Mexican State More Progressive Than Most United States

The Mexican state of Coahuila just south of Texas has just legalized same-sex civil unions, that include social security among other benefits. This follows Mexico City enacting similar legislation.

With Canada already supporting gay and lesbian couples' equality, and as Mexico increasingly becoming more progressive in terms of human rights, should we be embarrassed that America lags behind the rest of North America in terms of equality and freedom?

What Happened to Gay Marriage?

During the past 3 election cycles, the opposition to gay marriage was at the forefront of the conservative agenda. Republicans locally and nationally talked about the danger to the 'traditional family' posed by 'activist judges' who would 'redefine marriage.' Even the biggest opponents of benefits for same-sex couples downplayed the issue this year.

Michele Bachmann's legislative career was arguably built on opposing benefits for gay and lesbian couples. She called it the number one issue facing America, that is, until she decided to run for Congress. Since then, education has become the number one issue facing America. Gay marriage was barely a factor in the 6th Congressional race.

Tim Pawlenty, Patricia Anderson, and Mary Kiffmeyer took time out of their busy government jobs to craft a video earlier this year urging Minnesotans to get a Marriage Amendment passed through the legislature. Anderson and Kiffmeyer lost their jobs yesterday. The last Pawlenty really had much to say on the topic was during the GOP endorsement in June:

"I can tell you what your worst nightmare is," he said. "It's one of the big-spendin', tax-raisin', abortion-promotin', gay marriage-embracin', more welfare-without-accountability lovin', school reform-resistin', illegal immigration-supportin' Democrats for governor who think Hillary Clinton should be president of the United States."

Has this issue run out of steam as an effective wedge issue for Republicans? Statewide initiatives during this election point to 'yes.' For the first time in US history a gay marriage ban was rejected by popular vote, and it wasn't a liberal, coastal state, it was Republican heavy Arizona. In conservative South Dakota, the gay marriage ban appears to have barely passed by 4 points, but the ban opponents are not giving up until all votes are counted. Six other states passed the ban: Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Colorado, South Carolina, and Idaho. However, almost all of the margins in these initiatives were won by less than the margins of 2004.

Marriage amendment proponents targeted 12 state senators this election cycle. They were only successful at removing one two from office, Sens. Dean Johnson and Dallas Sams. And they lost a major supporter, Sen. Mady Reider, who was the author of one of 7 proposed bills for a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex couples. Openly gay Republican Sen. Paul Koering won his reelection despite a nasty primary and general election. He was at the top of social conservative groups' lists of people to go.

As more state's recognize gay and lesbian families (MA, VT, NJ, RI), and more of the general population realize that GLBT people don't really have an agenda to destroy America, they begin to see through the wedge issue tactics. Or it could be that time spent reinforcing existing laws by constitutional tampering is taking away from crucial issues like the Iraq War, gas prices, government corruption, and health care, issues which are at the top of the list for gay and straight voters alike.

In the end, most states that are going to put same-sex marriage bans on the ballot already have. The opportunity to exploit the issue simply doesn't exist like it used to, and on the federal level, with Democrats now (likely) controlling both houses of Congress, the issue of a federal amendment isn't likely to come up again in any serious manner. It's my opnion that we've seen the last of same-sex marriage as a wedge issue

Judge: RI Gays and Lesbians Can Marry in MA

Rhode Island gays and lesbians can now go to Massachusetts get married: Via Pam's House Blend:

A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit gay marriage. Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts did not apply them. The law prohibits couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would not be permitted in their home state, but the couple argued Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.

This could open the door for couples from New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and New Mexico where explicit bans on same-sex marriage do not exist, and legal definitions of marriage are in limbo.

Polygamy: Gay Marriage Slippery Slope? Nope.

Anti-gay relationship activists are very excited about a Dutch husband and wife who 'married' a third woman. Finally, the slippery slope of same-sex marriage paving the way for polygamy which will pave the way for "man on dog" sex and the "union of a man and a box turtle." Unfortunatley for the anti-gays, the three weren't married. They signed a contract that was notarized by a notary public, and had a ceremony to celebrate it. What occurred in the Netherlands is also perfectly legal in the United States.

And it's worth pointing out, as John Corvine at the Independent Gay Forum does, that polygamy has traditionally been frequent in societies with gender inequalities:

"Polygamy typically flourishes only in societies with rigid gender-hierarchies. In egalitarian societies, most people find it challenging enough to maintain a long-term relationship with a single partner. (Indeed, insofar as gay marriage undermines gender hierarchies, same-sex marriage may make plural marriage less likely.) It's also worth noting that many prominent same-sex marriage opponents--including Maggie Gallagher and Hadley Arkes--find the causal-prediction version of the slippery-slope argument unconvincing."

And religious fundamentalism is often the cause of gender inequality, Islam, Christianity, and Hindu included. Interestingly, it's these fundamentalist religions that, in the past, practiced polygamy, particularly Judeo-Christian. Some fundamentalist religions right here in the United States still practice polygamy, including the Mormons.

So, fundamentalist religion is much more connected to polygamy than the GLBT community. And as Corvine points out above, the fact that same-sex marriage is a step in the direction of further gender equality, it's legalization could be said to reduce polygamy, not increase it. Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, would seem to be the primary factor in the incidence of polygamy. Isn't it interesting that they are the ones blaming the LGBT community for the advancement of polygamy?

Minnesota History Center Wedding Exhibit Shows Gays

The Minnesota History Center exhibit, "Happily Ever After," showcases many aspects of marriage. The good news is they decided to add same-sex marriage to the exhibit:

"The back wall highlights wedding photographic and clothing trends from the late 19th to the 21st century, with the last image showing two gay men at a 2003 commitment ceremony." [Link]

This is sure to cause outrage among those who get outraged easily: anti-gay conservatives and christains.

Redwood Falls, MN and Gay Marriage

If we want to see what Greater Minnesotans think about gay marriage, we need look no further than the Redwood Falls Gazette, and it's publisher Pat Schmidt.

In an editorial, Pat gives us a look at how that newspaper, and probably by extension, that community feels about 'homosexual marriage.'

In "Taking the 'holy' out of matrimony," Pat Schmidt shows confusion and a lack of understanding of the issues at stake.

The first point of confusion: "I was not brought up that way and I wouldn't want a gay person - a person in a role of authority such as a minister or priest - to be ministering to me or small children. We've already seen how much trouble that has caused, in past years."

The last sentence is an attempt to tie openly GLBT people who wish to be ministers or priests in their respective churches, to pedophilic priests who are not GLBT, nor do they identify as such. Just because a crime of sexual violence involves two people of the same gender, that doesn't make it 'gay' in much the same way that rape is not considered 'straight.'

Citing a Star Tribune op/ed supporting same-sex marriage, Pat writes: "The writer questioned what would happen to a gay couple when one partner falls ill and needs long-term care? Or when they decide to part ways and lacking the benefit of divorce court, cannot agree on a fair distribution of property? Or when one dies and leaves to the other a treasured family heirloom? Well, I'm sorry for not buying all this hogwash. I say let gays and lesbians do their thing, but keep it out of the pulpit and certainly don't refer to it as "holy" matrimony."

Obviously the issue of the government benefits awarded married couples, and the religious ceremony performed by many religions is greatly distorted in Pat's mind. And the argument makes little sense. Pat will allow gays and lesbians to 'do their thing' but doesn't even address the issues in the op/ed. The only way we can 'do our thing' is to have those benefits extended to us. And we don't need anything from anyone's pulpit in order for that to happen.

Finally, Pat defends the Christian Coalition: "For gays who may eventually sue the Christian Coalition for forcing them to lead immoral lives (because they can't be married or become ministers), they need to be reminded they are already leading immoral lives. Nothing will ever change my mind on this subject."

The Bill of Rights assures Americans that they will not get sued for public speech (except for libel or slander). Gays will never be able to sue the Christian Coalition for their views, anymore than I could sue Pat Schmidt for the horrible job she did writing that editorial. But it is nice to see someone acknowledge the religious right forcing their beliefs 'down the throats' of Americans. That's probably the only part of this editorial I agree with.

What Pat, and many in rural America don't understand about marriage is that it is as secular as it is religious. Any opposite-sex couple can go down to their county courthouse and get a license that bestows government benefits. They don't need to ever set foot in a church. As long as that is the case, marriage will continue to be a secular institution, and the government will be discriminating on the basis of gender, generally, and sexual orientation, specifically in communities where it is a protected category by law.

Currently, California legislators understand this to be the case: "The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, the bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings." [365Gay.com]

This is exactly what I'm getting at, and something that I think Pat Schmidt would support had she left off that last paragraph about never, ever changing her mind on the gays. Gays and lesbians could 'do their thing' and the pulpit could do theirs. Religion stays out of government, and government out of religion.

Morons write letters to the editor too

If it's people like this we are up against...

From the St. Paul Pioneer Press today:

"Gay marriage disturbing

I must admit to being very disturbed with Canada and Michigan legalizing gay marriages. Thirty years ago, we had laws against sodomy. How did we get here so fast?

We are sinking deeper and deeper into legalized immorality. Will calling gay marriage immoral be classified as a hate crime in the near future? If so, I'm guilty.

EUGENE CHATELAINE"

Canada and MICHIGAN? Our friends in Detroit, Lansing, and Ann Arbor will be shocked to learn that they can get married despite that state's rigid anti-same-sex marriage amendment that went on the books during last year's presidential election. And I certainly hope that Mr. Chatelaine never got a hummer from his wife...until recently, sodomy laws would have gotten him fined or jailed.

Star Tribune Editorial on Gay Marriage

The Star Tribune editorial today provides a logical view of same-sex marriage and what happened in Canada. Contrary to fundamentalist Christians, gay rights and religious freedom can occur in the same country, at the same time:

Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin says, "'We've heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions -- adopting a 'separate but equal' approach -- would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.'

What Americans can learn from Martin's transformation, and that of many Canadians, is that religious freedom and a minority's right to equality can go hand in hand under the Constitution just as they now do under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No religious entity is compelled to marry a same-sex couple in Canada. This law is about civil marriage. What various religious entities do is entirely up to them. Canada is therefore free to protect the minority rights of gays and lesbians, and religions are free to marry or not to marry as their faiths dictate. These are two separate issues."

To conservatives, Republicans, Christians: How do you respond to Martin, and to this editorial? What about this is incorrect and necessitates a constitutional amendment to curtail my rights?

Sen. Michele Bachmann, et al. have radically redefined marriage

CityPages has a great interview with Stephanie Coontz, who I mentioned here. She just wrote a book, Marriage: A History, from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, and it proves that hetrerosexuals like Senator Michele Bachmann have redefined marriage. Just by being a career politician, and not staying home with the kids, not knitting and baking pies, and not letting her husband fuck her whenever he's in the mood, she is contributing to the radical redefinition of marriage that she so fears.

And in order to avoid detection of her subversive ways, she is blaming it on the gays.

From the CityPages interview with Stephanie Coontz:

"CP: You have observed that you and right-wing evangelical James Dobson finally agree on something.

Coontz: It's not so much that I agree as it is that I think for once he has understated the case. James Dobson says that allowing gays and lesbians marriage threatens to end marriage and family as we have known it for 5,000 years. I usually disagree with people who make catastrophic claims, but I think in this case Dobson is understating the case. Marriage and the family as we've known it has already been decisively overturned.

Where I continue to disagree with him is that it is heterosexuals who changed marriage and gays and lesbians are simply responding to that change. It was heterosexuals who said marriage does not have to be about procreation. It was heterosexuals who pioneered the reproductive revolution that allowed infertile people to have kids. It was heterosexuals who gave you a choice whether to marry. And it was heterosexuals who said we don't have to organize marriage around rigid gender roles; men and women can construct what roles they want to play, or they can play equal roles.

Once you've gotten rid of the idea that it has to be for procreation, that is has to be between two people who can physically reproduce, and that you must have kids if you can, and that one has to play the male role and one the female role, then many of the arguments for denying marriage to gays and lesbians go out the door. "

This book is very timely, and sheds a light on the real reasons for the increase in divorce rates, increase in single parent homes, and increase in teen pregnancy. All of these things have nothing to do with the gays. Read the entire interview; it's very enlightening.