The Atlantic - Latest Comments in A useful dissent

Re: A useful dissent

Thomas R — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:45:59 -0000

"have found that they are not equal in substance to marriage even when the law expressly says they are to be treated as equal"

So various groups disregard the law on unions, but if it's a marriage they'll obey it? Umm why?

This does seem to be a bit of the "words have magical powers" idea. If people or organizations will act in defiance of law to go against you then that's what they're going to do it seems. Or at least I don't see why being declared virtually straight is going to change that.

Sexuality is not like race. We don't separate bathrooms by race, but we still separate them by sex. So I think in this case a difference could theoretically be recognized without much or any impediment. If it's not doing so you can work on fixing that, but gays are not forced to go into inferior schools or kept economically downtrodden.

On the other hand the situation could be analogous to discrimination against Jews in this country's past. A Jewish person could deny their ancestry and reject their faith to "pass" in society. A gay person can do something similar. Jewish people were not per-se segregated or economically disadvantaged. However they were seen by many as people living in moral darkness who collectively degraded the morals of society. Also their marriages were basically invalid according to many Christian denominations of the time. Jewish people tend to vote in favor of same-sex marriage. Still I'm not sure if this analogy would reach Hispanics or African Americans any better. Also I get this sense many gays don't like analogies like that for some odd reason.

Re: A useful dissent

gogg — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:10:37 -0000

sgwhiteinfla:

First, states in which have established civil unions or domestic partnerships have found that they are not equal in substance to marriage even when the law expressly says they are to be treated as equal (and ignoring Federal aspects). NJ just issued report saying that civil unions do not provide the same protections as marriage does - even though the law says they should be equivalent. Major areas of deficiency include hospitals not allowing civil unioned people to see each other because they didn't know what a civil union was or how to treat it. By and large employers do not extend coverage to civil union partners in NJ (Fed law bars states mandating employers give insurance to them). Contrast Massachussetts in which almost all employers extend insurance to gay and straight married partners alike (even though employers have the same freedom under Federal law to deny gay married partners in Mass insurance, they don't because they want to treat all married couples equally). So there are just a few concrete, substantive examples of how civil unions cannot be equal to marriage precisely because the word is different.

In California, where the domestic partnership laws also state that dps should be considered the same as married spouses, 17 differences under California state laws were found by gay marriage proponents in response to the State Supreme Court asking during the marriage cases. Some are substantive, some are symbolic in very imporant ways. For example, to be married in Ca, you need two witnesses, a recognized officiant, etc. For a domestic partnership? Just fill out a form and mail. The clear message is that straight marriage is a deeply important step that the community is involved in and that should be given much consideration before entering into. Gay domestic partnerships are deserving of all the formality of renewing a drivers license.

So I think these things show that it just isn't possible to create a separate but truly equal statutory scheme.

But let's say it were possible to create a different but substantively equal statutory scheme. So, now gays are deserving of all the rights of straights, but they can't call it marriage. I think the primary motivation for this would be to codify an inferior status.

Re: A useful dissent

Consumatopia — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:46:05 -0000

Green,

It's not bigoted to make an analogy.

It's not bigoted to compare a subset of humanity to animals?

All I can do now is give you a blank look.

Sure, more time has to be spent convincing people. But from the point of view of logic and ethics, if bigotry has any meaning whatosever, then Rick Warren is a bigot. The bottom line is that you can't convince someone to stop doing something evil without pointing out that it is an evil thing to do.

Look, y'all have some points. It's not fair to compare Obama to a segregationist, it's not fair to blame blacks more than whites for Prop 8, and racial segregation isn't in every way comparable to gay oppression. Some gay people somewhere in this world have done some things they should not have. Fine.

But a few of you are getting ridiculous here--denying that there's something morally wrong with comparing homosexuality to bestiality. No, that is not at all like comparing proposition 8 to segregation--one is comparing two sets of historical events, the other is comparing people to non-persons.

Stuff doesn't stop being bigotry just because the majority supports it. (Though, I'm not sure the majority would object to the idea that comparing gay people to zoophiles is bigotry.) We have to listen to the majority. We don't have to agree with them. Progressive action requires empathy. But it also requires truth--it requires you to stand up and speak when something is immoral.

Re: A useful dissent

David — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:02:02 -0000

I'm a middle-aged gay white guy. Although I'm single (if marriage had been legal, I would be considered a widower), but I went to a lot of very joyous same-sex weddings during the brief period when they were legal here in California, for couples who had been together from 5 to 42 years. I worked for both the Obama campaign and the No on 8 campaign. So I should be pissed off about Obama inviting Rick Warren to participate in the Inauguration. But I'm not. Here's why:

President-Elect Obama invited me to the Inauguration, too.

Well, not me personally. Me and 176 of my friends from the Lesbian and Gay Band Association. A little known fact about the LGBT community (LGBT organizations that aren't outlandish or overtly sexual don't get a lot of media attention) is that we have bands. Community bands. Good ones, in cities across the country. We have been invited to put together a sort of 'honor band' for the Inaugural Parade. Not on the sidelines somewhere where we won't be seen. In the parade, along with the Marine Band and all those high school and university bands. An out, Lesbian and Gay marching band participating in the inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States as the patriotic Americans that we are. If you had told me back in high school band that I'd someday participate in something like this, I would have laughed. Of course, if you told me back in high school that I would still be in a marching band 33 years later, I would have laughed about that, too.

My theory about Warren's participation is that it is not about what impact Warren will have on the event, but the impact the event will have on Warren. I think Obama sees Warren as someone who is an emerging, less dogmatic evangelical leader. Who is also ambitious, and for whom access to POTUS is probably very attractive. An earlier poster referred to it as co-opting Warren. I think that's a good description. I think we also need to remember that things don't HAVE to be the way they've been for the last eight years with the people we disagree with. Sometimes, reaching out to them doesn't mean giving in to them. Sometimes it can mean they come around to our way of thinking.

Re: A useful dissent

Andrea — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:59:08 -0000

"Why would a federal law stating that rights and privileges afforded to married couples must also be afforded to couples joined by civil union sometimes not apply?"

LGBT couples started fighting for marriage over civil unions, because "civil unions" are not covered in any area of law. Obviously, we've been writing a lot of laws in a lot of states for a long time, so you can imagine how many individual laws and cases deal with marriage. Civil unions would not be covered by any of those legal precedents. Thus the fight by the LGBT activists for "marriage".

Now as for the option you guys are putting out there...a sort of nuclear option, a federal law that says "civil unions should be afforded the same rights as married couples" well, that's a pretty broad sweeping statement. Well, here we go again with the law...is that statement sufficient to cover all legal precedents that ever existed? Or would civil union couples find themselves going to court over one thing or another, because the law isn't clear? Do you see where this goes? THIS IS WHY LGBT activists have been fighting for marriage over civil unions. You might not agree, but you've got to acknowledge that's a valid reason for wanting "marriage" and it's definitely more than a "word" which is what sgwhiteinfla was suggesting.

Re: A useful dissent

Chaz — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:21:40 -0000

Kris,

He's either right or wrong. Frankly I think he's right. I think you're right too. The fact is that both of your cases are hyperbole at best and emotional to boot. Neither should be part of a rational discussion.

I think that the zero sum game of politics and cultural wars that we're apt to play is reaching a sickening level in our (LGBT) fight. I'm tired of the co-opting of movements that we don't understand. I'm tired of the refusal to honestly pursue coalition building. We're either selling out or burning bridges. Maybe we can get some adults at the table but yelling that 51+% of Americans are super homo-bigots isn't going to win this fight and excuse those of us who'll stand out this self immolation of the gay rights movement.

Re: A useful dissent

Green — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:11:25 -0000

@ Andrea

I'm not sure you answered sg's point either. I'm only pointing it out because Id like to hear the reasoning as well.

Why would a federal law stating that rights and privileges afforded to married couples must also be afforded to couples joined by civil union sometimes not apply?

@Consumatopia

It's not bigoted to make an analogy. It merely says that there are parallels between two dissimilar things that, when highlighted, help to clarify some overarching point. It may be crude, but no more crude than comparaing the gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement, or Rick Warren to a nazi, or a klansmen. No less false than comparing BO to JFK, or lincoln, or whatever. That's problem with analogies- they're all false. they are probably the most excessively misused and potentially deceptive means of communication available. More time has to be spent presenting the case on the merits- on both sides of the issue- and less on developing these hyper simplified proverbs which ultimately dont tell the whole story.

Re: A useful dissent

kris — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:46:38 -0000

But this over-the-top stuff calling people who disagree bigots and evil is beyond the pale.

If only your outrage at people who equate gays with pedophiles were equivalent to your own personal sense of aggrievement at these insults, you might have a point. Your gut response on an emotional level isn't much different than ours for you to be so judgmental.

Re: A useful dissent

Andrea — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:12:03 -0000

"What you are talking about can be solved with the stroke of a pen and thats why I still say its over a word. Like I said before, you are focusing on the piece meal reality of today where one state might recognize civil unions while another might not. Obama wants to have them recognized across the board and that being the case I don't see how it is a civil rights issue nor how he can be labeled a bigot if thats his intention."

You are not listening!! This fight is not over a word. It's over the meaning of that word under the law(s)...not just from state to state. You are so off-base in thinking that the hundreds of laws that exist today that refer to marriage can be solved with "the stroke of a pen." It's not that simple. LGBT community would constantly be fighting battles over laws that refer to "marriage" and not "civil union". There are so many imaginable and unimaginable scenarios, and for pragmatic reasons, the LGBT community sought for marriage rights, not civil unions. Gezzus. I think you just want to be right, but you're failing to acknowledge this rather large point that I'm making.

Having said all that, I think the LGBT community would take something or nothing. But they'd prefer "marriage" because it's less of freakin legal nightmare. If you don't see the undue burden that puts them, then you don't want to see it...

Re: A useful dissent

Bill — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:30:49 -0000

Cloud has his Russell analogy wrong -- today, Rick Warren is the Russell-like figure -- i.e, "...cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician (or religious leader) even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades."

In this scenario, who is Obama? He is the Lyndon Johnson figure, who needs to co-opt or move around Rick Warren/Richard Russell to make equality happen. That's what's going on here, folks.

We continue to ignore the fact that Obama has brought political strategizing to a completely new level, far above what we've seen from past politicians. For a year we've been second-guessing his moves, and virtually all of them have worked out. This one will too, I bet.

Re: A useful dissent

Consumatopia — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:20:48 -0000

You have to actually PROVE that civil rights are being violated because of a word not being used.

The Yes on 8 crowd did that for us. Their biggest argument was gay marriage would force schools to acknowledge the existance of gay couplings. Think about that. Your membership in the human community is so anathema that children are not even supposed to know you exist. The pastor giving the inaugural keynote compares your relationship with your spouse to bestiality. And you're supposed to be grateful because they don't execute you like they do in much of the world.

People don't want to use the word "marriage" because they want to deny the status of gays as persons capable of love just as meaningful as everyone else's. Adam's right that it's unfair to compare Obama to a segregationist, as at least Obama is on the right side of the status quo. And if comparisons to segregation don't work, they shouldn't be made. Not all bigotry has to be compared to segregation.

But you're simply wrong to deny the bigotry here. Comparing human relations to animal relations cannot be anything but bigotry.

Re: A useful dissent

rockthebells — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:13:58 -0000

It is over a word, and yet even Coates is now calling people like Obama bigots and dropping the E-bomb (evil!) about people who agree on the substance if not the semantics of the gay marriage question.

I'm sick of this shit. Sick of hearing the fight for gay marriage compared to the civil rights battles of the 60's, sick of hearing Rick Warren compared to Nazis and the Holocaust, sick of being told that the fight for a word is the end all be all.

And I believe gay Americans should have the right to marry just like everybody else. But this over-the-top stuff calling people who disagree bigots and evil is beyond the pale.

Anyone who is calling people who support civil unions but not gay marriage a bigot and evil is someone who is exacerbating the problem. The goal should be reconciliation, not throwing gasoline on the fire. And when you call people who sympathize with you bigots...well those people aren't bigots!

The discourse has gone over the line. The outrage over Warren is shallow and unreasonable. This country needs to learn how to accept people, not push them away. We need to learn that even if you disagree with a certain aspect of someone - it's doesn't mean that you can't find common ground.

Re: A useful dissent

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:02:23 -0000

Andrea

So if federal legislation was passed that explicitly said that civil unions get the same legal recognition as marriages wrt legal proceedings would not that solve the problem and would that be acceptable to the LGBT community? It certainly doesn't sound like it would be acceptable to them. What you are talking about can be solved with the stroke of a pen and thats why I still say its over a word. Like I said before, you are focusing on the piece meal reality of today where one state might recognize civil unions while another might not. Obama wants to have them recognized across the board and that being the case I don't see how it is a civil rights issue nor how he can be labeled a bigot if thats his intention.

Re: A useful dissent

emma — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:00:01 -0000

@Consumatopia

If they were in the closet that means they could hide from discrimination, but black people couldn't and I think that is where the comparison faulters for most black people. Whether you like it or not the author is correct. Most black people, even those who support gay marriage, simply do not like and reject the comparison. The simple fact that hiding, however abhorrent it may be, is an option for gays makes all the difference in the world for black folks who for the most part haven't had the option. Sure there where those who "passed" and maybe that is a good analogy to being in the closet for gays.

Also, didn't the GLTB community notice that Obama had expressed his lack of support for gay marriage long before election day? Obviously many did know because he got much less of the gay vote then John Kerry. Or was it something else that anyone explain?

Re: A useful dissent

Andrea — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:52:19 -0000

"Again its a word thats being fought over not rights. Its kind of telling that now one explanation of why we need gay marriage instead of civil unions is because of what might happen in a divorce."

What are you talking about? My comment was specifically referring to the laws that exist today.

Tax laws, real estate laws, estate tax laws, etcetera, all have clauses that refer to the word "marriage." A couple who is married via "civil union" is NOT automatically covered by those hundreds of laws that exist today. No matter how well you construct the legal rights defined by a civil union, you still run into road blocks...areas of the law that refer to "marriage" and not "civil union". In the law, words do matter. That's why the LGBT community has been working towards "marriage" and not civil unions. It's not for sentimental reasons or semantics. It's for practical, real-life, legal reasons.

Re: A useful dissent

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:39:28 -0000

Betsy

I would respectfully say that the cultural construct you are selling is bullshit. Whenever someone goes to Vegas and has a quickie wedding nobody respects it. To most people in a cultural construct it is seen just like the piece of paper you say a civil union is seen as. Besides the fact that the cultural construct comes from religious dogma that many religious folks think says that homosexuality is wrong. You can continue trying to come up with abstract terms and analogies to try to make civil unions some how an offense to civil rights but the real world doesn't work that way. You have to actually PROVE that civil rights are being violated because of a word not being used. Otherwise as I have said and will say again its a fight over a word, period. You can call a civil union a marriage, nobody is stopping you from that. In fact if a gay couple has a civil union and refer to themselves as being married who is going to stop them? You are talking about perceptions and perceptions do not equal reality.

I don't particularly have a dog in the hunt of gay marriage vs civil unions but I DO have a dog in the hunt when people fly off the handle and say that anybody that favors civil unions is a bigot because it shows that they have no clue about the meaning of the word.

As for your reference to auto repeals I would love to see any proof you have that any legislation applying to the dissolution of marriage would not apply to the dissolution of civil unions if in fact federal law allowed for civil unions. Care to share?

Re: A useful dissent

rikyrah — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:34:13 -0000

Coates,

Did you see this response by Jasmyne Cannick?

A White Gay’s Guide for Dealing with the Black Community: Chapter 4: STFU Already

http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=3298

Re: A useful dissent

Consumatopia — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:27:07 -0000

My grandfather was told he had to take a test in order to vote. A test that he always was told he failed yet he was never shown the test after it was graded. My father had to give up his seat plenty of times for white folks because he didn't have a right to sit anywhere.

I'm not convinced that the experiences of uncloseted homosexuals in the Jim Crow era were much better.

Re: A useful dissent

Whitey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:59:10 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

I see a bit of a problem in your comparing the civil rights movement with the push for gay marriage in that you so often couch the struggle for racially based civil rights as something that hurts us all through the lost human capital and inefficiencies that arise from an unjust system. While there are undoubtedly inefficiencies that come about as a result of the inability of gays and lesbians to marry in most of the country, it seems to me that gay marriage is much more a struggle for civil rights for the sake of civil rights. There's nothing wrong with this by any means, and I fully support gay marriage (or, at a minimum, civil unions if gay marriage isn't feasible). That said, I don't think you can make the same argument that the lack thereof is negatively impacting society nearly as much. Does it make us more callous? Sure. Does it mean that we aren't everything we claim to be? Of course. Are there economic downsides to disallowing gay marriage? Yes. But is it absolutely crippling to the group in question (gays and lesbians) and a strong impediment to economic progress to society at large? I don't really think so. I would welcome a refutation of this, as it's something I'm trying to think through myself, but I simply don't see the two being quite on the same level.

Re: A useful dissent

Scott — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:52:19 -0000

Communication is a comparative process. The very understanding of language is making connections between words and images, comparing what fits with what we know with what we don't fit.

As such, as fruitless as it is to shriek discrimination at everything and to call people bigots because they're not 100 percent with you in each and every way, it's also entirely fruitless to complain about comparing gay rights battles with African American civil rights battles. Language is comparative. The comparisons are not going to stop, so getting caught up in explaining every time it crops up why they're different doesn't move any understanding anywhere.

Re: A useful dissent

Betsy-the-muffin — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:42:48 -0000

@sgwhite:

Right, because it did an auto-repeal of those state laws. Whereas universal civil unions wouldn't auto-repeal all those bits in state constitutions that say "even if civil unions are forced on us, we're not allowed to define them in a way that's equal to marriage."

Anyway, if the difference between civil unions and marriage is so infinitesimal, why do you care so much which one gay people get?

Marriage is a really potent cultural construct, above and beyond its legal ramifications. Civil unions aren't; culturally, they're just a piece of paper. Straight people can meet in Vegas and, forty-five minutes later, buy into that potent cultural construct, complete with its notions of permanence and respect. Given that, gay couples who've been together decades shouldn't be fobbed off with a piece of paper.

Re: A useful dissent

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:10:21 -0000

Andrea and Betsy

If civil unions were the law of the land neither one of your rebuttals could hold water. Barack Obama isn't for civil unions in California or civil unions in Florida, he is for civil unions nationwide. When the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964/65 no black people had to go fight to change language in each state. The legislation itself can do that. Again its a word thats being fought over not rights. Its kind of telling that now one explanation of why we need gay marriage instead of civil unions is because of what might happen in a divorce.

Re: A useful dissent

JRVJ — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:07:17 -0000

I'm pro-gay marriage (for the wagish reason that I don't see why we heterosexuals should be the only ones to suffer).

Having said that, I really don't think the gay organizations and activists are playing this correctly:

1. EXAMPLE 1: In California, Gay Marriage was put to a vote and it narrowly lost.

Any and all reasonable analysis would lead one to believe that Gay Marriage will be reinstituted via the votes of Californians in the near future (2, 4, 6 years, but soon), provided Gays and Lesbians keep on fighting for it smartly (and having the right to marry approved by way of the vote will grant a lot more legitimacy to that right to marry than obtaining such right via a judicial decision).

Attacking everyone who voted against Gay marriage as bigots surely is not a smart way to eventually get over the thresshold (Tammy Michaels, Melissa Etheridge's wife, wrote a very smart thing about this on her blog, which Andrew Sullivan reposted

You can read it here:

http://hollywoodfarmgirl.blogspot.com/2008/12/big-ricks-yamaka.html

2. Think back 16 years to the beginning of the DODT policy.

Was Gay marriage even remotely on the realistico political agenda in the U.S. or other countries?

Frankly, I don't think so.

The enormity of progress which has been made by the Gay community in those 16 years should not be discounted, and it would be sheer folly to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

(16 years, ironically enough, is 1 year less than what it took from Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in MLB in 1947 and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Re: A useful dissent

Green — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:06:40 -0000

I think the point that Adam makes that is most important is that this practice of demonizing those who dont agree with you, based on their disagreement alone will hurt more than it helps.

No one should just expect black people or any oppressed group to sympathize with another group just because there is something that other group wants that it doesn't have. That's not the way the world works and it's not the way it should.

Our struggles aren't the same,and frankly I think history will show that aside from the fact that there was a struggle, they aren't even that similar.

The case for gay marriage has to be made on it's own merits, and it has to be able to stand alone without the the crutches of analogy to a civil rights movement that has been fought on completely different issues in a completely different time.

Regardless of polygamy, incest, miscegenation or any other incarnations that marriage has taken over the years, why specifically should people who think gay marriage is immoral support changing the definition of marriage such that it does in fact include gay marriage?

And in states marriage is largely undefined when it comes to whether it includes both homosexual and heterosexual unions and there are initiatives to clarify that definition, the questions is the same. Why should i define it the way you want me to?

If the response sounds something like "If you don't youre a bigot!! I would just say don't expect to garner much good will or many votes.

And that case has to be made not just on the internet, but directly to those people whoose minds you think need changing. Maybe the Gay marriage movement feels it's unfair that they have to go out and do that, To go out and convince someone to "give them their rights" as they see it. But life never has been and likely never will be fair. If you want something you've got to go out and take it, and fairness has nothing to do with that.

Re: A useful dissent

DougEMI — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:02:06 -0000

Kennedy gave nice speeches about equality and the propagandists who perpetuate the Camelot myth have done a lot to make him sound like a civil rights icon, but he was not willing to expend a lot of political capital to advance the cause, especially in comparison to LBJ. Even worse, the JFK flunkies have attempted to undercut the courage and brilliance of LBJ in getting legislation passed. They still say things like LBJ only got it all passed because of the legacy of all the great things Kennedy did.

I have some theories on why they don't give LBJ credit, but on a good note, many serious historians now seem to have a better grip on what JFK's true civil rights legacy was and how it pales when contrasted to LBJ's or to the Camelot myth.

As for Obama, calling him a bigot is useless. I think some on the left have put themselves in a box on the issue and have to concede that on their terms, he is a bigot. If they set the definition that those who are opposed to gay marriage are bigots or anti-American, then they can't just use it on the easy targets like Dobson or the Mormon Church.