Gay Americans and the President of the
United States suddenly have more in common than many of us had imagined
possible—and the parallels are intriguing. For example, George W. Bush
benefited from a controversial Supreme Court ruling that anointed his
Presidency following the contested election of 2002. Gay men and
lesbians now have much to benefit from the court’s decision to strike
down the nation’s remaining sodomy laws. But, ironically, many of
those who were most enthusiastic about the Justices’ intrusion into
Florida’s electoral process are the same souls who are whining loudest
about the high court’s interference with states’ rights in ordering
governments to stay out of America’s bedrooms.
The opponents of equality under law for gay people are not about to
take the sodomy situation lying down. And, much the same way President
Bush’s declaration of military victory against the supporters of
Saddam Hussein proved premature in light of continuing conflict in Iraq,
gay folks were barely beginning to celebrate a triumph over "sodomy
insane" when dangerous resistance sprang up.
"We’re getting Fristed," punned a gay-attorney friend of
mine the day GOP Senate leader Bill Frist said the Supreme Court’s
decision on sodomy threatens to make the American home a place where
"criminal activity" would be "condoned."
"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want
protected in our own homes is gradually—or I’m concerned about the
potential for it gradually being encroached upon," Frist told ABC’s
"This Week." "And I’m thinking of—whether it’s
prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home—to have
the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it
gives me some concern."
If the courts aren’t supposed to interpret the laws of the land,
exactly what are they supposed to do, Senator Frist? Are you suggesting
that we do away with the courts altogether? (The obvious answer is: only
if he disagrees with their decisions.) And, Senator, if the home is a
"zone of privacy," as you state, I’d think that you would be
delighted to have the Supreme Court acknowledge the right of Americans
to lock government out of their bedrooms.
But in expressing his concern about drugs and prostitution, it’s
clear that Frist was grasping at straws (rather the way his colleague
Rick Santorum did in comparing homosexuality to bestiality and every
other questionable act he could think of). The real matter on Frist’s
muddled mind—and the issue that most threatens the gay rights movement
today—can be summed up in one word: "marriage."
Conservatives and fundamentalist Christians have quickly rallied
around the sodomy decision to mount a campaign for a Constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage, and Frist has agreed to lead the charge
in the halls of Congress.
Sounding like he was making a marriage vow of his own, Frist pledged,
"I absolutely do" support such an amendment.
"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that
sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union
between what traditionally in our Western values has been defined as
between a man and a woman."
It is appalling to think that the U.S. Constitution, which is filled
with so many noble ideas and democratic concepts, could be trivialized
by an amendment so silly, so reflective of a particular religious
viewpoint, and so mean spirited in its intent. But, the amendment must
be taken very seriously, as many political observers believe it could
sail through three-fourths of the state legislatures in no time flat.
(The pace won’t be anything like that of the Equal Rights Amendment,
which has languished for two decades without ever acquiring the
requisite number of state endorsements.) Gay marriage has long been a
hot-button topic to people who think like Frist, and the fact that the
Supreme Court has left the door slightly ajar on the subject—while
Canada is in the process of allowing it has them hopping mad.
The anti-gay marriage amendment already is making its way through
House channels. The chief sponsor, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado,
offered the proposal on May 21. It was referred to the House Judiciary
subcommittee on the Constitution the day before the high court made its
sodomy ruling. The battle lines have been drawn and I don’t like the
most likely outcome (unless the amendment can be stopped in its tracks
in the U.S. Senate).
Personally, I wish the issue of gay "marriage" would just
go away. As I have written in these pages before, I don’t think it’s
a winnable battle for gay people. What’s more, I believe it diffuses
the more important underlying right most of us hope to achieve: equal
status under law for domestic partners, regardless of orientation.
Many non-gay Americans would and do support the rights of gay couples
who are in committed relationships to be treated the same as married
heterosexuals in regard to such matters as employee benefits, hospital
visitation rights, inheritances, even tax savings.
By insisting on calling our relationships "marriages," a
term that always has described a form of heterosexual bonding, we run
the risk of losing the war over a silly little word.
Having been in a committed relationship for 30 years, I’ve never
felt the need to refer to my life partner as my "husband" or
"wife." In fact, it seems goofy to me to emulate an
institution that doesn’t even succeed for heterosexuals most of the
time.
If you want to have a church bless your gay/lesbian relationship,
have a holy union. There are plenty of priests, ministers and rabbis
happy to oblige. If you believe gay couples (and unmarried heterosexual
couples) should share in the same kind of legal benefits as married
folks, campaign for them. We made strong inroads in corporate America
and in many city and state governments in recent years. But, please, let’s
not be so shortsighted as to feed the conservative frenzy, allowing our
opponents to set back our collective progress by decades simply because
of our insistence on using the old M word. That would be another form of
sodomy insane.
Back to Top of Page 