PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD  |  WHERE TO FIND THE BLADE    |   WASHBLADE ON MYSPACE    |   RSS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2008 
  Please login or create a new account  ?
HOME
CLASSIFIEDS
AUTO GUIDE

THE LATEST
BLADEWIRE
BLADEBLOG
BLOGWATCH
 ELECTION '08
 NEWS
line VIEWPOINT
 EDITORIAL
 OPINION
 LETTERS
 SOUND OFF!
 THEQ
 ENTERTAINMENT
 ECLIPSE
 OUT IN DC
 CALENDARS
 2008 PRIDE GUIDE
 FITNESS BY GENRE
 BITCH SESSION













EMAIL UPDATES
New to email
updates? Then click here to find out more.
email address

subscribe
unsubscribe
I have read and agree to our terms
and conditions
.


ADVERTISING
GENERAL INFO
E-EDITION
MARKETING

ABOUT US
ABOUT THE BLADE
MASTHEAD
EMPLOYMENT

 

 

 


MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
CHRIS CRAIN


MORE INFO
Chris Crain is executive editor of the Washington Blade and can be reached at ccrain@washblade.com.





Printer-friendly Version

Letter to the Editor

Sound Off about this article


MORE EDITORIAL

Closet case Crist flip-flops on marriage

Countdown to Denver
Democrats’ gay support is welcome, but when will words translate to action?


EDITORIAL

Doublespeak on marriage
Partisans on both sides of the gay marriage issue are acting on genuine beliefs and principled positions. Too bad none of them is running for president.

CHRIS CRAIN
Friday, March 19, 2004

THE CAST OF “SATURDAY Night Live” used to perform a sketch involving a man and a woman on a date, and after each one would say something, the audience was privy to what that person was really thinking. Usually the truth was far afield, and sometimes the polar opposite, of what was said out loud.

Of course the same phenomenon is common in politics, but the issue of gay marriage seems to bring out some of the worst in doublespeak. Like any contentious cultural issue, there are partisans on both sides of this debate with principled positions and competing worldviews. The sad thing is that none of those people is running for president.

President Bush is, by all accounts, a committed Christian with a traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman, but with a tolerant and comfortable attitude toward those gay individuals and couples he knows personally.

In the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush took the position that marriage is an issue for the individual states to resolve. Four years later, Bush is supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage but claims he was forced to act because “activist judges” in Massachusetts and runaway local officials like the mayor of San Francisco are usurping the will of “the people” to decide the question.

The problem is that Bush is apparently backing an amendment that does much more than he says he favors, and instead decides the issue of gay marriage for all of the states by amending the country’s founding document. In fact, the so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment” goes even further, prohibiting marriage-like benefits and recognition, which would likely bar civil unions and many public domestic partner registries.

If Bush really meant what he has said, he would have left the issue to each individual state to decide and endorsed a constitutional amendment providing simply that the courts cannot force one state to recognize another state’s gay marriage licenses.

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, said exactly that, but conservatives worry that “activist judges” would strike down DOMA. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, hardly a friend to gay rights, is floating an alternative constitutional amendment that would prevent “activist judges” from doing that; perhaps Bush will throw his support behind it.

BUT EVEN THEN Bush would not really be living up to what he says he believes about the importance of defending traditional marriage. Discouraging gays from entering into long-term relationships will actually have the opposite impact.

Countless “traditional marriages” have ended in tears and heartache because one partner has used the relationship to run away from homosexuality. It could not possibly be in the interest of heterosexual marriage to encourage gay men and lesbians to turn away from homosexuality and instead marry heterosexuals.

Bush claims to be acting to defend the American family, but it is a fact of life that children are already being raised by gay parents. Experts can argue about whether a two-parent, male-female household is really the ideal for those children, but they would all agree that a stable household of any variety is far superior to one that is not. Long-term gay relationships provide a much better environment for those children.

Conservative activists like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have argued that allowing gay marriage anywhere will also encourage the spread of AIDS by “normalizing” homosexuality. The public health reality, of course, is exactly the opposite: Gay men in committed relationships are far less promiscuous and less likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases than those who are not.

What’s more, as long as Bush and his allies work to prevent gay couples from marrying, private businesses will continue to provide domestic partner benefits for their unmarried employees. These benefits are almost always justified as a way of treating fairly gay employees in long-term relationships who cannot marry, but the policies almost always cover unmarried heterosexual couples as well, and straight couples generally sign up for DP benefits in much larger numbers.

The more these companies provide an attractive alternative institution for straight couples, the more traditional marriage truly is being threatened. Just look at Europe, where civil union-type laws in most countries — adopted for gay couples but open to straight couples as well — have dramatically reduced the number of heterosexual couples who actually go the distance and tie the knot.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE ALTERNATIVE choice to George W. Bush engages is marriage doublespeak to an even worse degree. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry says he has a traditional view of marriage, like Bush, but supports full equality for gay couples.

He has attacked President Bush for endorsing a federal marriage amendment because it writes discrimination into the Constitution, and yet he backs a similar amendment to the state constitution in Massachusetts, where marriage licenses are actually to be issued.

How can Kerry be against one amendment but in favor of the other, or is he on both sides of this issue, as the president has charged he is on so many others? His aides would undoubtedly say that he sees it as an issue for the states, but then why did Kerry oppose as “gay bashing” language in the Defense of Marriage Act that protected states from having gay marriage foisted upon them?

Kerry presents himself as a champion of civil rights, even on the issue of gay marriage, and yet his actions are more akin to those of a governor from the Jim Crow South, dismissing with a vague appeal to “tradition” the ruling of his home state’s highest court that civil unions are separate and unequal.

Kerry’s reasons for opposing for gay marriage are all over the map, and his own treatment of the institution — obtaining an annulment of his first marriage after 18 years and two children — make his appeals to tradition even weaker.

We should all remember that the battle over marriage and gay civil rights goes beyond partisan politics and a presidential election. The same activists who have rightly condemned with loud-throated voices the president’s position should find their voices and call Kerry into question as well.

If we can force both sides to say what they really mean about gay marriage, we will have won half the battle.

 

email   password
The following comments were posted by our readers and were not edited by the Washington Blade.  We ask that you treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will be removed.


 

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy