Post by outgirl on Apr 27, 2004 2:10:01 GMT -5
I know this subject has been discussed several times here but I just liked this article and thought I'd share. Peace.
Is gay the new black?
Is permitting gay marriage such a threat to American society that it needs a constitutional restriction? Or have gays just replaced blacks as the minority community that is openly discriminated against?
By c.e. adams
An Advocate.com exclusive posted March 15, 2004
The recent ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, recognizing civil unions as a “separate, but not equal” alternative, should have some of us experiencing an eerie feeling of déjà vu. Barely 40 years ago, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Loving v. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to deny interracial couples the right to marry. It doesn’t seem as though the Massachusetts decision or the Loving case has created a favorable legal precedent toward legalizing gay marriage in all states, however. Unfortunately, the ruling has only made President George W. Bush and conservative groups even more adamant to take the responsibility for this decision away from individual states and to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
But if history is any indicator of the present, this response should come as no surprise. In 1912 Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia wanted a constitutional amendment to prevent interracial unions on the grounds that “intermarriage between blacks and whites is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of the pure American spirit.” Is permitting gay marriage such a threat to American society that it needs a constitutional restriction? Or have gays just replaced blacks as the minority community that is openly discriminated against?
Recently, with the popularity of shows such as Will & Grace and with the Queer Eye Fab 5 schmoozing with everyone from Oprah to Jay Leno and Barbara Walters, it would seem that gays are gaining acceptance into mainstream culture. But are these just comfortable depictions of homosexuals that people find entertaining? In all five seasons of Will & Grace, the only enduring relationship Will has had is a heterosexual one with Grace. The Fab 5 hardly break any preset ideas about gay men by giving makeovers and interior decorating. Both of these can be likened to the early cinematic depictions of African-Americans. In Gerald Butters book, Black Manhood on the Silent Screen, he categorized the early American portrayal of African-American men as “harmless individuals, non-threatening comic foils” involved in “activities that conformed to preconceived stereotypes.” With the predominant gay stereotypes being effeminacy and promiscuity, how are gays represented on television any differently than African-Americans were in the “black face” era of film?
Not to say that these programs don’t have their merit. Seeing openly gay people in any scenario has undoubtedly inspired people to come out with their own sexual identity. But historically speaking, it has only been groups that were severely persecuted or heavily discriminated against that felt a need to hide in the first place. Light-skinned African-Americans passed for white when they could to elude the indignities of segregation. Jews changed their names, their looks, and their faith to evade anti-Semitism. And gays remain in the closet to avoid mainstream ridicule, condemnation, and discrimination. Why wouldn’t gays hide in this country when what happened to Matthew Shepard can be called nothing short of a lynching? Yet the laws being debated will hurt rather than help those like him.
It seems as though the ban on same-sex marriage, as was true with interracial marriage, is America’s way of controlling the sexuality of its citizens. Charles Robinson, assistant professor of history at the University of Arkansas and author of the book Dangerous Liaisons, states that the first antimiscegenation laws were “a means of placing stricter control on the sexuality of white women.” By punishing those who might engage in interracial relationships and not legitimizing the offspring of these unions, lawmakers succeeded in maintaining the tradition of slavery and the subordinate social status of blacks.
By President Bush and other vocal traditionalists stubbornly privileging heterosexual unions over homosexual ones, they seem committed to maintaining the status quo. Until now marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm, but times change. Would George Bush and his conservative cronies argue that slavery, Jim Crow, and anti–interracial marriage laws should have been upheld because of their longstanding 400-year tradition?
There is no doubt that since interracial coupling was deemed “abominable,” “evil,” “repugnant,” and “against nature,” lingering opponents believed that allowing interracial marriage would result in, as Gov. William Mann of Virginia said, “a desecration of one of our sacred rites.” Opponents to gay unions seem to hold some of these same reservations.
Unlike with interracial marriage, adversaries to same-sex marriages argue that such unions lack procreative potential and need not be legitimized. But ability or desire to have children has never been a contingency validating heterosexual marriage. Otherwise barren couples, the elderly, and those choosing adoption would have to be denied marriage rights along with gays.
The fear also exists that legalizing gay marriage will open a Pandora’s box to any union, namely bigamy or incestuous marriage. But unlike these examples, same-sex marriage breaks no law other than those that attempt to prevent it. Finally, in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, antisodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional since they “criminalized certain sexual behavior by same-sex couples, even though the same activities are quite legal if done by opposite sex couples.” After this ruling, America became the last industrialized nation to do away with this archaic prohibition, which is still in place only in Third World and African countries and underdeveloped Middle-Eastern nations like Afghanistan. Whether gay or straight, polygamy—entering into more than one marriage—could constitute a “bad faith contract,” and incestuous marriages would remain illegal based on preempting child abuse, since the couple might procreate while knowing the overwhelming probability of severe birth defects.
So what has happened in 40 years? The civil rights movement marked a progressive period in our country that now might be undone. Probably the most effective constitutional method of robbing the rights of people was the “three fifths” clause of the original Constitution, which considered blacks as less than a whole person. If the right to marry is withheld from gays, then the same sentiment seems explicit.
| Home | Headlines | Reviews | Idea Exchange | Poll | Links | Resources | Community Partners |
| Top of page | Help | Subscribe | Contact | Privacy policy | Media Kit |
Advocate.com © 2004 by LPI Media Inc. All rights reserved.
Is gay the new black?
Is permitting gay marriage such a threat to American society that it needs a constitutional restriction? Or have gays just replaced blacks as the minority community that is openly discriminated against?
By c.e. adams
An Advocate.com exclusive posted March 15, 2004
The recent ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage, recognizing civil unions as a “separate, but not equal” alternative, should have some of us experiencing an eerie feeling of déjà vu. Barely 40 years ago, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Loving v. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to deny interracial couples the right to marry. It doesn’t seem as though the Massachusetts decision or the Loving case has created a favorable legal precedent toward legalizing gay marriage in all states, however. Unfortunately, the ruling has only made President George W. Bush and conservative groups even more adamant to take the responsibility for this decision away from individual states and to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
But if history is any indicator of the present, this response should come as no surprise. In 1912 Sen. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia wanted a constitutional amendment to prevent interracial unions on the grounds that “intermarriage between blacks and whites is repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of the pure American spirit.” Is permitting gay marriage such a threat to American society that it needs a constitutional restriction? Or have gays just replaced blacks as the minority community that is openly discriminated against?
Recently, with the popularity of shows such as Will & Grace and with the Queer Eye Fab 5 schmoozing with everyone from Oprah to Jay Leno and Barbara Walters, it would seem that gays are gaining acceptance into mainstream culture. But are these just comfortable depictions of homosexuals that people find entertaining? In all five seasons of Will & Grace, the only enduring relationship Will has had is a heterosexual one with Grace. The Fab 5 hardly break any preset ideas about gay men by giving makeovers and interior decorating. Both of these can be likened to the early cinematic depictions of African-Americans. In Gerald Butters book, Black Manhood on the Silent Screen, he categorized the early American portrayal of African-American men as “harmless individuals, non-threatening comic foils” involved in “activities that conformed to preconceived stereotypes.” With the predominant gay stereotypes being effeminacy and promiscuity, how are gays represented on television any differently than African-Americans were in the “black face” era of film?
Not to say that these programs don’t have their merit. Seeing openly gay people in any scenario has undoubtedly inspired people to come out with their own sexual identity. But historically speaking, it has only been groups that were severely persecuted or heavily discriminated against that felt a need to hide in the first place. Light-skinned African-Americans passed for white when they could to elude the indignities of segregation. Jews changed their names, their looks, and their faith to evade anti-Semitism. And gays remain in the closet to avoid mainstream ridicule, condemnation, and discrimination. Why wouldn’t gays hide in this country when what happened to Matthew Shepard can be called nothing short of a lynching? Yet the laws being debated will hurt rather than help those like him.
It seems as though the ban on same-sex marriage, as was true with interracial marriage, is America’s way of controlling the sexuality of its citizens. Charles Robinson, assistant professor of history at the University of Arkansas and author of the book Dangerous Liaisons, states that the first antimiscegenation laws were “a means of placing stricter control on the sexuality of white women.” By punishing those who might engage in interracial relationships and not legitimizing the offspring of these unions, lawmakers succeeded in maintaining the tradition of slavery and the subordinate social status of blacks.
By President Bush and other vocal traditionalists stubbornly privileging heterosexual unions over homosexual ones, they seem committed to maintaining the status quo. Until now marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm, but times change. Would George Bush and his conservative cronies argue that slavery, Jim Crow, and anti–interracial marriage laws should have been upheld because of their longstanding 400-year tradition?
There is no doubt that since interracial coupling was deemed “abominable,” “evil,” “repugnant,” and “against nature,” lingering opponents believed that allowing interracial marriage would result in, as Gov. William Mann of Virginia said, “a desecration of one of our sacred rites.” Opponents to gay unions seem to hold some of these same reservations.
Unlike with interracial marriage, adversaries to same-sex marriages argue that such unions lack procreative potential and need not be legitimized. But ability or desire to have children has never been a contingency validating heterosexual marriage. Otherwise barren couples, the elderly, and those choosing adoption would have to be denied marriage rights along with gays.
The fear also exists that legalizing gay marriage will open a Pandora’s box to any union, namely bigamy or incestuous marriage. But unlike these examples, same-sex marriage breaks no law other than those that attempt to prevent it. Finally, in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, antisodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional since they “criminalized certain sexual behavior by same-sex couples, even though the same activities are quite legal if done by opposite sex couples.” After this ruling, America became the last industrialized nation to do away with this archaic prohibition, which is still in place only in Third World and African countries and underdeveloped Middle-Eastern nations like Afghanistan. Whether gay or straight, polygamy—entering into more than one marriage—could constitute a “bad faith contract,” and incestuous marriages would remain illegal based on preempting child abuse, since the couple might procreate while knowing the overwhelming probability of severe birth defects.
So what has happened in 40 years? The civil rights movement marked a progressive period in our country that now might be undone. Probably the most effective constitutional method of robbing the rights of people was the “three fifths” clause of the original Constitution, which considered blacks as less than a whole person. If the right to marry is withheld from gays, then the same sentiment seems explicit.
| Home | Headlines | Reviews | Idea Exchange | Poll | Links | Resources | Community Partners |
| Top of page | Help | Subscribe | Contact | Privacy policy | Media Kit |
Advocate.com © 2004 by LPI Media Inc. All rights reserved.
. .