GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

When I was a sexually active gay man living in places like San Francisco and West Hollywood, I knew that nothing was more pleasing to most gays and lesbians than being treated as if homosexuality were completely equal to heterosexuality. I remember getting excited when a college professor would lecture about gay sexuality in a completely matter-of-fact, approving way. During the Clinton Administration, I listened raptly to every State of the Union address hoping the president would use the word “gay.” When he did, I felt like a million bucks. When he didn’t, I was annoyed and maybe a little insulted.

The gay community’s obsession with marriage strikes me as an expression of excitement about a gay issue that makes same-sex couples look wholesome and all-American. That same attitude causes gays and lesbians to de-emphasize and even ignore urgent needs of our community that happen not to make us look good. It seems the gay community is setting its priorities as if we’re just in the middle of a big PR campaign to improve our public image. That’s really sad.

For example, here are four important issues I care about that involve real distress on the part of gays and lesbians that can be alleviated without hurting straight people:

• Lesbians are more likely to become alcoholics than straight women or men. I would support a few million dollars in federal funds to research why that is so, and to explore effective strategies to prevent and treat lesbian alcoholism. This is no small issue. Alcoholism is linked to terrible things like domestic abuse, drunk driving, and liver disease. Family members are often devastated by a loved one’s alcoholism. People who care about lesbians should want to find ways to work on this issue. But the Web sites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), and even the National Center for Lesbian Rights combined contain one mention of lesbian alcoholism. They contain more than 6,000 mentions of marriage.

• Prison rape is ignored by most of the gay community. The fact that forced gay sex is a de facto method of social control in our prisons should be a good enough reason to fight prison rape. But it’s also true that gay and bisexual men, and transgender women are disproportionately victims of this terrible phenomenon. Yet NGLTF mentions prison rape on its Web site a total of three times, which is actually impressive compared to HRC’s big fat zero.

• The main way people get syphilis is through gay sex. If there ever was a “gay disease,” this is it. And it’s on the rise. Victims of the illness face horrible pain, blindness, paralysis, and insanity if they don’t get the proper treatment. HRC’s Web site mentions syphilis among gay men twice – the same number of times they encourage lesbians to make sure the sperm they use when (selfishly) making a baby doesn’t have the disease.

• Currently, the Bush administration is pushing harder to pass legislation to allow HIV-positive men to immigrate to and visit this country than the major gay and lesbian organizations are. You’ll never hear it from the gay groups, but President Bush is unquestioningly the best president on AIDS issues ever. We don’t know if the next president will sign a bill lifting the ban. Most of the rest of this administration will be distracted by the election. So it is currently urgent that we pass the bill pending before Congress that would allow the government to lift the ban, so Bush can sign it and we can get rid of this homophobic legacy of the Jesse Helms reign of terror toward lesbians and gay men. With congressional legislation, HRC is the main gay group to lobby our representatives. Yet you have to look really hard at their Web site to find mention of the bill. It’s there – but only nine times. Yet marriage is all over the front page and virtually every page of the Web site.

There’s a GaysDefendMarriage reader named Mark who thinks when I raise issues like the above I’m “concern trolling” – I’m pretending to sympathize to distract and confuse people on the other side. I know that isn’t true. But even if Mark thinks it is true, the key question isn’t why I care about those issues more than marriage, but why do people like Mark appear to care about marriage thousands of times more than those other issues?

I think it’s because their main goal isn’t actually helping gay people. If it was, I’ve just listed four issues that would help gay people far more directly and clearly and compassionately than changing the word for the completely equal state benefits given by the State of California to same-sex couples. The issue, rather, is public relations. “See, America? We’re just like you.” Lesbian alcoholics and syphilitic gay men and transgender women getting raped in prison are most definitely not “like you.” So we’re not going to do anything that could make us look bad – even if it means those transgender women getting raped in prison and the lesbians drinking themselves to death and gay men going blind from syphilis have to suffer terribly.

And people get mad at me when I say most gays are selfish and morally obtuse. Well, I’m mad at them for being selfish and morally obtuse.

What’s worse, the only “victims” of a federally funded study on why lesbians are more at risk for drinking problems and how to best help them are taxpayers who are charged a fraction of a penny each. There are no victims to lifting the HIV immigration ban. And who are the victims of fighting prison rape – the rapists?

Yet changing the definition of marriage has direct negative effects on other people. In Massachusetts, it has meant that orphans who want both a mother and a father are less likely to get them. From what gay activists are telling me, it will put teachers and businesspeople and journalists at risk of losing their assets, their jobs, and even their freedom if they continue to live their lives as if the definition of marriage they believe in is true instead of the “new” definition. (Something that never happened to people who believed in gay marriage under the old definition.) It will hurt the monogamous expectation of marriage by admitting to the institution far more people than ever who openly reject monogamy as a necessary part of marriage. And it will hurt parents’ ability to instill in their children a traditionally religious view of marriage when the public schools start teaching that it’s bigotry to believe that man-woman marriage is the only acceptable kind of relationship to form.

Of course, gay activists keep telling me that those harms either aren’t harms or that they only harm “bigoted” people, which they say is OK. Well, when do we ever let the people causing the harm decide whether any harm is actually caused? It’s usually much better to speak with the victims.

When I say same-sex marriage is not a good idea, and a lesbian says “but your position could cause me to lose my children,” my immediate reaction is to look for a legislative solution that ensures she won’t lose her children – but still respects my values that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet I have never heard a gay man react to any of the points above by saying “Well, what if we have gay marriage, but ensure your kids can learn your values about marriage by barring the schools from teaching anything about marriage until sixth grade.” or “Oh, good point. Well, what if we pass gay marriage but add a stipulation that no teacher can be fired by teaching her own definition of marriage.” Instead, I get people like Mark, who tells me he intends for people like me “to lose pretty much totally.”

Same-sex marriage is the most important issue to the gay community because it makes them look good and feel good, not because it helps gay people very much, especially in places like California. Yet the lack of action on issues like prison rape and the HIV immigration ban and lesbian alcoholism shows that the gay community cares very little about helping gays and lesbians affected by problems that make the gay community look bad.

I think the gay community needs to show it is “equal” in moral reasoning before it starts demanding to be equal in marriage law.

I recently ran across the Web site of Randy Thomas, the executive vice president of Exodus International. They’re perhaps the most prominent “ex-gay” group, but by no means the most extreme. They don’t embrace reparative therapy and confrontational behavior the way groups like JONAH and NARTH do. Anyway, Thomas mentioned on his site that he’d like to meet me. I posted that I’d be happy to talk to him, but I had some concern about the fact that on that page he told a Jewish gay man “repeatedly” that he sees him converting to Christianity someday. I made it perfectly clear that a condition of our dialoguing was his not trying to convert me.

His response was if a Jew is offended by his proselytism, he will apologize – obviously insincerely because he will definitely still keep reminding him that he is praying for him to convert. He then proceeded to show he means what he says by apologizing to me – and saying he wants me to convert.

When I called him on his bigotry he said he checked with a supposedly Orthodox Jewish friend of his (who he didn’t name – perhaps it was a “Messianic” Jew) and the friend said I’m insecure (people, you know me, am I insecure?) and trying to recruit me against my will like that was not “culturally insensitive.”

Now, I have been a Jew for 37 years. I know thousands of Jews. Maybe five would think proselytizing a Jew who has told you he’s not interested is not culturally insensitive.

JONAH speaks positively about this organization three times on its Web site. I’ve heard JONAH people talk about going to Exodus conferences. Why are the leaders of JONAH turning Jewish souls over to predators like Thomas? This is a man who openly proclaims he will only talk to a Jew who agrees that Thomas may repeatedly and continuously try to convert them. Isn’t a Jew’s spiritual health more important than his sexual orientation? What on earth is JONAH doing?

UPDATE: A Christian reader of my blog says it’s unclear if I think a Christian who wants Jews to convert and prays for their conversion is automatically a bigot. Definitely not. It’s a Christian who won’t respect a Jew’s request not to be proselytized that’s a bigot (defined as someone completely intolerant of other people’s beliefs).

FURTHER UPDATE: I’ve been communicating with Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, who I like. He apologized for the initial interaction I had with Randy, saying “that isn’t how we do things around here.” And Randy apologized as well, and has promised to never again push his faith on Jews or anyone else who indicates they do not want to hear it.He reserves the right to pursue conversion with a Jew whose position he doesn’t know, which is fine. But if asked to stop, he has agreed to stop. I think Exodus’s reaction to this whole episode is terrific. It’s not easy to admit you were wrong, especially in deeply personal matters like religion. Of course, whatever complaints I may have about “ex-gays” they by definition know how to admit they’re wrong, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

I am happy that there are many people out there, including on this Web site, making cogent arguments for same-sex marriage. I’d rather debate a smart person than a dumb person. In the last week, however, I have heard at least four different people make the dumbest argument for same-sex marriage I have ever heard. What is it?

“The California Marriage Protection Act is unconstitutional.”

Huh? It’s a constitutional amendment. It is by definition constitutional. When I point that out, they usually continue to argue, as did Shannon from the Web site of the Los Angeles Daily News:

Me: Do you agree that if the CMPA passes, discrimination against same-sex “marriage” will be completely and utterly constitutional? If not, please explain.

Shannon: No, I don’t agree and never will agree and your answer is right there in front of you: BECAUSE IT’S DISCRIMINATORY.

Wow. I really don’t know what to say.

Not letting 16-year-olds vote is discriminatory. Not letting 45-year-olds go on Medicare is discriminatory. Closing the Post Office on Sundays but not Saturdays is discriminatory. Are those things unconstitutional, even if we pass a constitutional amendment allowing them? On what basis should the Supreme Court decide what’s constitutional, if they’re not supposed to look in the text of the constitution?

I should stop here. This is far too easy.

When it rains, it pours. For the second day in a row, I have an important op-ed in a major newspaper in a marriage battleground state. The Providence Journal has a piece that grew out of my blogging and discussing the concept of a lesbian father here at GaysDefendMarriage.com. Thanks to everyone who participated in that conversation.

Some excerpts:

I believe that many lesbians make terrific mothers. It’s just that they make lousy fathers. And since I want every child to have both a mother and a father whenever possible, I think that society should privilege male-female relationships.

One way to do that is to keep the traditional definition of marriage. We learn how to be a man, and how to be a woman, and how to relate to men, and how to relate to women, from our mothers and our fathers. While many gays and feminists don’t think there is any difference between men and women, virtually every society in history has disagreed.

Even though I generally prefer children to grow up with traditional ideas about sex roles, I support the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children who would otherwise have no parents. But our society should keep its highest place of honor for families that represent the best configuration for the raising of children — families with both a mother and a father.

In honor of the June weddings taking place all over California today because of the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re Marriage Cases (the lamest name for a court case I’ve ever heard of, by the way), I have a piece in today’s Los Angeles Daily News responding to the frequent claim that gay marriage won’t hurt straight marriage. Regular readers of the site will recognize some of the arguments, which I first explored here.

Update: A longer version of the “harm” piece is now up at the Web site of the Sun-Sentinel, the second largest newspaper in South Florida. Florida is likely to be the #2 marriage battleground this fall. GDM reader Mark Barton may or may not be pleased to see I mentioned him (not by name) in that version of the piece.

Excerpted from the piece:

DEFENDERS of the same-sex marriages set to start today in California have repeatedly claimed that the new definition of marriage will in no way hurt male-female marriages. Even the state Supreme Court decision paving the way for these June weddings declared its move would not deprive any male-female couple “of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes.”

But marriage is not just about rights and benefits. It is a social institution that existed long before the state of California. Extending the word “marriage” to couples that have never before been considered married will cause real and appreciable harm to male-female marriages, and to all people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman….

If people think that, on the whole, detaching monogamy from marriage and making it harder for parents to control their children’s education about homosexuality are not nearly as big of a problem as the self-esteem of same-sex couples who are told that their relationships with completely equal benefits are only domestic partnerships and not marriages, fine. Don’t support November’s California Marriage Protection Act.

But please stop saying same-sex marriage doesn’t hurt anybody.

GaysDefendMarriage.com got a very nice plug today in the National Review Online, in a thoughtful and frankly scary piece marking today’s new definition of marriage in California. Maggie Gallagher calls our Web site “intellectually fecund” and quotes one of my posts about monogamy.

Pam’s House Blend user “Locke” brought up an excellent analogy to same-sex marriage. He thought he was supporting same-sex marriage when he wrote: “saying 18 is the age of adulthood would apply equally to all citizens, even though some religions say it happens earlier. We don’t throw out the idea of a civil age of adulthood just because religions don’t agree about what the age is, we let them have their ceremony but just ignore it, legally.”

But really, that provided me a great opportunity to explain why my support of man-woman marriage isn’t unconstitutional:

Great point, Locke!

I think your reference to 18 as the age of adulthood is a great analogy. Let’s say 18 was the age of bar mitzvah instead of 13, and the government was proposiing to change the legal age of adulthood to 21.

Would it be invalid for Jews to speak out, lobby, and vote to get Congress to keep the age of adulthood at 18, because in the Jewish tradition, that is the age of adulthood?

Would it be “imposing their religion on others” for Jews to oppose a “redefinition of adulthood”?

I don’t think it would. I think it would be fair for people of every religious persuasion to use their one vote, and their ability to blog and write letters to the editor and to lobby Congress, to support the age of adulthood they believe in. And secular people could use whatever secular ideas they have to push whatever age of adulthood they believe in. And our democratic system, with its one-person-one-vote principle, and its checks and balances, would determine whose definition of adulthood becomes law.

To say “everybody gets to push for his or her definition of adulthood except Jews” would be what is discriminatory and unconstitutional, not “the Jewish definition of adulthood wins because it got the most votes.”

Thanks, Locke. I may use this in an upcoming opinion piece.

The gay Internet is abuzz with a new report by blogger Timothy Kincaid with the dramatic title “David Benkof: Behind the Mask.”

Kincaid calls me an “anti-gay activist with strong ties to the ex-gay community.”

Well, no.

I’ve responded at length at Kincaid’s Web site, but I thought I’d put some excerpts here:

So, apparently, when I write a column for a gay publication that doesn’t agree to run my work in every single issue, I’m not a columnist? If I work on various people’s teeth, but they don’t commit to me permanently, does that mean I’m not a dentist?

You’re simply wrong that there are no other influential LGBT people who support marriage as the union of husband and wife. What about Al Rantel, the openly gay conservative radio talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles? I met him on the Ricki Lake Show when we were both presented as examples of members of the gay community who oppose same-sex marriage. I was later a guest on his program for an hour in which we talked about some of the reasons the gay community is wrong to ask for same-sex marriage rights. He’s the most prominent gay voice in Los Angeles radio, and one of the most prominent gay talkers in the country.

As for my identity, I have been clear that none of the labels fit me well. I use bisexual most of the time, gay some of the time, and queer when I’m confident nobody will think I’m using a homophobic slur. No deception is intended; I simply don’t think any of the options presented is a perfect descriptor for my particular sexuality. Given that I have written at length about how I do not believe every person is born with a specific sexual orientation permanently etched in their DNA (and gay history proves it), I think my ambivalence about labels is perfectly consistent with my worldview.

You say you don’t know anyone who doesn’t oppose prison rape. Well, the Human Rights Campaign doesn’t oppose prison rape, at least as far as hrc.org is concerned. The Web site of the largest gay political group mentions marriage nearly 4,000 times and prison rape not once. Those are some pretty f’ed up priorities.

I find the gay community’s choice of opponents in various fights they pick to be, well, queer. Boy Scouts, New York City cops (the “villains” at Stonewall), and orphans in Boston are generally thought of by the wider society as admirable, sympathetic individuals. Yet LGBT people regularly demonize and victimize such people. I mean, even if the Boy Scouts’ policy is wrong (and I think it is wrong), don’t gay people have more important things to do than to make it harder for 11-year-old boys to hike, swim and build campfires on public property?

You write that I am “seeking to advance the rules of his faith by making secular argument, and not being honest about it.” Well, yes, but I’m being honest about it. I’m purposefully doing what the man you probably want to be the next president thinks people like me should do.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in 2006, “our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” However, when religious people argue for policies based on their beliefs, Obama says we should articulate “some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

So which is it? Should I argue in religious terms only, and if my policies win, then people with my religion really will be imposing our beliefs on everyone else?

Or, following Obama’s advice, should I continue to be motivated by religious belief, but make secular arguments to convince people who don’t happen to be Orthodox Jews?

Or do you really just want me to shut up? My hunch is it’s the latter. If so, in a free society, that’s not going to happen.

We haven’t heard from many women lately, nor many left-of-center opponents of same-sex marriage, so I thought I’d link to one of the first pieces staking out that territory. It’s from Salon, and it’s headlined “Same-sex marriage: I don’t care if it is legal, I still think it’s wrong — and I’m a lesbian.”

Author Dr. Laurie Essig is an assistant professor of sociology at Middlebury College in Vermont. She teaches a variety of undergraduate courses including “Sociology of Freakishness” and “Sociology of Heterosexuality.”

Some excerpts:

Although we like to pretend that marriage is natural and universal, it is an institution founded in historical, material and cultural conditions that ensured women’s oppression — and everyone’s disappointment. Monogamous, heterosexual marriages were an invention of the Industrial Revolution’s emerging middle class….

What annoys me is that no one, not even queers, can imagine anything other than marriage as a model for organizing our desires….

But why should those of us who have organized our lives in a way that looks a lot like heterosexual marriage be afforded special recognition by the government because of that?….

The legalization of gay marriage does not make me feel liberated as much as it makes me feel depressed. It’s sort of like getting excited about gays in the military — until I remember that I don’t really care about the military as an institution.

A woman wrote me yesterday reacting to my writing on gay marriage by recommending I visit jonahweb.org, a Jewish “ex-gay” Web site. She says I am “in denial” about the fact that homosexuality is “preventable and treatable.”

The funny thing is, based on the time she sent the note and the time zone she lives in, it is clear this Jewish woman wrote me on Shabbat. Indeed, a lot of Jewish advocates of the “ex-gay” approach to homosexuality openly violate major Jewish laws. And jonahweb.org promotes far more Christian ideas about homosexuality than Jewish ones. These people who have the chutzpah to push LGBT Jews (some of us quite observant) to follow their non-Jewish ideas about sexuality in the name of Judaism should instead focus their energies on their own observance of things like Shabbat, keeping kosher, and daily prayer. If an Orthodox Jew wants to tell me my observance of Jewish law in the areas of family and bedroom life is not sufficient, I’m happy to listen to him or her. I don’t see why I should take these other amei ha’aretz and m’challelei Shabbos (Jewishly ignorant Sabbath-breakers) seriously.

I haven’t checked with a rabbi on this, but I’m pretty sure that if my correspondent had to pick one Jewish law to violate, Judaism would prefer it if she engaged in lesbian sex rather than send me an E-mail on Shabbat. Yet she tells me in the name of Judaism that “ex-gay” is the way to go.

Oy vey.