Is the debate over the normalcy of gayness “over”?
On ABC’s This Week, the two Republican-conservative pundits — former Bush advisor Matthew Dowd and columnist George Will — declared that the debate over allowing gays in the military is “over.”
“They go to high school with kids who are openly gay,” Dowd said. “They socialize with kids who are openly gay. And all of a sudden they go into the armed services and somebody hands them a rifle and they’re not supposed to be around gay people anymore? It doesn’t make any sense. It’s already been decided in the public’s mind.”
Will echoed the argument, saying, “The case is over, basically.”
Meanwhile, McDonald’s — the fast food chain that sort of embodies middle American values — is airing a new advertisement in France under the slogan, “Come as you are.”
The spot features a closeted gay boy, sharing a meal with his father.
Clearly, McDonald’s sees this as the right place to be, brand-wise, for the next generation of customers.
There’s still a lot of wrangling still ahead over the issue of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and the so-called “gay agenda.”
The issue became a central theme just last year in the special election in the 23rd congressional district.
Dede Scozzafava very likely lost a shot at a seat in the House of Representatives because she embraced gay marriage as “a civil right.”
The Roman Catholic church — the most popular faith in the North Country — remains vehemently opposed to the concept.
But I wonder if there’s not an air of inevitability beginning to surround this debate, a sense that the generation now moving into its twenties and early thirties just doesn’t think this is a big deal.
Meanwhile, the debate now underway in Congress represents a huge milestone.
If gays and lesbians are going to serve openly in the US Military — perhaps the most important secular institution for conservatives — can full marriage rights be far behind?
Tags: glbt
No.
Yes.
Sweet McDonald’s ad.
Maybe after gays are allowed to serve openly in the US military they will be allowed to serve openly in the Catholic Church.
As Brian is knowledgeable of the book of Genesis, I will point out that the institution of marriage has its origins in Gen 2:24:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
A union of two of the same sex cannot, by definition, meet this requirement.
JDM –
As a factual matter, the “institution” of marriage is far far older as a concept than the Book of Genesis.
Most scholars agree that the texts that eventually comprised the first book of the Bible were written about 3400 years ago.
Records of Sumerian marriage laws date back at least 5000 years.
Over the long history of marriage, a nearly infinite variety of laws and customs have come and gone.
Most marriages historically were financial and political transactions.
Poor people, right up into modern times, often never married at all.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have developed laws and customs which don’t conform to the strictures of the Old Testament.
In the U.S., where most marriages end in divorce and where pre-marital sex is the norm even for evangelical Christians, it can hardly be said that we become “one flesh.”
Finally, I’ll point out that while Christian mores and customs certainly influence these debates, America isn’t a theocracy.
Unlike countries that adopt sharia-like statutes that try to bring civil law into line with religious strictures, we have a long tradition of separating church and state.
This separation is more important now for two reasons:
First, because 1 in 5 Americans aren’t Christian — non-Christians are the fastest growing ‘religious’ group in our society.
Second, because many Christian groups (albeit a minority) now endorse same-sex marriage.
While some churches see the legalization of same-sex marriage as an erosion of “traditional” marriage, other churches see the current ban as an infringement on their religious freedom.
Meanwhile, as my original post suggests, more and more Americans are responding to all this with a shrug.
So two guys (or gals) want to marry? Who cares? That appears to be the zeitgeist that conservatives are battling.
–Brian, NCPR
Gays and lesbians have always been in the military.
I’ll never forget the night in the barracks when one guy from Texas, yes Texas, did a strip tease to music. He stripped down to black briefs and did a pretty good and sexy dance routine. Everyone knew he was gay and everyone thought the show was fun.
I think most guys don’t care as long as they aren’t propositioned.
As one guy once said to me, “Queers just leave more girls for me.”
Brian:
Your chronology of the writings of the Bible and the even-older recorded marriage don’t conflict with the fact that the first five books of the Bible are generally attributed to Moses as the author. He was obviously writing about creation in Genesis 2, which would have pre-dated everything else.
The fact that America isn’t a theocracy doesn’t have relevance. To the extent that America adopts a religious institution such as marriage into its culture is what does matter.
The “best case” for gays is to invent their own institution. Adopting one meant for two sexes won’t cut it.
The fact that “most” marriages end in divorce only serves to reinforce the idea of one flesh. It tears at the very being of those who experience divorce. There is no denying the power of marriage.
One other thought on “one flesh”
You, Brian, are proof of the one flesh of marriage. (so am I). Two people, two individuals, came together (hopefully under the marriage covenant) and were made one flesh by virtual of consummating that relationship.
“You” are proof of that. “You” are exactly 50% mom and 50% dad. “You” are a physical representation of a spiritual truth. “You” are one flesh made of two former individuals.
No two like-sexed people can do that.
if there is no denying the power of marriage, then why wouldn’t you want everyone to have access to it?
I meant “virtue” not “virtual” in the last post.
hermit,
I take it you posted your comment before my post about one flesh. That is the reason that all cannot have access. It is physically impossible.
JDM –
A couple of points.
1. Very few people outside of the strictest fundamentalist Christian circles ascribes the authorship of Genesis to Moses.
2. As I point out in my response, marriage hasn’t always been a ‘religious’ tradition. It is largely a civil contract, and has been used as such by most Jewish and Christian societies.
3. Gays and lesbians aren’t asking that churches be required to marry them; they’re asking for legal — as in civil — marriage rights.
4. Children are born out of wedlock all the time. It’s the norm in many parts of American society. Heterosexual couples use sperm donors and surrogate parents to help them bear children. Or they adopt. Many heterosexual married couples don’t have children.
But I want to keep repeating: I think all of this is esoterica to most people, who are simply bored by this entire discussion.
Increasingly, the American response to arcane debates over Genesis and the function of marriage is to shrug and say, “This is silly. Leave it up to consenting adults.”
A similar transition occurred with the use of contraceptives, the normalization of interracial couples, and the acceptance of divorce.
–Brian, NCPR
I won’t jump into the ‘age of Genesis’ debate but do want to remind JDM that marriage as “a religious institution” in American culture is NOT a part of our founding history. Following the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, Church of Christ leaders met to consider the response of the Church. I quote from opening remarks of the conference president:
“If it had been up to our Puritan forebears, however, we wouldn’t be here today. We wouldn’t be having this conversation. Puritan clergy wanted nothing to do with marriage and, indeed, it wasn’t until nearly a century after the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, that anyone in the colonies was married with benefit of clergy. Puritan pastor John Robinson described marriage as ‘a civil thing’ in part because it had to with such profane matters as property and inheritance, but more importantly, because there was, in his estimation, no biblical precedent for the church’s involvement in it.”
As for unions, marriage is an institution of man, not god, and therefore humans have the prerogative to modify it at their pleasure, as they have countless times throughout humanity.
As for the question posed in the entry, it would be wrong to view this debate as “over” but the civilized, humane position is clearly in the ascendency, at long last.
3. Gays and lesbians aren’t asking that churches be required to marry them; they’re asking for legal — as in civil — marriage rights.
Brian and I agree. Whatever civil agreement is granted to gays and lesbians, it may be similar to, but not exactly, what is reserved for heterosexuals.
“Two people, two individuals, came together (hopefully under the marriage covenant) and were made one flesh by virtual of consummating that relationship.”
I don’t accept the whole premise of JDM and others that we should be a theocracy like Iran and Saudi Arabia governed entirely by religious texts. But the above comment is troubling. Essentially what this suggests is that even heterosexual couples who choose not to bear children or are unable to are not married in the “true” sense.
Do gay couples have to get a blood test before marriage? If so-why? If not- why not? Equal treatment- right?
Is the debate over the normalcy over? Well, not for me. For me, personally, it’s not “normal”. Does that make me “wrong”? Can you feel something isn’t “right” and still not be “wrong”? Got me. All I want is to not have it shoved in my face 24/7, not to have people tell me I’m a homophobe because it just makes me uncomfortable. Not to have special rights given to one group while taking them away from another. I don;t care what people do in their own homes, I just get darn tired of people forcing their values on me.
“Essentially what this suggests is that even heterosexual couples who choose not to bear children”
No, Brian. Consummating the marriage does not equal bearing children.
Yes, consummating the marriage is an important element. Do I need to elaborate further?
(and, unfortunately, a relationship that is consummated outside of marriage most often leads to emotional shipwreck when/if a breakup occurs, because, like gravity, there are also spiritual truths that cannot be ignored)
Bret, the question is not whether gays make you uncomfortable. The question is whether they get their constitutionally-mandated equal rights.
I know a number of gay people and not one of them “shoves it in my face.” Most gays aren’t interested in
“shoving it” in people’s faces. They only react when some people treat them like scumbags or say they should be denied equal rights. Most are really just interested in living the same ordinary lives as straight people.
And I completely agree with you Bret on the whole forcing people’s values on others. I support the live and let live philosophy and get angry when Christian conservatives try to force their values on everyone.
On the other hand, I think the default position should equal rights for everyone (that pesky 14th Amendment thing). But that’s not a value *I* want to impose on everyone. It’s a value the Constitution imposes on everyone.
It’s not about being ‘comfortable.’ It’s about respecting people’s rights. Bret, I don’t know if you’re a homophobe but I do know there are hateful, vile homophobes out there. I am very ‘uncomfortable’ with them but I would never demand they be denied rights (like free speech for example). Gays may make you ‘uncomfortable’ but is that enough to deny them equal rights under the law?
I have far, far more people trying to “shove” their religious views at me than I have gays shoving their sexual preference in my face.
Those who argue that marriage is religious practice are correct. You can trace it back beyond the Old Testament, but for all intents and purposes, it is defined by religious cant.
I propose the following solution to the gay marriage debate:
1) Make civil union the only practice recognized by our civil institutions, e.g., the IRS, medical insurance, etc.
2) Make civil union available to any consenting adult couple, regardless of gender.
3) Put marriage back in the church and synagogue as an act of religious choice, but NOT one recognized by civil law. A civil union would still be required for ALL couples wishing civil recognition.
4) Grandfather in existing religious marriages so that current couples, married in a religious institution, would still enjoy the civil privileges to be afforded civil unions in the future.
Marriage is religious. Civil union is not. Why should the church or synagogue or mosque tell someone who is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim, who can and can’t marry? That is indeed an abrogation of the separation of Church and State.
Brian Mann,
I disagree with the claim that same sex marriage cost Dede Scozzafava the marriage. I think her support for the stimulus and card check and the 911 call were much bigger factors.
JDM,
Not everyone believes in the Bible. I couldn’t care less what Genesis says. Nor does everyone believe that relationships outside of marriage are bad.
Bret,
If gays make you uncomfortable then don’t go to a same sex wedding or have gay friends.
I agree with much of what you propose. In fact, that is almost exactly what is practiced in Mexico.
You may want to come with a new verb, however.
If marriage is religious, and civil unions are not, then a non-religious solution probably shouldn’t be referred to by its religious counterpart (e.g. marriage, marry).
I refer to the last word in this sentence:
“Why should the church or synagogue or mosque tell someone who is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim, who can and can’t marry?”
Good point, JDM. Let’s say, who can and can’t form a union…
If marriage is religious, why can JPs and others perform the ceremony?
How can judges, not clergy, divorce?
Marriage is a civil contract; sometimes, the contract is sanctified by a religious service.
I was married in -‘5 and had to have a blood test. I re-married in ’94 and we didn’t need one.
I think this thread proves that the answer to Brian M’s original question is still no.
Anon –
I’m not so sure. I still kind of think that if you walked around and talked to 20- and 30-somethings, there would be a near universality that this issue is old hat.
We fuddy-duddies keep debating it and navel-gazing, and for good reason. This culture war stuff kind of defined the 80s and 90s.
But now? I don’t think it resonates. In a way, it’s a libertarian victory. In another way, a sign of a changing culture.
Will there still be skirmishes and dust-ups? Undoubtedly. But my gut tells me that people are moving on…
–Brian, NCPR
Brian, I assume not Brian Mann, the question was is the debate over homosexuality being “normal” over. You took that to a different place than I was going. I was basically asking is it okay for me to feel it’s not normal? I know people who consider hunting or raising and butchering your own meat abnormal. It makes them uncomfortable, just as ahving two gay men fondling each other in front of me and my kids in the Salmon Run mall makes me uncomfortable, like being about violent drunks makes me uncomfortable, like being around obnoxious people makes me uncomfortable. And the gay community does shove it in our faces in an attempt to force acceptance. Perhaps not everyone feels that way, but when it’s portrayed as normal, even something to aspire to, that’s trying to force an acceptance.
I have no problem with people being gay, fine, you are what you are. I just find the idea that one lifestyle should be acceptable and sold as normal while others are looked down upon by the same “open minded” types that support the gay lifestyle.
The legal issues are entirely beyond the social issues. Two different things. I, for once, would agree with Ellen. The gov’t has no place in marriage. Let the churches marry and the gov’t license the civil contract between persons. YOu kill two birds with one stone that way.
Good idea Ellen!
I would agree with Brian on this as far as the secular debate goes it is pretty much although not totally over.
However, nobody really cares anymore about fornication or living together or out of wedlock birth or divorce either, it does not mean it is a good thing for society, it is simply is an accepted societal fact. I am not comparing the issues as they are very different. However I think this is one off those issues for better or worse the debate is largely over.
As long as we maintain our religious liberty most Christian Churches that have any sort of fidelity to scripture will never be able to accept fornication be it with two men or a man and a women.
Within the Catholic tradition being gay is not sinful practicing fornication is however and Christ clearly defines marriage as needing a husband and a wife a man and a women, that will never change. But that is a religious teaching not a secular or political one.
I am amazed at how much of a big deal this is though given the society we live in this is certainly one of the least harmful societal trends happening.
Brian M said: “I still kind of think that if you walked around and talked to 20- and 30-somethings, …”
Right, and I agree with you that views are changing. But 20 and 30 somethings don’t run things yet. They don’t make laws. And fuddy duddys are living longer than ever, and still get riled up over culture war issues. Read a Texas textbook lately?
The debate will end, as you say. But it’s certainly not over.
And in fact, this is an interesting if caustic blog post on a newly fashionable recidivism when it comes to things like evolution and civil rights: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/past-is-never-dead.html
Mervel
“However, nobody really cares anymore about fornication”
I care about fornication.
hahah, good one… but do you care if OTHER people are fornicating (and not with you)?
Yeah, there should be a law against that!