplicable.
Yoshino then posits a solution which could make people more emphatic, which I find to be a fascinating, and possibly even more Christian, way of looking at the problem:
What if, after getting engaged but before getting married, straight couples entered “marriage lite” arrangements akin to those available to gay couples in the state in which they marry? [...] The Temporary Domestic Partnership Strategy asks straights to cross over, in a limited way, from sympathy (pity for the plight of others) to empathy (direct experience of that plight). It seems plausible that if a straight couple experienced a temporary domestic partnership even briefly, they would have a more visceral sense of why gays need the right to marry. [...] These couples would experience the importance of the word “marriage” when confronted with the question of their marital status in the myriad places that question is posed.
In theory, this looks great: people in states such as Massachusetts or California could just get married so there would be more incentive for states to enable gay marriage laws on behalf of both straights and gays; straight people in non gay-marriage states learn empathy and are educated by it; no one would be forced to give up any rights (denying marriage rights to everyone, another proposed solution, seems to be trying to shrug off 1000+ years of European history and philosophy in one go, good luck with that); and everyone will gather to hold hands and sing.
Yes. Well.
Here's the disturbing part:
Perhaps most important, the exercise would underscore the universality of the marriage right by demonstrating how much human flourishing is enabled by the right and how much is impeded by its denial. As many gay rights advocates have claimed, the issue is less one of gay equality than of individual liberty....
I think Yoshino's heart is in the right place, and I agree that the issue is about individual liberty (can I marry whom I choose, or or others allowed to forbid me from it?) more than gay rights. And he's got his facts right--there is so much impeded by the denial of that right.
But I think he's missing the point: for those who truly believe that gay marriage is wrong, they believe it's correct, even necessary, to deny those rights, to impede that progress.
Experiencing those impediments and denials firsthand won't necessarily get those folks to change their mind; rather, it may entrench them deeper in their beliefs. A Temporary Domestic Partner arrangement, for such people, would make most of them rather less emphatic. It would be viewed as a strategy to get people who don't have personal connections to the issue to subscribe to an agenda they can't and/or won't believe in, a trial to be endured until it is over. It is a great way to make people resentful.
And--here's the other flaw--for straight people, it will eventually be over. They can get married, and they will. They will go about the lives--albeit delayed--they would have had otherwise, and they will be more hardened against people they may not even know for it.
Not all straight people would become angry; doubtless many would open up their hearts. We can hope for a better world. But the other straight people would know firsthand exactly how much power came from being able to have something that a second-class gay citizenry could not, and would believe it was correct to keep that power.
There's nothing in the proposal to ensure that the temporary domestic partnerships strategy would eventually lead to permanent marriages for both gays and straights, because empathy can't be government-enforced; change will only happen in the hearts and minds of those who are already willing and ready for change.
How can Yoshino think that that group of straight people--people already too afraid to entertain the thought that they might have a personal stake in the matter, people already coming from a position of power in Eurocentric tradition and history, people already believing that denying rights to gays is a correct or even divinely endorsed path--could view the Temporary Domestic Partnership as anything other than another reason to deny marriage to gays?
Wouldn't many use their firsthand knowledge of domestic partnerships as a rationale to argue that gays shouldn't have marriage, to argue that roadblocks ought to be there?
Arguably worse could be the false show of empathy, the "Let me show you how much I really felt" model: 'I went through the civil union period too; it wasn't that bad. Except for the time Bob was in the hospital and I couldn't visit. But Bob and I are past that now. No, I can't let you in to see her, just the doctors; it's the law. Tissue?')
Who's to say that the Temporary Domestic Partnerships law wouldn't make people who were already foes of gay marriage even more determined to deliberately engineer laws such that domestic partnerships would be the best option gay people might have (though not hope for)?
And here's where the song comes back in:
The Temporary Domestic Partnership model, however well-intentioned, is dangerously unbalanced.
"What I give up," potentially: the right to marry who I choose.
What straight people give up, potentially: a short time of legal conveniences, societal endorsements, and tax benefits, before those are granted anyway with marriage.
And we gay people would just have to hope it would be worth it to give that up.
no subject
The most compelling ways to sell gay marriage to the rest of America involve comparing anti-gay-marriage laws to the old miscegenation laws and throwing the "two parents" argument back in the faces of those that scream against children out of wedlock and against divorce. None of this is grand logic, but the people arguing the most about marriage being "one man and one woman" are not thinking rationally. They're thinking: "Only white folks deserve my sanctimonious concept of marriage and why can't we just deport anyone I don't like and...".
Perhaps it's time for another tactic: make marriage look boring, since really it is. Have ads where two women or two men have a grumbling time in public or any other normal married spat. Then shave the narrator say "It's just like your life. Why deny anyone the chance to be annoyed with one's spouse?"
I'm immensely in favor of gay marriage. Unfortunately, I'm seriously unsure whether I'd want to get married to a man or a woman. The battle has given marriage a patina. Meanwhile, it's an expensive way to prove you'd be willing to accept someone else's debts. Why should I ruin my credit rating just to prove I love someone? That sounds like a drunken dare.
There are positive sides to marriage. Everyone of legal age should be able to marry anyone else of legal age other than blood relatives. The blood relatives portion is important: marrying into your own family, even without breeding, is a way to avoid inheritance taxes.
no subject
http://www.fumo.com/Press_Releases/GayMarriageDivorce5-6-08.htm (the last sentence is priceless)
(See also http://www.fumo.com/Press_Releases/GayFamilyRally5-5-08.htm . "Today, we are all homosexuals. You, me, every legislator, every staff member, every visitor to this Capitol, is gay. Because we are all Americans.")
no subject
It's a shame something like this isn't possible with, for example, the California amendment on the ballot.