Love, War – and Gay Marriage
by Charles WinecoffLate last year, when the gay community was working itself into a frenzy over the passage of Proposition 8 -the measure to amend the California State Constitution to define marriage specifically as a union between one man and one woman – I realized I didn’t trust the community anymore. And I’m gay.
The realization didn’t come overnight; it had been forming for some time. But the Gestapo tactics over Prop 8 – McCarthy-style blacklists, boycotting of otherwise gay-friendly businesses, apologies coerced out of individual supporters who made the “wrong” choice, enforced politically-correct donations to the Human Rights Campaign - clarified it for me.
I hadn’t left the community, it had left me. When did the gays get so mean, anyway?
Well, isn’t it “mean” for California voters to deny us our basic civil rights? I can hear the retort. And I understand the anger, believe me, to a degree. Feelings have been hurt. I also agree that changing any Constitution over this issue is a bad idea.
But don’t you think there has to be a vanguard leading the way to new and better things? Not if capitulating to an Ozzie and Harriet social custom is the vanguard’s idea of fresh.
I must be immune to gay marriage fever. Because I can’t help sympathizing with the citizens whose majority vote to defend their long-valued concept of marriage has been stigmatized as bigotry. The pro-8 voters I’ve talked to are resigned to the likelihood that the screaming minority will ultimately get its way, that gay marriage will come to California. So the psychological game, at least, is over.
The score: gays, one – black and Latino Obama voters, zero.
Still, why the sudden urgency, the live or die hysteria for gay marriage now - or else!? Last time I checked, gays and lesbians in California enjoyed more rights than their brothers and sisters in any other state. And I can’t recall any of my West Hollywood friends ever being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night by police and never heard from again – or told by their employers they couldn’t get health benefits for their domestic partners.
What exactly is it that the affluent gay community here feels it doesn’t have? And when did I first start to feel the sad disconnect between myself and LGBT groupthink?
When I came out in 1977, there was no Rosie, Ellen, Lance - or Logo. Harvey Milk hadn’t been shot yet. Matthew Shepard was still in diapers. Our role models were literary pioneers like Tennessee Williams, Quentin Crisp, Gertrude Stein, and Christopher Isherwood. (We still had attention spans then.)
Beauty queen-turned-orange-juice-hawker Anita Bryant was busy “Saving Our Children” down in Dade County, Florida – overturning a local ordinance to protect gay people from discrimination in housing and employment. (Her success sparked the Briggs Initiative of 1978 in Orange County, CA, which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools – if folks like Harvey Milk, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford hadn’t pitched in to stop it.)
At 17, I got applause when I nervously wore my “Anita Sucks Oranges” T-shirt to school. Times, they were a-changin’. Living in New York didn’t hurt.
Gay pride marches down Fifth Avenue were new and exciting then - and full of purpose. Only four years earlier, the American Psychiatric Association had removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. The parades were marked by a sense of defiance and hope that wasn’t manufactured. Tired of living invisible lives - and fed up with being harassed, entrapped, beaten, jailed – the gays were galvanized and moving forward in unison.
In the summer of 1979, protests all over Manhattan disrupted the filming of William Friedkin’s Cruising, a thriller about a cop (Al Pacino) who goes undercover to track down a gay serial killer – and in the process finds himself drawn to the sadomasochistic underground of lower Manhattan. The gay community was concerned that the script perpetuated stereotypes about gay men as compulsively promiscuous – and miserable to the point of being homicidal.
In reality, gays were acting out sexually all over the place, certainly in the Village. You could catch glimpses of activity during a stroll on any Hudson River pier or along the closed portion of the Westside Highway, which pedestrians used as an elevated promenade to walk down to the still-standing WTC.
Gay men were fighting back against the rusty restraints of convention and exercising their new found freedom by indulging themselves like there was no tomorrow. (And as we all know, there was a very tragic tomorrow just around the corner: AIDS.) Adolescent behavior? For sure. But also understandable. Many gay men were experiencing a delayed stage of teenage rebellion – just one of the normal growing pains that got lost in the tricky shuffle of living a double life.
Free love wasn’t an old concept yet, and many gays and lesbians eschewed mainstream assimilation, taking pride in the avant garde, open relationships they forged. The LGBT community wanted to be different. It wasn’t unusual back then for urban gays to express disdain for suburban, two-car-garage gay couples who aped the bourgeois, heterosexual norm. (Born in concrete Manhattan, suburbs and shopping malls always seemed romantic to me!)
As an impressionable young man out and about in the big city, I rarely met another gay person who didn’t mock organized religion or deride anything even remotely connected with the church – including marriage. Gays wanted to be recognized, but they also wanted to go their own way.
The first A Different Light bookstore, exclusively for gay lit, opened in Los Angeles in 1979 (stores in San Francisco and New York soon followed). Little by little, gay characters became more visible on screen. In 1981, Tony Randall starred as a gay man in the sitcom Love, Sidney. The following year, Making Love became the first studio feature about a romance between two men (played by Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin). The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was formed in 1985 to keep a watchful eye on negative gay stereotypes in the media.
In 1990, MCA broke new ground as the first entertainment company to offer health benefits to same-sex couples. A few years later, kd lang and Ellen Degeneres came out of the closet – without committing career suicide. Philadelphia and Brokeback Mountain won multiple Oscars. The culture was awash in gaydom. We even had a hawkish Vice President with an openly gay daughter! (Oh, I forgot – we’re not supposed to mention her. She’s from the party that, like Iran, isn’t supposed to have any homosexuals.)
The list of gay victories goes on and on. It didn’t matter who was in the Oval Office or what faction was in power. America is not China or Saudi Arabia (not yet anyway). Despite our imperfections, human rights are still the objective here. Is the gay community on either coast cognizant of that anymore?
My personal disillusionment with my fellows began in the mid-1990s, after I wrote a nonfiction book about a well-known gay man who married a woman in order to have a family – and stayed married to her for the rest of his life, warts and all. When the book came out, I got it from both sides: the right wingers said I was an activist with a “gay agenda” to ”out” a famous family man; the gays griped that I should have denounced his marriage as a fake and called his wife a “beard.”
I couldn’t do that. Despite obvious complications, this man and woman had a deep commitment to each other and to their children - a vow that was tested by time and by tragedy (his eventual death from AIDS). It surprised me that gay people, who were celebrated for and proud of creating their own nontraditional families, could be so judgmental. I was damned if I did, and damned if I didn’t.
The response to 9/11 left me feeling even more betrayed. Though there was a bona fide gay hero in the attacks - Mark Bingham, the athletic businessman who helped storm the cockpit of United Flight 93, throwing the Islamists’ suicide mission off course – he soon got brushed aside in favor of the Loose Change/neocon conspiracy/hate-Bush zeitgeist that was sweeping the Left.
Mark Bingham
Never would I have imagined I’d develop a social phobia about hanging out with other gay people – my purported comrades - but lo and behold, I did. Not long after I moved back to LA (a relocation that coincided with 9/11), it seemed to me the gay community was morphing into little more than an offshoot of MoveOn.org.
The movement, or should I say urban gay culture, didn’t seem to be about being gay anymore; it had become fixated on hating US authority – not so much Big Brother as “Big Daddy,” some imaginary, omnipotent, no doubt conservative patriarchal figure in the sky (obviously the product of a lot of transference). Spoiled American gays were running out of oppressors to attack – so they found a convenient new target just within reach: themselves.
Case in point: the mystifyingly misguided group “Queers for Palestine.” In their mechanical hatred of all things Bush-related – well, almost all things – these good little left-wing soldiers stand in perverse support of possibly the most homophobic regime on earth. Once upon a time, even I used to glibly spout that a gay person voting Republican was like a Jew voting Nazi – but Queers for Palestine go straight to the source. Talk about internalized homophobia.
Did no one see the threat to decades of gay activism smoldering in the rubble of the Twin Towers?
Five years later, The Advocate finally published a story about a nasty run-in between a 43-year-old lesbian in Jackson Heights, New York, and members of the Muslim Thinkers Society, who had set up signs on a local street corner declaring “Allah will destroy nations that allow homosexuality.” After a verbal argument with these shameless bigots, the woman claimed that one of the “thinkers” had pushed her to the ground. Naturally, police charged her with disorderly conduct, not the friendly neighborhood Muslims.
Did the gay community rally to her defense?
No. United against evil Republicans and their bugaboo “Religious Right,” gays have turned a willful blind eye to Islamic supremacy, many choosing to view it not as a palpable threat to their own existence, but as a fear-mongering fabrication of the imperialist Bush administration. Self-destructive groups like Queers for Palestine rail against the phantom human rights abuses and war crimes of the staunchest defenders of social liberalism - the US and Israel – without realizing the deadly, tyrannical hands they are playing into.
As reported by Yossi Klein Halevi and others, queers in Palestine are considered criminals – no ifs, ands, or buts. They are routinely harassed, entrapped - and brutally tortured – by police. One young man Halevi interviewed was forced to stand in sewage, his head covered by a shit-filled sack, before being ordered to sit on a Coke bottle during a sadistic interrogation. Nice.
Imagine just for a moment the incredible outrage you would hear from the gay community in the States if a US police officer – or even better, a US Army officer – were accused of such barbarity.
Meanwhile, few gays in wealthy, free, out/proud America seem the least bit concerned about the monstrous physical and psychological treatment of their brothers overseas. Of course, we suffer from a media blackout here. CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC rarely report anything grotesque or violent – unless it’s a hate crime committed by a white American or a sex scandal involving an evangelical preacher (or a Republican).
This is what happens when Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow are mistaken for journalists.
Eight years after 9/11, the LGBT community gets its activism fix by indulging in nostalgic, anti-establishment indignation over petty domestic slights. Ganging up on an annoying little old lady carrying a cross at a Prop 8 rally satisfies the itch between workouts and White Parties. But wouldn’t it be genuinely awe inspiring to see masses of musclebound gay men taking on, say, a congregation of homophobic Islamic “thinkers” (who, BTW, love the idea of pushing gay men off cliffs to their death)?
John Cena, eat your heart out! (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?)
By 2001, mainstream chains like Barnes & Noble and Borders were putting the independent LGBT bookstores out of business. Who needed A Different Light when the corporate biggies all boasted gay-and-lesbian sections? Capitalism was promoting homosexuality in a major way. Any closet case can now order a gay book anonymously online – without brown paper wrapping!
But ironically, no gay conservative can buy a gay conservative book in the last dwindling Different Light. Walk into the West Hollywood store, ask for the latest title by talk radio lesbian Tammy Bruce, and brace yourself for the dirty look you’ll get. But request An Inconvenient Truth by heterosexual Al Gore or What Happened: Inside the Bush White House by Scott McClellan – no problem! We’re overstocked!
Because gay is no longer taboo in America, the community has shifted its focus from supporting “difference” to espousing a blanket Leftist agenda – in essence, suppressing diversity - and driving many of its own into a new (conservative) closet. I recently overheard one West Hollywood resident, who was lamenting the passing of Prop 8, follow it up by saying, “Well, that’s okay because first we had to get Obama elected.”
Earth to homo: Obama isn’t for gay marriage. Yes, he just endorsed a non-binding United Nations declaration that calls for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality (probably because Bush refused to sign it last year). But more than 50 nations, i.e. the members of the powerfully anti-gay Organization of the Islamic Conference (which is more intent on passing a binding resolution to criminalize defamation of Islam) are not participating. And we know how the UN loves to reprimand them.
No, Obama only hobnobs with politically-correct homophobes like Nation of Islam “Supreme Minister,” Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan may be a person of color, a fellow minority, but that doesn’t mean he is your friend.
Same with former President Bill Clinton, who became inviolable in the eyes of many in the LGBT community. Aside from sharing an interest in oral sex, what did he do for gays? In 1993, he approved a US military policy called “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” which deigned to permit gays and lesbians to serve in the US military – if they kept their sexual orientation a secret. Three years after that, he passed a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act, mandating that a grand total of zero same-sex relationships be treated as “marriages.”
With friends like that…
Meanwhile, in 2004, Hitler reincarnate George Bush failed to get the votes for a reprehensible Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as consisting ”solely of the union of a man and woman.” This prompted smarmy San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grab the spotlight by illegally declaring gay marriage legal in that town. Herds of dykes and fags immediately stampeded onto the steps of city hall, where they tied their knots and turned on the tears for the TV cameras.
Sorry to say, but these calculated displays of emotion embarrassed even me. Not because the people getting married were gay – but because they were adults behaving like naughty, willful children. Since when did the entire population of the Castro district want to emulate mom and pop? Whatever the reality, these Oscar worthy performances have become part of the arsenal against debate.
Then, just before Christmas last year, lame duck Nazi Bush threw a monkey wrench into everyone’s preconceived notions, passing the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008. This landmark law made it mandatory for businesses to roll over retirement benefits to same-sex partners in the event of an employee’s death. Prior to this, employers could refuse, forcing same-sex survivors to pay tax on the inheritance of the deceased partner’s retirement savings. (Legally married heterosexual couples aren’t subject to this penalty.)
National LGBT rights groups hailed the heartening move, which received scant attention from the media. But it was too little too late. Pampered California queers had tasted the glory of ’60s-style civil rights martyrdom – and they weren’t about to give it up. In the process, they insulted every African-American from South Central to Harlem.
Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice - and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.
Two people of the same sex being denied the opportunity to marry is not the same as two people of opposite sexes and different colors being denied that same opportunity. Interracial couples who couldn’t marry because of anti-miscegenation laws were still men and women - trying to do what millions of other men and women were already doing: joining together in holy matrimony, usually to raise a family.
Like it or not, same sex couples cannot have babies without the help of an outside party. This does not mean gay people do not make fabulous and caring parents, or don’t know how to build solid family units. Many most definitely do, and families these days come in many variations. But contrary to Utopian wishes, animals, vegetables, minerals - and people - are not all the same. There is no level playing field in nature. Biology is not “fair.”
Defend Equality – Love Unites! the anti-Prop 8 poster disingenuously declares. Fine - except that all the shouting at Mormons in Westwood and harassing customers at the Mexican restaurant where Sharon Tate ate her last meal wasn’t done out out of love – it was done out of spite.
As one lesbian I know generously put it: ”Don’t talk to me about the sanctity of marriage! The divorce rate is through the roof! Give me a break – marriage is a joke!”
Really? Then why do you want it so much?
Which brings me back to my earlier point: I don’t believe most gay people really do want marriage. There’s certainly no consensus on it. As a rule, gay folk tend to distrust organized religion (not without good reason) and middle class heterosexual norms. So why the sudden mania for wedding bells? Could it be the result of watching too much Bravo?
Having once been accused of advancing a nefarious gay agenda myself, I can’t help but see where this stubborn trend is taking us: right into the clutches of the dreaded Far Right fanatics, who claim gays and lesbians are bent on undermining the time-honored institution of marriage and radically changing it from the inside out.
Well, guess what. Judging from how the gay community is currently playing its cards, I’d wager that is the goal. But no one in is saying it out loud.
Gays don’t want marriage because they desperately long to be part of a stuffy, archaic ritual laden with church baggage. They want to get married because, now that they have clout and 99% of the same rights as straight people, they’ve run out of goals - and they feel entitled to the only thing that’s still beyond reach: absolute acceptance.
Didn’t mama ever tell you that you can’t please everybody?
Sure, it would be wonderful if the world were a peaceful paradise that wasn’t comprised of a million conflicting cultures, where gay relationships were naturally on a par with straight ones, where no one blinked when I call my husband “my husband” – and we all lived happily ever after. But it’s not. And it never will be.
Personally, I love the look of a wedding band on a man’s hand – even more so on two men’s hands. But gay couples have been wearing commitment rings for decades without asking for permission, and without the sanction of any state. I’m not against gay marriage, I’m against the way it has been shoved down everyone’s throat. Thanks to the in-your-face blitz – launched, remember, by an opportunistic straight politician (Newsom) - the LGBT community has blown a prime chance to present the case for gay marriage with clarity and persuasion.
Brit blogger Mark Simpson makes a strong argument for civil unions as a viable alternative, citing their success in France – where, as an option for all couples, they’ve become increasingly popular. Gay Americans should heed his advice and focus their considerable energy on making sure legal contracts between two same-sex partners are made equal to marriage in the eyes of the law – reaffirming gays and lesbians as the true innovators of cohabitational freedom.
Civil unions already offer gay couples the same basic legal status as married couples in several states, including California (and they’re a lot easier to get). But as a result of the gay community’s mass hissy fit to usurp marriage, the religious right has been re-ignited in its holy war against legal recognition of any gay relationships at all.
So maybe it’s time for the so-called “vanguard” to try a little change.
American gays and lesbians need to stop playing victim and come up with a more inclusive tack. We need to get out of the ghetto and stand up for the American values that allow us to live in peace – and to continue fighting for our rights (the ideals we actually share with our mythic “red” state foes).
If Melissa Etheridge can get over herself and see the light in Reverend Rick Warren, so can the rest of us. As the saying goes, you get more with honey than vinegar.
Because unless we’re all on the same page, we’re not going to make it. Lesbians and gays are right up there with Jews at the top of the global jihad hit list. And all the equality in the world isn’t worth anything if we’re not alive to enjoy it.
3000 diverse, multi-colored, multi-national, multi-religious, multicultural, gay, straight, bisexual, married, divorced, single people found that out the hard way on 9/11.
40 years after the Stonewall Riots, it’s time for the LGBT community to reconnect with what made us rebel in the first place: the right to live not as conformist dhimmis, but as social, intellectual, and artistic pioneers. Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need - and setting back our cause in the process - we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.
It’s time to reprioritize, show some gratitude for how far we’ve come, and try some magnanimity for a change. Let the so-called “bigots” keep their rituals. We have our own way of doing things.
But we also can’t keep operating in an us-against-them vacuum. We need all the allies we can get. Because history repeats itself.
And once again, more than ever, silence equals death.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
128 Comments
Excellent as usual, Charles. Thanks for your perspective.
As a straight, white, suburban garage, two children, right-wing wacko, I want to thank you for this. Many people consider me a homophobe (or worse) for holding the same opinions and ideas you have expressed. Thanks for attempting to remind us all that there is a rational approach to "the whole gay thing". I support you completely. I know my endorsement won't help the acceptance of your arguments…
I'm not sure from what I've seen on The History Channel that gays were any less nasty during the original AIDS crisis in the Reagan years. Act UP was convinced Reagan was sitting on cures, all kinds of things, and were just as militantly irrational. I started out extremely sympathetic to people sick with something that would rapidly kill them in a horrible way that had no cure or even treatment, but just watching the way the gay community largely responded to it left me not caring too much by the end.
I personally think at this point the gay "movement" has simply been subsumed into the fascist/progressivist movement as a discrete grievance cell within the whole. And because of that, you can't be a good homo without being a good fascist, just like you can't be a good environmentalist without being a good fascist, or angry minority, or liberated woman, or any other has-been political movement that already achieved 95% of it's reasonable aims and has no where else to go but to agglomerate with other groups in the same position.
Sorry your former friends are so weak-minded, narcissistic, self-serving and pitiful. I'll hang out with you if you want. No kissing though.
If more gay people talked like this, I suspect that after a while we wouldn't have the least qualm about giving them marriage rights.
What the GLBT movement needs is more Charles Winecoffs and fewer Folsom Street Fair attendees.
I voted for Prop 8 not because I am a homophobe, but because I'm against any government that force-feeds something down voters throats, after it's already been defeated.
Also, I really wish my friends would understand what being gay means to the Muslim world.
And finally, as someone who had to sit through hours of an officer berating me about a gay servicemember, trying to get me to say that I know he's gay, I must tell you that Don't Ask Don't Tell is an improvement over what we had before. Gone are the days when NCIS (and its equivalents in the other services) agents went undercover and trolled bars to catch servicemembers "in the act." That's gone…and now, no one can get kicked out because someone suspects them of being gay, and no one can ask a servicemember if s/he is gay. I know it's not perfect, but I believe it is an important step towards a time when gays will openly serve. Give the military some time to "retire out" some of the old gay-illiterate generals and senior NCOs.
If more gay people talked like this, I suspect that after a while we wouldn't have the least qualm about giving them marriage rights. A little sanity goes a long way.
What the GLBT movement needs is more Charles Winecoffs and fewer Folsom Street Fair attendees.
Gerard, you have a good point. The gay movement is another cause that has been infiltrated by the same fascist extreme left wing types as many other progressive causes.
As a gay man myself, I often find myself in the same place as Charles. I do noticed that more and more in the gay community are leaning towards Charles' feelings also.
Excellent article.
One of the things that never sits well in the back of my mind about the two political parties and the GLBT is this:
At a basic level the Republicans (conservative) have as core values, small government and individual freedoms, which sounds like it would be the party to embrace people based on their desire to live their lives as individuals without government interfering and telling them how to live their lives. Now contrast that with the Democrats (liberal) who have as core values, large government and social equality, equality to me sounds like everyone is the same, and it is impossible to have equality when there are differences between people. People by nature tend to gravitate toward those who are like themselves, they tend to favor, socialize with, do business with, and promote people in which they share a common bond.
A government sponsored program that dictates equality does not promote individuality, it does the opposite it seeks to make everyone alike. This is why I can't believe that the democratic party is the party of choice for the GLBT. I know its the religious piece that has attached itself to the Republican party that keeps many Gays out of the party, but I have an argument why I think the religious right should actually be attached to the democrats.
I need to send this to my leftwing sister. You speak the truth Charles. Good stuff here.
Hey, as a "retired Senior NCO" myself, I…
Well, actually, you have a point. The system will change as attitudes toward homosexuality change among the service men and women themselves. In this respect, the military tends to lag behind society at large, but there is an evolutionary process.
As to, "forcing it down our throats", aside from the unfortunate mental imagery inherent to that saying, the military has a very specific mission, no part of which is conducting an experiment in social re-engineering on the battlefield. If a bunch of testosterone-laden 18-24 year old guys is not fully "comfortable" with the inclusion of an openly homosexual squad mate, this negatively impacts their ability to function as a team and potentially compromises the accomplishment of their mission. As well, it puts their lives at unnecessary risk.
So, until such time as social mores catch up to where you want them to be, if you're gay and want to enlist in the Armed Services, join the Navy.
Very insightful but I wonder how many of the people who are representative of this will even see themselves as in the wrong?
Yea, I shouldn't have used "throats"…wasn't thinking.
That bunch of "testosterone-laden 18-24 year old guys" probably already has a gay man in their midst, and I'm glad that Don't Ask Don't Tell allows him to serve our country. Most gays I talk to though think DADT is the worst thing to happen ever…they simply don't have the experience of pre-DADT.
And not slamming all SNCOs and generals…you just hear most of the anti-gay remarks from them. More and more I'm seeing positive or at least ambivalent attitudes in the ranks with respect to gays serving. It's been like that with blacks serving with whites, with women serving, with women flying in my service (AF)…all of those changes took years, and so will this…
As an authentic "small government Republican" and a member of the "Religious Right", I think I can respond to your very well thought out post.
Political conservatives (i.e. those of us who believe in the principle of "limited size and scope of the Federal Government), must be, in terms of public policy, socially libertarian, regardless of what our personal views may be about social issues. That is, the idea that it is not the government's role to legislate morality is what shifts conservatives to the (historical) Republicans and away from the Democrats.
Members of the "Religious Right" who desire to impose their own mores on society by means of the Government are not political conservatives. On the other hand, they wouldn't be welcomed into the Democratic Party either because they are irreconcilable in their objectives even though they favor the same methodology in accomplishing these goals.
So, yes, social conservatives are closer kin in their methodology to political "progressives", and this is hurting the politically conservative movement and has done so over the past 20 years.
So we discriminate against them because they didn't ask nicely?
I don't know about you Pops, but I don't discriminate against gays.
You don't want to give them their marriage rights.
I largely agree with William. As an "evangelical" (a term I'd normally never use for myself) I'm not a proponent of homosexuality, but I'm a big fan of people having their own beliefs and practices as long as they're not hurting anybody else.
Charles has my utmost respect for taking a common-sense approach to these issues. He's largely suggesting compromises that should work for the vast majority of people in this country. What a concept.
Excellent article Mr. Winecoff. As a white male conservative I fit into exactly zero minority categories (unless you count "Conservative Law Student"). However, I am continually amazed at how minority groups allow themselves to be used as tools of the left. Every group the Left claims to be fighting for is merely a vehicle for them to advance their agenda and the members of those groups, whether it's from a desire to be activist rather than engaging, either don't see it or don't care. Thank you for contributing to a more thoughtful discourse on the issue.
Two issues, Pops.
1) Marriage isn't a right. If it were, then there would be no restrictions. As such, you cannot marry your daughter or son. Your son cannot marry his sister. Your wife cannot marry another man while still married to you. Let's get over this "rights" stuff.
2) Voting against "smarmy San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom" and his illegal move after the voting public let it be known their preferences is NOT the same as saying I don't want my gay friends to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
I'm behind you Charles. My mother's best friend is a republican gay man – I will have to forward this article on to him. We had this talk one night and I'm pretty sure your article said what he was trying to express and just couldn't.
Another great article from one BRAVE American. Thanks Charles.
Outstanding read!! Charles, your written presentation of your point is clear and concise. And speaking as a stright, conservative christian person, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I personally have no qualms whatsoever with LGBT folks wanting to be together in a union… by marriage, or otherwise. Their lives are their business, not mine. But, as you said, their "hissy fit" actions have really hurt their cause, and reading about the people they harrassed and bullied was sickening.
I truly enjoy reading your posts, keep up the terrific work!!
I think that the biggest beneficiaries of gay marriage would be divorce lawyers and they are probably the ones who are giving this issue its legs.They and the media. And I'm sure that many of those who are for it now will turn against it when they have to write their first alimony check to some person whom they once loved and now loathe.
blackhawk,
When white conservative males finally become a protected minority (sarcasm, of course), you're still screwed as lawyer-bashing will always be acceptable.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Shakespeare, in Henry VI, Part II
Echoing others, a very good article.
I rather like the suggestion I've heard about letting the government certify "civil unions" for legal purposes in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and leaving the question of sanctifying a "marriage" to the churches.
As you said, the concept of marriage is inextricably freighted with religious baggage anyway, and it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. The question of equality before the law is resolved, and those who wish to hold their relationship as something more than a "civil union" in the eyes of God have an outlet for their needs.
As these so-called activists are putting their face forward as the entire gay community, this gay vs non-gay stuff will worsen. I think their agenda is really just self-aggrandizing, not really related to any real progress.
Frankly, I voted for Prop 8 on the basis of the annoying opponents that I ran into on the streets.
Charles,
Do you want ignorant useful idiots smearing you in your grave? If not, get a clue and understand why Buckley and Coulter defend the American Hero Wisconsin's Very Own Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Read the Venona Papers and repent.
This white, heterosexual, Christian male supports gay marriage. Or at least getting the government out of the business of defining what constitutes a marriage, leaving that to the churches instead, and just having civil unions for both straights and gays to define legal aspects of partnerships.
As for gays, and women and Jews for that matter, supporting Islamic fundamentalists it boggles the mind. I have to wonder if their taking that suicidal position is related to the mainstream media avoiding covering the religion's negative aspects. Do they dismiss Islamic homophobia as a conservative fantasy because they only hear about it on Fox News or other conservative media outlets? I remember seeing a story that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson were thinking of moving to Dubai to escape the paparazzi and thinking they were nuts. The only way that made any sense to me is if they were oblivious to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in Dubai, an Islamic country.
For some reason, it won't let me post a reply to Old_Tom above, so I'll try here: It isn't that "political conservatives" should be socially libertarian (that's why there is a difference between Libertarians and Conservatives) at all. And it's BS to say "it is not the government's role to legislate ANY morality" because there is nothing else to legislate. When you have a law that says, "You cannot murder" that's legislating morality, isn't it? Indeed, laws that legislate in areas that have nothing to do with morality are themselves immoral laws. Consider–if there was a law that said you had to eat brocolli every Tuesday, that would be ipso facto immoral, wouldn't it? Yet that would be legislating something that has nothing to do with morality!
The only thing a "political conservative" needs to do is to be able to answer why homosexual marriage is wrong on political grounds rather than saying "Because my religious belief tells me so." And there are "secular" arguments against gay marriage.
[...] Read more here [...]
Charles, this is beautifully written, and expertly argued. When are you going to be on CNN?
You rightly stated, "Lesbians and gays are right up there with Jews at the top of the global jihad hit list. And all the equality in the world isn’t worth anything if we’re not alive to enjoy it."
Figure it out, people. Most of us here in America are on your side if you'd just give us a chance to like you. Violent protests, knocking crosses out of the hands of an old lady, and acting like a bunch of idiots just pisses off the other 98 percent of the population and doesn't win over their support. Mr. Winecoff has finally stated with clarity the common-sense perspective that many in the gay community are now reaching. I myself have had similar conversations with both gay men and gay women who are disgusted at the behaviour of the rabble rousers. If you folks are really interested in making some progress, then do what Eric Holder suggested, and start talking to people instead of threatening them. You might find that most folks are pretty decent and would be supportive if you give them a chance.
Point well taken. In fact, if the Prop 8 election were to be held again today, the margin of victory would likely be far greater, because methinks a lot of moderate who voted against it are now aghast at the horribly intolerant and violent behaviour of the No on Prop 8 protestors post-election. Targeting people publicly because they contributed, legally, to a campaign, and vilifying businesses and their employees is not going to get you the support of the mainstream voting bloc. Maybe next time, those voters and business won't contribute; unfortunately, for the No on Prop 8 crowd, they will still vote, and the kind of tactics used against them will probably ENSURE that this time, far more of them vote against your cause.
it is interesting how the MSM avoids any reference to the Venona papers. They are the most damning indictment of communsit ideology in existence. Maybe that's why…
In the end you write: "And once again, more than ever, silence equals death."
This is interesting because reading your article you very clearly want a large segment of the gay community to be silent….
Look, there may be some bad apples who want to make a fuss but the ultimate goal in the very end is the status quo. I think society will be a lot better off when we can openly admit and not care one bit that our neighbor, our co-workers, or friends and some of our family members are gay and allowed to get married. Seriously. When gay marriage means nothing – such as interracial marriage means nothing to us today – then we will have succeeded as a society and moved on.
Are there some bad tactics by the gay community? Sure. But this too will pass. And pretty soon gay marriage will be a boring topic. Because it doesn't affect anyone anywhere if gays can marry. It just takes a while for people to understand that.
" So we discriminate against them because they didn't ask nicely?"
Homosexuals have been able to marry since the dawn of marriage so where is the discrimination?
Listen, like so many in this world I can't get married because I haven't met anyone I'd marry but this does not mean I am discriminated against.
Should I get a protest group together demanding the Slavemaster government get me married in order to end this 'discriminatory practice'?
Further, because I can't get married I will not punish the institution of marriage; it serves an important function for uniting Yin and Yang and I respect this function.
Lastly, I would not redefine homosexuality in order to fit my personal agenda anymore than I would redefine marriage; words have meaning and when we change meaning then everything we are becomes meaningless.
Like my friend often says "I'm not gay, I'm a homosexual. I'm over the rainbow and want my life" He and I both agree, identity politics are dreadful tyrants for free people.
The Left's 'agenda' is often just equal rights. You have made the left into a boogeyman. Don't be scared. No one is using anyone. People are smart enough to know what they want. If you offer a better solution than these other groups then these minority groups [who are sheep to you, I guess?] will follow you.
While I'm not a supporter of gay marriage (although I'm not strongly opposed to it either), it's ridiculous to say that a right, by definition, can carry no restrictions. I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech, but I believe that national security exceptions are necessary. I support the right to bear arms, but I don't believe that right should extend to convicted felons. I support voting rights, but the fact that incarcerated felons can't vote doesn't bother me in the least.
If you actually believe that then you are much more naive than anyone has a right to be, or you are just willfully blind. The left uses these issues as a wedge. They divide people based on who's for something and who's against it. They then assume the morally superior high ground (or attempt to) and use tired recycled platitudes to shame people into thinking they are right rather than actually engage and debate. The left's agenda is not equal rights, its power. More power for the government, less individual autonomy, and the usurpation of the responsibilities of adulthood (health care, retirement, etc.). The minority groups that they use to do this are just means to an end.
There is an easy solution. Get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Give the government the right to certify domestic parterships regardless of the gender of the participants and leave marriage to the churches. The Universalists and the UCC will be happy to 'marry' any homosexual couples who want more,
can't buy your argument, my friend… interracial marriage is not he same thing- no matter how much activists want to use it as a comparison. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. If you are a secularist, a non-believer, the state makes exceptions so as to not force dogma. The uninteneded
consequences of gay marriage are vast- and quite possibly destructive. As has been said before, once you start re-defining marriage where do you stop? one cannot make an argument for same sex couples who cannot biologically reproduce and ban polygamists, who can.
This is a topic with huge significance to the future of us a country and as a people. Civil unions are the solution, and an appropriate one…
you are indeed correct. Bless you for your intellectual honesty on this topic…
I had a a gay instructor during the prop. 8 debacle, and we got to talking about it. Me, being a Catholic who was against gay marriage, and he, being a gay man who was…against gay marriage. I found this curious as I figured all gay men were for gay marriage in the same way that I figured all gay men were in favor of having sex with other men. But, in our discussions, I found that he hated, with a passion, the "gay community." According to him, there was no need for a "gay community" anymore. He said that gay people are no longer lynched, and driven from their jobs which all the gay movement originally wanted, or could reasonably ask (he's in his late 50's. so he was part of the early gay movement). He said that in all his time as an out of the closet gay man, he had never met a gay that wanted to get married about. He said that no gay man wants gay marriage to actually get married. He said they want gay marriage as a show of power, to prove that they're just as powerful, if not more powerful, than straights. According to him, the pro-gay marriage forces have nothing to do with love and everything to with hate, hate off anti-gays, hate of traditional marriage, and above all, hatred of people that don't care. My instructor told me the thing most gays hate more than anything is people that don't care that they're gay. Gays want their homosexuallity acknowledged, either by hatred or embracing, but not indifference. They hate not getting attention more than getting negative attention.
Seeing the treatment Sarah Palin was given by the "feminist" movement during the campaign brought me to the same conclusion. It isn't really about the individual causes anymore. They've all gotten swept up in one large so-called progressive agenda.
Thats why it drives me crazy when my fellow Latinos automatically vote Democrat without understanding they are being pandered to by the left!
I am a conservative, female Latina who desperately wants the Republican party to reach out to Latinos!
Yes, there are some of us who are against illegal immigration out here, even in Texas where I am!
Thank you I enjoyed reading this well thought topic
If he goes on CNN, nobody will see him. Besides CNN wouldn't put him on.
Mr. Winecoff,
Thanks for understanding that there is more to life than who you share an orgasm with. I'll be looking for your book.
Tom I agree.
The problem I have with many on "my side" is that they want their world view to be the way everyone lives. I believe that sociey's laws ought to establish a base line of acceptable behavior. Anything above that is my own moral decision. If one decides to live up to a certain standard religious or otherwise, there shoud not be any obligation to require that standard of others. I think your life would be better, and I invite you to look into it, but the decision is yours alone.
As a Christian conservative and a minister's wife, this solution would satisfy me.
I'm a theologically conservative, government moderate Christian and also welcomes this idea!
No, we discriminate them because the preponderance of evidence shows that, sexual orientation aside, a lot of them simply do not appear to be right in the head. This is not a slam on gays — Charles Winecoff is living proof that there are extremely intelligent and level-headed people in the GLBT community. What goes on at some of these "pride" events, however, includes a few things that not only no straight person would willingly do, but no sane person would willingly do.
As long as the American mental image of gays has room for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence but no room for the Charles Winecoffs…
>Which brings me back to my earlier point: I don’t believe most gay people really do want marriage.
The nice thing about life is that it exists regardless of whether you believe it does or not. Times have changed, Charles. The gay community is bigger than the Weho/Village world you seem to be most familiar with. The latest generation of gays are going the rest of the way to secure rights to which their entitled That you don't believe they want it is immaterial to the plain fact that they do.
======You don't want to give them their marriage rights. =====
Marriage is not a right, just as a drivers license is not a right.
Charles. thanks for the clarity, man.
BTW, I think I told you this in person, but you'd be surprised @ how many gay and lesbian folks in your neighborhood are actually conservative.
"They want to get married because, now that they have clout and 99% of the same rights as straight people, they’ve run out of goals – and they feel entitled to the only thing that’s still beyond reach: absolute acceptance."
This is exactly right. It's no longer about getting people to leave you alone to live your life. It's about forcing people to say that not only do they accept you, but they approve of you. It's no longer about insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc.–all the things secured by civil unions. Now it's about the word "marriage" itself. And when that battle is won, it'll be about forcing churches to perform marriages under threat of lawsuits. And then what? This is the slippery slope I'm working against. People say they're worried about gay marriage leading to polygamy. Well, I'm worried about gay rights activism leading to the tearing down of whatever enemy they set their sights on next. If you have a leftist, fascist worldview, nothing is EVER right. Nothing is ever enough. It's an endless cycle of destruction.
Charles,
You are courage personified. God bless you and protect you from your erstwhile "friends"..
After a verbal argument with these shameless bigots, the woman claimed that one of the “thinkers” had pushed her to the ground. Naturally, police charged her with disorderly conduct, not the friendly neighborhood Muslims.
Why this doesnt frighten more gays and convince them that they are choosing the wrong side of the battle baffles me endlessly. The last thing Id demand of gays in this country is gratitude – it cant be easy being gay even in our 'enlightened' society (comparatively speaking) – but cant they at least open their eyes? The fact that I disagree with many of them on who belongs in a marriage is NOTHING compared to the outright indefensible hatred that third world 12th century thugs like the Islamofascists exhibit. What happens when they go from looking at my powerless opinion as 'destructive' to reading in the Koran how gays should be executed and be willing to shrug it off or ignore it? When they do that, why should I take gays seriously???
There is something seriously wrong with your statement "When gay marriage means nothing – such as interracial marriage means nothing to us today – then we will have succeeded as a society and moved on." Not just in its fallacious interracial comparison, but in the very precept that if everyone has it then everyone will like it. Sorry. Did you not see "The Incredibles"??? To quote "if everyone is special…then no one is." This is the heart of envy. Sorry. Envy is a deadly evil to the heart. It does not gain you the compassion and love you want gays to have.
Marriage means something very special to me as a married woman. It is a bridge between myself and my husband. It is a bridge designed specifically to cross the divide between man and woman and our experiences as our particular sex. I dont see it as a bridge between two men or two women…no matter how they act or how they regard themselves in this world. It is not a bridge they can cross.
Agree with both of these posts.
Thanks, fellas.
ERNIE!!!!
GARY!!!!!!!! Arrived safe. Lots of paperwork to do. (Forgot about that stuff.)
Mr. Winecoff —
With all due respect, I think you are avoiding the central issue.
Gays, women, Blacks, Hispanics, and rich White Yuppies (and those who aspire to that status) are different, have different social, economic, political, and cultural agendas than middle class Whites, and particularly straight White men.
Straight White middle-working class White men are the political, cultural, social, and economic enemies of the Gay-Black-Hispanic-Female-Yuppie coalition. None other than Robert Reich revealed this to Maxine Waters and John Conyers in his desire in Congressional testimony to avoid ANY money going to White Men. Particularly Blue and White collar White men.
Gays like women ally themselves with Islamists and guys like Farrakhan because they have the same enemy: Straight White Men who are not rich White Yuppies.
This is an old, old pattern. Sarah Palin generated the same hate from Rich White Yuppies (John Stewart, Kathleen Parker, Katie Couric) in the way that Andrew Jackson did in the 1820's. The only thing that is new is that Gays, Women, and non-Whites have allied themselves (naturally) with Rich White Yuppies (a class larger than in the 1820's, basically anyone rich, famous, or both — Soros, Buffett, Gates, or John Stewart).
Gays political, social, economic and cultural interests are directly opposed to mine as a Straight White man. This is not surprising. Particularly in Marriage.
As Stanley Kurz has noted at NRO (and as I've blogged on Prop 8), Gays seek to "make Marriage Gay" by adopting gay standards of promiscuity in marriage (something activists openly admit), making marriage a big (mostly gay) party thrown for one another, and then the usual patterns of promiscuity that characterize most (though not all) gay relationships. Furthermore, Gays such as the creators of "Big Love" argue that all marriage should be redefined to include not just gay marriage but polygamy, and such. Since the open aim is to destroy the traditional definition of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, given that it benefits straight men the most and we are of course the enemies of Gays.
Gays of course hardly marry in places where it is legal. As Mark Steyn has pointed out (and I've also blogged about), in the Greater Toronto Area, there are about 7 million people. Gay marriage has been legal there for more than ten years. It has by it's own accounts, about 14% of the population identified as Gay, making it one of the largest concentrations of gays in any Metro area. The total gay population is about 980,000 or so, and over the year 2008, only ONE gay couple from the Toronto Area got married. The total Toronto area marriages over ten years summed up to about 10,000, making the rate of gay marriage in the GTA for gays about 1% of the total population. Nearly all of Toronto's Gay Marriages are from world-wide tourists.
If Gays do not marry at rates much beyond 1%, why then do they want Gay Marriage so much?
Respectfully, it is not because they ran out of goals but to punish and erase the advantage Straight White middle/working class men have to form families. Since we are the avowed enemy of Gays and indeed the coalition of Yuppies plus Gays, Women, Blacks, Hispanics, and would-be Yuppies.
This is a political reality I accept. I understand it's nothing personal, Gays simply view me as their class enemy. Gays want to make marriage "Gay" in terms of definition, cultural norms, promiscuity, and basically one big party, rather than the one thing Straight White Men of average means can offer prospective women.
But the converse is true. Gays cannot expect Straight White Men to support anything Gay-related, because of the class divisions that make Gay and Straight men political enemies (and cultural, social, and economic ones too). This is simply the way it is, and while the Yuppies have political power NOW, it's likely to turn and the Yuppie coalition will of course be in store for the usual political paybacks that accompany American politics and characterize it's history since the first settlers in Jamestown argued over who had ownership of the land.
This is why I love BH. After reading the article and the comments, the diverse nature of opinions on the subject is equaled only by the (generally) civil and respectful exchange of said opinions. Even though I personally to not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I appreciate having your perspective and being able to see your line of thinking.
Love ya, man.
"Gays don’t want marriage because they desperately long to be part of a stuffy, archaic ritual laden with church baggage. They want to get married because, now that they have clout and 99% of the same rights as straight people, they’ve run out of goals – and they feel entitled to the only thing that’s still beyond reach: absolute acceptance."
Awesome article, Charles. You nailed it.
I admit I'm being hopeful, here, but I suspect there will be a noticable lack of hatred and intolerance expressed toward you by the drooling right-wing "haters" who populate this website (i.e. me, et al).
Really, the authentically conservative view on the subject is that we don't care what you do in your own bedroom. We think "gay marriage" is and should be a states' rights issue, resolved through the legislative process rather than the judiciary. And we don't want the radical gay "lifestyle" paraded down Main Street so we have to explain to our five-year-olds why those men on the party float are wearing chains and spanking each other. Although, some of the precision drill teams are pretty good…
I once thought this too, but then realized that there is no way for the government to ignore spousal relationships in certain legal instances, particularly regarding children. Then there are estates, taxes, benefactors, etc.
Thank you Charles for this amazing post! As a heterosexual, Born-Again Christian female who has always had homosexual friends in her life, I now understand the situation much better than before. I too thought it was strange the militant stance that gays were taking with the whole gay marriage as a right. From as far back as I can remember, the homosexuals I have known chided me in regards to my desire to get married, have children, and I guess live the American dream. Not once did I sense a bit of jealousy when I they referred to me as a "Breeder", but instead was pretty sure I was being insulted as my gay friends wanted nothing to do with being chained down to one person for the rest of their lives.
Recently, I got in contact with an old friend from elementary school via FaceBook who happens to be gay. He too has exclaimed a desire to be married, yet doesn't hesitate in demeaning and eschewing organized religious beliefs, and has (in my opinion) blindly followed Barack Obama with the notion that being "Liberal" somehow advances the gay cause. I'm going to pass this article on to him…maybe it will open his eyes to the idea that not all Conservatives are out to get homosexuals. Last thing, I believe marriage should be a two part arrangement: First it should be a business arrangement set to legal stipulations, and second, it should or can be a religious commitment if that is what both parties choose. But that's just me and my knuckle-headed heterosexual way of thinking, I suppose.
(Cont.) Recently, I got in contact with an old friend from elementary school via FaceBook who happens to be gay. He too has exclaimed a desire to be married, yet doesn't hesitate in demeaning and eschewing organized religious beliefs, and has (in my opinion) blindly followed Barack Obama with the notion that being "Liberal" somehow advances the gay cause. I'm going to pass this article on to him…maybe it will open his eyes to the idea that not all Conservatives are out to get homosexuals and keep them from their desired married status.
Last thing, I believe marriage should be a two part arrangement: First it should be a business arrangement set to legal stipulations, and second, it should or can be a religious commitment if that is what both parties choose. But that's just me and my knuckle-headed heterosexual way of thinking, I suppose.
I just have to add one more thing…I was in high school during the Briggs Initiative and recall the terror on one of my favorite teacher's face during that time. He never came out as gay (heaven forbid), but I think most of us were aware of his status. I had no idea that President Reagan was part of abolishing that disgraceful witch hunt. Yeah for Reagan!
And, I had never heard of Queers for Palistine. That alone proves how often people will jump on a bandwagon without really looking into the facts. Amazing. Again, thanks for this terrific, VERY informative article!
Gerard, you and Charles are both doing a fine job of getting the big debate on track where it belongs. The element that I see in all of this is the far-left asault on religion. The gay community is being used as a tool in that assault. Stealthily using its purported horror at the denial of "civil rights" for gay people, what the left is really trying to do is to derail traditional Christian and Jewish beliefs on the subject of marriage, render the meaning of the word "marriage" into something unrecognizable, and turn the churches and synagogues into bastions of an amorphous folk religion.
Left alone after Prop 8, civil unions and traditional marriage are nearly legally identical, but gays are free to be married in any church or synagogue that will perform the ceremony, and free to declare their marriage a true one by their own religious standards. If Prop 8 goes, so does that freedom, as does the First Amendment right of any church or synagogue to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage based on its own religious standards.
As an authentic "small government Republican" and a member of the "Religious Right", I think I can respond to your very well thought out post.
Political conservatives (i.e. those of us who believe in the principle of "limited size and scope of the Federal Government), must be, in terms of public policy, socially libertarian, regardless of what our personal views may be about social issues. That is, the idea that it is not the government's role to legislate ANY morality is what shifts conservatives to the (historical) Republicans and away from the Democrats.
Members of the "Religious Right" who desire to impose their own mores on society by means of the Government are not political conservatives. On the other hand, they wouldn't be welcomed into the Democratic Party either because they are irreconcilable in their objectives even though they favor the same methodology in accomplishing these goals.
So, yes, social conservatives are closer kin in their methodology to political "progressives", and this is hurting the politically conservative movement and has done so over the past 20 years.
As a gay mugged-by-9/11 ex-liberal I agree with a lot in this post and appreciate the fact that much more history and context has been provided than is usual when discussing this issue. The support of gay institutions for the most illiberal anti-gay anti-woman regimes on the planet is despicable, and the complete alignment of almost all gay institutions with a single party is ridiculous.
However, I take issue with the idea that gays who were getting married were putting on tears for the cameras, or that those of us who want marriage don't really want marriage, or want to destroy marriage in some fashion.
I know from direct experience that the "destroy marriage" people are out there (though perhaps in fewer numbers than before?) When I was one of those leading the charge for domestic partner benefits at Oracle, back when almost no one had heard of domestic partner benefits, I got reactions from some asking why I was pro-marriage and having gays from the military speak when I should be working to destroy the military and marriage.
But even though I was still a liberal back then, I had no interest in destroying either institution. And as someone who has a 22 year monogamous relationship but must live in fear of relatives swooping in to take our assets after my death, or to make life decisions for me if I become incapacitated, I have a very strong interest in the inviolable protections of marriage. Civil unions are nice, but they are not federal and if something happens to me in the wrong state, we are screwed. You can call it marriage or you can call it a civil union, but unless our relationship status is recognized and protected when it matters — when some health or other personal disaster has occurred — and recognized regardless of where we happen to be at that moment, then the problem has not been solved. And it's not a minor problem.
Personally I would be delighted to have the spiritual aspect of marriage left to churches and private consideration, while the state just hands out civil unions to gays or straights alike. However, as the situation is today, without marriage we are in a separate and unequal situation that very frequently penalizes gays severely. Ask any attorney who has to deal with gay issues after death or incapacitation — it's a very ugly situation that no one in a loving long-term relationship deserves to be subjected to because of their gender or orientation.
I have no problem with people questioning the value and purpose of gay marriage, but please don't fall into the trap of portraying those who want marriage as being disingenuous or selfish. Argue the merits, not the motives, or you offend and deny those of us who are well-meaning participants in this debate and you risk appearing to use the same tactics as those liberals we all decry.
Very nice article.
One one positive note, the Obama administration finally signed onto the UN resolution urging nations to decriminalize homosexuality. You would have thought would have been a no-brainer. But it took getting Bush out of office to make it happen.
This is the type of thing that causes conservatives no end of grief — the US was allied with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran in opposing the measure. Not exactly a coalition of freedom.
I like that idea.
A business arrangement that is between you and your partner, with an application process and ultimately granted after the fees are paid (call it a permanent partnership or whatever, but not marriage leave that to the religion piece). Then a religious arrangement (call it a marriage or whatever), by whatever religion you want or none.
I would only mod that by changing to "partner or partners".
Actually if you get government out of those issues as well I'd be fine with that. My children and my property are none of Uncle Sam's business.
All government has done to marriage is destroy it, honestly "no-fault" divorce laws have done more to destroy marriage (and for that matter contract law) than gay marriage would do.
This is as provocative and interesting as debate can ever be. One remembers when there were far better relations between us (the 70's) and tolerance was close to 100%… then it became a left wing poitical action committee and things went to hell in a handbasket. Mr Winecoff's post is brutally honest. First of all, marriage is a privilege- not a right. Correct. It exists to tame men, protect women and give children a stable environ and
positive role models. These are antithetical to statists who now control the Democrats. Second, gays are now, and always have been in the military serving with both honor and distinction. Sex has no place in a military (combat) outfit to begin with, be it straight or gay. Period.
Keep your affairs private and do your job. Serving 'openly' means what? You can cruise 18 year old youngsters from a position of power? We should be very wary of this… the UCMJ exists for a reason.
You can be open and tolerant of others differences without condoning or advocating them, and that is the greatest threat here.
Be careful what you wish for…
I would have to agree with Gerard all these "movements" never seem to stop, when goals are achieved, they metastasize into something else and it always turns out to be a socialist = progressive agenda.
For the life of me I can not wrap my head around liberals supporting Islam. Is it "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Even though my "friend" would happily kill me given the opportunity.
My ex-wife is a liberal and she used to constantly hammer home how women growing up in school were not encouraged enough to go into science, math or college in general. Teachers started going out of their way to encourage young women into these fields and higher learning in general.
Now that the numbers are in favor of women in college I asked if the drum beat would stop would teachers start to encourage young men in the same fashion. She simply replied why would they want to stop. I was dumbfounded by this. I learned that all the reasoning in the initial argument for women not getting enough support to go into college or specific fields was merely a one sided debate. It wasn't about equality it was merely pushing one agenda to no end. In her mind in the battle of the sexes it was never about "equality" it was about superiority. The very thing that feminist had been fighting against they now wanted to embody.
The level-headed members of GLBT society see lifelong partnership — whether or not it's actually CALLED "marriage" — as something to value. The rest, the Folsom Street Fair crowd, see it as something to devalue. The former want acceptance so that they can fit in; the latter want acceptance so they can ruin it for the rest of us.
Charles thanks for an intelligent and well-written article. It never ceases to amaze me how there is so much hatred from the gay community toward Christians and most recently Mormons, but such incredible love for the Muslim community. The harassment of Prop 8 supporters has been appalling.
BTW – "This is what happens when Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow are mistaken for journalists." —
Hil-freaking-arious!
Ronald, there's an obvious difference between your position and the position of what I'm just going to go on calling the Folsom Street Fair crowd. You want gay marriage because you are genuinely concerned about the legal ramifications of your partnership should, God forbid, something untoward happen; they want gay marriage solely because they know that it's going to piss off a lot of uptight straight people — they have not thought of the advantages at all, at least not in the same terms and in the same depth that you have.
Queers for Palestine. That is really deranged. Is it just ignorance or does it bespeak a need to shock at any cost? Someone look at us. Look at our sign and how insane it is. C'mon. Please?
[...] asks writer (and GayPatriot reader) Charles Winecoff in a piece, Love, War – and Gay Marriage, on Big Hollywood. In it, he comes to a conclusion consistent with something I’ve blogged [...]
[...] one of the best on any issue he treats, is probably Charles Winecoff (just judging from the small sample that I’ve seen). And it’s not merely because he [...]
Yes, my mama did tell me you can't please everybody and also that same wise woman talked of the irony of non-conformists creating "mini-societies" that insist all participants must, wait for it… conform. Hmmmmm
Apotheosis is exactly right. The reason that many Christians and other religious oppose gay marriage is that the term marriage has a traditional and sacramental meaning to them that they don't believe that the state has the right, first, to redefine, and second, to drag in all of the inquisitorial apparatus of policing over. All hetero- and homosexual domestic partnerships should be regarded as domestic partnerships by the state and accorded the same responsibilities and privileges by the state, and religious institutions ought to be able to designate whatever they see fit as marriages. No marriage as between multiple partners, however, should receive greater benefits than that between a hetero- or homosexual couple.
America sided with 70% of the nations on the globe.
HI, Big Leo: The government in California already has the ability to certify whatever form of domestic partnership it chooses. And that's a good thing. BTW, The Metropolitan Community Church here in San Francisco has been performing same-sex marriages for many years. Again, that's a good thing. The big fight here is over the definition of marriage itself. Taking the traditional marriage ceremony entirely away from the religious institutions and granting it solely to the state will only exacerbate the problem.
If the people, the legislature or the courts end up declaring that "marriage" includes "gay marriage" that won't solve the problem. Likewise, it won't solve the religious objection problem. But if gay couples are truly concerned about their marriage being equal to a heterosexual marriage, and if opponents of gay marriage really are opposed solely on religious grounds, the obvious solution is available.
As it presently stands in California, either pre-Prop 8 or post-Prop 8, the culture war goes on. Gays are not satisfied with separate but equal, and traditional religionists are fearful of litigation against churches and synagogues which refuse to perform gay marriages (and as a retired California lawyer, I can tell you that this fear is very logical, given the history of ACLU litigation in this state).
A voter initiative which defines marriage as between two consenting adults, but specifically provides a prohibition against government action of any kind against any religious body whose beliefs require that they not perform same-sex marriages would likely win by a supermajority at the very next general election. It wouldn't satisfy the extremely conservative religionists, and it wouldn't satisfy the anti-religion left, but any legislation that makes everybody happy makes nobody happy. Best of all, it would really piss off the ACLU types who are determined to eliminate religion entirely from the public forum.
"As a rule, gay folk tend to distrust organized religion (not without good reason) and middle class heterosexual norms."
Charles – you make some good points, but you see this from an older man's perspective. The younger generation, gay and straight, sees gay marriage as an equal civil rights issue – nothing more, nothing less. Maybe they don't see history the way you do, or maybe they took different lessons away from their history book chapters on the 60s – a decade that seems as far away to them as the Great Depression did to you. It's worth noting that Coretta Scott King (before her death) and Julian Bond (very recently) affirmed the equality of this struggle to theirs, while noting that the historical backgrounds of both oppressed groups can't be properly compared. Personally, I'd take their word over yours.
Perhaps you don't want middle-class Ozzie and Harriet values. When you were young, it was tough and shameful to be gay. But you're not young any more, and I think you're completely out of touch with the younger generation, whose members want to marry whom they choose. (I'd wager that the reference to Ozzie and Harriet would go over most of their heads.) This new generation wants the choice. So should all people in a free society.
One other problem to be addressed: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) intrudes unacceptably on the rights of the states to reach their own definitions of marriage. It should be modified to allow each state to make its own decision on the matter, and at the same time specifically address the issue of full faith and credit as regards gay marriage in one state being recognized by every other state as a matter of law.
Okay – so when will he be on Fox & Friends? I think Gretchen, Steven and Brian would like him.
Why do assume the author is out of touch with younger people? Why do you think someone with a knowledge of history has outmoded or irrelevant ideas?
True. But I think there is something to be said for cultural quality, not just quantity. On one side you have Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia. On the other, you have the EU, Japan, Argentina, Australia, Chile. The differences are more than a little stark.
Why is it amazing? How many Christians were pushing for same-sex sex to remain a criminal offense in Texas and other states? It is perfectly normal to get a bit angry at people who want to put you in prison.
There is "love" for the Muslim community because the Muslims are not in power anywhere near. It is easier to overlook abuses on the other side of the world.
To the first question, because his whole post is predicated on the way the world was when he was growing up. He doesn't acknowledge the fact that the younger generation grew up under an entirely different set of circumstances and consequently doesn't see anything even close to the way he does, especially the younger gay generation. To the second, plenty of people with a knowledge of history have current and up-to-date ideas. The author just doesn't seem to be one of them. And, inevitably, older generations die off and younger ones take their place.
No mushy stuff, guys.
Coming in from the left, I found a good bit of the article to be insulting, and thought it contained entirely too many generalizations about "the left," but I did see where the ideas I've been in favor of for quite some time (along with a bunch of those evil gay lefties – see http://dompar.org) would fly, even with the author. Glad to see apotheosis already brought it up, and Collins is on the same page, as well.
When marriage is the religious rite, and civil unions are the path to legal rights, I believe a good many of the people on both sides of the debate can and should be reasonably happy (and that those who aren't will be the extremists on either side, who won't be happy until the opposing side is dead and/or silent. Or folks who want to keep using the issue to bash those who oppose them politically, over the head in public.)
The government would recognize sacred marriages as a way of entering into domestic partnerships, of course… and all those spousal relationships, children, estates, taxes, benefactors, etc. would be covered under the same laws they are now… only they'd be "domestic partnership" laws, rather than "marriage" laws.
(I envision a push to switch out the word "marriage" for "civil union" or "domestic partnership" in all local, state, and federal laws… Marriage would revert to being a religious concept, defined by God and one's faith, and domestic partnership would be the legal union between two consenting adults.)
I'm always oddly conflicted in this debate…
On the one hand, I simply don't accept as demonstrably-true the premise (or, more specifically, Whiskey's premise) that the push for homosexual marriage is solely or even primarily based on some long-term plot – by some conspiratorial cabal of everyone who ISN'T a working-class white male – to dismantle traditional morality in regards to marriage and forge a hedonistic society (supposedly) favoring women/minority/gay/successful-males. I happen to think, based on evidence at hand, that it's mainly the result of a generation of gay Americans who were born post-Stonewall and/or post-Milk reaching adulthood and placing a higher premium on the vestiges of "normalcy" than did their more-revolutionary predecessors.
On the OTHER hand… even if I don't see the "charge toward hedonism" present as a set-goal… I pretty much hope that happens anyway
Actually if you get government out of those issues as well I'd be fine with that. How I raise my children and what I do with my property are none of Uncle Sam's business.
All government has done to marriage is destroy it, honestly "no-fault" divorce laws have done more to destroy marriage (and for that matter contract law) than gay marriage would do.
Also I can't tell you how angry it made me to have to take time off to go down to the courthouse to beg mama government for permission to marry Mrs Zundfolge … and pay them for it to boot.
It's amazing because the same intolerance the gay community accuses the Christian community of having was displayed against them. I don't know how many Christians were pushing for same-sex sex to remain a criminal offense in Texas and elsewhere – do you? I don't know personally know any Christian that wants to jail homosexuals. I can understand being a bit angry if people want to put you in prison, but I don't think it was the people that voted for Prop 8 and that doesn't justify the McCarthyist retaliation because people didn't vote how you wanted.
What's more mind-boggling is embracing people that want to kill you.
"It's easier to overlook abuses on the other side of the world."
So if this were 1943, we'll close our eyes and hope Hitler doesn't cross the pond. At least he's not coming for us yet. That mentality didn't work in the 1940's and it won't work now. To "overlook" abuses because they are not in our backyard, is just plain wrong.
As far as Muslim abuses – there have been plenty on this side of the world and if you don't think they are wielding power in North America, you are sadly mistaken.
Remember 9/11 – it happened here and it didn't just target the gay community it targeted all of us.
What about these honor killings?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/16/buffalo.behea...
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-si...
This supports an experience I had with a lesbian friend of mine. I was hanging out with her at a local joint, and she ran into her lesbian friends. I asked her what would happen if she told them that she was dating me, and she said her friends would rough her up. It's disturbing that there's a lack of respect for personal choices among those who claim to crusade for them.
I'm glad to see that someone could state the basic vocabulary problem of gay marriage so well. It's not about hate it about holding onto a word that means a lot to religious individuals.
I'm not opposed to civil unions in the least. I'm not a practicing religious anything but I do understand the religious argument that homosexuals can not redefine a sacred ceremony.
To me all it really comes down to is someone with a little creative thought to come up with another word that holds the same meaning as marriage but is not the word marriage. Damn it, gay men and women write incredible dialogue for movies and TV programs they have an unending ability to be creative and yet they want to plagiarize the one thing that they hate the most Christian beliefs.
I suppose we could call them nuptials, but that always sounded to me like some kind of exotic Southern backwoods vegetable root delicacy.
Thanks for the kind words.
My concern is that the focus on the extremists takes away from my legitimate concerns, and that I keep seeing statements that what I have now is just as secure and useful as marriage so there's nothing for me to be concerned about.
Perhaps that latter statement is made by people who haven't seen the results of a family (even families that seemed supportive of a relationship) swooping in and destroying the lives of those in a gay relationship as soon as they get a legal handhold to do so. Taking away property or health decisions, kicking the partner out of the hospital or the home, suing to puncture whatever legal documents have been put in place (which often can be punctured in one way or another).
I appreciate the concern about those (in a very small minority, I assume) who want to change the basic concept of marriage (I don't, except the gender thing) and those who may just be looking for the next legal challenge. I would like at least some recognition by those making the argument and some acknowledgment of the life-destroying risks those of us in traditional long-term relationships are exposed to; for me this is not just the next legal challenge, it is my life. I can assure all that, as was the case with getting domestic partnership benefits, the moment I have equal legal treatment of my relationship, I have no interest in further activism. Before gaining domestic partnership benefits I expended considerable time and energy lobbying my employer and working to gain broad support from fellow employees; the moment we got those benefits, I went back to my job and never bugged my employer again.
I would love to do the same here.
"the idea that it is not the governments role to legislate ANY morality is what shifts conservatives to the historical Republicans and away from the Democrats"
Horse hockey. Every law on the books is an imposition of morality–against stealing, cheating on your taxes, or driving fast in school zones. What you advocate is not conservatism, but moral and cultural relativism, which is an essential dogma of the Left.
The real question is:
Why do heterosexuals have ANY rights whatsoever?
Especially for those of us who are gay and Jewish.
People like that are the real Jews for Hitler.
I support marriage rights for gays ONLY. Not heterosexuals. But, at the same time, I do not support the fascist left's (isn't that redundant?) economic, defense, or social plans.
And I have no respect for Christianity or Islam because of their centuries of anti-semitism and homophobia. I will never forgive them. Never. They need to be punished.
FRS – you are making a lot of wrong assumptions about someone you don't know. The younger generation should be reading more about history, and they might make more intelligent choices. People in general should have a better knowledge of history – so they don;t end up thinking only the younger generation knows anything. The future that is created without it will be more dismal than I can imagine.
so you are thinking they should not have rights? Why?
Because they deny it to others. They want a form of marriage apartheid. They are like spoiled children with a toy they won't share even after they get snot, drool, and food stains all over it.
Well you can definitely have it when it's in that condition – and enjoy! But it's really nice to know the true feelings of liberals – and who you will be denying rights to. Thank you. This helps me a lot. Best of luck – seems like you are a very happy person. Oh and feel free to get the last word in. Then you will think you "won"! So go ahead – post another comment and I won't reply no matter what you say…because I'm signing off now. Night night and have a great weekend filled with hope and change!
"Tolerance" is nothing more than a patronizing, stifling and undeserved civility towards immoral and amoral ideas. I don't believe in it. I don't tolerate the terrorists or their useful idiots in the west any more than I tolerate the Religious Wrong.
Although all major religions sanctify marriage, marriage predates and exists independently of them. Marriage also does not depend upon government for its existence. Marriage is universal, and as such seems to be "hard-wired" into human beings. You may feel that marriage is "inextricably freighted with religious baggage," but it serves a social purpose, even if the couple are both atheists standing before a justice of the peace.
It's unfortunately become clear that there can be no compromise on the issue. My state of Connecticut sanctioned civil unions for homosexual couples, and almost immediately the state Supreme Court ruled that this violated equal protection rights and mandated marriage for homosexual couples. Even though there was effectively no difference between a civil union and a marriage, the point was that homosexual couples wanted to be called "married," and they would not be satisfied by any compromise.
[Continued)
So, I don't understand the point of having separate categories for civil unions and marriages. It will never be left at that. If the government gets out of the business of recognizing marriages, homosexual activists will then turn to the courts to force churches to "marry" them. It can only end with the destruction of the meaning of the word "marriage"—a meaning which predates recorded history—and this certainly shouldn't be undertaken without any thought for the consequences.
Sorry Two Posts:
1) My position on this issue is despised by those on both sides but I have the hubris to believe in what I think so what the heck. I think the real danger is to not about gay rights. The real issue is biological and the one driving thing that any of us do in life that matters the most. It is the propagation of the species.
Succinctly if you call a civil union between two men a “Marriage” you are then precluding either of these individuals from marrying a “woman”. The point of marriage to identify to society the biological mother and father of a child so that child can be raised by those that share his genetic makeup and by instinct will know and love him best. Therefore anything that impedes this impedes the propagation of the species.
2) According to Discover magazine the “gay” gene in animals is really a “bisexual” gene. Animals with this gene are as likely to become heterosexual as homosexual. Those without it are always heterosexual. Thus the norms of our culture work to eliminate this gene from our population. Since any species especially a social species where members rely on one another to thrive is best likely to be able to adapt and survive coming cataclysms with a diverse genetic background then these norms are also counterproductive to the human race.
I think Religious people should try to find a social structure that allows gays to be a working part of society and gays should refuse gay marriage and instead gay couples forming civil unions should seek each other out in an attempt to raise children forming “marriages” between the mother and father that will be thought of by all parties involved and the law as more important than the “Bonded Pairs” of a civil union. I like the term” bonded pair” and “bond mates” better than “Civil Union” and “significant other”.
Sharon, I suspect that had you been born a lesbian you would have a slightly more open pespective on the quality or validity of gay relationships. Then again, had I been born a heterosexual, I might be just as closed-minded as you.
"When did the gays get so mean, anyway?"
When they signed on with Communists. I saw the same thing happen to the peace movement. The Reds are great at organizing things (the rest of us peaceniks were just not driven enough) but as soon as you let them start planning your activities, realize they're just using your cause as a stepping stone to The Revolution.
Excellent Essay Charles. I found your blog from a link posted at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33123/com...
I agree with every word of this essay
A recent article detailed how parents in Britain were being threatened with court action because they wanted to opt-out, pull their kindergartners on days when gays were making presentations on gay love. The parents thought that it was too early for their children to learn about it, and just want to have the choice. The government said: It is legal therefore you have no choice but to subject your children to our programs. The government was willing to fine them and haul them to court.
This is the biggest fear and objection I have to the gay agenda – that they want to force parents to expose children at the youngest ages to the intricacies of homosexuality – and then use government force against those who resist. Another group in the UK wanted to teach about the advantages of gay relationships. I think that crosses over into recruiting. Not appropriate for school, and parents should have the final say.
Parents Face Prosecution Over Gay Education Class Protest (BTW, this is fascist.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5...
Sleeping Beastly is absolutely right. The Communists see an idealist not as him or herself but just as a faceless nobody who can be turned into a soldier in the Communist's war for absolute power.
You want to see bigotry: Look what these queens have to say about Mary Tyler Moore for describing herself as a "libertarian centrist":
towleroad.com/2009/03/appointment-of-john-berry-the-openly-gay-obama-nominee-to-head-the–office-of-personnel-management-to-be-swift-because-of-t.html#comments
Note she said nothing about gays, she even disagreed with ex-President Bush on one issue. But it proves (to me anyway) that Charles is right.
They define bigotry by party affiliation and not actions. Bush is a "bigot" for opposing gay marriage (wrong, yes, but bigoted is questionable at best), but Obama is not.
It is doubtful she's another Anita Bryant. At least she balances out Ed Asner. Their stale Republican-bashing aside, their "jokes" about her diabetes crossed the line. My mom is diabetic (albeit Type 2) and I worry about what long-term effects it will have on her health.
It occured to me right then and there that if these "people" are the face of the gay "community" (and I feel NO sense of community with other gays for these reasons), then the battle for gay marriage in the US is lost. It was like a wet, dirty rag slapped across my face. Again. The same thing that happened on 9/11.
I stand by my beliefs on gay marriage but I apologize to anyone I have insulted.
Why don't we just recognize that gays come in every variety on any other issue, veterans come in every variety on any other issue, actually, Republicans and Democrats can't agree among themselves on much either, so if we drop all the stereotypes we can start talking civilly to each other again. (I won't ask that Rush Limbaugh and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence kiss and make up.) I find the legal argument for gay marriage as a constitutional right entirely unpersuasive, I could care less if my state legislature votes to license it, I voted no on my state's "sanctity of marriage" amendment, I might have voted FOR the California amendment, simply because I don't approve of courts adopting the "equal protection" argument. Aside from California, it is worthy of note that every state where the highest court has recognized gay marriage, has failed to pass a constitutional amendment overturning that decision, while every state that adopted a constitutional amendment has a supreme court not inclined to make such a decision anyway.
I'm not a liberal.
Not only did Coretta Scott King agree that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, Bayard Rustin (personal advisor to Dr. King and openly gay man) worked tirelessly for the rights of black Americans and then for the rights of gays everywhere until his death. You disparage these individuals if you truly believe that equality can be attained through separate but equal tactics.
Peace
You must be logged in to post a comment.