The Battle Over Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

OK. Second day of blogging. Now that I have solved the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I think I'll move on to "family values".

Kevin Drum aka Political Animal referenced an article in today's Flint Journal about Michigan Governor Granholm's decision to suspend same-sex benefits for state employees. The impetus for this, of course, was the recently passed constitutional amendment regarding marriage. As reported by Drum, that amendment reads:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

The most problematic part of this amendment is the part that provides that a marriage between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The intent -- and perhaps the effect -- of the reference to "similar union[s]" is to bar legal recognition of marriage-like arrangements (i.e. civil unions) other than those between one man and one woman.

Drum himself read this article as evidence that even politicos like Governor Granholm -- a fairly liberal Democrat -- are "rolling over" on this issue. Some of his readers responded that they believed it was tactical decision on her part: since the domestic partnership benefits being suspended would not become effective until next October anyway, as a part of a new labor agreement, Granholm was giving people the opportunity to take the issue to court to try to get the meaning (and perhaps legality) of the marriage amendment settled before anyone actually got hurt by it.

I hope that's right, and, if it is, I hope it is a successful strategy. It'll be interesting to see where the State Attorney General (who does not work for the Governor and is an independent actor) comes out on this once the litigation is filed.

But that is all by way of introduction to what I really want to write about.

As you will see if you review the comments to the Drum post, the discussion about Granholm's legal strategy and intentions got pretty much got buried in an avalanche of vituperation generated by the following "comment":

Equating race, and slavery in particular, with an abnormal sexual CHOICE is
laughable. Posted by: Charlie on December 3,
2004 at 2:06 PM PERMALINK

This discussion thread triggered a couple of thoughts.

First, where do people get this idea that sexual orientation is a "choice"? Do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals? If so, does that mean that they could choose to be homosexual? I don't know if I am atypical, but heterosexuality was never something I "chose," any more than I chose my big ears, brown hair, or poor eyesight. Am I alone out there in being a "hard-wired hetero?" I don't think so. My guess is that all or at least the vast majority of heterosexuals could no more choose to be homosexuals than they could choose to be taller. If that's the case for heterosexuals, then why would anyone suppose it is different for homosexuals, or bi-sexuals or any other type of sexuals?

(Let me anticipate one common objection to this point: "Child molesters probably don't choose to be child molesters, but we make child molestation illegal. What's the difference?" The difference, of course, is the victim. We outlaw heterosexual rape too for the same reason. We do not criminalize people, we criminals acts. And the thing that makes heterosexual sex acceptable is not that it is heterosexual but that it is between two people who can and do give their consent. The criminal act is not the sex, it is the victimization. In the absence of victimization, there is no crime. And that's as true of homosexuals as it is of heterosexuals.)

And, another thing on the choice question. If it were really a matter of choice, who today, in this country, would choose to be homosexual? Who would choose to subject themselves to the discrimination, the limitations, ostracism, even the very real threat of physical danger that goes along with being a homosexual in this country? Does anyone really think Newt Gingrich's sister and Dick Cheney's daughter chose to be gay given the families they grew up in and the attitudes those families have toward "traditional family values"? How about the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud, who was "defrocked" as a Methodist minister for being a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual". 12/3/04 NY Times story here. Does it make sense to suppose that Rev. Stroud "chose" to be gay? Yes, she did chose not to hide the fact (and that was really her "crime" here), but do we really suppose she chose to be who she is? I find that whole notion to be utterly preposterous.

My theory about why so many people cling to this idea despite all logic and the lack of any evidence is that they need it. Precisely because sexual orientation is so deeply ingrained -- hard-wired -- into who we are, we heterosexuals have a very, very hard time understanding how anyone could be homosexual. At some primitive, gut level, it feels so, so -- unnatural! Some people, of course, get no farther than that: "Its weird, different, disgusting and I hate them." These are the honest ones. But for many, there is a need to rationalize. They recognize that it's wrong to hate someone for what he is, but it is OK to hate him for what he chooses to do. So, rather than give up the hatred, they convince themselves that homosexuality must be a matter of choice. That conclusion is so divorced from reality as to be nearly delusional, but, after all, that's the principal psychological function of delusion: to protect us from our own cognitive dissonance.

The other train of thought triggered by Drum post and discussion related to a discussion I had with my brothers-in-law in early November sitting around a campfire in far northern Minnesota in early November, right after the election. Northern Minnesota used to be rock-solid Democratic -- devoted followers of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Over the last dozen years or so, that has changed and, with a few exceptions, most of the northern Minnesota counties are now pretty solidly "red". Like rural counties nearly everywhere, the people there can no longer bring themselves to vote for the Democrats, despite the fact that they recognize that it would be in their own economic best interests to do so.

The reason, of course, is "values". For these people, the Democrats have become the party of licentiousness. The "gay" issue was a big part of this of course in this election, but it goes much deeper than that. Abortion (particularly partial birth abortion), pornography, bans on prayer and Christmas plays in school, feminism, flag-burning, and a host of other similar factors contribute to these things. The simple fact is that rural people have come to believe that the Democrats are in favor of all of these things and the Republicans are against them. I spent a long time trying to explain that the Democrats weren't "for" partial birth abortion. Who could possibly be "for" something like that? Rather, the Democrats rather are against making these sorts of things illegal. But the point just didn't take. Yes, it was in some ways a frustrating discussion. But I came away with three impressions that affected me profoundly.

First, I was deeply impressed by how sincerely these people are struggling with the issues that we all assume are matters of dogma for the Christian Right. These are not bigots. They are not "theofacists". They believe deeply in the importance of the separation of church and state. But for them individually their faith is not something they can ignore in deciding how to vote. They are, in short, sincere people of good will who are struggling to reconcile their politics with their faith. Take gays, for instance. They have the same visceral problems with homosexuality that most heterosexuals do. Plus, for them, that visceral reaction is reinforced by a perceived Biblical condemnation. Yet, these are also people who believe deeply in tolerance and acceptance and who detest discrimination and bigotry. And it was obvious as we talked that they themselves are deeply uncertain about how to reconcile these apparently competing moral dictates.

This first realization gave me great hope. True, it was the loss of the kinds of people that cost the Democrats the election. But they display none of the religious zealotry displayed by the talking heads of the religious right. Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson do not speak for these people. As a result, I think, it is going to be a lot easier to turn these people around than I thought it would be. In this regard, I came back from this trip far happier than I was when I left. Lincoln was right: you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. This conversation did much to restore my long-held faith in the basic good sense and fairness of the American people.

The other realizations that came out of this conversation related to what needs to be done to effect this conversion. Basically it comes down to this.

First, there is an enormous communication gap that needs to be bridged. It was incredible to me how profoundly misinformed my brothers-in-laws were about matters critical to the formation of their views on the election. I noted above the impression they had that the Democratic Party was "for" abortion, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, etc. But an even more compelling example is this one: One of my brothers in law told me twice that he just couldn't bring himself to vote for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing gays the right to
marry! We can belittle all we want the failure of these people to inform themselves. But that's not going to help. That's just more of the"coastal-urban condescension" that has contributed mightily to driving these people into the arms of the Bushites. And besides, what is the obligation of a candidate and a political part if not to communicate with the voters in such a way as to allow them to understand what you are saying. We have seen the enemy, and it is not
them, it's us.

Second, the Democrats must find a way to make these peoples' religious values work for the Democrats rather than against them. It's simple, really. If you want someone to vote for you, you have to convince them that the things you stand for are consistent with their own values.

I have some thoughts on how we might be able to do both of these before 2008. But those will have to wait until tomorrow.