What Now? By Donnel Jones, February 7, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

I am an American whose deepest emotional needs, defined as profoundly as a man's love for his wife or girlfriend, can only be fulfilled with a special someone of my own sex. I can no more have this with a woman than a heterosexual man could have it with another man, even though some of the people I love most are women and some of the people who love me are heterosexual men.

The sex part does not at all interest me. I am not offering it as a topic. I find it positively boring. Not the activity (and even then, only with someone meaningful to me), but the discussion of it. It is unimportant. It is also private. Sex is really a private affair or, that is as it should be despite the sex obsession of our commercial culture. I want that privacy. I want the privacy heterosexual couples have when one thinks of them, not in terms of what one believes they do in the bedroom, but of their devotion to one another.

To honor someone's commitment to another publicly, via marriage, does not focus on the sex part. It dwells on the soul part. But for that to happen there has to be a divide between the public and private spheres. In short, there has to be privacy. The public is only the soul part of one's legally sanctioned relationship: marriage. The private is both the sex and the soul part, but the sex part is not the public's concern nor should it be discussed nor be the main object of focus. Husbands and wives don't go around telling everyone what they do in bed. They'll talk about that vacation in Bermuda, the son's homerun for the high-school baseball team, or the bad argument they had two weeks ago. Nor do gay couples go around telling everyone what they do in bed, contrary to what some would believe. That is why I want gay marriage. In a way, curiously, it would make gay people private again, not by way of the closet as previously, but in their lives as functioning and wholesome members of the family politic.

As long as gay relationships remain in the ghetto, in legal limbo, there will be no real privacy for gays and, concomitantly, no public and legal acknowledgment of a gay person's commitment to a loving and meaningful relationship such as exists between husbands and wives. In other words, gays are stigmatized precisely because what is believed they do in private is so egregiously wrong that there can be no meaningful soul to such a relationship and public sanction of it would have to be an abomination. It is the fixation on private parts that ruins the chance for gays to be accepted, or at least accepted enough to have the American people favor their right to marry.

If gays now have privacy, then privacy is defined as being on the outskirts of society. We are then really talking about anonymity, an absence, not the presence of persons fully integrated with society. The privacy I speak of comes from respect for what is true and soulful in a gay relationship, as in a heterosexual one. Yet for this to happen the public sphere has to acknowledge that such a relationship is worthy of every protection. The public, in other words, is inseparable from the private. A marriage between one man and one woman is built on this dichotomy.

Sound strange? Then consider a continued shadowy existence in gay bars, whether or not one is sexually active, without ever seeing realized the possibility that, if you meet someone special to whom you wish to devote your life, your relationship with him is not only not recognized legally as marriage but has no protections whatsoever throughout the land. There will be no public and private lives for gay people. Only the furtive existence of pariahs regardless of how many homos you see on T.V. and movies. That is what will happen if The Family Marriage Amendment becomes a pillar of the Constitution.

I want gay marriage. I want gays to become pillars of society, with stable relationships that contribute to social stability. I believe, contrary to social prejudice, that gay relationships, that gay marriage, can be as stable, healthy, and functioning, depending on the two persons involved, as heterosexual relationships.

But I don't want gay marriage if America isn't ready for it. Let me explain.

I believe it should be up to the states to decide whether a relationship between two people of the same sex should be legally recognized as marriage. If Massachusetts so chooses, gays shall marry and have their marriages legally sanctioned.

If, on the other hand, in my home state of Ohio, the legislature decides that a relationship between two people of the same sex not be deemed marriage, and having no civil protections, and the governor signs the legislation into law, as has happened, then the good people of Ohio have spoken. No gay marriage.

I would be happy to see gay marriage legal in Massachusetts if that transpires, and while I am not happy that Ohio has chosen otherwise, I can sleep better knowing that Ohioans haven't been forced to accept something the majority do not want. I certainly deplore the lack of civil protections of gays in Ohio. I would not move there if I had a partner. But, at the same time, I don't want the right thing to be done by going behind the people's back. I would prefer that the majority be with me on this, that they see the soul of the matter, in its private and public spheres as they would their own lives with their spouses. Though they are not on board in Ohio, I will not support a tyrannical solution to override their will.

My political stance not only separates me from the bulk of gay activists but from the social right that want a tyrannical amendment in the claim that it will supposedly save the family. That is my price to pay. I will forego upholding what is right in the short run for what I believe will be set right in the long run. It is a matter of my faith in the American people, something pro-gay marriage advocates do not, in general, share with me.

That this is a moral battle that inspires deep passions on both sides, is clear to everyone. Gay marriage is a potentially explosive social issue and—oh God, have mercy!—we live in a time of war. Both the international and national fronts are ripe for what might be one of the ugliest election years in living memory, and that's saying something given the bar has been lowered to a snake's crawl already.

I have no idea how any of this will play out but the stakes are very high. On the one hand, you have a social crisis in the brewing. Will the American people vote for the removal of any and all civil protections for gay relationships in a brand new amendment to the Constitution? Will they continue with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal move that may not pass judicial muster? Or, in lieu of it, will the high court decide that the full faith and credit clause is immune from gay marriage the way, with respect to the Second Amendment, guns laws differ between Montana and New York?.

On the other hand, there is a war that we are waging with Islamists, a war for our very survival, for all the values we, whatever our views on gay marriage, hold dear and should defend with our lives. Yet, a whole swath of the electorate, represented largely by the Democrat Party, has an ontological disagreement with Bush and his supporters. It is trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" is with respect to whether or not what we are fighting can indeed be called a war. Is there really a war in the first place? What exactly is Bush doing?

If you explain to anti-Bush, anti-war voters the importance the removal of Saddam Hussein has to the overall strategy of the war on terror, they dismiss it skeptically as something fanciful or sometimes say you are gullible to believe Bush and his oil oligarchy. Whatever the response and reasoning of the anti-war argument and the fundamental disagreement over whether or not we are even in a war, it amounts to this: it is not Islamo-fascism, terrible though it is, that is at war with America and, in a broader sense, the entire non-Muslim world as well as the Muslim world bowed by it. No. It is that America is at war with the world. America is the problem. America has just heaped on itself 20 Tonkin Bays in a mere two and half years after September 11th.

It is these two fronts—the international and national—that we face this election year. I was not gratuitous to say the year, though young, has grown dark. Many people may not care a whit about gay marriage. Why would they? They may not have knowingly met a gay person in their life and may feel no hatred towards gay people whatsoever. But the election year will make gay marriage a divisive social issue when already there is so much division in the electorate during war-time.

Yet, who are the people who might think differently about gay marriage? I remember something extraordinary when I visited a friend's family in northern Pennsylvania around 15 years ago. They were farmers and Republicans in one of the most conservative states in America. I was with someone who was my partner at the time. We broke up over ten years ago. So far, my first and only. When my friend invited us to her family's home, I was touched with how we were received. We were treated as if we were part of their family. They totally accepted my partner and me. Though I didn't expect them not to be civil and hospitable, because my friend is a very decent and loving person so I knew she had a good family, I was deeply humbled by their acceptance of me and my partner, at once treating us as equals and not at all special—at that moment, I was far outside the urban sprawl of Manhattan and in the middle of middle America itself.

And yet, I wasn't surprised because I also come from middle America and from a loving mother, still here, and father, now deceased, who have also accepted me. My story is a happy one. I have no axes to grind. No stones to throw. I believe the American people are by and large decent, honorable, and kind. It is really a vocal minority that want a constitutional amendment but I also recognize if the same people who have been good to me may not want gay marriage, that is their right even though I do not believe them to be right.

Great moral battles, whether on the home front or the war on terrorism, are fought with conviction. Unfortunately, gay marriage is now the focal point of the culture "wars," and it is a war of conviction. I hope both sides can agree that two things should not happen: gay marriage by judicial fiat and an amendment to the Constitution outlawing gay marriage. Either solution would be tyrannical, and one may very well lead to the other. I would rather have Americans decide for themselves on the state level. It is my wish but I have no idea if that is how the battle will play out.

Some will argue that, in effect, my being pro-state is to support DOMA. They will also point out that already 38 states have passed legislation outlawing gay marriage. So where is the progress among the American people? First off, DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman. I don't agree with that. It should be defined as between two adult persons only, to the exclusion of polygamy and incest. Second, I never claimed that the American people will come around any time soon. But it is better than forcing them, by judicial fiat, to willingly opt, through a groundswell of hysteria, a constitutional amendment in response.

The true civil rights movement was fought out of a conviction having broad consensus, before it gave way to the ideological extremism of a core elite so typical of the 20th century. While it required the federal government to desegregate the South and guarantee the voting rights of all Americans, it was the majority who voted for a president and a Congress that made it possible through federal legislation. The American people were ready for it. Such a social revolution would not have been possible without their consent and support.

Similarly, I want the same majority to wait and see what happens with gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, let us see how the public at large, inside and outside Massachusetts, lives with it. Let gay marriage be illegal in Ohio. Let us see how the public at large, inside and outside Ohio, lives with it. What will happen? What will be learned? Will gay marriage mean the final nail in the coffin of Western Civ.? Or will it mean the acknowledgment of the equality of gay persons whose emotional and spiritual needs are the same as heterosexuals?

Neither side, determined to get their way by judicial or constitutional fiat, wants to wait and see. The Left, in the form of the gay lobby, would love to see the Supreme Court, let alone the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, decide for Americans that gay marriage is legal, without recourse to their input via the legislature. Some will deride my argument as majoritarian, or favoring the tyranny of the majority. That is largely true but mitigated by two factors: 1) real social change cannot occur without the consent of the governed (meaning the majority of citizens), and 2) I have faith the American people will eventually decide what is just if left alone by either side. If the second part seems too romantic or misguided to some, the first part, social change by majority consensus, is almost redundant. The majority make up the bulk of what we term society. You can say that's not fair but you can't leave the majority behind. They got to come on board.

By and large the American people have accepted the striking down of sodomy laws by the Supreme Court last year. The time had come even if some legal experts, whether or not they agree with the outcome, believe the decision was not arrived at by sound judicial reasoning. Glenn Reynolds, for one, wanted the fourteenth amendment to play a larger role in the decision. But outside the views of experts, the American people at large are not outraged that sodomy laws in any state can no longer be applied against gay persons. I do not believe, however, that they will be as accepting of gay marriage if decided in similar fashion.

If gay marriage is going to be a center piece of the culture "war" then I want it to be fought cleanly. That is why, if Bush chooses one side against the other, to actively and clearly support an amendment to the Constitution outlawing civil protections of any kind for gay relationships, I will not vote this election year. That, after all is said and done, will be the darkest moment of the election year for me.

Those on the Left will find me too much of an Uncle Tom about all this. How can I forgo the realization, the acknowledgment, of my right to marry the man I love, who must for now remain hypothetical, in favor of what the neighbors think? Especially if they don't understand my right which they take for granted for themselves?

I will answer, pre-emptively, that my neighbors do matter. Unlike Howard Dean, who doesn't think George Bush is his neighbor, I consider both Bush and Dean my neighbors even though I can't stand the second and admire the first, strong differences notwithstanding. It is not that the American people have to love me for being gay and I have never felt comfortable with the notion of "gay pride." Why gay pride when I am proud to be an American? It is only in light of my political and cultural identity as an American that civil rights for gays make any sense at all, whether they apply to gay American citizens or gay immigrants.

I want the heart of this nation to support the legal right of gay persons to marry. Not by fiat. But by the people's will, eventually and over time. Nor do I want gay marriage to be countered through Bush's threat of a "constitutional process." That too would be tyrannical. When I speak of the people's will, I am not regurgitating some Marxist pabulum, but something that has realized itself historically and only through the liberal democracy that is the United States, if ever so imperfectly.

I found this instructive during a web-search:

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower's presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Acts and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. Eisenhower had not been known for his support of the civil rights movement. Rather than lead the country on the issue, he had to respond to problems such as in Little Rock. He never publicly gave support to the civil rights movement believing that you could not force people to change their beliefs; such changes had to come from the heart of the people involved, not as the result of legislation from Washington.

One can certainly criticize Eisenhower or Johnson for that matter. Or, to go further, Lincoln who was no clear-cut abolitionist when he sought election. If there is to be gay marriage, it won't be neat and it will certainly be very painful. If ever so imperfectly.