Straight(s) Move to Marriage Equality in New York
by: Ralph Seliger on June 26th, 2011 | 14 Comments »
I’ve come a long way from the moment on a New York City bus in 1969 or ’70, when a junior member of the sociology faculty at the City College of New York (CCNY), whom I was friendly with, told me (a student) that he was active in the “GLF” (the Gay Liberation Front). I vividly recall physically shaking as I realized that he was gay.
This had to have been shortly after the Stonewall riot or rebellion, at which gay people famously resisted police harassment. It was this event on June 28, 1969 that gave birth to what is annually celebrated around that date, in the name of “Gay Pride.”
For the last couple of years, I’ve been spending part of my High Holy Day observances at Congregation Beth Simchat Torah (CBST), the mostly LGBT synagogue in Manhattan, with friends of 
various sexual orientations. CBST happens to host awesomely beautiful and inspiring services on these solemn and festive days, for which it rents large public venues to accommodate several thousand people, free of charge, most of whom are not members and not gay or otherwise “Queer.”
On the historic night of Friday, June 24, I attended a “Pride Shabbat” service at CBST, drawn especially by the prospect of seeing Cynthia Nixon (of “Sex and the City” fame) speak about her tireless efforts to lobby the New York State Senate for passage of the same-sex marriage law. It was from her that I heard that enough Republican senators had declared their support to finally guarantee its passage that very night; and lo, this came to pass.
Ms. Nixon revealed herself to be a highly skilled and entertaining speaker. Although not Jewish, she even showed off considerable knowledge of Jewish tradition. For example, to the delight of the standing-room-only crowd of congregants and friends, she spoke as if she were doing a Dvar Torah (a sermon, literally a “word of Torah”); the audience roared when she referred to “this week’s partia” (Torah portion), that of Korach — slipping only in her failure to pronounce the guttural kh sound at the end of his name.
Korach was the rebel leader who claimed that Moses and Aaron were unjustly elitist in their special status as leaders of the people and messengers of God. Ms. Nixon brilliantly observed that Korach sounded like a leader of today’s Tea Party movement, which falsely claims the mantel of populism and liberty in challenging progressive ideals in the name of the people rebelling against so-called liberal elites.
Actually, like Pres. Obama, I had been reluctant to endorse same-sex marriage, preferring to guarantee equal protection under the law through civil union or domestic partnership. But I have no problem happily bowing to the tide of progress.
The only downside on this issue is that New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, has energetically embraced this cause largely to endear himself with his party’s liberal base in order to offset his fiscal conservatism. (I’m not saying that he’s insincere, but he is likely engaging in a political calculation.) It is particularly galling that he is balancing the State of New York’s budget only through service cuts and union give-backs, without any increase in taxes on the wealthy.
My dissatisfaction with Cuomo in this regard is in line with my dismay at Pres. Obama and the national Democratic leadership for hardly even trying to rebut the flawed Republican contention that reducing the Federal debt at this time is a more urgent need than stimulating economic growth. This promises to be the number one issue going into next year’s election cycle, and threatens most Americans with a renewed round of grief and uncertainty.
Still, we can at least celebrate now for this one clear instance of progress. And I’ve just learned a new salutation from my growing circle of LGBT friends and acquaintances: “Happy Pride.”
Ralph, I understand that your side is on a roll here. Generational change, activist judges. I get all that.
But now that you’ve over turned a few thousand years of social convention. ( not even going to touch the religious aspect here ) Let me ask you this. What is the argument in NY against polygamy, marrying children, marrying pets, hell, marrying a tree. I’m interested in yourr response.
I take that, Bill. Because you are making a false equivilancy that is abusive and immaterial. Gay men and lesbians do not want to marry more than one partner, or children [sickening that you would say this], have sex with animals, or screw a tree. Of course what you mean is that gay men and lesbians being authentic will make straights want to do these things. Come on, get serious. This is ridiculous and you know it. It’s also a logical fallacy: the ‘slippery slope’ argument. You also employed argumenta ad numerum, populum and antiquitatem. This is about equal protection and privileges under the law in America guaranteed to ALL Amreicans. Gay men and lesbians are not failed heterosexuals. They are authentically different from the norm and deserving of full repsect and honor that your post demonstrates an unwillingness to grant. Did you express YOUR secret desires in your post?
Interesting insight by Kev on “secret desires” rearing their ugly head in discussions like this… Who would even THINK of bringing up against same-sex marriage the argument that “Next they will want to marry children”? Well, I’ll tell you who had that very same stroke of insight as Bill. A prominent Catholic bishop from Montreal, that’s who. Just a couple of years ago, in a television interview he came up with that brilliant argument: “Next they will want to marry children”. Bill is carrying the football a bit further, with pets and trees. Let me assist you with that: how about marrying one’s checkbook, or one’s favorite gadget, or an inflatable doll or that all-American object of passionate worship, the new car ??? If we are going to be silly, let us at least be creative about it and have a little fun…
Bill – is it frightening or discomforting for you when your need for order isn’t met? Polygamy used to be a social convention; still is in some places. I can think of many social conventions from the past that we are glad are gone such as slavery. Marriage requires consent or agreement. Pets, children and trees cannot give their consent.
Convention is just that. Convention. It was “conventional” for several thousand years to have slaves. We no longer do that. What is going on here is a mutual adult intimacy which is pledging itself in an oath for life tenure. It assumes both parties are adults, capable of being present for a conscious oath of intimacy. Your examples are moot because both parties are not adult humans (i.e. animals, trees, children). As you hopefully know, until the nineteenth century Adults married children (usually 14 was the cut off age) regularly. Only with the social recognition that children were a special category of human life which needed to be respected and not assumed to be the same as an adult human– especially in relationship to sexuality– was the conventional permission of marrying children to adults discontinued. In many countries, it is still practiced. Polygamy is still a practice in many parts of the world, both multiple wives and multiple husbands (Tibet) It is the custom in the United States not to permit polygamy. What do you think about this custom? Do you approve of it? Why? Why not?
I can understand your pain in dealing with the recognition that something is changing in our time with the definition of marriage. I urge you to spend time with married lesbian and gay couples. You will find something real is going on. It is not the same as two sex marriages, but it is clearly as important, as real, and yes as moral as two sex marriage. My marriage is enriched by our friends who are same sex marriages.
You are right to speak out. I hope you are really interested in the arguments to the contrary of your position.
I’ll stipulate to the consent argument. But that cetainly leaves polygamy has something that you can’t argue against if you argue for gay marriage. What about child brides, what is the age of consent. And will that stand when certain ethnica groups say no?
Bill
You are right on to the issues at work here. I agree that there is not a legal reason to insist that a marriage be between two persons. The question then is now to privilege (in the legal sense of that word) convention. What gets accepted and what doesn’t. In that sense I don’t think there is an argument against polygamy. I agree with you. Do you know Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel “The Moon is Harsh Mistress”. His implicit theme there is the whole question of marriage. He was a radical libertarian, and the book is a good novel and also an interesting argument for a new definition of marriage. He also considered a three stage legal structure for marriage: one year trial marriage, a five year marriage contract, and then life commitment. I wonder about that. How many divorces would be avoided if this were done.
My own suggestion and I would be interested in your response ift marriage be considered a legal contract only from the viewpoint of the State. Religions are free to bless marriages on their own time, but clergy should not act on behalf of the State. Thus one gets married legally, and if he/she wishes then gets a religious blessing on their own time. The State gets religion out of the marriage business.
As to your final area of interest. I am going to stick to my own preference for adult commitment. I think serious damage is done to a child forcing him/her to marry an adult. I would argue against child marriage regardless of the ethnic custom. That is my position. You are quite right in implying that not everyone is going to accept this. But I don’t think there is a moral or a psychological argument for child marriage.
What do you think?
Let me ask you this, shouldn’t religous institutions have an ironclad immunity on this. Or for tha matter catering halls and bed and breakfasts extablishments and the like. And what about adoption and foster parenting. Has far as I know none of this was specified.
Okay
You were in shorthand here, so to make sure I am understanding you correctly, the area in which you are interested is the right of religions to have their own standards in performing marriages. If that is so, then we are in agreement. Yes, religious institutions and denominations should be able to set their standards on which marriages they will bless.
You and I seem to be on different sides on the same sex marriage issue. I support it, and you seems to be worried that it introduces a lot of red herrings into the issue of the definition of “marriage”. As I correct in this?
Finally you raise the question of other institutions and whether of not they should have to provide services to marriages with which they disagree. You give the examples of catering establishments, bed and breakfast inns, and the whole question of adoption and foster parenting. Again I have no problem with committed gay/lesbian couples adopting or fostering children. More power to them! As to businesses. My understanding is that businesses have the right to refuse service to customers whom they find difficulty agreeing with. However, I think it will soon be illegal to refuse service to someone purely because they are GLBT or in a committed relationship which is an expression of their sexual preference. Why, because it is discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, which is the last frontier of civil rights. Right now such discrimination is not illegal. I repeat not illegal. I look forward to the day when it is illegal.
I asked you for what you thought and you didn’t reply. I am sorry. I’ve taken the time to be explicit and vulnerable here. I was looking forward to your own arguments. Alas, I feel I’ve alienated you and they are not forthcoming. Thank you for what you did share, Bill. I am grateful for the dialogue.
Bill, monogamy IS a newer convention. The old testament is rife with polygamy. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concumines. King David had numerous concurrent wives and mistresses. Jacob legally married Leah & Rachel and kept them together. The new testament says not one thing in contravention of the practice. I can hear you saying ‘Wait, what about the Song of Songs?’ HA! Got me there. Oh, wait, no you don’t. It’s an erotic mediation upon two unmarried persons celebrating G-d’s gift of sexuality. Numerous current Rabbinic scholars have successfully employed Midrash to include gays and lesbians in the loving circle of life!
The Mormon faith practiced biblical mandates to be fruitful and multiply upholding polygamy in the late 19th century to do so. Lots of land in Utah to populate, you know. Still even today there are outlaw Mormon sects that continue to practice it in open rebellion to secular authority using exactly the same justifications for their right to do so as you employ to deny equality to gays and lesbains. One can ‘prove’ anyting one wants using exactly the same materials. Frankly, when polygamy was the norm expressing one’s natural sexuality if different from the norm was harshly disparaged. So it could be concluded invalidating gays and lesbians encourages polygamy. Employing your logic wouldn’t it follow that now granting full equality to gays and lesbians would counterweigh polygamy and strengthen monogamy? It would if you are being consistent and honest. Which is the point, really. You aren’t.
Jim, not offended just got busy.
Kev;
no reason to get hostile. Believe it or not I can actually see both sides on this one. But if you want to start going back to the bible the I think the view on homosexuality is pretty explicit. All, I’m saying is that what I see here is you people not taking a libertarian tack but looking for some sort of validation from the wider society and the fact is that this bothers people. Bothers me.
Bill, there’s a perfectly good reason to get hostile as you put it. I’m not by the way. I’m just standing firm and you are uncomflortable with that. This is not an academic debate. Real people are really being harmed by what you said. That false evasion has been use my enture life to unvalidate me, Bill. It is hostile of you, abusive and false. Just because the abused stands up and rejects the abuser that is not being hostile. That is being just. Retract what you said. And apologize.
BTW: you still of have not adressed your misuse of the 4 logical fallacies I diagnosed. That’s what guys like you always do. When cornered and nailed you slink away, employ operation ignore and offer up new slithery objections. A friend just emailed me and said he’s ‘hoping for the day we don’t have to set apart lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendereds, intersexed or queer people.’ He noted the acronym keeps getting longer. I agree with him. Let’s stop labeling people and let them be themselves without segregation. This discussion points up the problem here. There’s no such thing as ‘gay’ marriage. Theres only marriage and the real question is will straight people stop segregating LGBTIQs and allow them to be integrated into soceity by sharing in the institution? That’s what marraige equality is really about. Now we’re down to the heart of the question, Bill. Can you do this?
As I have acknowledged, this is a business tool. It’s not only a miracle apparatus. It could without difficulty grow to be an additional expense unless you put the time and effort into learning how to take advantage of it.