Typically, when we talk about silver linings, we mean small, ancillary benefits that are overshadowed by the cloud itself. For example, I might write, “I got dumped this weekend, but the silver lining is I saved $751 on a plane ticket to Chile, $340 for a hotel room, $50 for roses, and my pride.” But I digress.
Today’s Proposition 8 ruling by the California Supreme Court is a bitter disappointment to thousands of Californians and their friends across the country. But this is the rare case where gay rights supporters may look back and discover that the silver lining meaningfully outshines the gray. Why? The fight over marriage equality is radically altering how many Americans think of gay and lesbian people. It has, in effect, rebranded what it means to be gay.
Over twenty years ago, legal pioneers like Evan Wolfson began the fight for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans in the courts. At the time, the general public defined gay and lesbian identity in terms of sex and certain, rather specific, sex acts. They had vivid images of these acts (many, at the time, illegal), and created related, profane phrases to describe and categorize gay people purely in terms of sex.
When, in the mid-1990s, Wolfson pushed for equal marriage rights, many in the gay community were worried that he was overreaching. They encouraged leaders in the community to wait and focus on gains like employment and housing non-discrimination. A decade later, when the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed the case that established legal same sex marriage for the first time in the United States, in Massachusetts, the same fears persisted.
What Wolfson and GLAD may have known, but has not been commonly understood, was that the marriage fight itself would bring great benefit to the gay community. The fight over equal marriage has redefined gay and lesbian identity in terms of love. And this redefinition has made gay and lesbian people more acceptable to the general public and equal rights easier to win and protect.
During the 1996-1999 Hawaii marriage fight and the subsequent state-by-state battles that followed, images of committed gay couples and loving gay families have filled the media. Each time that the battle is joined, same-sex couples that have been together for decades are shown holding hands and asking for the right to marry.
These are not the sexual deviants depicted in profane phrases twenty years ago. We see images of two forty year-old women, watching their children play with the family dog in a front yard. We see two elderly men, describing their half-century together. We witness in their stories the same joys and same challenges that any family might face. And we hear them in the context of gay and lesbian people seeking recognition of their love.
Today, tens of millions of Americans will hear that the court upheld Proposition 8 and learn that it’s a setback for gay marriage in America. But this same setback may well be part of a much bigger step forward for gay rights in America. Those same tens of millions will see images of gay and lesbian people in loving relationships. They will hear their stories. They will have images of loving couples and their families imprinted in their minds, filed as the new definition of "gay."
And while it may have been easy to hate someone because of how they had sex (twenty years ago), it’s a lot harder to hate them because of whom they love.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58
Tom, I am glad you could find the silver lining. As for me, I cannot believe that people still do not separate church from state. Denying citizens their civil rights is an atrocity.
Great points!
I agree
Thanks, Mom and Tina. A lot has been written about the "redefinition of marriage." I have not seen anyone write about the "redefinition of gay" that is occuring through the equal marriage fight. I thought it was interesting to reflect on how American perceptions are changing.
We need our rights to be the same as everyone.
In Fl I had to and did marry a man to keep my kids he was gay also so it was ok freedom is different in every stae
A most excellent and timely write, Tom. I have great "faith" in our Creator, but seriously doubt one goes to hell for whom they may love... Church AND state should stay out of private lives,period. Anyone who has grown up on a farm can tell you many animals are gay also. It is a matter of genetics, or lack of, possibly, and no fault of the person having the feelings..... Bless us ALL and make us wiser and less judging...Amen.
thanks for sharing Tom
Tom, this is a brilliant piece of writing and I think you should submit an op-ed along these lines to a major paper. It's a groundbreaking idea and very, very important.
Thanks, Julie! That's very kind. I would love to do that, but I would need to do some additional research to back-up the thinking. It's the sociologist in me.
Thoughtful and thought provoking - thanks Tom, for an insight it isn't always easy to see in the midst of defeat.
And while silver lining could mean "small, ancillary benefits" it could also not refer to size, just that it wasn't the featured principle quality - at least not until the garment was turned insideout.
I am always surprised at the negativity applied to same sex marriage by conservatives. They were the ones who, like you point out, viewed the sexual aspects of 'gay' as the problem. Marriage, as witnessed by the many (yet relatively few) gay couples that have tied the not, is a conservative move towards family values for alternative families. Andrew Sullivan says it well here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html "Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital importance of the institution of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men. Bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways."
Thank you, Tom. You make an excellent point and you do it beautifully.
Very kind, Robin, thanks. And thanks for spreading the word on Twitter about this piece!
I'm still confused as to why the gay marriage issue is being left to individual states to decide when it's a national issue. Are there not gays all across the country? It almost seems like the national lawmakers are gutless and passing the buck down the line because they don't want to be held responsible whichever way the final decision goes. To all those in California who are homosexual...Come to the northeast where you can marry whomever you so choose and happen to be in love with. The only decision that has to be made here is which of the states that allow gay marriage you'd most enjoy living freely and equally in.
rob it is my understanding that it is considered a state rather than federal issue is because each state decides the criteria to issue a marriage license.
Some states require a waiting period..others dont.
Some states require blood tests, if thats still done, others dont.
Rob- the answer lies in the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment was meant to limit the powers of Congress to those specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Anything not covered there (including the definition of marriage) goes to the states, or to the people. See the full text below.
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Superb post! Thank you.
Another silver lining is that more gays will come out and speak up, and gays will fight harder to educate and to be granted equal rights. It is appalling that they have to fight for what they have a right to in this "advanced"
country.
Thank you for pointing out the silver lining !!! It was a very heartening article !!!
Not only do I hope that more gays will speak out but more straights will do so also.
I for one am tired of all the fighting against things, its time to put it to rest, admit that gay/lesbian marriage is right and that religion needs to be out of government.
Once this issue is resolved we can start fighting FOR things.
Tom;
Thirty-five years ago I left the Photography field because all the 'queers' in it made me very uneasy and I just didn't want to work with them...
Well, twenty years in my next choice, Printing & Publishing working many an overnight with both flamers and still barely closeted gays showed me that people are just people. Some good, some bad, most indifferent... wrapped so deeply in their own lives that it mattered not.
I found that true, that it mattered not.
Early this decade, when I moved into Florida's Panhandle a rather 'red' area I saw dozens of long-time Lesbian couples living openly but few male gays. Little dd I know that one of the first people I had met here and befriended was not hetro.
Finally, as we went with other friends male and female, str8 and not, to see 'Delovely' at the nearest theater carrying it, a hundred miles away I asked a lady I knew, 'is J... gay?'
She thought about it, said yes, and we went on with out dinner.
Coming out of the movie he asked what we thought of it, (Kevin Kline playing Cole Porter), and the lady I'd asked about him said that she thought it was wonderful. We both took her to task at the same time as having been a truly sad story.
It matters not who you love, only that you DO.
Laws change, people change too.
Peace.
Your ending says it all. How can anyone be against a mutual vow that brings more commitment and more love into the world?
No one can make me understand why there is such a problem with this. I have been around "gay" people forever and do not see anything wrong with it. I have friends and family that are "gay" and they are some of the BEST people you will ever know, however I also have friends and family who are against gays. In my opinion, I think if two people care about each other then their gender shouldn't be an issue.
If two people want to be in a loving, stable relationship, raise children, build a life together, and have the comfort of each other in old age, who are we to deny them the legal rights that go along with such a relationship? States will allow "common-law" marriages, which are based on repute and co-habitation, in cases of spousal support, shares of the couple's estate,and etc., but will not allow two people of the same sex who wish to legalize their relationship formally to do so. Doesn't that seem illogical?
Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas all have common marriage laws. Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania have grandfathered in common law marriages that happened before a certain date.
Interesting perspective, Tom. I'm not sure how pervasive this "redefinition of gay" is out there in The Heartland™, but I hope you're right, and that what we're seeing now is a beginning.
Tom, a very well thought out and sensible answer to what seemed to be a discouraging decision today in California. It would make great sense to agree that everyone is entitled to a comforting and legally binding relationship. I hope that some of the great comments here help you with enough research to make this an op-ed piece.
Tom, how about expanding this idea into a piece for the G&LReview? I think (know?) that you're really on to a very provocative and thoughtful discussion here.
I'd love to do it Bob. As an undergrad, I studied the impact of historical events on ethnic identity (Sacco and Vanzetti on radical politics among Italian Americans, for example). David Cooperstein's calls out Andrew Sullivan's theory that suggests the same kind of impact here. I identified changing perceptions of gay identity. Sullivan suggests that marriage was changing the identity itself. Both may be true, but either would require (and I think deserve) further study. Do you think the Review would be interested?
I told you you should publish it! (Well, not that Gather is not publishing, but you know, some of us still read stuff on paper.)
Thank you for a wonderful article. I'd been so sad today, even knowing that the court was likely to rule the way it did. Your thoughtful article made me feel better about things and hopeful that change will come.
I notice that some of the same people in favor of gay marriage are against polygamist marriage and other forms too. The precedent has been set and legally you can't deny them their rights either. We had better get used to the idea of many other forms of marriage. This was one of the reasons many people were against gay marriage in the first place.
Brojer, an interesting point! I must think about the comment. I am do appallrf by polygamy that I have not really thought about it much.
Hi Brojer- Thanks for joining the conversation. The "slippery slope" argument is often made by politicians and advocacy organizations seeking to maintain the status quo. It is often persuasive in public debates because it categorizes a modest proposed change as a step on an accelerating path to a fearful extreme. The assumption is made that you cannot take a single step without slipping to the bottom of the slope.
While it can be persuasive, most often it's a fallacy. More often, society and law move in measured steps, not rushing from one extreme to the opposite. This is certainly what we see happening in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont, where there has been no movement whatsoever to further amend legal marriage recognition (beyond same sex marriage recognition). Because there is often great discomfort with even this kind of moderate change, however, and the slippery slope argument speaks directly to those fears.
And these fears can persist for a long time. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile refused to reconsider his decision in Loving v Virginia. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
That seems stunning to us today, but consider that 94% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage in 1958. It was not until 1997 that a majority approved of it (source: Gallop). Slippery slope arguments predicting the end of social stability were made then too.
That said, I know of no one today who would argue that we should have waited until a majority approved of interracial marriage (1997!) to permit it. Instead, our society adapted to this modest change before being completely comfortable with it. And despite Bazile's fear, no fire rained down from the heavens.
Profoundly stated comment and points of view that should be trumpeted loudly.
Is my trumpet still in your closet?
Yes, along with books, toys, clothes, trophies and other memorabilia such as ties (ugh) jackets, belts, stuffed toys, certificates and a shelf of Sci Fi novels. By the way the doors work now!
Oh and by the way I did turn on I phone e-mail with some difficulty after you fiddled with my settings. I am now dinged everytime new mail arrives.
Polygamy may seem exteme now, but in some western states and western Canada they are marching for their "rights". The slippery slope as you call it does not happen suddenly. The saying "first we are appalled, then we accept, then we embrace" comes to mind. Initiative and referendem are good examples that every state should have. Perhaps CA will have another and it will pass. Since marriage is an institution and not a right, and as such it would change the meaning of the word, maybe it is a moot point anyway. The word "gay" used to mean happy and flamboyant and has changed over time. Since so many religions are against homosexual behavior I think it will be a long time before it is widely accepted. Also I think there are around 40 states have it in their constitutions that marriage by definition is between one man and one woman.
I agree with brojer n. Polygamy is only illegal because of the revalent demands of one religous group to be recognized as the people who lead God, instead of the God who leads people. You can lead a parent by being a spoiled brat creating a path of wanton destruction during a temper tantrum. Thank God that God has more patience than parents do.
I agree with you Tom. BTW I was waiting for you all to get over the upgrade before bugging you about the Pittsburgh Gathering. I think we'd get as many or more this year don't you? Have a great weekend and Go Pens!!!!
Absolutely, Janet. Let me know when you are thinking and I'll check my calendar!
You know the gay couples I have seen are much happier with each other and seem to stay together longer than most men and women do.
Great piece, Tom. But there's another silver lining, at least for those of us who live in New England and want to promote this as a great place to live, work, and build a family. The upholding of Prop. 8 will reinforce our regional reputation as the nation's real gay-friendly haven.
Thank you great read been at every march on wash.and at sixty yes I would be there again. this is breaking news on another subject wouldnt let me post so I am just passing it on
Earlier this evening, the House of Representatives passed the crucial American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) by a final vote of 219 to 212. This important legislation will curb global warming and create millions of clean energy jobs.
SaveOurEnvironment.org's work to get this bill passed through the House couldn't have happened without supporters like you. Thanks to tens of thousands of emails, hundreds of calls, and your generous financial support, we were able to stand up to all our opponents who tried to defeat this bill every step of the way.
Rebranding " Gay ": The Silver Lining....what a great article Tom, thank you.
Just Me, Barbie
I don't know if you herd or not but Mass is suing the federal government over Gay Marriage (see the above link).
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don't understand it all. I only want to say I think absolutely religion and spiritual laws should be separated from government laws. Most people in government making the laws of our land are not in a position to say what is right and wrong as according to religious or biblical standards. They are not in the position to judge anyone of what is right and wrong for them, as most of them have beams so big in their own eyes, how can they possibly cast motes out of someone else's eyes. I don't think they have the right to decide who a person can marry or not marry. This is up to each individual, just as it is up to each individual in all other aspects of their lives personally and intimately, so long as behavior does not "harm" another person why make a law against it like you would against robbing a store or committing murder. God's love and the love we receive from Jesus does not change just because a person decides they are more comfortable with the same sex than the opposite sex. God's love is never dying regardless.
Even though I am not gay or lesbian, and I very much prefer the opposite sex in intimate relationships, I do not dislike or hate individuals who are different from me, and my stand is to stay out of their personal business, and allow them the freedom to do whatever they please. If gay and lesbian are wrong to be as they are and wrong to marry one another, then I feel this is a law and judgment that should only be passed by a superior power and has nothing to do with the lawmakers of our land.
I have my own set of of beliefs and opinions and will live by those, but I feel the great judge of all things will make the final decision in cases like this and none of truly know what that judgment is or will be, so it is an area most lawmakers need to stay out of, sort of reminds me about the piece in the King James Version Bible where Jesus defended the prostitute when there were so many around throwing stones at her, he got them all together and said to all of them, "who is without sin here, cast the first stone," and none of them could come forth because they all had sins of some sort they could not hide from Jesus.
As for me, in the way I believe, I am commanded only to "love" everybody, and if I slack in that love for any one person due to race, social class, gender or sexual preference, then I have committed sin and will have to account for that to the great judge some day, if that day ever arrives. In my belief, I have to think that day will arrive, so I try my best to be loving and kind toward everyone, and in this respect, I could never be a part of any kind of laws against the gay population. I doubt I will ever be asked to be on the board of such a team, but if I was, I would have to say, NO, this is not an area God has made me superior over. I can only live my life as I see it best to live and allow others the same.
It is my hope the gay and lesbian communities are allowed to be as they want to be without having to hide from the rest of the population.
Do people hide because they tell little white lies? I imagine there are many law makers who do more than tell little white lies.
since 1969 I have marched been chained kept seated and wrote leaders for my rights It has become better.When my partner was dying of cancer the first week i couldn't stay with her.Enough hoopala was started that I even got a bed in the room with her.Being 60 and disabled I dont get to much any more I need peoples to carry on THANK YOU!
Personally, I would enjoy regular sex with a dozen women without marrying any of them. Is there a name for someone like me?