Columnist Jonathan
Rauch has a piece at the
National Journal that intersects with a piece by fellow
Bilerico contributor
Cathy Renna (pictured at left in the photo) - who I met last year at the LGBT Blogger Summit - on the issue of same sex marriage.
Rauch's piece is based on a true experience that happened to a gay cousin while Cathy looks at the impact of her own marriage on same sex relationships. Combined, they highlight why the truly "conservative" approach to marriage should be to make it available to all couples who desire it because of its ability to increase stability and afford legal rights. In contrast, of course, the falsely conservative :family values" organizations seek to destabilize and marginalize same sex relationships to the maximum extent possible based on the religious based intolerance - which mocks the concept of freedom of religion for ALL citizens. First, some highlights from
Rauch's column:
*
Last October, Bill Meezan, my cousin, left his home in Columbus, Ohio, for a business trip to Philadelphia. . . . Mike Brittenback recalls sharply how doctors in Philadelphia called him in Columbus to say they suspected pneumonia. Mike, an organist and choirmaster, is Bill's partner of 30 years. A few hours later that Friday, they called back to confirm the diagnosis. Mike was concerned but not alarmed. At 3 a.m. the next day, the phone woke him up. It was a doctor in Philadelphia. Mike needed to come to Philadelphia immediately. Bill had gone into septic shock and might not survive more than a few hours.
*
Having just been told, at 3 a.m., that his partner of three decades might die within hours, Mike Brittenback was told something else: Before rushing to Bill's side, he needed to collect and bring with him documents proving his medical power of attorney. This indignity, unheard-of in the world of heterosexual marriage, is a commonplace of American gay life.
*
National Review has a cover story this month by Maggie Gallagher, a prominent anti-gay-marriage activist, subtitled: "Why Gay Marriage Isn't Inevitable." She is right, in a sense. Most states explicitly ban same-sex marriage. . . In another sense, however, she is wrong. Never again will America not have gay marriage, and never again will less than a majority favor some kind of legal and social recognition for same-sex couples. The genie that gay-marriage opponents still hope to stuff back into the bottle is out and out for good.
*
If gay couples can't be allowed to marry, what should they be able to do? Asked this question, cultural conservatives say, in the words of Tom Lehrer's song about the German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, "That's not my department." Effectively, conservatives are saying that what Mike and Bill do for each other has no significance outside their own bedroom.
*
But what happened in that hospital in Philadelphia for those six weeks was not just Mike and Bill's business, a fact that is self-evident to any reasonable human being who hears the story. "Mike was making a medical decision at least once a day that would have serious consequences," Bill told me. Who but a life partner would or could have done that? Who but a life partner will drop everything to provide constant care? Bill's mother told me that if not for Mike, her son would have died. Faced with this reality, what kind of person, morally, simply turns away and offers silence?
*
Conservatives have a decision to make. They can continue pretending that the bond between Mike and Bill does not exist, is of no social value, or has no place on conservatives' agenda. Doing so would be of a piece with their retreat to economic Hooverism, their embrace of cultural Palinism, and, in general, their preference for purity over relevance.
*
Or they can acknowledge what to most of the country is already obvious: Whether the nation finally settles on marriage or on something else for gay couples, Bill and Mike are now in the mainstream and the Republican Party is not. If cultural conservatism continues to treat same-sex couples as outside the social covenant, the currents of history will flow right around it, and future generations of conservatives will wonder how their predecessors could ever have made such a callous and politically costly mistake.
*
I believe that Rauch's analysis on on target and both the professional Christian set and religious denominations that fail to fully accept same sex partners as full members and rostered clergy will someday be viewed in the same category as the most foul racists and segregationists are by most people today. The choice is theirs as to how they want to be viewed by history. This point is further highlighted by some of Cathy's reflections:
*
A new book by M.V. Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics, director of the Center of Public Policy And Administration at Amherst and research director of the Williams Institute on Public Policy at UCLA School of Law (phew, her business card must be huge!) has written a compelling and very useful addition to the debate about marriage equality. . . . Her verdict: marriage changes gay people more than gay people change marriage. Take that, Family Research Council!
*
On a personal level, this book resonated with much of my family's experience of the issue of marriage equality, including the true value of marriage, how our marriage has impacted the heterosexual people on our lives and the many ways this is changing the way we look at families in general.
*
My wife and I had an amazing wedding in 2003. It sounds trite, but is was the happiest day of our lives. We affirmed our commitment and vows to each other in the eyes of God(ess) and in front of about 100 members of our family, chosen family and friends. That ritual was such an important part of building the foundation of a solid relationship.
*
There are many sides to this issue and this new book is a much needed addition to the conversation. And I am sure no matter what beach you are reading it on, you'll probably prompt some conversations as well.
*
I firmly believe that all unrelated consenting adult couples who desire to be married should be able to do so not only for the legal and emotional benefits it will bring to them, but also because it provides a stabilizing glue to relationships and formalizes a "family" for the couple's children and relatives. I truly do not understand why this so terrifies the homophobes and self-hating closet cases like Robert Knight and ex-gays for pay.
In a long over due move, a Pennsylvania appellate court moved the state into the 21st century and overruled a 25 year precedent that allowed one's sexual orientation be used against a gay parent in child custody cases. Sadly, in most Virginia Courts homophobia is alive and well and it seems only the minority of judges do not crucify LGBT parents whenever and however possible. Legitimate studies have shown no difference in children raised by gay parents, yet bald faced religious prejudice remains all too often in the courtroom. Here are story highlights from the Times Leader on this important step towards basic fairness:
