North Carolina and the Missing Agenda

So North Carolina passed Amendment 1 a couple days ago.

In other shocking news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and the Pope is Catholic.

...

Wanted to let that sink in.  Amendment 1 reads, in full:

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts"

This can, and will, continue to happen in any state that it comes up for the foreseeable future, even though a slim (but increasing) plurality (or majority, it depends on the poll) support gay marriage.  It isn't a question of a base of support, it's a question of enthusiasm.  The fact is, most Americans just don't care.  It might affect someone they know, but for the vast majority of Americans it isn't an issue that has any impact in their lives one way or the other.

So let's look at the polling.  So far, this year, there have been 4 polls conducted on the subject.  The average support works out to 49.5% in favor of gay marriage and 43.75% opposed to gay marriage (or in favor of traditional marriage if you prefer to frame the question that way).

(As an aside, I'll be using the gay marriage/traditional marriage framing, this post is not an argument for either side, my opinion on the issue has nothing to do with this post, so I'll be keeping the wording as neutral as possible.)

For the sake of simplicity let's say the entire GLBT community gets fired up in favor of gay marriage every time it comes up and the entire evangelical community gets fired up to support traditional marriage.  Neither of those assumptions is remotely accurate, but it makes it easy to illustrate my point.  That gives us voting blocks of ~5% of the population fired up in favor of gay marriage and ~15% fired up in favor of traditional marriage.

What this means is that, even if ~50% favor gay marriage, they're still facing 3-1 opposition where it counts.  3 times as many evangelicals from the Christian Right are going to be out there raising funds, stumping for votes, and voicing their cause.  This is not an insurmountable opposition, but it is an opposition that requires substantial effort to face  The movement for gay marriage needs and, frankly, deserves more than pithy Facebook posts  made 2 days before a critical vote or, worse, the day after.

In short, those who support gay marriage need to stop being surprised that they lose these votes (and in NC they lost big, 61% - 39%).  For years, a lot of effort has been spent dismissing the concept of a "homosexual agenda".  All gay people want is to get married and be left alone they say.  Well, the fact is, everyone has an agenda, and that's not a bad thing.  In the modern society, nothing gets accomplished without solid planning and the leg work to back it up.

Maybe it's time gay marriage supporters accept that they need an agenda if they expect to get anything accomplished.

My Words, Like Silent Raindrops, Fell

Okay so tomorrow is the "Day of Silence". The whole event is based on ending discrimination in highschools and colleges against GLBT students. It's certainly a noble cause and something that more people should put effort into. They point out that one of the biggest factors is that no one talks about the problems that GLBT students face. They have therefor chosen the only natural form of protest, being silent.

I'm going to give you a minute to let that sink in.

Yes, they're trying to fix too much silence by being deliberately silent. They explain it best on their "speaking cards":

"Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?"

This message always bothered me. The whole concept that people notice silence seems to fly in the face of their problem that no one is noticing the silence. There isn't much more I can say on this. GLBT students need to be noticed. Stand up. Speak, shout, yell at the top of your lungs if you have to. Do anything other than stay silent.

The delusion of Maggie Brooks

"I can assure you that our decision to appeal was not based on any moral judgment."
~Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Executive

Now if I were feeling tactless I would accuse Maggie Brooks of being a liar for saying that and a political opportunist (at best) or a bigot (at worst) for actually filing the appeal. But I'm not tactless, just passive aggressive enough to make the implication before the actual argument. This isn't the only quote she gave on the matter but everyone else seems to be focused on the one about the taxpayers so out of sheer contrarianism I'm using that one.

Maggie Brooks is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She expect us to believe that, even though she’s suing to prevent out of state gay marriages from being accepted in New York. (They were recently approved in a 5-0 court decision.) The problem is that her argument isn’t with all out of state marriages, just with some of them. She isn’t trying to say that all Canadian or Massachusetts marriages are invalid in New York, just the gay ones. Legally I’d expect that argument to be on shaky ground. The decision that she’s appealing basically said that to discriminate against gay marriages was unconstitutional. The only counter argument is that discrimination against homosexuals is constitutional and that sets an uncomfortable precedent.

She’s trying to explain this away as a non-moral decision. She’s trying not to alienate too many of the gay voters while appeasing the conservative voters. She can almost get away with it by saying she’s only representing the will of the people. The problem is that “the people” are basing their “will” on moral grounds. Either she genuinely thinks that it doesn’t matter why the people hold an opinion (she’s an empty suit), she doesn’t know what their opinion is based on (she’s an idiot), or she thinks she can weasel her way out of a firm stance (she’s a politician).

I can’t really blame her for being a politician. It is her job after all. I do however think she’s a bit delusional if she thinks a blatant pander to the anti-gay conservatives in the county can be played off so easily. With the whole controversy over the gay bashing and the police scandal that followed the whole issue is a bit touchy lately. If she isn’t careful she could reignite those feelings enough to hurt her in her next election.

DOMA, DADT, and Penguins...

I'm reluctant to write about the Defense of Marriage Act because, to be perfectly honest, I don't fully understand it. I never did understand it really, it always seemed to me to run directly against the Full Faith and Credit Clause. According to some sources, DOMA may be unconstitutional but irrelevant. Apparently there is a long standing precedent of public policy exceptions that states are not required to recognize out of state marriages that would not be permitted in their state. It may have served simply to codify a precedent that was already in place. If that's the case, then DOMA was nothing more than a publicity stunt to mollify the conservatives without directly outlawing gay marriage. In any case its probably a moot point now. DOMA isn't going to be repealed any time soon, certainly not until more states recognize gay marriages.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell I feel much more comfortable working with. I don't question it on constitutional or legal grounds, I think it stands pretty solidly there. I do however question the wisdom of DADT on the grounds of it being monumentally stupid. At the time it was made it was a weak, if arguably necessary, compromise between the extremes on either side. Now it's become a ridiculous joke that costs the country money and troops that could potentially make a difference with the war going on. The whole premise is that if soldiers knew their comrade was gay, it would hurt morale and they wouldn't be able to trust him any more. They'd be too afraid that the scary gay man might look at them in the showers to do their jobs properly. Am I honestly supposed to believe that the army is full of people who would have a nervous breakdown in a typical high school gym class? Let's face it, in an average sized high school of let's say, 1000 students, between 10 and 100 of them are likely to be gay. The odds are most of those students know at least one of them and many know at least one that is openly gay. If a 14 year old walked into gym class or a sports team and refused to play with the gay kid, it wouldn't be the gay kid who gets in trouble. If we can expect 14 year olds to suck it up and work with gay guys their own age, why can't we expect it of grown men? If our armed forces are less mature than 14 year olds, we really need to rethink the quality of recruits we look for.

So the book about the gay penguins got banned in Virginia last week. It's a picture book about two male penguins in the Central Park Zoo who were given an egg that they hatched together and raised. The story is true but that doesn't stop people from screaming 'gay agenda' whenever it comes up. I'm not sure why they feel so compelled to hide the book, but I suspect it's a deep seated fear of gay adoptions. If penguins can do it the argument against people doing it feels a little weak. I don't really know what to say about gay adoptions. The argument is that it'll be bad for the children, but there's no particular evidence to that effect. It seems to just be a visceral reaction to gay people in general. I've never liked the argument that children can only be brought up properly by a mother and a father. I think it's probably the most ideal situation in today's society, but I don't think gay parents or single parents are worse than having no parents at all and I do think that there are too many children waiting for adoption and foster parents.

What’s in a name?

Since nothing earth shattering has happened recently in the presidential primaries (Obama won, McCain got endorsed, etc.) I think I'll talk about that gay thing.

On the bright side, this campaign season gay issues (marriage, adoption, DOMA, DADT, etc.) have been pretty quiet. I say 'on the bright side' not because I don't think those are important issues, but because I think they're issues that tend to get abused and horribly mismanaged. I would rather see a slow steady path toward progress than an all or nothing screaming match that inspires knee-jerk reactions (see: DOMA, DADT, the Federal Marriage Amendment, statutes in 49 states, etc.).

I have to admit I actually did some reading for this one. Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader by Andrew Sullivan. Granted, it didn't tell me much that I didn't already know, but I wanted to cover my bases on this one (plus the bookstore didn't have the novel I was looking for and I needed something to read before bed).

Gay marriage is the biggie. You have those 1,138 federal provisions that depend on marital status. I wouldn't begin to claim that I understand all of them or even some of them. I'm not a lawyer nor am I versed in the epic morass of documents we call a legislative code. I know some of them include things like spousal privilege and social security benefits and hospital visitation rights. Honestly even if it was only those three things, I would contend that it is a strong enough case for gay marriage.

The odd part is that many of the opponents of gay marriage aren't opposed to extending the provisions to gay couples. They favor the 'civil union' answer to gay marriage. For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why that doesn't reek of 'separate but equal' to the proponents, but they insist that it isn't. The arguments in favor of gay marriage are all pretty straightforward and, ultimately, boring. Equality, fairness, truth, justice, and the American way, and other high minded ideals that, while true, do not make for interesting reading material. Instead we'll be perusing (and attempting to counter) the more entertaining arguments against gay marriage.

These could be ordered in any number of other ways... they aren't... but they could be!

1) Lassie

This is my favorite one. If you let a man marry another man, then you'll have to let a man marry a dog. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.) The people who use this argument are fond of asking why we can't allow it since it doesn't hurt any person and it's just a moral distinction. To them I say okay. I challenge anyone to find me a dog (or any other animal) that can sign a legally binding contract. Until a dog is smart enough to understand, accept, and be bound by a contract they can't get married. Once they can I suppose it would be a different story, but if we have sentient dogs and cats running around I think we have bigger problems to worry about.

2) All in the Family

Moving down the line of poor arguments against gay marriage we hit incest. At least both parties are capable of signing legally binding contracts this time. The fact is that the statutes against incest are pretty weak anyway. In general its legal as long as they're at least as distant as first cousins, though it depends on the state. Closer relationships than that (parents, siblings, etc.) are illegal for reasons other than morality. Mainly medical concerns (which are not as significant as they once were) and equality of power. A modern marriage is a union of equals. There is no equality between parents and children, no matter how old they are. The parent always wields the authority over the child. Between siblings that equality could exist, but it rarely does.

3) Barney

Next we get pedophilia. I find the topic distasteful so I'll be brief. Recycle the last two arguments and combine them. No equality of power. No authority to enter legally binding contracts. And we're done.

4) Three's Company

Polygamy, Polyamory, Polywannacracker.. Okay maybe not so much that last one, but you get the idea. The argument goes like this: If you can marry any ONE you want, why not any TWO? The real argument against polyamorous marriage is the equality of power but I'll admit it's tenuous. It's certainly conceivable that multiple people could enter a perfectly equal relationship if its done with the full knowledge and consent of all parties. I'm forced to back into the less politically appealing argument of "not my problem." Basically it comes down to this: Gay marriage should be judged on it's own merits or faults; not on the merits or faults of a subsequent issue that may or may not arise. I don't have to argue against polyamorous marriages because it isn't the issue at hand. If and when it is the issue at hand I will consider the facts and judge it accordingly. Frankly if gay marriage makes the argument against polyamorous marriage that week, it wasn't a very good argument to begin with.

5) Married with Children

Marriage exists to encourage people to make babies and raise them. Wait, what? There's no ban on the infertile or disinterested from getting married. Last I checked the last part of the vows right before "I do." isn't "Will you swear to make babies?" The counter to that argument is usually along the lines of 'they might have a miracle baby'. Sure, so could the gay couple, but when did our laws become based on the possibility of miracles?

6) Who wants to Marry a Millionaire?

Marriage is sacrosanct and this would force the churches to perform gay weddings. I'll counter this on two fronts. First of all, no one can force the churches to perform ceremonies and there are already some churches that will perform the ceremony. As for this sanctity of marriage, its true, marriage should be sacrosanct; but with shotgun weddings in Vegas by superstars that last less time than some wedding ceremonies and marriage proposal game shows I think that ship has sailed. The conservative states that tend to oppose gay marriage also tend to have the highest divorce rates while liberal Massachusetts has the lowest in the country.


So what’s in a name?

From a practical perspective having two parallel structures with identical legal benefits just requires twice as much paperwork. If people are really that caught up on calling it marriage, and polls have shown that they are, then we should eliminate marriage entirely from the federal legislation. Replace it with “civil union” in all instances and open it up to same sex couples. That way the church can keep their word, gay people can get their equality, and the rest of the country can go back to worrying about things like the economy or global warming.

Stay tuned for the sequel "DOMA, DADT, and Penguins."