I Am A White Supremacitst. And I Am Very Thankful To Nevada For Letting Me Know.

Several people have given me plausible, sensible, cogent explanations of why the thought of legalizing same-sex marriage drives its foes to the most breathtaking contortions of logic.

In an earlier post, and in a Huffington Post article, I mentioned the "diversity" argument used by opponents of marriage equality in Utah.  They cited the fact that colleges and universities use diversity as a criterion in admissions.  Academic institutions have such policies because activists pointed out that some schools had monochromatic student bodies from the same social classes--and, in some cases, the same geographic areas.  Also, studies over the past half-century or so indicate that students indeed learn more and better when at least some of their classmates are different from themselves.

It obviously follows, then, that kids are better off with two parents who are of different genders.  At least, that's the conclusion of those diligent folks in the Beehive State.

I guess one of Utah's neighbors simply could not be outdone.  So, from Nevada, we have yet another canard from the Bizarro world of people who simply can't stand the thought of Jane marrying Jill or John wedding James.  

We really should listen to the what golden minds from the Silver State said in a Ninth Circuit court hearing.  Are you ready for this? :

 White supremacists engrafted the anti-miscegenation rules onto the marriage institution — and thereby altered marriage from how it had existed at common law and throughout the millennia — to bend that institution into the new and foreign role of inculcating white supremacist doctrines into the consciousness of the people generally. Because of the profound teaching, forming, and transforming power that fundamental social institutions like marriage have over all of us, this evil strategy undoubtedly worked effectively for decades.

Question: Where does one see today a similar massive political effort to profoundly change the marriage institution in order to bend it into a new and foreign role, one in important ways at odds with its ancient and essential roles? Answer: The genderless marriage movement.

So let's see:  White supremacists "engrafted anti-miscegenation rules onto the marriage institution."  (Gotta love that phrase!)  White supremacists changed the definition of marriage.  Gays want to do the same. Ergo, those who want same-sex marriages are no different from white supremacists.

Now, I'll grant you there are white supremacists, as well as bigots of every other kind, who happen to be gay men, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals or of just about any other kind of sexual or gender identity you can imagine.  If nothing else, most at least have enough fashion sense not to wear white robes and hoods. (Most white people don't look good in white.  I include myself.)  But, seriously, I think that there are fewer such extreme haters in the "spectrum" in which I include myself.  Most of us still have unconscious prejudices, as nearly everyone else has, simply from being inculcated with subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) stereotypical notions about the sorts of jobs people are supposed to have, the clothes they're expected to wear and the foods they should eat, depending on their race, gender, geographical location or any number of other factors.

Still, I have yet to hear even the most racist, classist, misogynist, misandropic or even homo- or trans-phobic (Yes, we have those!) in our midst suggest that we pass laws to keep people from marrying each other.  Like most right-thinking people, most of us support only one restriction on marriage:  a minimum age.

Now, I have never been to law school. I entertained the thought of going for, oh, maybe fifteen minutes of my life. So forgive me if I am missing something.  I simply cannot understand how anyone can use laws that were used to keep people from marrying each other to rationalize his or her opposition to a law that would allow people to marry.  Moreover, I don't get how anyone can use a law that kept people who were of different races from hooking up to oppose a law that would allow two folks who are the same, in at least one way, from getting hitched.

Maybe I'm just too East Coast-centric to understand the dazzling feats of logic they've achieved in Utah and Nevada.  Or, perhaps, I'm too European in my outlook (After all, I've lived in France!) to understand how real Amurrikkkuns do things.  Or, perhaps, I have misunderstood every thinker and writer I've ever read.  Yes, it's been some time since I've read Descartes or Hegel or Kant. So, perhaps, I need to refresh my skills in logical thinking.

Or it may be that I just haven't spent enough time in Nevada to see how marriage is supposed to be.  Growing up in the dystopias of Brooklyn and New Jersey, all I ever saw were people who were married in churches, synagogues and by justices of the peace, and who remained together.  Such couples include my parents.  They have been Mr. and Mrs. for one year longer than I have been on this planet.  I blame them for setting such an example for me, their firstborn.

I mean, if I haven't been around folks whose nupitals were witnessed by slot machines, how can I possibly know what marriage is.  Right?  I didn't grow up in a place (or time) where Dennis Rodman wed Carmen Electra or Kim Kardashian tied the knot with Kris Humphries.  I never saw or heard about such perfect unions as the one between Jason Alexander and Britney Spears.  Never having the benefit of having grown up around such fine examples of matrimony, I guess I'm unduly impressed with two women of my acquaintance who've been together since 1971.  Or my parents.

Yes, I admit, I want to hijack the august institution of male masters and female chattel so that folks like my friends can have the same rights as my parents.  Or--now I'll expose my self-interest--so that I can enjoy those same rights, if I decide to marry a woman (or, for that matter, a man).  

I guess that makes me no better than the white supremacists.  As we say in the old country, tant pis.


 

Beside Themselves

A friend of mine read the article I posted the other day.  She was involved in the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage in New York State.  Several years before that legislation passed, she was married to her longtime partner in Canada.

This friend and I were talking about what’s happened in Utah, and about civil rights in general.  She reminded me of something which—surprisingly, given that the legislation in New York passed only two and half years ago—I had forgotten.

Here it is:  One of the arguments made against passing the same-sex marriage law was that it would discriminate against straight people, as it would not guarantee their right to marry gay people.

I wondered what it is about same-sex marriage that drives supposedly well-trained and talented legal minds to such contortions of logic as the one she recalled-- or the argument, made by same-sex marriage foes in Utah, that if diversity is a valid criterion for college admissions, it should also be a criterion in deciding whether or not people should be allowed to marry.

My friend had an explanation:  When people who don’t have much else, they will grasp onto whatever it is that (at least in their minds) separates them from people who are even lower on the socioeconomic ladder than they are.  Politicians like George Wallace, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan exploited this; folks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are trying to do the same.  How else can they consider poor and working-class white people in the South and Midwest to vote for candidates like themselves:  the ones who align themselves with the plutocrats who imperil whatever separates those white people from the perpetually destitute blacks and other members of “minority” groups.

It sounds, to me, like a good explanation of why, in spite of the gains we’ve made, the condition of transgender people is still like that of gays and lesbians thirty years ago.

The Diversity In Marriage Act (DIMA)

Back to serious, sober gender stuff today.

All right, perhaps not so serious and sober.  In fact, you might actually have fun (Whoda thunk it?) reading my latest Huffington Post piece.

I'll reproduce the text here:

The Diversity In Marriage Act


The state of Utah has just ruled that I can marry a black man. Or an Hispanic or Asian male. Even a Native American is acceptable, under the state's ruling.

But I can't marry a white man, let alone a white woman. Oh, I can't marry an African-descended, Latina or Asian female, either.

Now, you might think I've gone over to neighboring Colorado and partaken of their newly-legalized recreational drug. Truth is, I'm nowhere near that Rocky Mountain mecca. I've been there only once, and that was to avail myself to the services of one Dr. Marci Bowers. And I've never set foot in the Beehive State. I'm safely ensconced in the very state that kicked out someone named Joseph Smith, who is largely responsible for the Utah we know and love today.

Time was, not so long ago, someone who used "Utah" and "same-sex marriage" in the same sentence would have been suspected of inhaling Boulder's Best -- and I'm not talking about the pure mountain air. Or he or she would have been directed to take his or her medication.

But what would have been seen as a hallucination or fantasy less than a year ago actually came to pass, however briefly, last month. Judge Robert Shelby -- a conservative Republican -- ruled Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. So, for a few heady days, Johns joined Jims and Willas wed Wendys in Salt Lake City and a few other locales in the state.

Of course, Utah being Utah, there were plenty of politicians and lay people who simply wouldn't let such a situation be. So they appealed Judge Shelby's decision to the Supreme Court. They made all of the predictable arguments citing long-discredited studies (or pure-and-simple folklore) about the "benefits" of being raised by one biological parent of each gender and the ways in which heterosexual marriage promotes "responsible" sexual behavior.

Now, such arguments couldn't sway someone like Judge Shelby. But, apparently, Utah's foes of same-sex marriage thought they might work in that liberal bastion known as the United States Supreme Court, where such left-wing stalwarts as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia occupy the bench.

So what did those righteous folks who wanted to save us from the spectacle of Mr. and Mr. or Ms. and Ms. do? They did their homework and came up with a set of germane court rulings. And -- I must give them their due -- they used those rulings in a way that I never, in a million years, could have imagined.

Various courts have ruled that publicly-funded colleges and universities can use "diversity" as a criterion for admissions. Educators and related professionals have long argued that contact with people from nations, cultures and religions different from one's own enhances a student's educational experience. In other words, the prep school kid, the scholarship student from the slums and the young woman from Asia will all gain social and thinking skills they might not otherwise would have acquired in the classroom.

Ergo, a kid will learn more from two parents who are different sexes than from parents of the same sex -- or only one parent.

Now, I don't know whether Utah's same-sex marriage foes gained such reasoning skills (or, for that matter, learned the word "ergo") in the hallowed halls of their fair state's esteemed institutions of higher learning. Perhaps they're just naturally brilliant. I mean, how else could they have argued, in essence, that "diversity in marriage" is the ideal and will teach kids what they need to learn? At any rate, I never could have constructed such a logical tour de force.

What they said, in essence, is that the state should mandate diversity in marriage. Well, they want gender diversity -- or, more accurately, polarity. But imagine that the legislatures of Utah or other states -- or the federal government -- were to pass a comprehensive Diversity In Marriage Act.

Would DIMA simply mandate what DOMA proscribed? Or would it go beyond DOMA and specify other ways, besides gender, in which each spouse must differ? Must they be of different races and cultural backgrounds? Will they be expected to speak different languages and practice different religions? (Perhaps only one member of the couple could be a theist.) Would dreamers only be permitted to marry schemers? Omnivores to vegans? Would I have to marry a mathematician? (Not that I wouldn't.) Or someone with Type O blood?

If Utah were to pass DIMA, a lot of people might not marry at all: It's one of the whitest states in the union. It's also one of the least religiously diverse, and one of the most socially homogenous in all sorts of other ways.

If I were feeling lonely, I guess I could go to Colorado. Even if they were to pass DIMA, I could brighten up my days in other ways. And, if I were to marry someone of my own race, gender or cultural background, or with a skill-set like mine, I could plead ignorance: Everyone looks the same when you're on a Rocky Mountain High. Or is that when you're drunk?

If you are, you've got to marry someone in a 12-step program. Otherwise, you'll be in violation of the Diversity In Marriage Act. You don't want to get stung with the penalties for such an infraction, especially in the Beehive State. Do the birds marry the bees there?

 

 

Overturning Same-Sex Marriage In The Name Of "Diversity"

"Well, it was great while it lasted."

It's easy to think something like that after the Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah--barely two weeks after the first ones were consummated in the Beehive State.

On the surface, it almost seemed surprising that Utah allowed same-sex unions even for such a brief period.  After all, when you say "Utah" to most people, the first word that comes to their minds is "Mormons."

The Church of Latter-Day Saints, not surprisingly, does not want to encourage same-sex unions.  But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in Salt Lake City--the State's capital and largest city--a higher percentage of same-sex couples raise children than in any other city in the nation.  Ironically, it is a result of the city's and state's social conservatism:  People there come out later in life, often after siring or birthing a child in a heterosexual marriage.  

Judge Robert Shelby--a conservative Republican--ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.  He consulted with a number of professionals, including clergy people, who assured him that allowing same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect on whether opposite-sex couples consummate their unions in marriage before having children.  Nobody could have been more succinct when he said "no one is harmed" when people marry others of the same sex.

State officials succeeded in having his ruling overturned by abandoning their earlier claims that heterosexual marriage encourages "responsible" sex and procreation.  Instead, they made one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever heard.

In essence, they drew upon earlier Supreme Court decisions supporting "diversity" as a criteria in deciding who may attend public universities.  They said, in essence, they were pursuing "diversity in marriage."

It's almost funny to read that such an argument was made in one of the whitest states in the Union. Perhaps someone else--say, a Supreme Court judge--will see it that way and Utah will follow California in legalizing gay marriage, overturning it and re-instating it.  Perhaps the last part of that process won't take as long in the Beehive State as it did in the so-called Golden State.

 

Stirring Up A Hornet's Nest In The Beehive State?

If you are anything like me, you probably never expected to use "Utah" and "same-sex marriage" in the same sentence.

But it looks like we may have to get used to such a locution.  As I've mentioned in an earlier post, a court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.  Since then, hundreds of couples--most of them in Salt Lake City--have exchanged vows.

Meanwhile, the state has appealed Judge Robert Shelby's decision to the US Supreme Court.  The Beehive State's (With a name like that, the state wants to ban gay marriage?  Who do they think does all of those beehives?;-)) lawyers have argued that Judge Shelby--who, by the way, is a conservative Republican-- in essence, created a Constitutional right by ruling that the ban violated Federal guarantees of equal protection. In response, according to lawyer Peggy Tomic, advocates of same-sex marriage have filed papers in the Supreme Court in which they argue, in essence, that gay people aren't harming anyone by getting married in Utah.

Even if the Supreme Court grants the appeal--which, I believe, seems unlikely--it will still be something of a surprise to provincial New Yorkers like me that same-sex marriages ever took place in Utah.  But, as I've done some research, this turn of jurisprudence seems less surprising. After all, seemingly-conservative and mainly-rural Iowa legalized same-sex marriage a couple of years ago.  I know of Iowa only from acquaintances who hail from there; from their accounts, Iowans are "tolerant" and are taught to "mind their own business".  If that;s the case, then they are not so different--at least in that respect--from Vermonters, who surprised almost no one when they legalized same-sex marriage in their state.

But another fact makes recent events in Utah less surprising than they initially seemed.  According to at least one report, Salt Lake City has a higher percentage of its gay couples raising children than any other large city in the United States. Other cities near the top of that list include Virgina Beach, Detroit and Memphis.  

One reason why cities (with the possible exception of Detroit) that have such high proportions of gay couples raising children are located in socially conservative states may well be the social conservativism in such places.  It results in people coming out later in life and, often, entering into heterosexual marriages and having kids along the way.  Also, I think social conservatives lose, interestingly, some of their objection to gay marriage if not "the gay lifestyle" when they see gay couples raising kids. Seeing gay couples with kids is, perhaps, more palatable to some people than seeing images of  young, single gays leading seemingly-hedonistic lives in Chelsea or Castro.

Also, people in socially conservative places value order.  I think now of a Dutch minister who explained that his country's history of Calvinism is the very reason why marijuana and other drugs are legal in Amsterdam.  Legalizing something means regulating it.  It also means that people won't have to follow their proclivities "in the shadows" and resort to illegal means.  If you legalize pot, people don't have to support criminals in order to buy it; if you legalize gay marriage (and, indeed, almost anything else that goes along with homosexuality or queerness), there is less business for seedy bars and unscrupulous purveyors of pornography and sexual paraphernalia.   

Of course, if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of a conservative Republican judge in what has been regarded as one of the most socially conservative states to strike down his state's ban on gay marriage, other states and jurisdictions will have less reason  to hold to bar such unions.  

That said, I still think that same-sex marriage is not the ne plus ultra of equal rights legislation for LGBT people.  I still believe that government should not have any say in marriage at all, save for setting a minimum age limit.  Everyone who wants to wed should, in the eyes of government, have the equivalent of a civil union, and couples could enshrine their marriages in their churches or other places of worship if they so wish.  And, finally, I think there should not be any tax benefits for any married couple, whether they are hetero- or same-sex.  But, given the legal and social systems we have, legalizing same-sex marriage is the best way to ensure that two men or two women have the same rights as a man and a woman.

(Now that Utah, in essence, allows same-sex marriage, at least one wag is wondering whether same-sex polygamy or polyandry will also be legal. In my own unbiased opinion, I think that there's a lot less reason to worry about gay marriage than about polygamy!)

Why Did The Boy Scouts Decide To Admit Gay Youth?

As you may have heard by now, the Boy Scouts of America will allow openly gay boys to join as the new year begins.

What I find interesting is that a number of news reports have likened this policy to the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military.  Such a comparison is, on one hand, nearly fatuous, but on the other, relevant.

The repeal of DADT meant that openly homosexual people could serve, as enlisted members or officers, in any branch of the Armed Forces.  On the other hand, the new Scout policy does not allow openly gay adults to serve as Scoutmasters:  It only allows gay youngsters to become Scouts.  Moreover, it does not prevent churches and other organizations from withdrawing their sponsorship of troops.  More than one report indicates that the main ecumenical organizations, such as the Mormon Church (which is the largest sponsor) or the Catholic Church, are unlikely to do so although individual parishes or churches may.  And, most parents who don't like the idea of gay kids becoming scouts have already enrolled their own sons in conservative alternatives like Trail Life.

But the comparison with the repeal of DADT is interesting and relevant because Lord Baden-Powell started Scouting over a century ago for the purpose of preparing boys for the military.  Some would argue that it has always been a sort of paramilitary organization.  I would agree, at least in the sense that it is organized and in the titles it uses.  Also, some of the skills taught are among those required of soldiers, sailors and the like.  Then again, I would guess that the vast majority of Scouts do not join the Armed Forces when they come of age.

Another interesting parallel with the repeal of DADT is this:  Just as transgender people still can't serve in the military, they can't become Scoutmasters or Scouts.

The most interesting question, I think, is:  What motivated the BSA to change their policy?  Some might say it's the increased acceptance of LGBT people:  After all, Utah--of all states--just struck down its ban on gay marriage.  I wouldn't doubt that's a factor, but the cynic in me thinks that something else is at work.

An in-law of mine spent a number of years in the administrative offices of the Boy Scouts.  This in-law's job and the jobs of others in those office were rendered obsolete by the rapidly-declining numbers of boys (and girls) who were becoming (and remaining) Scouts. A number of factors conspired to shrink the rolls:  declining birth rates, the increased number of activities available to young people and, perhaps, the image of scouting.  As to the latter:  Among the many colleagues, acquaintances and friends I count in the worlds of academia and the arts, not one has a child who is or was a Scout.  In those circles, even the kids who like camping, hiking and such don't join.  It seems that in the worlds I inhabit--and in large coastal cities like the one in which I live--nearly all kids who are interested in scouting come from low- or lower middle-income backgrounds and from families and communities that include few people with advanced educations.  But those young people don't join because the cost, while low compared to other activities, is still prohibitive.

The part of me that asks "Cui bono?" believes that the Boy Scouts of America finally decided to accept gay boys because, frankly, they're trying to enroll any new members they can find.  My in-law said that some in the organization have even questioned whether or not the BSA would survive, at least in its current form, unless it could find new members.

Whatever its motivations, I'm glad the BSA decided to enter the 21st Century.  There will be some issues to iron out, such as that of shared facilities.  There will also be some reports of harassment, but I have little doubt that such things go on now unless things have changed drastically since I was a Scout more years ago than I care to admit.  But I think those issues will be resolved.  Still, I have to wonder--as I did when DADT was repealed--whether the new policy would actually leave gay members more vulnerable to harassment because they were "out" and no one could pretend otherwise.  After all, we all know how cruel young people, particularly adolescents, can be to each other, especially if one doesn't fit the sometimes-unarticulated expectations about gender and sexuality.  I don't think boys have stopped picking on "sissies" or simply those who are quiet and sensitive since I received such treatment about four decades ago. 

Then again, the new policy could present a new learning opportunity for such boys, especially if they have a scoutmaster who is a strong leader and doesn't tolerate bullying--or, perhaps, might have been one of those boys who might have been bullied.