Gays don’t need marriage to be happy
CommentsAn important recent study in the journal Developmental Psychology found that same-sex couples are more satisfied in their relationships than opposite-sex couples - and gay and lesbian couples are generally happy no matter what the legal status of their relationships. From the Washington Post:
The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn’t seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.
Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.
This study pretty much destroys the frequent argument that gays need marriage because marriage makes people happy. According to American Sexuality Magazine, leading same-sex marriage proponent Jonathan Rauch argued in the New York Times “that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry because social science research shows that marriage makes people happier.” Well, the latest social science research shows that marriage is not necessary for same-sex couples to be happier than married couples. In fact, you might predict that marriage will make same-sex couples less happy, since all the married people in the study were less happy in their relationships than same-sex couples, whether or not they were in civil unions.
So, can we now expect Jonathan Rauch to back away from same-sex marriage, now that the rationale he gave in the New York Times no longer works? Of course not. Because the marriage equality movement is not about getting happiness, or hospital visitation rights, or property inheritance rights, or any of the other “benefits” LGBT people are always talking about. If it were, we could probably work out a compromise that respects marriage while relieving the distress of same-sex couples. But the marriage equality movement is about boosting the self-esteem of gay men and lesbians, many of whom had a tough time growing up. And I’d be happy to stroke LGBT egos if the route under discussion wasn’t doing tremendous harm to a central institution in our society.
David: “But the marriage equality movement is about boosting the self-esteem of gay men and lesbians, many of whom had a tough time growing up. And I’d be happy to stroke LGBT egos if the route under discussion wasn’t doing tremendous harm to a central institution in our society.” Come on, I thought this blog was about an honest discussion of the issues here.
The marriage equality movement is about affording same-sex couples the same rights and dignity as their opposite-sex counterparts. Many same-sex couples form long-term stable relationships, raise kids, and in all ways but for their sex, look just like heteroseuxal married couples. And yet the laws in this country disenfranchise them and create systems underwhich their relationships, even when legally recognized, are deemed second-class. This disenfranchisement creates real financial and physical hardships for gay couples and their children.
You and your counterparts at blogs like marriagedebate.com constantly dodge this most basic issue with silly statements like you made here that just serve to trivialize gay people, their lives, and their relationships. It’s why we don’t actually believe you when you tell us how much you respect us and take such great pains to explain how you are not homophobes and bigots. You expect us to believe that your motives are so pure about your concerns for traditional marriage yet you trivialize our motives by suggesting that this is all just a big ego trip for gay people. You can do better than that.
Dan-
I’m not surprised that you would take umbrage at my comment about the gay-marriage movement being an ego trip. But how else do you explain:
• the prioritization of marriage equality in two gay-friendly states over achieving any protections for same-sex couples in nine times as many states where it’s much tougher to be gay;
• the fact that the concerns of dozens and dozens of LGBT leaders like Nadine Smith, Kerry Lobel, Mandy Carter, Joan Nestle, Chai Feldblum, Michael Bronski and others who have opposed marriage’s centrality in the gay agenda have been pushed aside at best, ignored at worst;
• that LGBT activists, who on some level surely know that most Americans do not want to change the definition of marriage, have not focused their energies on what is achievable, namely various protections for same-sex couples, and instead have sued to get marriage rights in states that are already extremely gay friendly;
• that gay-rights groups are currently raising millions of dollars that could go to LGBT people in distress but will instead be spent defeating an amendment that takes nothing away from same-sex couples but the word “marriage.”
I think all the evidence points to my contention that self-esteem and pride in the government calling gay and lesbian couples “equal” is the main impetus behind the “marriage equality” movement. If the goal was to alleviate the distress felt by same-sex couples trying to financially help each other out and visit each other in the hospital and protect each other’s kids, I feel confident that Americans who believe in the longstanding definition of marriage would be willing to work out a compromise that would alleviate 90% of the actual (not symbolic) concerns of the LGBT community. My fear is that by insisting on marriage, same-sex couples are going to end up with less than they might have had to begin with.
I hope I have clarified what I mean when I say the marriage equality movement is more about self-esteem than it is about rights.
David: Thank you, that is a more reasonable assessment. But I respectfully suggest that its pretty much all wrong. Since 2000, 12 states have either passed an anti-discrimination law that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity or added gender identity to existing anti-discrimination statutes. Further, two states have passed sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. That’s more states than have enacted partnership recognition. Do you think they happened without huge investments of time and money? ENDA passing in the House required huge resources. It has hardly been all marriage all the time and the assertion that it has been is just wrong. I don’t deny that marriage has had a high priority, but it’s hardly been the only thing happening around gay equality.
You love to cite the debate among leftist gay elite about the centrality of marriage in “the movement”. The people you cite are exactly that, elites. They are out of touch with the day to day experiences of gay people who want the dignity and respect that they see their heterosexual counterparts getting. The fact that the movement is not following the dictates of the left-wing elite just tells you that the gay tent has broadened to include lots of gay people who are not leftists but rather just ordinary people who want to marry and have kids like the rest of their neighbors.
Why is it so hard to believe that for many (and perhaps most) gay couples, the primary stress associated with not being able to get married is not about financial burdens and legal rights? It’s about dignity and equality. Look at the initial take-up rates for marriage versus civil unions and other alternatives. A much higher % of gay couples avail themselves of marraige than of civil unions and domestic partnerships when initially offered. That’s because people know that marriage is different and gets you something no alternative gets you–respect and dignity. And many gay people are willing to wait for that rather than to avail themselves of these second-class statuses, which they see as demeaning.
Dignity is hardly “symbolic”. It’s real and it matters to gay people. They are willing to take some short term pain in order to acheive long-term equality. I guess you can debate if this is approriate, but since it’s gay people who are wiling to take the possible pain that you associate with the push for marriage, what’s the problem here? Gay people know that equality wil come with great sacrifice and they’re willing to make those sacrifices. They see marriage as something that can truly change the landscape in how they are received and treated in society. And they simply do not believe that heterosexuals or society at large will suffer at all as a result. So far, evidence from Massachusetts, Canada, and other places where same-sex couples can marry suggests that this belief is well founded.
Dan-
The Web site of the largest LGBT rights group, hrc.org mentions marriage three times as often as discrimination. The Web sites of the Stonewall Democrats, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal mention marriage twice as often as discrimination. Does marriage deserve two or three times as much energy as non-discrimination laws? (NGLTF and the Log Cabin Republicans also mention marriage more than discrimination, though by smaller margins.)
I don’t know which states you’re referring to, but some of them, such as Oregon and Colorado, have passed in states with constitutional amendments barring gay marriage - which kind of proves my point.
If the people I am citing are the “leftist elite,” why are people of color and women more heavily represented in their ranks than among the leaders of the “marriage equality” movement? Are you really arguing that gay white men’s perspective (what you call “ordinary”) should rule the movement, to the exclusion of the concerns of people who don’t look like you? I hope not.
It’s not hard to believe what you say, that for most gays and lesbians, the goal is not financial relief and legal burdens, but rather “dignity and equality.” That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I appreciate your honesty. The American voting public needs to understand that the claims of unfairness and hardship and woe are a smokescreen for the real motivation behind “marriage equality” - making gay and lesbian people feel good. If there were no harms to boosting gay self-esteem in this way, I’d be open to it. But redefining marriage is far too dangerous a step to take just to stroke the egos of an American subculture. I happen to think same-sex couples deserve some protections, and as soon as I can safely support laws to protect them without risking a redefinition of marriage, I will do so.
David, In the words of a former President, “there you go again…” You equate an appeal to dignity and equality with a “smokescreen” and again trivialize and demean the aspirations of gay people. Aspiring to dignity and equality is not a “smokescreen” and is certainly about much more than “feeling good.” I really think we are at an impasse here. While I have in the past pointed out that many supporters of traditional marriage barely conceal their contempt for gay people, I try very hard to be clear that I respect your quite different perspective here and try not to trivialize your views about the importance of marriage. As a simple example, I don’t put traditional marriage in quotes as you often do when you discuss “marriage equality.” It really makes it very hard to trust your motives here. You reduce gay people to egotists with no thought for anyone but their own needs. That’s both untrue and unfair and draws upon the same old and tired stereotypes that your many blatently homophobic fellow travelers in the traditional marriage movement spout on a regular basis. It really makes me wonder about the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing.
As to your observations about the leftist elitists, fair enough. One round to David. Allow me to try another angle.
I stand by my assertion that the supposed dominance of marriage as an issue in the movement is overblown. But even if you take it as fact that it’s the absolute center of the gay political movement, there are plenty of reasons why and they are not just about the preferences of gay white men. Unlike any other gay-related issue, this was the only one in which opponents raised the bar to a US Constitutional amendment. Talk about weapons of mass destruction. The FMA amounts to an unabashed declaration of war on gay people. What choice do we have but to fight back with full guns blazing? The gay movement is basically just dancin’ with the ones that brung them.
In the mid-90s, no one in the gay movement expected the Hawaii decision and the onslaught of DOMAs and then the FMA. That’s what really got this ball rolling. I certainly get it that there are gay people of all races and political persuasions who don’t like the priorities here, but I think that even many of them would admit that putting marriage at the top of the list was hardly an irrational choice given the virulence of the attacks from the right. Just read the websites of FRC, ADF, CWA and the like. They are obsessed (and not in a good way) with gay people. Most of these folks are blatant and virulent homophobes and, yes, bigots. Until they rachet down the rhetoric here (which I see no evidence of happening any time soon) I doubt that gay people will feel very comfortable ratcheting down the fight for marriage equality.
Dan-
Once again you make some good points. Dignity is “the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.” I think LGBT people can achieve self-esteem without sacrifice on the part of the rest of society. As for equality, I respect that you think same-sex relationships are equal in all ways. I think they’re not. They’re not an ideal environment for the raising of children, and my religion specifically opposes same-sex marriage. Now I know that some marriage-equality folks have a religious belief that all relationships are equal, and others have a secular belief to the same effect. That’s fine. In a democracy, as we’ve discussed, we go through the channels open to us to express our beliefs. Your side can insist its equal as much as it wants, but as long as an overwhelming majority of Americans disagrees, marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.
I understand your concern with my putting marriage equality in quotes, which I do about half the time. Maybe if I give you more information you’ll understand where I’m coming from, and you might have a suggestion that works for both of us. I get flak on a regular basis from opponents of same-sex marriage for using LGBT lingo like LGBT and marriage equality. But I do so to respect the other side’s jargon, even though it’s not mine - which is why the quotes. If I stopped saying “marriage equality” I would have to use terms you would like less such as redefining marriage and destroying marriage. Think of it this way: If I were a pro-lifer, I would think it would be more polite to refer to the other side as “pro-choice” within quotes than as baby killers or anti-life or somesuch. So what do you suggest I do?
You seem to believe the FMA was pulled out of nowhere by traditionalists as a mechanism to beat up LGBT people. I promise you that is not the case. The FMA (like DOMA before it) was a reaction to the wave of gay-marriage litigation, from Hawaii to Alaska to Massachusetts, that threatened to impose same-sex marriage on an unwilling nation. Because Barney Frank and his buddies scuttled the Massachusetts statewide vote on a marriage amendment to reverse Goodridge, people like me who want to live in a nation where marriage is between a man and a woman everywhere have no choice but to try to amend the Constitution. I mean, what else would you expect us to do? If the issue were court rulings that threatened to enforce sodomy laws, wouldn’t you want to amend the Constitution to settle the matter nationwide once and for all?
You say “in the mid-90s, no one in the gay movement expected the Hawaii decision and the onslaught of DOMAs and then the FMA.” You must not have read my post about the FMA in which I retell the story from about 1996 when I asked the top marriage lawyer in the gay movement, Evan Wolfson, whether he was afraid of constitutional amendments resulting from his litigation. He said basically, those are nightmare scenarios and we have to push for marriage and we’ll deal with the repercussions later. I really wish he had listened to me.
David–Your thoughtful response is most welcome.
With regard to the “quotes” issue. I have always believed that people have the right to be called what they want to be called. So while I am pro-choice, I have absolutely no problem with calling pro-lifers exactly that. My colleagues on the Planned Parenthood board that I served on a while back were never very happy about that position. But that’s the preferred term for those who oppose abortion. How does giving them the basic respect of using their preferred term diminish my belief that women have a right to choose? If a gay person tells me he prefers queer, then queer it is. If a black person tells me she prefers African-American, then so be it. So I guess, I would argue that your deference to your traditional marriage colleagues is misplaced. You seek to stake out a different position in this debate–a non-homophobic stance against same-sex marriage. Well, at the risk of one too many cliches, talking that talk is way easier than walking the walk. One way to stake out that position is to not simply kowtow to the rigidity of others in your movement.
With regard to the FMA, I just really have to strongly disagree with you on this one. As we speak, traditional marriage is defined by either statute or Constitutional provision in 46 out of 50 states. By every conceivable measure, you’re side is winning this debate. With all due respect, FMA is very serious overkill. Thankfully, our elected representatives saw this amendment for what it really was–the virulent right wing’s best hope of ensconsing anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution. The evidence is so clear that for the vast majority of traditonal marraige advocates, FMA was not a pro-marriage bill. It was anti-gay, period. The US Senate saw through this charade and had the courage to denounce it.
Even Evan Wolfson will tell you that the Hawaii ruling was a complete shock. And the right’s response via DOMAs was going to happen regardless of how the gay movement proceded. Do you honestly believe that if the gay movement had backed off that the right would have reciprocated with a toned-down approach? Come on. When Republicans took control of Congress, the right siezed on its opportunities. Nothing gay advocates did would change that. When they took control of the White House, well that was it–no holds barred. I don’t believe for a minute that the decisions of the gay movement in the wake of the HI ruling regarding the pursuit of marriage would have altered the relentless anti-gay campaign of the right one ioda.
Dan-
I think we’ll soon set a record for number of times people who vehemently disagree with each other think the other’s points are “thoughtful.” : )
As for my “deference to [my] traditional marriage colleagues,” perhaps I was unclear. The main reason I often put “marriage equality” in quotes is it doesn’t represent what I believe, any more than Kate Michelman thinks Phylis Schlafly is truly “pro-life.” I think gays and lesbians already have the equal right to marry - they just don’t have the right to redefine marriage. I don’t think a man could ever marry a man, no matter what laws the government passes or judges impose - just like the government cannot declare a 10-year-old a bar mitzvah or a woman a sperm donor. In my mind all three terms used in such a way are literally meaningless even when the government uses them improperly. So the solution I have found is to say what I mean sometimes - redefining marriage, gay “marriage,” etc. - and to use the other side’s lingo sometimes, especially when discussing their ideas - same-sex marriage, marriage equality - but about half the time to use quotes to make it clear I do not buy into the ideology behind the lingo. I remain open to suggestions for another approach that is both respectful of your point of view and consistent with my beliefs. My purpose is not to hurt anyone’s feelings.
You write, “With all due respect, FMA is very serious overkill.” For someone like me, who wants:
1. To keep marriage between a man and a woman in all 50 states including Massachusetts; and
2. To make it possible for same-sex couples to receive common-sense protections in the 18 states with constitutional amendments barring any sort of relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples
what legal options are there other than amending the Constitution? If there aren’t any, then how is it overkill? I think constitutional amendments are a measure of last resort. But the marriage lawsuits and their defenders’ blocking of a statewide vote on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have made this a situation of last resort as far as I can tell. If you have an alternative suggestion for a way I can push for what I believe in without the FMA, I would be very interested to hearing it.
Your comment about Wolfson and his colleagues finding the ruling in Baehr v. Miike “a complete shock” is contradicted by the following comment from that time in the Advocate, the leading gay newsmagazine:
“The court is expected to rule by the end of the year that the state has no interest in prohibiting gay marriages–a decision that is now in danger of being reversed by the newly empowered legislature.
“‘The right wing succeeded in putting another major hurdle in our path,’ says Evan Wolfson, director of the marriage project at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and co-counsel in the Hawaii case. ‘But it did not stop us. There are still many twists in the road ahead. The case continues in Hawaii.’”
As for DOMA and its state imitators happening regardless of the marriage lawsuits, I’m afraid the historical record simply doesn’t back you up. The legal Web site law.jrank.org, citing gay-friendly sources, writes “DOMA was passed out of the fear that a lawsuit in Hawaii would force that state to recognize same-sex marriages….The apparent need for DOMA began after the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in Baehr v. Lewin…. Even liberal Democrats who were staunch supporters of gay and lesbian rights voted for DOMA, arguing that it would be better to give same-gender couples some form of legal recognition short of traditional marriage.”
The notion that DOMA is “the right’s response” is belied by the fact that lawmakers voting yes included many, many liberal and moderate Democrats such as Bill Bradley, Chris Dodd, John Glenn, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, Paul Wellstone, David Bonior, Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin, Dick Gephardt, Steny Hoyer, Sander Levin, and Nita Lowey. At least four legislators I know to be gay or lesbian themselves voted for DOMA - just like one of the state justices in the last several cases who voted against instituting same-sex marriage is a not-quite-out lesbian. Oh, and who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? You of course know the answer. President Bill Clinton.
Your comment about the Republicans taking control of the White House is kind of a non-sequitur. The President has no role in Constitutional amendments. And it was not “the decisions of the gay movement in the wake of the HI ruling regarding the pursuit of marriage” that led to the backlash that has hurt so many LGBT people. It was the Hawaii lawsuit itself and the threat of similar litigation that led to reasonable people who wanted to retain the longstanding definition of marriage taking steps that are perfectly legitimate in our legal system to achieve the result they wanted.
David, to be clear, I don’t dispute the fact that the HI ruling started this ball rolling. I also think that gay rights folks were caught off guard by the final decision in that case. Public bravado is not always the best source for real thinking on the debate. You make fair points about how things unfolded and, in the end, a lengthy discussion of hypotheticals is probably not that useful. Fair point also about Bush and the Constitution, but my observation there had less to do about his actual constitutional role and more about Republicans feeling emboldened to pursue even more agressive agendas, including FMA. The fact that so many moderate/liberal folks supported DOMA is evidence of their fears about Republican political ascendancy following the whole Newt revolution. Lots of Dems also voted for the war in part because of these same fears and now very much regret it.
But I want to turn to what I think is actually the key issue surrounding why your position will ultimately lose out in this debate. As I pointed out with the FMA, I think it went down because legislators knew that promoters of traditional marriage were, to an uncomfortably large degree, motivated less by a pro-marriage view and much more by an anti-gay view. I have read your commentaries along with people like Maggie Gallagher. You both make thoughtful and serious attempts to frame this debate away from homophobia. That’s a welcome change.
But it doesn’t alter the fact that many, if not most, of the public leaders of your movement are, in fact, blatant bigots where homosexuality is concerned. I’ve heard Ms. Gallagher’s complaint that one of the big problems in this debate is her fear that defenders of traditional marriage will, in a sense, be legally declared “bigots” if same-sex marriage prevails. It’s a fair point, but the truth remains that sizable numbers of supporters of traditional marriage are actually bigots, and quite rabid ones at that. I believe that unfortunate fact will be your undoing in this debate.
Despite occasional politically fickle moments, Americans, in the end, are a pretty pragmatic lot. As more gay people come out and increasing numbers of Americans come to know their gay family and friends, their fears about homosexuality diminish. As this happens, Americans are gradually realizing that it is very difficult to separate pro-marriage from anti-gay. Too many of your colleagues in this movement have way too much anti-gay baggage and they are, in the end, not credible in their arguments that this isn’t just about keeping gay people down. I have no doubt that Americans will see through this and same-sex marraige will prevail.
It’s actually a little sad that it will prevail less on the merits of the arguments about marriage and more about the nefarious motivations of your confreres. I really do believe in your sincerity in this debate, but you’ve cast your lot with some very nasty people. They will not serve you well and force you and people like Maggie Gallagher to always be paddling up-stream in your efforts to focus on marriage and not on the evils of homosexuality.
I know this will sound a little hollow given that I’ve promised a post on race analogies but have not yet done so. But I also plan to post on my not-very-admiring opinions of most of the people defending man-woman marriage (excepting Maggie Gallagher, Dennis Prager, and a very few others). I just don’t want to post my thoughts on these two very important subjects until I think they are well-thought-out and clear.
In the meantime, your contributions to this Web site have been outstanding. If you’d like to write a 300-500 word blog post on anything related to the topic of same-sex marriage (and no, you don’t have to oppose it), E-mail it to me at DavidBenkof@aol.com and I’ll post it on the main blog.
Almost every pro-SSM individual and organization has taken an unprincipled approach to the promotion, and the imposition, of their favored reform.
This is revealed in the way that they switch arguments and claims to suite the moment. Hawaii’s Baehr case was adjudged on the basis of sex discrimination. That’s not won many subsequent judicial battles. So the switch is to sexual orientation discrimination, but that’s hard to sustain given there is no test for sexual orientation in the marriage laws. Even Goodridge’s four justices had to concede this much. And of late the California Supreme court conflated to the two classifications even as it amended the state constitution to include sexual orientation as a suspect classification.
The Federal Marriage Amendment would be approved if it was sent to the states for ratification. Opinion surveys underestimate the support for affirming the both-sexed nature of the conjugal relationship.
It is very unclear how such an affirmation is “anti-gay”. It is insufficient to merely claim that to oppose the SSM merger with marriage is an act of bigotry. Yet that is the sole basis for the SSm campaign in the courts, in the legislaures, in the executive offices, and in public discussions like this one.
Contrary to the SSM campaign, the affirmation of marriage is not based solely on animus toward people who are gay identified. Rather, the SSM campaign has been about pressing identity politics into marriage. And that’s unjust. It wa sunjust when it was done in the name of racist identity politics, too.