RED HERRINGS AND REALITY CHECKS:

THE POLITICS OF GAY MARRIAGE

By Karl Olson

(From "The Provocateur: A Progressive Journal on Montana Politics" published by The Montana Human Rights Network)

At a recent human rights conference in Pablo, participants were asked to identify the author of this statement:

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as marriage has always been: between a man and a woman."

The audience fingered usual suspects like Pat Buchanan or Gary Bauer, but were surprised when told that Hillary Clinton made this statement during her successful US Senate campaign.

It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes a few well-placed politicians to perpetuate prejudice and tear down the dignity of lesbian and gay villagers.

Marriage is a holy grail, from which both ends of the political spectrum can drink, taking comfort in the notion that---while they may disagree on other key issues---they are of one mind when it comes to limiting the gay and lesbian pursuit of happiness. Even "progressive" leaders---men and women championed by feminist and civil rights groups---earn political capital by promoting the most blatant form of anti-gay bias: marriage discrimination.

At a time when the gay community experiences unprecedented visibility, politicians seem bent on reminding gays that, while they are welcome to pony up to fundraisers, sit in on White House meetings, or hang the drapes --- they are not worthy of the institution that "has got historic, religious and moral content".

President Clinton, while supporting hate crimes protections and the Employment Non-discrimination Act, surprised civil rights advocates by signing the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows a state to invalidate another state's recognition of same-sex couples. The president prepared broadcasts for Christian radio, touting DOMA as an example of his family values. Apologists scrambled to justify Clinton's maneuver, assuring the gay community that a little bit of evil was needed to vaccinate the president from the larger evil of losing the White House.

In Montana, candidates for US Senate and US House used the marriage issue to advance recent campaigns. At the Montana Democratic Platform Convention in Billings, June 2000, one candidate's campaign attempted to derail a resolution calling upon the state to extend marriage rights to gay couples. The candidate's mouthpieces claimed that if the party adopted this pro-gay resolution it would negatively impact the candidate's election bid.

In August 2000, Ms. Magazine reported that another Montana candidate opposed gay marriage---even while accepting campaign funds from a gay rights organization. The candidate confessed that she was "directed" to oppose gay marriage---ostensibly, to win election---even though she privately supports extending marriage rights to gay couples.

And those were just the Democrats.

The tactic of "defending" heterosexual marriage may pacify voters in the short term but the strategy tramples on the civil rights of gay and lesbian families.

History will remember a president who signed a federal bill to "defend" heterosexual marriage from a gay onslaught, while destroying the defenses of his own marital arrangement. The gay community will be haunted by the condescension of Mrs. Clinton, responding to the marriage issue in The Advocate, "It's important to not sacrifice the good for the perfect". Gays are instructed to not get too greedy for equality and the "perfection" of marriage.

The "defense of marriage" is rife with red herrings. Designed to mask a lack of logic and compassion, there seems to be no end to the ways discrimination can be justified. But untangling the reality of civil marriage rights from our perceptions of the marriage tradition is necessary to understanding the merits of equality, and a freedom that is taken for granted---even by those who do not have it.

Red herring: Marriage is a religious institution.

Reality check: Marriage is a civil right granted by the state.

A religious body may, in some cases, act as intermediary and inform a couple that their union is recognized by the state---but religious affiliation or ceremony is not a prerequisite to marriage. In fact, many heterosexuals marry outside of any religious context.

Gay rights advocates did not invent civil marriage. An active system of granting civil marriage rights already exists.

Red herring: Marriage is an unchanging tradition.

Reality check: Marriage has undergone significant changes over time.

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of the New Republic, reminds us: "If marriage were the same today as it had been for 2000 years, it would be possible to marry a twelve year old, to own a wife as property and dispose of her at will, or to imprison a person who married someone of a different race." He goes on to point out that marriage has experienced perhaps the most significant change of all in just the last century: the legalization of divorce.

Ironically, historical record also shows us that some pre-modern European Christian cultures offered marriage rites for same-sex couples identical to those offered opposite-sex couples. Like other social configurations, marriage is evolving---as a response to religious and political codes, and to new understandings of personal autonomy and democratic principles.

Red herring: Extending marriage rights to gays will erode the high standards and noble purpose of marriage.

Reality check: There is no evidence that gays and lesbians are incapable of meeting (and setting) the same standards employed by heterosexuals.

Citing moral superiority is classic justification for discrimination. Ironically, we often discover that those who insist on denying others humanity or citizenship, are failing to meet their own moral expectations.

The "high standards" of marriage are by no means universal, and they are subject to interpretation. By now it is a cliche to point out television's "Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire" that, short of any standard, was nevertheless completely legal. No matter how special marriage is intended to be, heterosexuals enjoy enormous flexibility in how they handle their marriage responsibilities---including a very low standard for dissolving a marriage: no-fault divorce.

In Montana, only three things are required for a couple to call themselves legally married:

• They must declare to someone else they are married
• They must share a household
• They must be legally competent to marry (of legal age, for example)

That's it! No license. No ceremony. No obligation for procreation, fidelity, or compatibility. In addition, a Montana couple is not required to be together for any length of time before common-law marriage takes effect. In the time it takes two strangers to meet, pack up a UHaul, and inform the mailman---they can consider themselves legally married. As long as they share three x chromosomes and one y chromosome between them.

Surely committed lesbian and gay couples can fit into this picture.

Red herring: Gay "marriage" is so controversial, it should just be called something else.

We do have terms for that something else. Separate but equal. Apartheid.

" 'Why call it marriage?' leads to 'Why does it have to look like marriage?' ", says Beth Robinson, attorney for gay couples in Baker v. Vermont. "You don't gain a lot of support by calling it something else. The concept is equality, and that's where the focus should be."

Red herring: There are too many obstacles to acquiring marriage rights, so there's no reason to raise our sites so high.

Actually, two reasons come to mind: Vermont & the Netherlands.

In Vermont, gay couples sued the state for full marriage rights and the state, under supreme court mandate, granted the next best thing : civil unions. Will that decision be challenged? Yes. Is it a perfect remedy? Not quite. But it is a most significant step towards full equality.

The Netherlands has come to gay marriage from another direction, incrementally granting rights and benefits to gay couples, until it no longer made sense to continue excluding gay couples at all. Dutch gay couples can now participate in the same system available to their non-gay counterparts: full-fledged marriage.

Marriage discrimination is the most pervasive and blatant form of anti-gay bias---denying virtually every gay person complete citizenship. The struggle for marriage rights, like any civil rights movement, is a pattern of progress, spanning achievements and transcending individual misgivings. The problem is being tackled from different angles, but peeling away layers of misconception and uncovering the heart of marriage --- a civic activity involving two people with an intimate connection --- is essential.

Marriage is deserving of gay and lesbian participation. It's time for gays and lesbians to grab hold of this American dream and, if necessary, to drag their politicians along with them.

GAY "THREAT" OR AMERICAN AGENDA?

STATE OFFICIALS TOLD GAYS MAY BE TERRORISTS

By Karl Olson, Executive Director
This article was printed in Kalispell's The Daily Inter Lake 10/31/2001

On September 26th Gary Stubblefield, a security consultant from Hamilton, gave a presentation to Governor Martz and her staff on potential terrorist threats to Montana. Stubblefield predicted that the most likely danger to the state comes from groups that are disgruntled with government. And in a list of groups to watch (militias, anti-abortion protesters) he included "gay rights advocates".

This was not the first time gays have been linked to terrorism. Last summer Kalispell's KGEZ radio station called PRIDE a "militant, terrorist" organization. Jerry Falwell incensed the civilized world with his accusation that "gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle" essentially conspired with God and bin Laden to destroy America. And according to the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, the University of Montana is "Exhibit 'A' in God's case vs. America" because homosexuality "has invaded this remote tax-funded institution."

Groups like the Christian Coalition and Montana: Help Our Moral Environment refer to "The Gay Agenda" as if it were a top-secret, sinister plot. While America attempts to heal and rebuild, the Traditional Values Coalition's Rev. Lou Sheldon urges relief agencies to discriminate against the gay victims of 9-11 and their families, calling aid efforts "one more example" of "the gay agenda". Something about a national crisis brings out the Elmer Fudds, frantically waving conspiracy theories and rusty muskets, looking for someone to blame for their feelings of powerlessness. Unfit to take on their own demons and real enemies, they look around for the nearest scapegoat.

Should we be flattered to be deemed so dangerous? When gays "invade" Big Fork or Big Timber, the focus is on theater tickets and potluck dishes --- not pipe-bombs and box-cutters. We have enough to do to protect our families in a political environment that denigrates us at every turn: at the end of the day there is just no energy left for planning an apocalypse. Neither the challenge of responding to bigotry --- nor an urgent sense of style --- has motivated cells of gays to high-jack planes and crash them into Highway 93's string of evangelical "centers" disguised as warehouses. And if being "disgruntled with government" makes for a terrorist, then virtually every Montanan must be squeezing into a ninja suit and joining the jihad.

In reality most lesbians and gays are regular folks who work hard to feed their families. We are patriots, farmers, athletes and artists. Many of us seek solace in welcoming churches. And some of us are just plain boring. We may be denied full citizenship by our state legislature, but we still put our trousers on one leg at a time like everyone else.

Certainly, one can find in our number a few jerks. But we don't corner that market by any means.

During the last election campaign, when Sen. Burns' staff encouraged a retired Forsyth man to send letters expressing anti-gay bias to the newspaper, they picked the wrong soldier. David Reis, a veteran of both the Korean and Viet Nam wars, told a reporter: "I would not even think of putting someone down because of their sexual orientation. I fought with gays in Viet Nam and they served with honor and bravery."

Ultimately, it is not one's sexual orientation, but one's orientation towards humanity, that matters. Compassion, courage and honor are far more compelling than prejudice. To most Americans these values do not represent a threat, an "invasion", or a gay agenda. They are the American agenda.

JESUS, JOSEF AND ... JUDY

GOVERNOR MARTZ MEETS WITH PRIDE

By Josef Kijewski, PRIDE Youth Intern

On June 15th our little group of gay and gay-friendly folk was granted an audience with Governor Judy Martz. Martz was cordial and all country-kindness, but the meeting was peppered with a phrase that caught my thoughts and did not let go: "As a born-again Christian, I have love and compassion and respect for all people. But I cannot support or agree with your goals."

What Governor Martz will not support is equal protection under the law. I personally tried to stress to Gov. Martz that the beliefs she claims to hold do include and should support our "agenda". Love means fighting harassment and violence against gay students. Compassion means understanding the cruelty of letting a good renter get kicked out of his house. Respect means not supporting a party platform that violates the privacy of the home.

Why the discrepancy between theory and practice in Martz's rhetoric? Maybe Martz and those who share her attitude are violating their beliefs out of ignorance. Maybe their rhetoric is employed for political purposes. Regardless, Martz's contradictions, which also plague the Religious Right, lead me to one simple conclusion. They are unchristian.

The principles practiced by Jesus Christ promoted a radical reorganization of human relationships and interaction. He destroyed the walls of separation upon which so much of his society was based, creating an equal place of existence for those who would occupy it. Jesus drew a circle that included the disenfranchised and discriminated. He broke bread with them. He protected them. He made them his family.

In the name of her religion, Governor Martz deems all of us who are gay as unworthy of equality. If, as she claims, she has love, compassion and respect for all people, I would ask her to do a little research and some critical thinking. If she means what she says, then our largest goals are really the same, and she does no one any favors by denying that.

Editor's note: Since her election, PRIDE attempted unsuccessfully to meet with Martz. Upon learning that Martz planned to speak on KGEZ, Kalispell's anti-gay, pro-bigotry radio station, we offered her a "healthier alternative" and made a third request to meet, which was granted. After listening to tapes of KGEZ, Martz canceled her radio appearance.