Very Eeeenteresting
The Massachusetts legislature got back together again to see what they could do about amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Earlier today they came up with a compromise amendment that will begin the amendment process. It's a pretty interesting proposal: "The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples." (from the AP).
Essentially it's a put up or shut up to both sides. Are you really for gay rights but against "marriage"? Well here's your chance to prove it. Are you really interested in legal protections and not grand social change? Here's your chance too. I haven't worked out all the implications in my head, but this seems to me a very crafty piece of legislation.
I'd vote against it, of course, but I am against any sort of amendment to any sort of constitution on this issue. The question is, what will the Jesus people do (wwjpd)? This could be their only chance to block gay "marriage," but it comes at the expense of what they see as legitimizing homosexual relationships. Same sex marriage backers don't have much to lose, though, because if the amendment fails, the SJC ruling that homosexuals can marry their partners would be in effect. If it passes, well at least there's the state rights and protections they gain from civil union legislation.
Should be interesting to see what the reaction is to this proposed amendment. It still has to pass this legislature (which, I assume it will) and the next session before it will even be put to a vote among Mass residents. The ride continues…
March 29th, 2004 at 3:54 pm
Very interesting indeed… Lost amid all of the legal wrangling is actually a frank discussion of the issue.
One of the things keeping me from 100% openly supporting the gay marriage (I’m about 95% there now) are some things I’m hearing from gays who are ambivalent about it. The one openly gay co-worker I know was very much *against* the idea. He saw marriage as a heterosexual institution, but wanted complete local and federal partnership rights for a union of whatever name.
A New York Times article had a similar take several months ago before the whole U.S. flap happened when Canada was discussing this. They profiled many gays who said that they were against gay marriage since the word “marriage” usually implies monogamy (which the article suggests even many devoted gay couples are against) and suggests a “traditional” lifestyle at odds with gay culture. Interesting stuff!
Does anyone here have better insight into the issue from the GLBT perspective, either personally or by associations?
Garris
March 29th, 2004 at 6:52 pm
That’s pretty interesting in itself. I wonder what percentage of gays are that type of “movement homosexuals” or whatnot. I have no idea, since I barely know any gay people. I’d always assumed most gays and lesbians wanted to be treated like everyone else, while just happening to be gay, the same way I expect to be treated like everyone else while my hair and eyes just happen to be brown. This isn’t to say there aren’t people out there who want to assert identity issues based on having, say, blond hair and blue eyes, or based on their sexual orientation, but I always assumed them to be minorities. I’m willing to have that assumption challenged, though.
March 30th, 2004 at 10:21 am
Ugh, what a mess.
I’m glad to see an acknowledgement of gay relationships in the form of the civil union part of this bill. But we know separate is not equal.
I know gay MA residents that will be happy with civil unions, and I suppose that for them this is a victory. The “marriage scare” pushed the legislature into giving them some rights. IMHO inequal is unfair, but there you have it.
March 30th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
I’m with you James. I wonder what reception this amendment is going to get. Two years is a long time (until a potential final vote), who knows what the future will hold. And so long as Mitt doesn’t get his way, Mass residents will have lived alongside married gay couples for a while.
March 31st, 2004 at 9:42 pm
The thing about manogamy in gay relationships is that we view sexuality very differently than straight people do. We spend a lot of our youth soul searching, trying to come to terms with our identity, it is something that straight people don’t face as straight teens grow up with the exact sexuality that society tells them they will.
This introspection brings gay people to very different opinions about the morality of sex. I would not deny that there is a style of gay relationships that allows for a way to have extra-relationship sexual encounters, that does not necessarily change the commitment of the relationship. It’s a matter of honesty, who doesn’t know a straight couple that has been together for years and is simply going through the motions of a marriage? In many couples infidelity is an open secret. A different view on the morality of sexual relations allows gay couples to be more open to the idea of straying.
Not all gay couples have these arrangements, as not all straight marriages suffer from infidelity. It’s simply an avenue that gay couples seem more open to exploring.
Until very recently there was quite a backlash against marriage within the gay community. When it seemed like such a far off and unattainable goal, it seemed that the community felt that they needed to move past it, and perhaps be the pioneers of a post-marriage future. Marriage ain’t doing too well now, what with 50% divorce rates. If a consumer product had a 50% failure rate it’d be yanked off the market, yet we keep chugging along with marriage.
With recent developments in Canada and in Europe granting full marriage rights to gays the opinion started to change, and of course the Mass. SJC decision blew the doors off the topic. I think a lot of people realized that this trend within the community to turn our backs on marriage was in part a defense mechanism. “we’re never going to get this, so why break ourselves up trying?” Now that it seems possible, we are reawakening to why we need this. To how fragile our relationships are without it.
As for having a small holdout on being 100% in favour because some gay people oppose marriage… There’s a lot of straight people out there who aren’t looking to marry either.
April 3rd, 2004 at 10:02 am
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeinteresting