Toward a More Perfect Union Study Guide

  “TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION” NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, MAY 9, 2004    DAVID GARROW WILL PORTMAN Mary Bonauto, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) o Waited from 1990-1997 to challenge marriage laws because didn’t think country/individual states were ready yet o In 1997, w/ 2 other lawyers, filed Baker v. State lawsuit attacking constitutionality of Vermont’s exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage  In 1999, VT Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but called on the state legislature to devise a solution to the problem  The state legislature responded by creating civil unions, giving same-sex couple all the legal benefits of marriage, without granting the actual name  VT was first state to implement civil unions o In 2003, Bonauto filed lawsuit, Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health, on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, in Massachusetts  In 2004, Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Massachusetts became the first state to establish same-sex marriage  Public officials in San Francisco; Portland, OR; New York State; and New Jersey were inspired to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples  All such licensing has since been halted  Political backlash: President Bush called for constitutional amendment to “protect marriage” from “activist judges and local officials” Author compares gay marriage effort to desegregation effort In 1989, MA became 1st state, after WI, to pass anti-discrimination legislation for gays GLAD was inundated w/ requests from same-sex couples for help with legal difficulties that they wouldn’t have had if they were married: child custody, adoption, health-benefits coverage, inheritance, Social Security survivor benefits Some in gay community objected to pushing for marriage equality: found marriage unappealing and/or unattainable Evan Wolfson was an early advocate for marriage equality and wrote the paper “Same-Sex Marriage and Morality: The Human Rights Vision of the Constitution” in 1983. Nathan Margold, a lawyer, was another, and wrote a “constitutional game plan” for marriage equality 1991: Hawaii marriage equality case. ACLU and Lambda Legal decline to participate. Wolfson takes active role. 1993: HI Supreme Court said state would need to demonstrate a “compelling” reason to continue to exclude same-sex couples from legal marriage o This ruling gave hope to gay movement activists and lawyers; made marriage equality seem more plausible Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed with large bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 o DOMA limits federal recognition to man-woman marriages and relieves states of the obligation to recognize marriages performed elsewhere 1998: Hawaii voters pass an anti-gay marriage amendment 69-29, before the court had issued a final verdict in the gay marriage case In 1997, Bonauto’s Vermont case was filed. Differences btwn VT and HI: VT had higher hurdle for constitutional amendments, also, advocates for marriage equality embarked on a public education campaign in VT, launching the Vermont Freedom to Marry Taskforce Bonauto, others considered VT case a landmark but were also “crushed” – legislature’s decision to create civil unions vs. allowing same-sex couples to have “marriage” seemed like a “separate but equal” situation Bonauto argued in the Massachusetts case that the word “marriage” was important because a “separate system … perpetuates the stigma of exclusion” and because people recognize marriage as “the ultimate expression of love” In 2003, Ontario and British Columbia joined Belgium and the Netherlands in legalizing same-sex marriage Also in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick ruling upholding sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling was broad, overturning all remaining U.S. sodomy laws, repudiating Bowers, and denouncing government hostility toward gays Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts tried to block implementation of the court’s mandate that same-sex marriages be legal Bonauto: MA was an important symbolic victory for gays. Wolfson: “breathtaking” San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom decided to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses after hearing Pres. Bush’s criticism of the MA decision o Long-time lesbian rights activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin were the first couple in SF to become legally wed Pres Bush proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” in Feb 2004 Wolfson, Bonauto, others hope [at the time of the article’s publication, 2004] to avoid federal intervention as long as possible, and continuing building public support/winning legal victories on a state-by-state basis o They suspect that once gay marriage becomes a reality, people will realize that “the sky doesn’t fall” Bonauto: “it’s marriage itself that is so valuable as an institution, and that it’s more than the sum of its legal parts” Bonauto says “time is absolutely on our side here,” pointing to polling data showing that younger people overwhelmingly favor gay marriage “SEXUAL FREEDOM AND THE END OF ROMANCE” 1982 DENNIS ALTMAN WILL PORTMAN Article written “pre-AIDS” and “before same-sex marriage became an imaginable option” A long-lasting monogamous relationship “almost unknown” to gay men Gay relationships exhibit “a degree of fluidity that allows for considerable vitality and autonomy” “Our sexual fantasies are killing us” – gay character in the Larry Kramer novel Faggots who seeks a traditional relationship and is dismayed by the promiscuity that characterizes gay life in New York in the 1970s “No real social sanctions to support gay couples … and no clear role definitions as to who should do what” means that gay couples have more “flexibility and freedom than the norm” “The illusion of love” is more important to homosexual couples because “without it there is much less reason to persist with the relationship. o At the same time, “we have fewer illusions about permanence” Friendship and networks of friends are very important for gays, who often lack a long-term partner and a supportive family o Friends become “de facto families” “fear of commitment and a quite unrealistic level of expectations” for gay men Author blames “social pressures” rather than “inherent differences either between gays and straights or between women and men” for different community social structures General dissatisfaction with the way things are – “under the present conditions, no one can be very sure of having solved to problem of how best to order one’s personal life” “WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULD SEEK THE RIGHT TO MARRY” 1989 THOMAS B. STODDAR WILL PORTMAN “I am no fan of the ‘institution’ of marriage as currently constructed and practiced” o seen few marriages that “invite admiration and emulation” o “in its traditional form, marriage has been oppressive, especially (though not entirely) to women”  in English common law, women were considered property of their husbands  for sex outside marriage, a man was accused for fornication while a woman was accused of adultery ( a much harsher offense) Despite opposition to marriage, supports right of gays and lesbians to marry, and supports strong effort within gay rights movement to secure this right o Practical explanation  Married couples receive legal advantages  i.e. joint tax returns; Social Security survivors’ benefits; inheritance w/o a will; protection from having to testify against spouse; U.S. residency for non-citizen spouse  Married couples receive other practical advantages that aren’t law, but have become customs in society  i.e. coverage for spouse on employer-provided health insurance  Couples seeking to protect their relationship without a legal marriage, i.e. through wills and other documents, need knowledge, determination, and money  Marriage “would ensure that gay couples at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder have a chance to secure their relationship rights, too” Political explanation o “as far as I can tell, no gay organization of any size, local or national, has yet declared the right to marry as one of its goals” [this is 1989] o Although the likelihood of an imminent victory is “none,” the gay rights movement ought to devote full resources and effort to the cause of marriage equality o Why? Because “marriage is … the political issue that most fully tests the dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay people, and also the issue most likely to lead ultimately to a world free from discrimination against lesbians and gay men” o The Supreme Court has called marriage “noble” and “sacred”; gay relationships will never be thought of as important or worthy as straight ones until gay marriage exists o “Gay relationships will continue to be accorded a subsidiary status until the day that gay couples are have exactly the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.”  Therefore, either open marriage to gays or abolish it altogether  But abolishing marriage is even less likely than opening it to gays Philosophical explanation o The issue is not the desirability of marriage, but rather the desirability of the right to marry o “Enlarging the concept [of marriage] to include same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new”  Gay marriage would abolish marriage’s traditional gender roles, “divest[ing]” it of “the sexist trappings of its past” “SINCE WHEN IS MARRIAGE A PATH TO LIBERATION?” 1989 PAULA L. ETTELBRICK WILL PORTMAN Quotes T-shirt: “Marriage is a great institution … if you like living in institutions” Married people have “insider status” Marriage is “steeped in a patriarchal system that looks to ownership, property, and dominance of men over women as its basis” Marriage “defines certain relationships as more valid than others” Mocks gay people who want gay marriage as desperately seeking to become “insiders” Acknowledges practical benefits of marriage Opposition to marriage o Marriage will constrain gays, make gays more invisible, force assimilation, and undermine gay liberation o “Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay rights movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture, and the validation of many forms of relationships” “Justice would not be gained” by winning gay marriage because while it would gain justice for some, it would not correct the fundamental imbalance between those who are married and those who are not (gay and straight). Society shouldn’t value married people more than straight people. “To make an argument for equal protection, we will be required to claim that gay and lesbian relationships are the same as straight relationships” Gays shouldn’t aspire to join an oppressive institution – “we end up mimicking all that is bad about the institution of marriage in our effort to appear to be the same as straight couples” o “We would be perpetuating the elevation of married relationships and of ‘couples’ in general, and further eclipsing other relationships of choice.” More marginalized members of the gay community – women, people of color, working class and poor – are less likely to see marriage as relevant to their struggles. It is sort of a bourgeois desire, or a luxury that wealthy, white, male gays can afford to pursue Marriage creates a “two-tier system” that “allows the state to regulate relationships” Instead of pushing for gay inclusion in the institution of marriage, we ought to push to “deinstitutionalize marriage and bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried … Otherwise, our choice not to marry will continue to lack legal protection and societal respect” Domestic partnership is a step in the right direction, but “it is crucial, though, that we avoid the pitfall of framing the push for legal recognition of domestic partners … as a stepping stone to marriage.” “The goals of lesbian and gay liberation must simply be broader than the right to marry” “WHY WE OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE” FAMILY NEWS FROM DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (1998) JAMES DOBSON WILL PORTMAN Opens by saying he recently met a man who had been “delivered from the homosexual lifestyle” by Exodus International o Said he gave “inspirational testimony” Church’s desire is to show “compassion and concern for those caught in that lifestyle” Two major objections to homosexuality/gay rights o #1: Scripture  Genesis: a man and a woman “will become one flesh”  Leviticus: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination”  Paul, in Romans: “men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another”  Dobson: “God abhors any form of sexual sin”; associates homosexuality with heterosexual promiscuity, bestiality, and pedophilia o #2: “radical social agenda advanced by gay activists”  Gay lifestyle infiltrating TV, Hollywood, and universities  Pastors and priests, politicians decline to denounce homosexuality b/c of “intimidation” by gays  Pres Clinton recently attended a gay rights dinner, hate crimes conference  “Homosexual activists” have “unparalleled political power,” intimidating DC and rest of country who fear being labeled “homophobic,” “hateful,” or “politically incorrect”  Senate almost passed Employment Nondiscrimination Act which would have made sexual orientation a protected status  This would have “wreaked havoc on American families”  AIDS funding per death is much too high; demonstrates “political muscle of gay activists”  Re: marriage, a slippery slope argument: if gay marriage, why not marriage between 3 men or 4 women? Why not incestuous marriages? Why not polygamy?  Overarching “common agenda” of gay lobby: “activists want homosexuality to be seen and sanctioned as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality”  In Canada, there have been violations of freedom of speech and assembly, especially that of Christian colleges, in the name of gay equality  In the Netherlands, they’ve established civil unions  In Canada and Netherlands, they’re lowering the age of consent; in UK the “militant gay lobby” is trying to reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16  Hawaii is going to vote on gay marriage in November (1998)  Dobson: will be a “very close contest”  Anti-gay marriage amendment won 69-29  Vermont’s Supreme Court will hear arguments this summer (1998) on gay marriage  Dobson: “strong possibility” judges will legalize gay marriage, “creating an explosion of moral and legal chaos that will reverberate from coast to coast”  Judges ruled that excluding gays from legal marriage benefits was unconstitutional, but called on state legislature to devise a solution; legislature created civil unions  California- activists seeking to achieve gay marriage  “As our most populous state goes, so goes the nation”  This mailing is seeking signatures to get a referendum on the ballot (need 700,000 to do so), the “California Defense of Marriage Act” Would “preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman”  Focus on the Family … is “pulling out all the stops to help” First time sending out a ballot initiative ever, but doing so b/c “this issue is of utmost importance to our families” Concludes by bringing up Exodus Int’l guy again o “we are commanded to demonstrate Christlike love to those with whom we disagree” “Any nation that mocks the laws of God will ultimately fail” Quotes Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” “These are challenging days for all of us here at the ministry” “CONNECTING THE DOTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: THE EFFORT TO REVOLUTIONIZE SEXUALITY, GENDER, AND THE FAMILY” FAMILY NORTH CAROLINA MAGAZINE (2009) ALYSSE ELHAGE WILL PORTMAN Calls homosexual community a “politically powerful and culturally popular faction” Says gay agenda is about “freeing the homosexual in everyone,” quoting Carl Wittman’s 1969 Gay Manifesto o “portrayed as a civil rights effort … actually began as a revolutionary endeavor” o goes “far beyond equal rights … to total societal acceptance of homosexuality and sexual freedom in general” “The Strategy” o #1- desensitization of the public to homosexuals  “keep talking” strategy (Kirk and Madsen)  Infiltration of media- Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Brokeback Mountain, I Kissed a Girl o #2- portrayal of homosexuals as victims  not having marriage rights  “second-class citizens” National Coalition of Gay Organizations 1972 “Gay Rights Platform” Main objectives of “The Homosexual Agenda” o Sodomy laws  Lawrence v. Texas overturned these in 2003  But statute still on the books in NC  Supreme Court could change its mind! o Civil rights laws and policies  Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin in housing, employment, and public accommodations  Gays want to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression” to that list  Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) pending at federal level  Obama supports  Also, acts at state and local levels o Hate crimes  Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 includes “sexual orientation” as category  Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act at federal level  Pending at time of publication; signed into law months later by Obama  ElHage: “Adding pro-homosexual language to hate crimes laws (as well as to nondiscrimination policies and laws) ultimately leads to the silencing of any voices that dare to speak out against the normalization of homosexuality” o “Infiltrating the Classroom”  “homosexual activists have targeted the classroom” where they can “sidestep and undermine the teachings of the church and parents” o Sex education  Homosexuality activists want to teach “that most forms of sexual expression are normal and healthy”  Abstinence Until Marriage (AUM) vs. comprehensive sex education (CSE)  AUM emphasizes “heterosexual sex within the context of marriage as the best choice for young people”  CSE teaches “among other things, that most forms of sexual expression are normal and healthy” o Anti-Bullying/School Safety  “once these pro-homosexual anti-bullying policies are in place, it makes it much easier for homosexual advocacy groups to get into the schools … and to silence any opposition to this message”  “safe schools initiative” – nondiscrimination policies, teacher and staff training by pro-homosexual groups, such as GLSEN; and Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) o o o o o o “Redefining the Family”  “homosexual activists are engaged in efforts to revolutionize the nature of family, particularly through the redefition of marriage and by seeking broader rights to adoption and child custody” “Attacking Marriage”  Winning the legalization of “same-sex ‘marriage’” [note ElHage’s quotation marks around “marriage”]  Through courts  Through legislatures  Targeting federal and state Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs)  Currently (2009), the federal govt and 37 states have DOMAs  “In addition to trying to completely redefine marriage, homosexual activists are also using more subtle attempts to break down the institution through the enactment of domestic partnership benefits and civil union laws”  30 states have passed Marriage Protection Amendments to their state constitutions “Redefining Parenthood”  Mason v. Dwinell (May 2008)- NC Court of Appeals case in which custody to a child conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) to a lesbian couple was granted to both the child’s biological mother and her former, “estranged” partner  An example of “ongoing efforts by homosexuals to expand the biological and legal barriers to having children”  “In November 2008 a Florida circuit court struck down the state’s 31-yearold law banning homosexuals from adopting”  Second-parent adoption – “as of November 2008, only four states allow” “the revolutionary goal of the early movement – to ‘free the homosexual in everyone’ – has not changed” “What they ultimately seek is to create a new norm – where sexuality and gender are fluid and interchangeable, and where neither is based on biological factors but on the feelings, desires and experiences of individuals themselves” “The end result is a society … where anyone who dares to say otherwise is judged bigoted and intolerance, and immediately silenced” “A CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE” THE NEW REPUBLIC (1989) ANDREW SULLIVAN WILL PORTMAN Legalizing civil gay marriage is “something more radical and more conservative than putting courts in the business of defining what is and is not a family” “Domestic partnership” laws are currently in effect in some cities o Arrangements can provide for “health insurance, bereavement leave, insurance, annuity and pension rights, housing rights (such as rent-controlled apartments), adoption and inheritance rights” o May provide for “federal income tax and veterans’ benefits” soon Domestic partnerships “[chip] away at the prestige of traditional relationships” “We rig the law in [marriage’s] favor” because it promotes “emotional stability, economic stability, and the healthy rearing of the next generation” “One of the worst products of the New Right’s ‘family values’ campaign is that its extremism and hatred of diversity has disguised this more measured and more convincing case for the importance of the marital bond” Providing legal recognition for committed gay relationships is “compatible with the defense of the family” o “But the way to go about it is not to undermine straight marriage; it is to legalize oldstyle marriage for gays” Acknowledges more radical spirit of aging gay leadership that may view marriage as “cooptation into straight society,” but argues that “there’s now the sense of a new opportunity” o “To be gay and to be bourgeois no longer seems like such an absurd proposition. Certainly since AIDS, to be gay and to be responsible has become a necessity” Gay marriage would: o “foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence” o “help nurture children”  “since there’s no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents” o “qualify as a public health measure”  “in the wake of AIDS”  “Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support [gay marriage]” Gays are “a permanent minority and aren’t likely to go away” “Since persecution is not an option in a civilized society, why not coax gays into traditional values rather than rail incoherently against them?” “It’s one of the richest ironies of our society’s blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative goals should have the appearance of being so radical” “THE RADICAL CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE” VILLAGE VOICE (2003) RICHARD GOLDSTEIN WILL PORTMAN Many Democrats advise staying away from the gay marriage issue, a “wedge issue” that will cause them to lose elections o James Carville: an “icky” issue Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry: “there is virtually no opposition from progressive groups,” but there’s also “a curious silence” o Some support: NOW filed amicus briefs in several marriage cases o Opposition to a ban often more palatable than outright support  Leadership Council for Civil Rights opposes federal marriage amendment, NAACP expected to oppose as well Progressive critics o Village Voice writer Judith Levine: “In seeking to replicate marriage, reformers may stall the achievement of real sexual freedom and social equality for everyone” o Queer theorist Michael Warner: marriage a threat to the variety that has flourished in the queer community; marriage creates “selective legitimacy” o Oppressive, patriarchal instituion Goldstein’s answer to critics o “Institutions change.”  And radical critique of gay marriage “ignores the human capacity to transform an oppressive institution”  i.e. gays, can reform marriage from within o “There’s a difference between repudiating an entitlement and having no right to it at all” o “As for the notion of normalcy, it simplifies the reasons why lesbians and gay men might want” to marry  Civic equity; social prestige; “this is much more than a flight from the creative anarchy of queer life” o Choice: “what gays are fighting for is the option to marry, not the obligation to do so”  “choice, as all progressives should know, is the essence of freedom” Implications of a gay marriage ban (i.e. federal constitutional amendment) o “All potential victims of discrimination should be aware that, for the first time ever, the Constitution would restrict the ability of judges to fight inequality” o “courts stacked with conservatives could … [apply] the logic of the amendment just as liberal judges have used the Bill of Rights to establish many of the liberties we enjoy today” Gay marriage “much more than a bourgeois exercise in assimilation” o Many poor queer families  “They may not qualify for public housing; family courts may not accept their claims of domestic abuse; hospitals can – and regularly do – dismiss their right to make medical decisions on behalf of a loved one; they lack the standing to sue for a partner’s wrongful death; they can’t count on a partner’s social security; and even when private pensions are passed along, the tax-exempt status is lost if the recipient is an unmarried mate” Discussion of whether rights and benefits should be distributed via marital status can continue o “Why do radicals assume [this debate] will be hindered if gay people can wed?” “Queers won’t stop being queer just because they can get hitched”; “Marriage won’t change gay people, but merely affirm them as they are” Gay marriage might “open the floodgates to recognition for other relationships o Not “Rick Santorum’s specter of incest and polygamy,” but everything from trial unions to covenant marriages, civil unions, etc. o Could lead to “the kind of world radicals want to see – a world of choice” QUEER PARENTS SAY: RESIST THE GAY MARRIAGE AGENDA!” MARTHA JANE KAUFMAN AND KATIE MILES WILL PORTMAN Argues gay community has priorities wrong, have “[sold] out” o “The U.S. military is continuing its path of destruction, and gays want to be allowed to fight” o “More and more Americans … can’t get decent health care, and gays want weddings” Liberal gay agenda that “gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality … fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history” “We think long-term monogamous partnerships are valid and beautiful ways of structuring and experiencing family, but we don’t see them as any more inherently valuable or legitimate than the many other family structures” Marriage=system for doling out privilege to select people. We should get rid of this system rather than trying to join it Gay marriage agenda ignores more important “social, economic, and racial justice” issues Authors offended by Equality California literature with videos of “big, happy gay families … they’re making us sick.” View them as too bourgeois, non-threatening, conformist, middle class o Allege that they imply that “once gays get their rights, they’ll disappear again,” and that parenthood is an end to political involvement, whereas their parents “raised kids and raised hell at the same time” “We won’t let the government decide what does and doesn’t constitute a family” Marriage has become the “single-issue agenda” for much of the gay rights movement o Ignores more important issues like universal health care Reject notion that “gay is the new black,” parallels to Civil Rights Movement o Makes light of structural racism o Ignores queers of color o Queer community now should be struggling against structural racism and inequality, not trying to join an oppressive institution Oppose hate crimes legislation o Oppose “anything that would expand prisons” o Instead, build “models of restorative and transformative justice … we challenge our queer communities to confront what they are afraid of rather than locking it up”  Vague about what they propose in lieu of locking violent offenders up Re: DADT, “we think it’s time that queers fight the army and the wars it is engaged in instead of asking for permission to enter” [Irony: article claims marriage has become a single-issue obsession for the gay movement, then goes on to talk about hate crimes and DADT repeal] “If the HRC [Human Rights Campaign] got its way, the queers who do not want, or are not eligible for, marriage would be even less secure than before” “We don’t have to assimilate when we have each other” “We reject the idea that we should strive to see straight family configurations reflected in our families” We have to “grad our community back from the clutches of the gay marriage movement” “Queers are sexy, resourceful, creative, and brave enough to challenge and oppressive system with their lifestyle” “Our families are tangled, messy, and beautiful”