Backlash
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Friday, August 1 2003, 10:19AM
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy to win civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. But in June, the Supreme Court struck down antigay sodomy laws and the Canadian government legalized gay marriage. Then this week, public support for gay rights declined, legislators began considering a ban on gay marriage, and both the pope and the president came out against same-sex marriage. Welcome to the backlash.
A Gallup poll released this week showed a significant drop in public support for gay and lesbian rights. Just 48 percent of Americans said gay relations should be legal and 46 percent said they should not. That's still a plurality, but a dramatic drop from early May, when 60 percent said gay relations should be legal and 35 percent said they should not.
At a press conference on Wednesday, President Bush weighed in on the debate. When asked about gay marriage, he said his administration's lawyers were working to ensure that marriage remains between a man and a woman.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said, "and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country."
That was supposed to be the "compassionate" part. Then Bush said what he really felt. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that."
In other words, the president is saying that since his own religious beliefs say marriage is between a man and a woman, then the entire United States government should adopt a policy to reflect that. That's a problem for a country built on the separation of church and state. And it's a problem for progressives who want to tear down the socially-constructed walls of exclusion that divide us.
It didn't help matters when the Vatican announced a full-fledged campaign against gay marriage the following day. The Vatican issued a statement that it was "gravely immoral" for Catholic politicians to support same-sex unions and urged non-Catholics to adhere to the same belief.
In a 12-page document, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family." According to the document, "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."
The document also comes out strongly against gay adoptions, claiming that children raised by gay or lesbian parents were suffering "violence" and placed in "an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Vatican even argued that gay adoptions violate the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, in which governments are obliged to consider the best interest of the child.
That's a lot for gay activists to deal with in just one week. The timing of the Vatican's announcement helped to deflect criticism from President Bush by giving him religious cover for his own bigotry.
But there's four major problems with this. First, there already is a law against gay marriage. It's called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and it was signed by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA already prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages and allows states the right to deny recognition of gay marriages from other states. It's a bad law, it's probably unconstitutional, but it is the law for now. There's no need for a new law.
Second, religion should not be the basis of federal government policy. The president failed to articulate a single non-religious justification for outlawing gay marriage. Our founders were smart enough to divorce church and state so that neither one would be impaired by the other. If some religions want to ban gay marriage, that's their right. But when the government decides to do the same thing, that's another story.
Third, the whole idea against gay marriage is based on flawed, fear-based logic. White House press secretary Scott McClellan spoke of the need "to protect the sanctity of marriage." But how does gay marriage threaten the sanctity of marriage? How does my relationship threaten your relationship unless you're insecure in your relationship? The skyrocketing divorce rates among heterosexuals are far more threatening to marriage than a loving relationship between two men or two women.
Fourth, we need to challenge the whole idea of marital privilege in the first place. What does it say about our society when two heterosexual strangers can hook up at a bar tonight and get married tomorrow and instantly enjoy more rights than two gay men who have spent 30 years of their lives together? And while we're at it, why should the government be in the business of deciding that married couples get more rights, benefits and privileges than unmarried people?
The battle over same-sex marriage is much larger than same-sex marriage. With an unjust war in Iraq, the erosion of civil rights and civil liberties, the lack of universal health care, the antidemocratic process of presidential elections, the inequitable distribution of tax benefits, the disproportionate incarceration of black men, the war against women's bodies, record high black unemployment, high-profile hate crimes against black gays and lesbians, and the diminution of the progressive left, gay marriage hardly seems a priority. But it is important.
Same-sex marriage is one battle in a larger "culture war" going on in our country. Do we want to live in a belligerent antiblack, antigay, antiwoman, conservative, profit-driven, theocracy or a peaceful, progressive, multicultural, people-focused secular society that embraces everyone? The choice is ours.
Text of Vatican statement on marriage
Comments conceal
mr
August 1 2003, 10:44AM
It is sad to say, but our president is a moron. We knew this when he was elected (or declared the winner). There is very little he can say or that he does that surprises me. As for the church's concern about children, when the Vatican releases the records and identities of all the priests that molested, sexually abused and did other harm to children, I'll believe them. As to the decline in support in the polls, I just don't believe people were honest in the first poll and supported the Gay rights. It sounds great to support something when you don't believe it could happen , but after the Supreme Court ruling, most of these people got scared and were forced to show their own predjudices. Sought of reminds me how former Mayor Dinkins was leading in the polls prior to the election, and still lost because saying you will vote for someone and actually doing it are two different things.
tdavecu
August 1 2003, 11:02AM
I guess I'll spend the weekend saying "I told you so" to my buddies. Come on all, we saw this coming, didn't we? Let's sit back, with spines as hard as steel and wait for the imminent showdown. There's much more to come from the religious right.
alicia banks
August 1 2003, 12:42PM
the catholic church is the most sinful religious institution on earth...
and g w bush is a drunk, a global murderer, and a fool
how dare they???
excellent column keith
mine is pending asap
peace
ab
Cederico
August 1 2003, 1:56PM
I was very disappointed in the President endorsement of marital discrimination and worse calling gays sinners. If there was any doubt about his position its gone.
I just wonder how all those gay Republicans are gonna react. They will probably make excuses all the while their President and party legislate against them and denounce them for being themselves and wantinf equal rights.
Kola Boof
August 1 2003, 3:41PM
One thing we can do...is begin to seriously build a positive image of "gay committed relationships" and begin to dismantle the Campy Bafoonish one that is so often displayed (and played up) in the media by both gays and their HATERS...
In my own books, I try to present historical representations of African gays, over the last thousand years, and I try to hightlight the fact that before Christianity and Islam were imposed on Africans....the state of "gayness" was not seen as an aberration of nature...anymore than a woman's topless breasts were.
Queen Hatsepshut and Queen Nok are on record as having MANY female lovers. Hatsepshut even ruled Egypt dressed as a man. On the Blue Nile river...there were "gay" tribes who were respected and revered by the Cushitic empire.
Sexuality was PART of African religion and was celebrated as a vital part of "normalcy"...just another reflection of God himself. As black people..we should remember that it was an ABOMINATION against God for a woman's breasts to be covered..her breasts representing the Circle of Life and the continuation of it. In other words, she was sexually deified instead of "objectified" sexually. Which is a distinction that deserves our notice.
We have to begin to use our work, our jobs and our art to change the "threatening image" that has been created by this homophobic WORLD society...and we have to keep attacking POWER RADIO and whoever else demeans and openly practices homo-hatred.
This is only a set-back (Bush/The Pope)...because of course...gay marriage is inevitable. The ruling in Canada proves that. And the fact that so many citizens in California, New York and Florida have proven in Polls that they support it...is proof that in the next generation, there will be changes.
It's only natural that the old liners/bigots/SCURRED FOLKS...would come out swinging...just as they did with Abortion, Interracial Marriage, etc.
The victory is close at hand...but what Gay people really need is to DEMAND SOME RESPECT...."as human beings"....and portray a more healthy lifestyle in the media.
Some of the parades I've seen make gays seem like Non-serious JOKES....and it plays into the hands of the HATERS. The Campy-ness...and the self-hatred (YES..self-loathing) of gays who worship "LOOKS" and refuse to entertain "real love"...opting for a lifetime of Bath House Hunting (because Self-hatred makes so many gays think they don't DESERVE to be loved, only sexed)...that stuff has got to be put...in perspective by the gay community itself.
This is a historic "time" in Gay people's history. Just as the Harlem Renaissance was in black history. Gay Art, Gay literature and Gay politics are.....ALL......bursting into the public consciousness right now.
I say we should "do justice" to the humanity of gay people and begin to take our aims more seriously.
Cool
August 1 2003, 5:51PM
First of all; the phrase “Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron. There is very little gaiety in most US marriages.
What a miserable and misused institution. Well of half marriages in the US end in divorce. The average marriage lasts just 7 years. People are marrying mail order brides from Asia; Women accept cash to marry foreign nationals looking to gain citizenship; Women marry men they don’t love for money and social status; I actually had a woman propose marriage to me only so we could split the wedding gifts, provided, of course, we put together an A list of influential guest. Over 70% of married women say they are unsatisfied. And divorce has psychologically scarred millions of unwitting children.
I say just ban marriage. Please. And then allow any two people who can prove a love and undying affection be awarded a license. We have to prove we know how to drive a car don’t we? What if 60% of drivers on the road crashed?
My point: homos shouldn’t try to just immolate hetero legal unions, but better them.
Don’t be denied: in a pluralistic democracy separation of church and state is vital and anything lacking is a threat to the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Kola Boof
August 1 2003, 8:34PM
Great idea Mr. Cool!
I would vote for that legislation. You get it started.
I've had 2 boys and pregnant with 1 now by the same man...and each time he proposed marriage, I declined.
That's a brilliant idea, because marriage really has become an "arrangement" all over again.
JS
August 1 2003, 8:53PM
I believe people should have the right to marry someone of their choice regardless of that person's sex. Some people who are against gay marriage are also racist and against any type of changes in society.
Conservatives could be classified in this category because, they have led a tradition of hate in America. Most were against civil rights for blacks in America, some do not believe in interacial dating, and most importantly, people still share these same views hidden inside themselves. They are afraid to share some of these views because, society is more diverse. I like to call these types of people "undercover haters."
People sometimes use the bible to justify their argument of why gays should not be allowed to have legal marriage. However, people have used the bible to justify slavery and anti semitism. During the Civil Rights Movement, some white southerners argued that integration is against God's will. Jews are hated by some because of "so called" bible history that relates to them. people should be stopped in their tracks before they carry out ignorant arguments.
In order for the world to be a better place, people must have respect and tolerance for one another.
john mattson
August 2 2003, 10:21PM
Keith Boykin for President! I'd vote for you...
Kevin
August 2 2003, 10:58PM
This is an issue that will take time to become reality, but it will come true. Society is growing and progressing much faster then the ignorant fools who run it. I have always believed that if two people love each other very much and want top get married, let them. SO what if they gay? Despite what some critics feel, our society will not fall apart; it will just reflect the change.
Bernie
August 3 2003, 9:54AM
First of all, homosexuality is not the problem. Homophobia is the problem. Homophobia is the irrational, illogical fear of homosexuals. The sooner we realize what the real issue is here, and work to combat it, the better off we will all be.
Second, the Catholic Church has no moral authority to comment on this or any other issue. They lost any credibility when they covered up and protected known pedophiles within their ranks for decades.
Third, there isn't enough bandwidth to talk about the lack of moral authority in George W. Bush. He's a drug addict, an alcoholic, a war monger, an illegally (s)elected president. How ironic that Bush refused to listen to the Pope when it came to the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq, but now wants to form an alliance. What hypocrits both of them.
Finally, what is the irrational fear these homophobes have about gay marriage? There is no limitation on how many marriage licenses a state can issue. It's not like we'll reach a quota and then no more. Every gay person and every straight person who wants to marry could do so without any conflict.
And as for some supposed "sanctity of marriage" how sanctified is the institution, when tv reality show producers are trying to marry people who've only known each other for a few weeks, or picking people based on their income. Hets are making a mockery of this so-called sanctified institution.
Another smokescreen campaign issue from this illegitimate administration. It's about the phoney war, loss of our civil liberties and the failing economy, stupid.
Tim Turner
August 3 2003, 10:24AM
I think everyone is missing something very obvious. I would be willing to bet that if you changed the term, "Gay Marriage" to some type of "Legal Domestic Partner Agreement", an ample majority would support it. What's the difference if it helps you get what you want? Let the hypocrits keep their silly little "marriage".
Even us Gay, Moderate Conservatives haven't seen many people in the White House, or the Senate or Congress that weren't "morons" for as long as we can remember. I, for one, am not 50% pleased with Bush, but I'm still releaved it's not Gore.
A great article, until the last two paragraphs...which jumps off topic into typical extreme left-wing rhetoric.
Mark
August 3 2003, 2:55PM
Fantastic article, Keith. I look to your website regularly to keep me informed on politcal issues, specificallly because it relates to gays, lesbians and people of color.
I don't care if it's called "marriage, " "civil union," or "sharing stuff," so long as gays untilmately garner domestic partner rights. I get sick and tired of these prunes on television talking about "gays are trying to redefine marriage...," " gays are DESTROYING the sanctity of marriage.'" SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE??!! Oh, brother. I think breeders are doing a wonderful job of destroying the institution all on their own - with their multiple tries. If the defining powers of the world want to protect the precious marriage vows as being sacred and special, then an international law should be passed that a person can do it only ONCE! One damn marriage. That's it! Maybe then straight people think about easing on down the road with somebody else every time they get tired of each other. After that, they would have to "shack up" just like gays are forced to do, with no contracts or legal rights. Until that happens, Jerry, Pat, George Dubya, Jeb, and whatever her name is can just...(fill in the blank of your choice).
Oh, yeah. I agree with Kola Boof. Power radio is NOT your friend. All of talk radio has become so conservative that for the first time I am frightened by the medium. For alternatives I catch NPR radio, Democracy Now (Pacifica Radio), and the Tavist Smiley show. In order to gather another, more honest perspective on world events, I listen to BBC radio instead ofjust CNN or Fox, also on NPR.
Greg Meadows
August 3 2003, 4:48PM
Keith, you say in the latest column headed Backlash (also published in gay.com) that "in June, the Supreme Court struck down antigay sodomy laws and the Canadian government legalized gay marriage."
It was the Ontario Court of Appeals that in effect legalized gay marriage. It gave the Government of Canada 30 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Rather than appeal, the Government drafted new legislation that legalized marriage between two people, regardless of sex, with no residency requirement.
The Government has referred the draft bill to the Supreme Court for an opinion. It will probably take several months to make a decision. Then the bill will likely go before the House of Commons and a free vote will be held, perhaps in early 2004.
The ruling Liberal party is split on the issue. The NDP (New Democratic Party - social democratic) and Bloc Quebecois (Quebec nationalist) are mostly in favour, while the Canadian Alliance (right of centre) and Conservatives are mostly opposed.
Greg
Jen
August 4 2003, 7:50PM
Dear Keith,
I read your article, Backlash. Your spoke very articulately about issues that are effecting my current situation. I appreciate your knowledge and the impression your words have left on me. They will bring an excellent arguement to the discussion table when I go visit my family this weekend. Convincing my mother not to vote for Bush next term is becoming a lot harder than I had inticipated, considering she's a democrat. But regardless, I thank you. I have passed on a link of your site to my friends, family, and my business contacts.
I hope this email finds you well.
SIncerely,
Jennifer
Paul Larocque
August 9 2003, 3:42PM
Yes, there is a bit of a back-lash against same-sex marriage in Canada - but it is minor and limited to areas and groups which already opposed it, ie, it won't translate into votes.
Canada's glbt community is well organized and we are already as individuals and organaisations mounting a vigorous counter-campaign. One interesting fact emerging from polling information is that the Vatican's campaign is turning people off - particularly RCs.
Keep up your great column.
Paul T.Larocque
Troubla' World
September 30 2003, 12:37PM
All of you are sick. I honestly believe Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. No one makes these women or men marry each other. Get to know each other before you jump in his/her bed. Yes, I am single and I would love a mate. One that Christ chooses for me. Have you all forgotten how you wake up each day. I wish not to bring a child into this world because of people just like some of you - thinking and telling everyone that everything is okay if that is really what you want. The devil is a LIAR. You have no reason trying to "decide" your sexuality. Stop being so dumbfounded! Wake up and keep your GAY demon spirits away from me. If that is what they did in Africa that is between them and there God. Wake up, get over it and quit telling all these young people it is okay if Bill and Bob want to get married. This generation is partially torn up. Let the youth go back to when Mr.& Mrs. Williams were married for 50 years. If you are gay - not fine by me. You have to answer to Jesus. If you were born a boy grow up and remain a man. If you were born a girl grow up and remain a woman. None of us should try to choose what we want to be. Try to be the best at what you have become. A sucessful female who cherishes her body or a diligent man who remembers the male is to be the head of the house - only if HE can run it in decent order. One more thing I have PARENTS that have been married for 27 years; that is 7 times 3 meaning 3 beautiful children from this marriage and they are not like society says. "Marriages only are lasting about 7 years now", not at our house where THEY have made it a HOME.
~South Carolina~
colaine
June 9 2004, 2:17PM
Okay, gays want to get married. Not only that, they feel that society owes them the right to have children in this union. Does it occur to anyone that should gay marriage becomes a reality that there will be children who do not have, or will ever have, a mother or a father? They simply will never have existed. Of course, then we'll have to elmininate Mothers Day and Fathers Day to prevent them from feeling left out when other school children are celebrating that day.
Let's consider that a man goes to prison and meets a guy he wants to marry. Why not, it will be legal, right? So you will have a legally married couple in the same prison. What do you think the heterosexual prisoners are going to say or do? Will they not demand that they too have the right to have THEIR spouses with them as well? This same scenerio can apply to those in the military as well.
Or, better yet, let's assume there are two male pedophiles who want to get married for the sole purpose of having children at their disposal. They get a couple of ovaries from willing women and fertilize them. It would probably be years before society realized they had delivered an innocent child into hand of people who wanted to abuse them. Worse, the gay and lesbian community would use every means at their disposal to cover this up.
What reasoning will we use to denying Mormons the right to multiple marriage partners? Religion? Nah, we've already discounted what the bible has to say.
If two males can get married, then why can't those who desire polyamory be given the same right? In fact, it makes sense that at least one person of the opposite sex is there as a role model for children. Again, what rationale will we use to discount their claim to marriage?
What we are talking about is a grand experiment, folks. An experiment with far reaching consequences. There are those who insist that gay marriage will have no adverse effect upon society. In reality, it will begin to tear at the fabric of institutions we have designed over thousands of years to ensure the cohesiveness of our society.