David Hart just pointed this video out in comments, but I thought it deserves a thread of its own:
Since David’s public change of mind on same-sex marriage, a few suspicious SSM supporters have emailed me, wondering if David had really changed his mind. I told them that I thought David had. This video should comprehensively eliminate any remaining doubts.
Well done, David!
Categories: Marriage
Thank you, David Blankenhorn, for doing this video. I found it far more convincing than your discussion with Jonathan Rauch.
Thank you.
Thank you David Blankenhorn,
Gay/Straight
Black/White
Marriage IS a Civil Right.
Anybody who says all h*ll is going to break loose if sexual minorities marry is simply fear mongering.
Great video!
I can get a bit cynical about ‘civility’ at times, thinking that a noisy and sometimes rude conversation isn’t always a bad thing. But David Blankenhorn is almost enough, all by himself, to prove the virtue of measured, civil conversation. Rarely has a journey, informed by experience, logic, and respect, so moved me.
I cannot imagine that publicly changing position on a high-profile issue has been easy, and I think the thoughtful way in which he has done this really speaks well of David Blankenhorn’s character.
I suspect a lot of people want to change their minds on this issue, but feel constrained by pride, fear of accusations of hypocrisy, or fear of condemnation, etc.
What can be done by the rest of us to make it easier for formerly anti-gay people to change their positions with the least amount of personal discomfort? How can we support, even applaud, those willing to see the light? I wish I knew what to say online to someone whom I suspect wants to switch sides, but encounters some reason that makes doing so uncomfortable.
Perhaps one thing you can do is recognize that persons who think changing the definition of marriage is not a wise move are not necessarily “anti gay.”
Elizabeth, If we did that, would you honestly then change your stance and support legal SSM?
No offense, but while you might personally be uncomfortable with the terminology or the designation, isn’t the fact that thousands of people honestly do view you as anti-gay, and probably will for the rest of your life, a potential motivator to stop opposing SSM and look for other ways to support your pro-family and pro-children agenda? Ways, perhaps, that don’t perpetuate discriminatory treatment of gay couples?
I’m asking you seriously. I understand that you don’t like being called anti-gay, but I don’t see how your proposal leads to you changing your stance. Unless you’re suggesting that you hold your position out of spite because you’ve been called names by SSM supporters–which I doubt.
Elizabeth Marquardt wrote: “Perhaps one thing you can do is recognize that persons who think changing the definition of marriage is not a wise move are not necessarily “anti gay.”
I think it’s just the opposite. The more people realize that depriving gay people of equal rights is anti-gay, the more likely they are to change their minds. As I understand David Blankenhorn’s explanation of his change of heart, that was a crucial component.
Elizabeth, I do believe that you and many others who oppose same-sex marriage do not hold personal animosity and hostility towards gay and lesbian people. But personal animosity or hostility—overt acts of negativity—aren’t the only means of being anti- something. Most of the people who opposed women being allowed to vote did not have personal animosity or hostility towards women in general (although the historical record shows many did have those feelings for suffragists specifically); they just didn’t feel it was proper for women to vote. Women didn’t fit into the class of “people who has what it takes to vote.” Women were incapable of understanding or committing to the intellectual rigors of educating themselves on the issues, listening to the candidates, weighing their voting options with what is best for the future of the nation. Women had concerns that were much smaller than that. Women couldn’t see the “big picture”.
You could say that the 19th Amendment changed the definition of citizenship in the United States. But did it really? Or did it merely extend the spirit of what it is to be a citizen to a class of people who were formerly excluded based on their gender?
Elizabeth, I grew up in a time when women were still being excluded from many places and opportunities where there was no rational reason for doing so. I work in a trade where many, many people still feel employers should have the option to not hire women—and without exception, all of those people will say that they have no anti-woman feelings. Some of those people are women. They will patiently explain that there are just some things women shouldn’t do. That there are some areas in which women are going too far, and it’s important to maintain clear boundaries of gender roles. It’s not “women” that they are anti…..just those particular women who step outside the bounds of what they think womanhood is. Once those women step back into line, all is well.
In other words, the controversy was/is the changing definition of masculinity and femininity. But again, is it really a changing definition? Or is it merely the acceptance of how actual, living breathing men and women live their/our lives? The recognition that the boundaries of how we are supposed to express ourselves are too small to encompass who we actually are?
You pointedly used the term “changing the definition of marriage” as if that is an agreed-upon argument. It isn’t. Many SSM supporters, myself included, don’t think it changes the definition at all as same-sex couples are already adhering to the cultural definition of marriage (but without the legal benefits). I don’t think the 19th Amendment changed the definition of citizenship either—it just extended one of the basic rights of citizenship to a class of people (which I belong to) who were formerly wrongfully excluded from that basic civil right. I don’t think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX changed the definition of masculinity and femininity because its inclusion of “sex” as a class protected from discrimination. It just opened doors that were formerly wrongfully closed.
Personal animosity isn’t the issue. Basic rights—civil rights, citizenship rights, whatever you want to call it—is. Same-sex couples by and large do not want “domestic partnerships”; they want marriage, and for the same reasons you do: marriage holds cultural meaning. The couples seeking SSM hold the same values of marriage that you do. And yet, you oppose them. You want them to have a form of legal arrangement that doesn’t include any cultural meaning of commitment, lifelong partnership, thick-and-thin. Same-sex couples I’ve talked to have specifically said they see “domestic partnerships” as a watered-down concept—one that strongly implies a breezy lack of commitment, as easily changed as a business arrangement or rental agreement. Something intended to be non-permanent. That’s why they oppose it. They want marriage, not a formal recognition of being “roommates”.
It’s easy for people (including myself) who are not on the receiving end of that short-shrift to be cavalier about how “anti” that is. Sometimes it’s even doable—though never “easy”—for people who are on the short-shrift to generously accommodate the voiced concerns of others who support the short-shrift (I’ve done enough of that in my career as a journeyman I feel like I deserve an honorary psychology degree for a lifetime of assuaging the fears of anxious men). But please…can the focus be more on the people who bear the burden of exclusion, and not the feelings or fears of people who don’t bear that burden?
I’m taking some mental health time off this weekend and celebrating my daughter’s birthday, but I am thinking and will be writing something soon for this blog, thinking about all this.
Salud! Happy birthday! (It’s my daughter’s birthday too. We’re celebrating by particpating in the annual zombie walk. Well, that and one of her friends is spending the day and night with us. I think pizza and DQ will figure prominently in the evening after staggering about the city while looking half-dead.) Hope you have as much fun as we do.
I guess I was thinking along the lines of providing a “canned” response or two for the person who wants to maintain his or her opposition to same-sex marriage in principle, but not use the legal system in ways harmful to other citizens. I’m thinking about face-saving options, for people who want to stop opposing legal same-sex marriage, without having to feel they are, or were, wrong in opposing it.
For instance, it’s possible to be opposed to same-sex marriage but believe that equal treatment under the law is more important. It seems reasonable for someone to express genuine concern about letting gay couples marry, but feel even stronger that all Americans be afforded equal legal rights. Such a position lets the anti-gay marriage person feel validated about his or her support for limiting marriage to straight people, while also acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the other principles at stake.
Rhetorically, it might go something like this:
“I am very concerned about society compromising the idea of marriage as bringing two opposite-sex persons together in a life-long union, but I’m also concerned about denying a minority an important legal right. I’ll always feel that marriage is by its very nature something designed for a man-woman couple but I can’t agree to a legal framework that says that some people, but not others, get to have certain legal rights.”
I’m sure there are other ways to fill in the blank that follows, “I am opposed to same-sex marriage, but I don’t oppose legalizing it because……”
For some reason, I believe that at this point in the conversation, there are people who would be willing to compromise in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage (or at least not opposing it), so long as they aren’t backed into the corner of having to admit to being “wrong.” An incremental, rather than an “all or nothing” approach, might be more useful in winning new converts to support legal same-sex marriage (or at least not actively oppose it!).
I would recommend saying to someone that you can see they are very concerned about marriage and then go from there. Find out what they are worried about. See if you have any common areas of concern. Then try to address any areas of concern they have or talk from your own perspective on why you support gay marriage.
I agree with Elizabeth Marquardt, if you jump to calling someone a bigot or saying that their view is a bigoted one, you’re going to turn them off.
Elizabeth said:
“Perhaps one thing you can do is recognize that persons who think changing the definition of marriage is not a wise move are not necessarily “anti gay.”
That’s fair enough but I’m trying to envision what the better label is, if there is one, when someone advocates a public policy that has so many negative consequences for gay people. Those consequences are both tangible and intangible and even have an impact on children being raised by gay couples. Once you know what the negative consequences are, and I bet you’ve heard them before, but you persist in your opposition to letting gay couples legally marry, how do you avoid being labeled anti-gay? Is there a better way to describe your opinion of gay couples?
At best you are willing to accept a marginalized status for gay people, in exchange for preferential legal treatment of straight couples under the law. You’re also willing to block a path to full citizenship rights, and full social acceptance, for gay people. You’re demanding that the government make it official government policy to prefer straight people over gay people, with all that implies. Even if your motivations are pure, the outcome remains the same: diminished social status for gay people, reduced access to tangible and intangible benefits, and government support for homophobic persons’ beliefs.
You may not be anti-gay in motivation but you are surely anti-gay in public policy and policy outcomes. And I think gay people would probably care a lot more about what outcomes they face rather than what other peoples’ motivations are.
Do you agree or disagree with how I’ve described the conflict between opposing marriage rights for gay people, while claiming that you are not “anti-gay”?
Kevin:
In this and other comments, you make some strong points, some of which I agree with and some of which I want to think more about, but it also appears to me that your entire conceptualization of the issue keeps you pretty tightly locked into a completely binary view of things, in which the true and only question on the table is, are you for gay people, or against them?
I am certainly willing to say that this is an important part of what are debating — which, as you suggest, was a key part of my changing my own position on the issue. But is it the only thing? It seems that you think it is. And I am certain that many, many others who favor gay marriage, and can’t think of a single reason why any good person would NOT favor gay marriage, also think that it is.
But I don’t. And (though I can’t and don’t want to speak for her) I don’t think Elizabeth does. And there are other people I know, and have known and worked with for many years, who also don’t think that “pro gay or anti gay” is, once all the periphera is stripped away, the only significant question on the table. (Some of these people are now reminding me of this, as they criticize me for my recent statements.)
Am I right about you? Do you in fact think that this is the only real issue on the table? And if you think that there is, or at least might be, some other serious, legitimate topic connected to the gay marriage debate, other than this one question of pro-gay vs. anti-gay, what in your view might that other issue be?
I cannot speak for Kevin, but my own answer to this question is that almost the only question on the table is, are you for gay people, or against them? I say “almost” because the question also involves the families of gay people, not all of whom are gay, including their children. In addition, there is the question of the principle of equal rights. Elizabeth is fond of reminding us that gay people comprise a small minority (not quite as small as she seem to think, but small nevertheless), but even if the minority was very small indeed, the principle of equal rights is one that this country needs to embrace in reality (as opposed to rhetoric).
I suspect that this is what you meant in your Prop 8 testimony when you answered the question of what the country would be like if same-sex marriage became the law overnight: as I recall, you said “more American.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage have tossed out all sorts of “reasons” for denying gay couple equal marriage rights. None of them have been plausibe, much less convincing.
I guess I have a difficult understanding how supporting continued inequality for gay and lesbian couples is not anti-gay in effect even if the person supporting those policies or cultural biases supports them for complex reasons, most of which may not have to do with personal animosity toward lesbian and gay persons.
Most of the reasons given by those opposed to people like me marrying a partner of the same sex that are not overtly bigoted towards gay people seem like issues where same-sex marriage is the proxy rather than the actual concern. For example, like the fear several writers at this blog express that legalizing same-sex marriage will increase the use of assisted reproductive technologies. If the concern is the ethics of ART, then the appropriate response is to focus on the use of those technologies regardless of marriage law or sexual orientation … so linking the two seems ineffective as well as illogical.
So while I am willing to listen to those who believe they have legitimate concerns about gay marriage that aren’t … about gay marriage? I’m a little puzzled about how that works. And if their concerns are about gay marriage, per se then I think on some level pretty intense reflection should be had about how those concerns might be tied to our culture-wide stereotypes about queer people, and on some level be anti-gay prejudice even if we don’t mean it to be.
And on a (mostly) un-related note, I’m off to listen to David’s conversation recorded for “On Being” which aired on our local NPR station this weekend! I’m looking forward to it
I don’t know that this is quite a fair assessment. I can’t speak for Kevin, but for me the question is not simply whether I personally can think of why a good person might not favor gay marriage. I’ve spent years reading essays, columns, blog posts, and books by anti-SSM folks; to me, the rational, logical reasons aren’t out there.
It’s only not simply a binary question of whether you are for or against gay people. If you’re willing to sacrifice or simply de-emphasize the needs of gay people to achieve your own goals, it may be that you simply aren’t concerned with those needs, or that you value them less than other objectives.
OK, by my count so far, three comments and three answers of “no” to the question of whether there is any legitimate issue on the table other than, are you for gay people, or against them.
David, it seems a little binary to say you’re either “for” gay people en masse or “against” them … we’re a very diverse group of people who experience varied lives and have widely divergent relationships with marriage as a human activity (much like any other segment of the population). It’s like saying I’m “for women” or “for children” … how exactly? For their existence? For their happiness? For their … success? Continued health? It’s so general as to be not at all helpful in clarifying the conversation.
I think it might be more accurate to say, at least if you’re trying to characterize my opinion on the opposition to ssm, that one can either be for or against the legal right of same-sex couples to get married. This doesn’t change the definition of marriage (as Elizabeth suggests above), it just allows more couples to enter into marriage relationships.
So since the only characteristic difference between those wanting (but not allowed) to get married and those who currently can get married is the sex of their chosen partner, the issue really does come down to that of being gay or lesbian (or at least being partnered with someone of the same sex). That’s the only qualitative difference for the population of queer people seeking to marry.
(Obviously this sets aside, for the moment, people of all sexual identities and relationships who challenge the meaning and practice of marriage as it currently exists; that is, yes, a much more complicated matter. But it is a conversation that can take place separately from whether or not to allow all adult, consenting, couples who want to enter marriage relationships as they currently exist to do so.)
David, I think I see what you’re saying. My point is, however, once someone becomes aware of all the bad stuff that happens if and when the government denies marriage rights to gay people, yet remains in support of denying marriage rights to gay people, it is hard to avoid their being labeled “anti-gay.” When you are indifferent to the harms done to a minority, you are “anti” that minority, at least in the broadest sense: a bad outcome happening to that minority is acceptable to you. I don’t think anyone is opposed to legal same-sex marriage because they think thatt’s in the best interests of gay people; I don’t think anyone who opposes same-sex marriage doesn’t agree that gay couples and their children would be better off if they could marry.
You can also have strong religious convictions that you believe require that you support male/female only marriage, or be simply addicted to what you perceive as “tradition”, a common reason given for opposing same-sex marriage. Your primary motivation to oppose legal same-sex marriage might be religion-based or tradition-based, but you are still anti-gay. People can be more than one thing at a time! Again, one’s motivations may not be anti-gay but the outcome of one’s position certainly is. Perhaps there’s a philosophical discussion of motivations versus outcomes. For starters, though, we know what the road to hell is paved with!
I’m happy to use a different term, if one exists. I don’t what other term to use to describe someone who believes it is acceptable to deny this or that legal right to a specific group, even if they claim they have other motivations, when they know their position harms (creates harmful outcomes for) that specific group. For me, the key to earning the “anti-gay” label lies in one’s awareness of the harms done as a consequence of the policy one supports, and appearing to be perfectly at ease with that. Being “anti-gay” doesn’t, to me, mean frothing-at-the-mouth fear and loathing of gay people; it just means a belief that it’s acceptable to marginalize (legally, socially or otherwise) gay people. From a public policy standpoint, this is anti-gay, and it’s the outcome of denying marriage rights to gay people.
Kevin you say:
.
I think this is a strong point, and I basically agree with it.
However, you still aren’t answering my question. I’m not focusing on the term “anti-gay.” And I’m not focusing on people’s innner motivations or feelings. My question was and is very straight-forward: Do you think that, in the debate over gay marriage, we are debating any significant, legitimate issue OTHER than the issue of favoring expanded rights for gays and lesbians?
David, I can’t tell if you’re being snide or just misconstruing what I wrote. It’s hard to see how you interpret me saying “It’s only [sic] not simply a binary question of whether you are for or against gay people.” to mean, “Yes, the only issue is are you for gay people, or against them.”
In order to understand the question that you are asking, I need to ask you some questions for clarification.
1.) If a person makes the argument, “I am against SSM, because gay couples are likely to use purple as a color in their wedding, and the color purple is harmful to the eyes of some children,” would you consider that person to be discussing an issue other than the expansion of rights for gays and lesbians? (It’s a yes-or-no question.)
What I’m getting at is: are you asking us if complete non sequiturs that are not in any way related to gay marriage, and are not logically or reasonably related to the effects of gay marriage, count as “other legitimate issue on the table?”
2.) In your opinion, are the following statements true?
A. In the debate over women’s suffrage, some people brought legitimate issues to the table other than the expansion of legal rights for women.
B. In the debate over segregation, some people brought legitimate issues to the table other than the expansion of legal rights for minorities.
If, you are willing to concede that opponents of women’s suffrage raised legitimate issues that had nothing to do with expanding the legal/civil rights of women, then I will understand much better how broadly you would like me and the other people you are asking to interpret your phrase about other “legitimate issues.”
Ooh, and I need to ask a third question:
3) May I continue posting in this thread? I think I’ve hit 3.
Do you think that, in the debate over gay marriage, we are debating any significant, legitimate issue OTHER than the issue of favoring expanded rights for gays and lesbians?
David, put like that I would agree with you that the gay marriage issue is standing in for some important issues that are in themselves worth discussing. I’m sure each person would come up with their own list, but here are a few of mine:
1) What is the role of personal religious convictions and practicing in the public realm when it comes to the creation of policies that effect all citizens’ lives, regardless of their own religious beliefs and practices?
2) How do we, as a society, make provision for caregiving — whether the care of children and elders or the more mutual support of enduring spousal relationships? As our society moves away from the patriarchal model of father-to-son-to-grandson providers, we have become aware of the weaknesses in a system that builds the social safety net around an idealized heteronormative family unit that exists for relatively few citizens even part of their lives. What type of more egalitarian recognition of family and care relationships do we, as a society, want to honor?
3) What is the relationship between marriage and parenting, adulthood and parenting, parenting and sexuality, and sexuality and marriage? Historically-speaking, marriage relationships have been socioeconomic arrangements subject to a great deal of social interference — now we expect a high degree of autonomy in selecting a lifemate and choosing how to commit to them. Likewise, historically adulthood and (hetero) sexual activity has been virtually synonymous with parenthood, except for the infertile and those who practiced same-sex activity and/or solitary sex exclusively. Now thanks to contraceptive technologies (hormonal or mechanical) we have a much greater independence — at least in the United States, if we are financially able to access those technologies — in choosing when and if to parent. So the inevitability factor is going down, and the degree of agency we have in charting the course of our adult lives is up. How do we think ethically about these matters of personal choice?
Those are just three of the major thematic conversations I think we could be having more productively if we would actually speak about those issues instead of freighting queer sexuality and queer relationships with the responsibility to combat historical change.
I think it really depends in the meaning of the word “legitimate.”
I don’t think that opposition to donor-conception or surrogacy is a legitimate reason to oppose SSM, since the two issues are, though slightly related, not really strongly related to one another. That is, you can outlaw one without affecting the legal status of the other, there doesn’t seem to be strong evidence that a prevalence of one strongly influences prevalence of the other, etc.
I DO think that people oppose SSM for that reason, though, rather than due to personal anti-gay animus, and that that’s what they’re ‘really’ concerned about, rather than using it as a beard.
So it’s legitimately their reason without being a legitimate reason, if you see what I mean.
I think it’s entirely possible to be ‘legitimately’ concerned about issues other than equality at the outset of discussion of SSM, and that many people were, but that as time has gone on, the legitimacy of those concerns has diminished steadily.
Concerns about more loving committed marriages leading to the decline of marriage is like being concerned about sailing off the edge of the world in 800 AD or something. A legitimate concern then. Less legitimate by 1492.
So yeah. My answer is something like: “Define your terms.”
—Myca
@annajcook –
1. re: religion – I think that in America, the state has to establish institutions that aren’t based on any particular religion. However, individuals can and will vote based on their own religious beliefs. There’s no way around that without controlling people’s thoughts. (And I think voting based on your own religion is the right thing to do.)
and
2. “we have become aware of the weaknesses in a system that builds the social safety net around an idealized heteronormative family unit that exists for relatively few citizens even part of their lives. What type of more egalitarian recognition of family and care relationships do we, as a society, want to honor?”
what do you mean? How is the social safety net built around the family unit of two-straight-parents and a child? How could/would you build it any differently?
Also, to clarify slightly, I am distinguishing between legitimate and wrong. The argument that we should not fund further social programs because taxes are too high is, I believe, wrong. It is legitimate though, in that identifies an actual trade off or cost to further funding of social programs. I believe that they weigh those alternatives wrongly, but they are not wrong to believe that trade off exists.
In the alternative, here, I do not believe that any legitimate trade-offs have been identified. That is, I’m not saying that Anti SSM folks are wrong to value the rights of donor conceived children or social cohesion over the rights of gay people, but that there simply is not a legitimate trade off to be made there.
—Myca
No offense, but while you might personally be uncomfortable with the terminology or the designation, isn’t the fact that thousands of people honestly do view you as anti-gay, and probably will for the rest of your life, a potential motivator to stop opposing SSM and look for other ways to support your pro-family and pro-children agenda?
Are we to adopt this in relation to opposition to any proposal which is advanced to help an oppressed minority?
Let’s take one example: the issue of slave reparations for black Americans. That is, the proposal that all black Americans who are defended from slaves be given a substantial monetary reparation from the government in compensation for the wrong done in the past, and in order to help them toward a more equal footing in life.
I know, this idea at present is controversial with black Americans (the intended beneficiaries) as well as whites (the privileged majority), and thus differs, at present, from the case regarding SSM (I personally know a couple of gays opposed to SSM, but yes, they are in a minority).
But if the idea of slave reparations DID gain traction, and far larger numbers came to accept the idea, would it then become acceptable to refer to all those opposing it as “racist”, simply because it was now supported by a majority?
I oppose the idea of slave reparations because as much as I agree that black people have been oppressed and were hindered by slavery, slave reparations, while perhaps monetarily helpful to blacks in the short run, would have negative consequences far outweighing the positive ones in the long run, for both blacks and whites.
But I guess it would be okay to deride my opposition to the idea as racist, and to tell me that my being called racist should be reason alone for me to change my opposition, even though I really still believe the idea is a terrible mistake.
Sorry, not a good way to debate issues.