I was talking to a Canadian male couple yesterday, approximately mid to late 60's in age, and was surprised by their avid disdain for the whole gay marriage movement. They felt that civil unions of some sort were appropriate, but that this was just stirring up an unnecessary "hornet's nest" of anti-gay backlash. While I agree that this has energized a significant number of people to speak out against acceptance of gays/gay marriage,and in fact may lead to 4 more years of Bush, I feel it's helped move people's perceptions away from thinking of gay relationships as just sex and to seeing gays as people more like themselves than they'd cared to realize previously.

I was surprised at how moved I was by seeing the first MA couples say I do and felt strongly that we all deserve that opportunity. Marriage hasn't always been what people perceive it as today so there's no reason it can't continue to change. No church is forced to do anything it doesn't want to, but our differences shouldn't deny us the rights and priviledges other citizens enjoy under civil law. The marriage movement may cause turmoil and upset for now, but in the long run may speed up the change in attitudes we desire.

SO, anyway, is this unnecessary "hornet's nest" take on the issue common, or limited more to the over 50's, like myself?


[Thread title modified for clarity. - Outsports moderator]

[ June 29, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Civil unions will be appropriate when everyone has them, not when some are given them. I am not sure if I want to get married, and no one should have to. But "separate but equal" is always separate, and never equal.

Of course there is a hornets' nest! There always is when things are changing, but no civil rights movement in history has been accomplished without stirring up people who who are not afraid to deny others their rights.

If the over-sixty crowd is content to hide for fear of stirring things up, that is their right. At 56, I say "stir away!" I will not settle for les than full equality. To do so is to say I am less fully human than my heterosexual neighbors.

Nat

My husband and I have some friends that while together for decades, are against "marriage" and for civil unions.

The whole point of equality is just that. Separate but equal doesn't cut it. My point to our friends is this "If you don't want to get married, that is your right. But why should my rights be denied just because you don't agree with them".

When they use the "civil unions" as an acceptable alternative, my reply is "civil unions are an acceptable alternative when civil marriage for everyone, gay and straight, are defined as civil unions, and marriages are left to the realm of the church.

If you have that in place, then I support civil unions. If not, get your hands off of my rights.

And I have yet to lose an arguement. To be blunt, if somebody doesn't like the idea of 2 men or 2 women marrying, then they shouldn't do it, but that is not a reason to deny my rights.

Change is never comfortable.

NJ

There does seem to be a generational difference on this issue. I'm 31, and people I talk to within 10 years of me have no problem with gay marriage.

Regardless of public support, I think the marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts have helped people realize that being gay isn't a "lifestyle" (I hate when that term is used!) any more than heterosexuality is. And it's definitely more than just sex. It's about who you fall in love with and want to commit to.

The gay marriages have exposed a lot of ignorant (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) people to that fact. Ultimately, that can only be a good thing.

Pierre, excellent post on all three counts! :cool:

Based on the older gays that I've talked to, their opinion seems to be that they want the equality that comes with marriage, if not the marriage itself.

I think that's because in many cases they are "married" in the sense that they've lived with their partners for decades. A marriage certificate or wedding ceremony isn't going to add anything to what they already have (although the legal benefits would be a plus).

Also, older gays grew up in a time when gay marriage was inconceivable, when public displays of affection could result in jail, when gay really was the "love that dare not speak its name."

The marriage fight is not theirs--just being able to be openly gay is their contribution to us. And that's something that we can take for granted. The marriage battle is for the current generation to attain and to enjoy, and something that the younger generation will come to take for granted in years to come.

I will respond to CanMark in one way. I agree with him 100%.

When I was 18, I met the man of my dreams.

When I was 19, he was beaten to death, because he was gay. His murderers were never caught.

When I was 25, I was bashed by a University football player, high on Angel Dust. My right jaw was broken in 2 places, my right eye socket had an orbital fracture. My right eye has a partially detached retina. I had brken ribs, blackened eyes, and needed a lot of stitches.

I am from that generation where being gay was still considered a disease.

I have fought DAMN HARD for my rights, and I will be GOD-DAMNED if I am going to surrender any of them with out the fight of a lifetime.

One gay person might not want to marry. FINE. But GOD help you if you try to take it away from me.

I have the scars to prove that it's my right!

I think Miss Manners had the best rejoinder to that: "She also asks that you not bore her with asking the nonsensical question of what difference a piece of paper makes. Miss Manners has a safe-deposit box full of papers that make a difference."

Lksimcoe. Right on brother. I am with you 100%.

Ditto....and I salute you too! wink

NJ

Older folks tend to be more resistant to change. That doesn't mean change shouldn't happen.

During the height of the modern (activist) feminist movement, a rather common term arose among women who had been around the struggle for equal rights: "feminist fatigue." It was broadly defined as a special sort of weariness at the persistence of old attitudes coupled with the weariness of having to explain everything yet again. They were women who "raised consciences" & developed wisdom paired with a sense of accomplishment at changing society only to be confronted with a younger generation of women who wanted to be viewed as "babes" & didn't fully understand--or appreciate--how hard it was for the elders to get society to see them as "women" and not merely "girls."

I think many gay men in the 50-plus demographic may be experiencing something akin to feminist fatigue. They fought--some, loudly in public & others, quietly--to overcome societal stigmas (including but not limited to, medical organizations equating homosexuality with mental defect & political invisibility) and deserved to be lauded and held high by those of us in the younger demographic (I'll be in the older group soon enough, thank you very much.) Those of us working to gain equal rights--including marriage--can look to what the previous generation achieved for inspiration and guidance. We are not fashioning something out of whole cloth but rather adding to their already solid foundation.

~Adam

Great posts by all, and Lksimcoe, thank you for sharing your personal experiences.

One element that is being left out of this discussion is the...Left, and the Leftist-informed liberationist ideology of the 1960s and 1970s. Feminism, gay liberation, the civil rights struggles, the sexual revolution, the anti-Vietnam protests, which tied into and were informed by the progressive politics of the 1965-1980 period, also may have something to do with why some older gays are not so excited about the idea of marriage.

I mean, let's not forget that many of the protesters and political agitators at Stonewall, and many of the leaders of the gay liberation movements in other cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, and Chicago, were Left-oriented. Leftist liberationist ideology strongly informed many of the groups formed immediately after Stonewall, such as the Gay Activists Alliance, the Fag Rag Collective in Boston, etc.

Many feminists--especially lesbians--critiqued the institution of marriage and its effects on women's lives, identities, and political and social value. Moreover, many gay people questioned the idea of mimicking an institution that not only excluded homosexuals, but also reinscribed heterosexuality as a norm, and which many saw as a forge of socio-sexual and gender hierarchies and inequalities, etc.

The mainstreaming and centrism of more gay politics since 1980 has made possible the idea of gay marriage as a positive achievement, and I do believe that whether people think marriage intrinsically is a good thing or not, ALL of us should have the right to be married, as opposed to only SOME of us.

[ June 29, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Shouldn't all close personal relationships between individuals be equal before the law? Seems like anything else would be an unconstitutional mixture of Church and State.

Marriage should be a choice for individuals. But other choices -partnership, union, cohabitation, sharing - might be just as committed. The Gay mmarriage issue is an opportunity to better define church-state limits. I like the way I live now. May change.

I was going to reply, but then I figuredd I should ask "what the hell are you saying? are you saying that gay marriage is a good thing, or are you against it?"

You sound like a politician who says that everything should be recognized, in order to create a smokescreen to deny gay marriage?

Please translate into plain english for us stupid canuks.

I think Sport meant that he was very much in favor personally and hopeful that this issue would further get the assumption we all worship the same God or believe in all the same interpretations of divinity, out of civic ritual and law.

I was curious to see if there were a fair number of younger gays who believed marriage rights were not that important. I suspect there might be, but I guess they'd be unlikely to speak up where they know this position would be unpopular here.

If you look at the history of the African-American civil rights movement, much the same thing happened. When a generation of leaders aged and saw new, seemingly more radical leaders appearing, there was a cry of "you are asking for too much!" In the 40s, the idea of a march on Washington was inconceivable to much of the African-American leadership - by the 60s it was considered completely appropriate.

The earliest generation of gay/lesbian leaders were not looking for full equality, they just wanted to the right to be left alone. But with each succeeding victory, the argument for any remaining restrictions got weaker, and we went from the right to even discuss gay/lesbian issues and form political/social groups (in the 40s and 50s), to the sexual liberation days of the 60s and 70s, when many gay and lesbian types who celebrated the "difference" of being gay, to the AIDS crisis and today, when full equality is seen as the only option.

Of course a generation that grew up not only with the kind of horrific bashing that Lksimcoe so courageously shared, but with official unconcern about our lives is likely to be afraid asking for "too much" will lead to a massive backlash - after all that is exactly what happened in the 20s and 30s, most notably in Germany where the relative freedom of the Weimar republic gave way to the brutal repression of the Nazis, although something similar happened to American social attitudes during the same period.

I really do think though, that we have turned a corner in America, and there is no going back. Cheryl Jacques, in an interview with a local DC gay rag, notes that the generation just beginning to vote is overwhelmingly in favor of at least civil unions to recognize gay/lesbian relationships, and the step from supporting civil unions to supporting full marriage rights is a relatively short one - today's politicians will one day be answering to these voters.

I have also seen the sea change in my own friends and family. Many of them are in Mass. and I have no idea if they really would have supported marriage rights for gays before this year, but the whole thing has been such a non-event, and even sweet, that they are now supportive. THey have no expectation of the amendment passing next year in the legislature (let us pray they are right). This week, during my grandmother's funeral, I also had the opportunity to come out officially to my Southern Baptist relatives from Ohio - and the younger generation again was unphased; they may not like gay marriage, but they don't care enough to do anything about it.

it's funny (not ha! ha!) but i remember having this same debate, intergenerationally then as well, about whether coming out was a wise thing to do, or whether too much visibility would cause a backlash, about 20 years ago.

we younger gays, the ones who took to the word queer, felt strongly that visibility would take away the fear of the unkown, and with that would come acceptance, or at least tolerance. as soon as the uptight realized that they were surrounded by gay folks; that they were in fact their friends, neighbors, and co-workers, barriers and prejudices would fall.

the generation ahead of us (i won't call them older, for i am now the age they were then!) insisted that too much visibility, pushing the envelope too far, too fast would cause a backlash, and pushed for being out in the gay community, but not the world at large (NEVER at work!)

in the end, both were right. there were backlashes, but as with gay marriage, once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back, and over time, coming out became a non-event. over time, gay marriage, too will become a non-issue. people have been reading gay marriage announcements in the newspaper (including the old gray lady) for more than a year now. and the world hasn't ended. slowly, it will become non-news.

in closing, i can only hope that history repeats itself. that, in fact, gay marriage is yesterday's coming out. i know that when i was in the middle of that debate, i didn't in my wildest dreams, dare to believe that a scant 20 years in the future, we'd be having the same debate about MARRIAGE! let us hope the next 20 years brings about as much progress as the last 20!