At the New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer has just published a piece, “From Fighting Same-Sex Marriage to Forging a Pro-Marriage Coalition for All,” about the release today of “A Call to a New Conversation on Marriage.” The full text of the Call and the list of more than 70 American leaders who are signatories is available at our homepage, AmericanValues.org.
The document is signed by 74 well-known activists, writers and scholars, on the left and the right, including the conservative John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine; John Corvino, a gay philosopher; Robert N. Bellah, a sociologist; Caitlin Flanagan, a feminism skeptic; and Glenn C. Loury, an economist — once conservative, now less so.
“While the nation’s attention is riveted by a debate about whether a small proportion of our fellow citizens (gays and lesbians) should be allowed to marry,” the statement reads, “marriage is rapidly dividing along class lines, splitting the country that it used to unite.”
The signatories are an extraordinary group of people and there’s room for many, many more. Join us. Read the Call. Tell your friends. Sign on. Support the conversation financially.
As the Call concludes:
…The conventional wisdom seems to be that marriage – except possibly for gay marriage – is something that can’t be fixed. It’s about personal choices. People are voting with their feet. Nothing can be done to stop or reverse the trend. The only thing we can do is ignore the problem, change the subject, or passively wring our hands in sadness.
The new conversation rejects this premise entirely. This is an American conversation. Like our forebears, we assume that what happens in the future will be the result of our ideas and choices today. No trend in our society, including the marriage trend, is preordained, or immune from human decision-making, and no problem we face – this is America, after all – is so large that we must become passive and servile in its face.
The current conversation is at a dead end.
But the new conversation is just getting started.
To this new conversation, we pledge our time, money, and best ideas. We are eager to face the challenge. We invite you to join us.
Categories: Marriage
Although I expected Dr. George and others to resign from the board, I wasn’t aware of the financial stress that David’s change created. I’m sure that David appreciated the financial risk which makes him among the most compelling equality advocates. He has earned my admiration. Having run a non-profit, I honestly cannot say that I could have done what David did.
Things are going to get more interesting because David is part of the record in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The reply brief is due to be filed (at SCOTUS) on February 21. I expect the original NY Times article will be submitted as an exhibit (I don’t recall if it was part of the 9th Circuit proceedings).
Brad Wilcox didn’t sign
Nope. I’m curious what you’re drawing from this. Are you happy, sad, surprised, indifferent? I’m really asking; no snarkiness intended. Your comment just seems odd without further explanation.
I am not surprised that Wilcox did not sign. I am indifferent to the information, though his failure/refusal to sign confirms my idea of who he is.
I have read the Call carefully. Unfortunately, I will not be signing it. Its fatal flaw is here: “the new conversation does not presuppose or require agreement on gay marriage.” Why would a gay person want to be a signatory on a document or a participant in a conversation about strengthening marriage in which other participants do not think that you are worthy of being married?
Billy:
That is the very reason that you should be part of conversation. When we only speak with each other – we all agree but accomplish less. What groups like HRC and GLAAD have done so successfully is to reach out.
Prop8 was the classic example of what happens when we forget to touch people on the other side of what is a controversy.
Billy,
Three answers:
1. As gay people continue to achieve marriage equality across the world, they will, more and more, have an interest in – a stake in – strengthening marriage as an institution. Some people currently opposed to marriage equality might have good ideas for strengthening marriage that can be generally applied and will strengthen the institution of marriage for both gay and straight people. I’m a Democrat, but if a Republican friend has a good idea about something, it would be foolish not to use their idea just because they disagree with me politically.
2. The participants in the conversation who oppose marriage equality do not think you are “unworthy.” If they thought you were unworthy they would not be part of the conversation. Rather, they think (incorrectly, in your view and mine) that legal civil marriage for gay people is a bad public policy. Don’t be so cynical… (To clarify, I should acknowledge: There are marriage equality opponents who do think you are unworthy [which is awful], but they are very unlikely to want to participate in this conversation.)
3. Most importantly… what David Hart just said. Thank you, David. It’s a conversation, not a conclusion.
David, because of the people who oppose same-sex marriage, my partner and I are in effect forced to donate a great deal of money–in 2012 more than $15,000–to organizations and political candidates working on behalf of a fundamental human right. Until gay people across the country have that right, we will continue to devote our resources to that fight. Like so many other expenses gay people have to pay when we do not enjoy equal rights, it is yet another “fag tax” imposed on us.
I sympathize with David Blankenhorn’s desire to move the conversation away from the struggle for equal rights onto a broader discussion of marriage itself. Once that struggle has been won, I will be happy to participate in that broader-based conversation.
But until then, my resentment at having to spend resources on obtaining what should be a right of citizenship would not make me a very pleasant participant in a conversation with people who deny my right to marry the person I love.
Billy, I was with my late partner for over 30 years. After I was shot our relationship started to go south. Yet, I think that if we had been married his final couple of years would have been more meaningful.
Believe me when I say that I am thoroughly distressed at not having full equality. My flog is spectacularly angry because I am shouting at people rather than having a conversation.
Look, Barber, LaBarbera and Staver are never going to think more of us than as depraved perverts. Brian Brown is too invested in inequality. OTOH, look at the transformation of someone like Warren Throckmorton. There are many more Warrens out there. We just need to figure out how to have the conversation with them.
Here’s the problem I have. The signatories are mostly men. And some of the women have some pretty retrograde ideas about marriage. Like Kay Hymowitz, who has spent thousands words arguing that it’s women’s fault that men are unmarriageable.
David and Shroeder, perhaps I was not altogether clear. I am moved by David Blankenhorn’s evolution and I applaud his attempt to get beyond the culture war about same-sex marriage.
I would devoutly like to be beyond that culture war. Alas, while it may be easy for Blankenhorn to withdraw from the culture war, for gay people it is impossible.
For most gay people in this country, those of us who live in the 41 states in which we cannot marry the person we love, and in the 31 states in which our relationships have no recognition at all and we can be fired simply because of our sexual orientation, the culture war is not something we can just declare over and withdraw from.
We did not choose to make a culture war out of our lives.
I am all for strengthening marriage and I welcome the efforts of the IAV in doing so. But I will not be participating or donating or supporting this “conversation” until the culture war has really ended in the only way that is satisfactory–when marriage equality has been achieved throughout the country. I will certainly not be working alongside people who want to deny me the right to marry while expecting me to help them improve an institution from which my partner and I are excluded.
Billy, I think you speak for a lot people. But expecting Christian conservatives to fully fund what David is doing is totally unreasonable.
Does David have a new model or not? Funding will ultimately determine this.
I speak as someone who does not, with regrets, believe this new model can work.
I hope I’m wrong. Can someone prove me wrong?
Maggie, I don’t expect Christian conservatives to do anything. I would be happy if they used their vast amounts of money for something positive rather than to fund discrimination and bigotry, but, as I said, I don’t have high expectations of them.
I am in the rare position of agreeing with Maggie G. My general impression is that IAV’s support for Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities is to lukewarm to garner donations from gay rights organizations or individuals. And even like warm support has lost him funding from “conservative” donors.
I mentioned on a different topic that David’s tone and body language when speaking of Civil Rights for Sexual Minorities seems anguished, constrained. Unfortunately, (seriously) he read it as a dig.
Sexual Minority Supporter. Wow.
I doubt you are a connector to what David needs to fund his new initiative. But if you were, wow.
Body language as you observe it would trump everything else. Wow. Who would be on your side?
Body language is something we don’t always control that can affect how we come across. I don’t think it’s unfair for sexual minority supporter to mention it and it could be seen as an effort to give some useful feedback.
I may have this wrong but I thought David said he was opting out of active opposition to equal legal rights for gays and lesbians, such as marriage, because it had devolved into a culture war, and had become unkind and divisive. It’s not that he supports same-sex marriage, he just doesn’t like the unpleasant nature of the discussion about it.
Maybe that explains body language that betrays a lack of commitment to his words, if indeed such body language is actually there.
“….teachers who do not want to teach something about homosexuality as it violates her religious beliefs….” And what would be an example of something “taught” about homosexuality that could violate a religious belief? That it exists? That some people are gay? Does the Bible forbid discussion of homosexuality? Huh???
Greg, why do straight people require an institution that connects them to their children? Don’t straight people LIKE their children, enough to be connected by common DNA? Why are so many straight parents not getting married, if marriage is so crucial to connecting them to their children?
And how does allowing gay people to get married somehow infringe on the evidently crucial child connection institution that marriage is being redefined as?
Kevin;
the reason gay marriage infringes on that is because the gay marriage movement has itself decided to take that track; to invest in the devaluation of biological basis of kinship and declare that it is the sexual relationship betweeen adults that matters.
Had they simply declared a wish to adapt to the norms of the heterosexual majority in which adults are expected to pair up on a sexual basis and conduct their lives jointly; without trying to claim that they are exactly the same (which biologically they are not, with regards to reproduction) with all the legal ramifications, I might look at it differently.
Agreed that gay people are not thefirst to do so but they are the ones who turned it into a movement from a fringe.
kisarita: How exactly has the same-sex marriage movement “invest[ed] in the devaluation of biological basis of kinship and declare[d] that it is the sexual relationship betweeen adults that matters”?
It seems to me that the central legal demand of the same-sex marriage movement is that same-sex couples be treated the same in relationship recognition law as infertile different-sex couples.
via art whichweve discussed often enough on this blog and its related laws
@Kevin “why do straight people require an institution that connects them to their children? Don’t straight people LIKE their children, enough to be connected by common DNA?”
I guess some comments have been deleted, but to respond to this question out of context. I wish I knew why, but it does seem to be true. DNA is not enough to connect us. Spending time with a baby and bonding also matters. Women generally bond during pregnancy and the early months. Men bond, too, but if they are disconnected from the woman and not with the kids, that may not happen.
And when couples split up, the kids usually end up losing the dad after a few years. People argue over whether that’s the fault of the guy or the mom not letting him visit, but it definitely happens.
“Why are so many straight parents not getting married, if marriage is so crucial to connecting them to their children?”
Well, I think they don’t believe that it is necessary. I think they are just wrong. Marriage can help you stay together. Without kids you can just stay together as long as the benefits outweigh the costs. It’s easy to stay in love. With kids – well, kids are great and they add to your love in the long run, but in the short run, they eat up all your time and energy. The stress can lead to a couple breaking up.
So some couples might not get married because they think they are just going to stay together without it.
Other couples may be more discouraged and think that they are going to break up, but at least they won’t have to go to court or pay alimony or share custody or pay the other person’s debts or whatever it is they don’t want to do. Anyhow, that’s my take on it.
Well, I still don’t understand this concept:
“I’m a straight person and a new parent. I’m indifferent to the child I just helped produce, but if I get married, I’ll find a reason to connect to that child. But if gay couples are allowed to get married, it will be an impediment to my building a connection to my child.”
Isn’t that the gist of this line of thinking? It seems to me that the person willing to commit to marriage would have the same skill set to commit to a child as a parent.
And since gay couples raise children, shouldn’t we want them to be as committed to their children their raising? Do the children of same-sex couples deserve less than the children of different-sex couples?
@Kevin – Well, I definitely agree with you that it makes no sense to pull in gay couples and blame them for parents who aren’t committed to their children or their marriages.
“It seems to me that the person willing to commit to marriage would have the same skill set to commit to a child as a parent.”
For this, I would say yes, and no. People who are willing to commit to marriage are probably more likely to stay around in the first place.
On the other hand, there does seem to be something about being committed to the other parent as a person that makes it easier for many people to stay co-parents.
kisarita writes:
“via art which weve discussed often enough on this blog and its related laws”
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/01/human-trafficking-coming-to-france.html
Karen: Despite the framing of the blog post (which was written by an ideological opponent of same-sex marriage), the decision the translated article describes has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, which has yet to be legalized in France.
JHW, you are right – I agree. But they do go hand in hand – which one is leading the other? Wondering how the French gov. will now handle “presumption of paternity/maternity” in relation to “marriage”?
Karen: I don’t see how they go hand in hand.
Donor conception is not legal in France for same-sex couples or for individuals, and the proposed same-sex marriage legislation does not alter that. (It is legal, however, complete with legal recognition for both parents, for infertile different-sex couples, married or unmarried.)
@Kevin “It’s not that he supports same-sex marriage, he just doesn’t like the unpleasant nature of the discussion about it.”
This is how I see it, although he’s not me, so I could be wrong:
Dave Blankenhorn has stopped opposing same-sex marriage because his reason for opposing it didn’t work. He thought that opposing it would strengthen heterosexual marriage, but instead it just diverted time and money away from the real issues like divorce.
He sees some advantages to legal same-sex marriage, but he also sees some possible disadvantages that concern him. However, he is ready to accept it as a reality and focus on strengthening marriage in general.
Now he is trying to get people from both ends of the political spectrum to come together to deal with the problems we know we have with marriage. Whatever his opinion is, he cannot do this if he says people in the coalition have to support same sex marriage.
I hope this effort can succeed. I think marriage needs people from all ends of the political spectrum to be on its side. I also hope that when someone changes to not opposing same sex marriage, that they don’t just get slammed for it.
Not yet JHW, but this set of events is possibly another one of those “slippery slope” scenarios we try to swat away. It’s not going away:
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/01/human-trafficking-coming-to-france.html
While I disagree with some members of this group about the role of the sensitive topic of gay marriage in the general realm of marriage policy, the fact remains that no matter what happens about gay marriage, marriage has a lot of other problems. We all need to think carefully about issues such as pornography, and media that is working towards the total dissembling of a culture that encourages marriage, as well as the issues raised by this group.
Kinship in marriage has never been about who is biologically related to whom. On the contrary, marriage is one of only two institutions that create kinship outside of biological family. (The other institution is adoption.)
That – not heterosexuality – is the single most common trait of marriage across cultures: Marriage is how two people who aren’t close relatives, become each other’s closest kin.
I’m reading the “call for a new conversation” to be, not a call on people to drop their advocacy for legal same-sex marriage, but a call for us to have conversations on marriage in addition to whatever conversations about SSM we’re also having in other forums.
I agree that it would be unreasonable of David (or anyone) to ask lgb people to drop their support for legal equality. But I don’t believe that’s what he’s asking.
And yes, I signed it.
marriage creates biological kinship via common descendants, or at least the expectation thereoff.
An “expectation” isn’t the same as an actuality. And a married pair are each other’s closest kin.
Marriage has a lot to do with children (although it’s not ALL that marriage has to do with). But marriage’s function of making the spouses each other’s closest kin, legal and socially, happens without regard to whether or not the couple has kids.
I agree with you, Barry Deutsch, that what marriage does is to make the unrelated couple related to each other and each other’s families.
I do think, though, that in many societies, it also is a way to define which children a man will be connected to and responsible for. I don’t think that’s universal, but I think it is a common function of marriage.
Okay Barry, I think I agree – marriage makes the spouses closest kin, with or without offspring. But then what? Why would society and the law creat such a peculiar institution? I believe because of what Kisarita says: because sex makes babies, who are each parent’s kin, and it is socially desirable that their parents be kin as well. Why so, on your account? Why should romantic feelings and romantic commitment entail a socially and legally recognized kinship relationship? Why more so than friendship does, or a work partnership, etc.?
Because married people are making a commitment to one another to be one another’s primary support system; to build a deeply intimate life together regardless of whether they choose to have children. Friends and work colleagues aren’t committed to pay one another’s debts or care for one another in old age or infirmity. Marriage is a higher-order of intimacy than friendship or a collegial work relationship, and it doesn’t require children to achieve or maintain that intimacy.
A married couple is, traditionally, “one flesh,” legally the same person, not kin. A widowed spouse doesn’t inherit, but rather continues to own. Kin (the heirs) inherit. Spouses aren’t heirs. One way to strengthen marriage is stop insisting that marriages do not create one flesh, and are only a contract between two individuals who remain individuals.
A return to coverture? No thanks. I’ll take human rights instead.
Manny, you have it backwards. Traditionally, a widow inherited because, as a woman, her husband owned the property during her lifetime. “One flesh” did not mean the partners joined equally; it meant that the woman became subordinate to the man.
Well don’t expect stronger marriages then. Give men some respect as being men and husbands, in and of themselves, and respect the role of man, husband and father as being something only men can do and something that all men should expect respect for just being in and of themselves. Stop trying to dumb everything down to a common denominator of a single individual that it turns out only women can fully take advantage of.
I’m afraid I did not understand the last sentence at all, nor the relationship of your entire comment to the previous one.
The last sentence relates to La Luba’s comment, refusing the idea of becoming one flesh, and insisting on staying single while married. But it turns out that single people aren’t equal, even La Luba’s married single people, only true one flesh marriages are equal, they are the atomic unit of humanity. Individuals are half-flesh, mere individuals. Only women can fully take advantage of being individuals, because only women can have children and control reproduction of someone else, men cannot have children or control the reproduction of women (rape is rightfully illegal while abortion is rightfully legal, but these create an advantage for women that is then further taken advantage of by eliminating the need for marriage to have kids and receive child support. Men need to be able to get something out of being married, basically just simple respect as men and husbands and fathers and the roles and expectations of that, and the joining of the woman into their own flesh to become one soul in two bodies, to have the same rights and advantages as women have individually. The good thing is that women then also gain the rights and advantages of men when they marry, and only lose, as men do also, the individual advantages of being single.
What do you mean by “one flesh” and how does that correlate with respect for men?
Do you mean that women should have no legal agency or property rights in marriage?
Re: Only women can fully take advantage of being individuals, because only women can have children and control reproduction of someone else, men cannot have children or control the reproduction of women (rape is rightfully illegal while abortion is rightfully legal, but these create an advantage for women that is then further taken advantage of by eliminating the need for marriage to have kids and receive child support.
I don’t agree that abortion is ‘rightfully’ legal, but other that I think your point is very well taken.
It is literally impossible for two people to merge and become one. Marriage is a legal agreement that two people voluntarily enter—there is no “refusal” anywhere in the equation. But the act of marriage, as well as sexual intercourse, never results in two persons becoming one person. They still retain two bodies, two minds, two hearts/souls/(however you want to put it if you believe in that sort of thing). Two people voluntarily committing to one another.
That’s much more profound than any magical thinking about “one flesh”.
Do you think Jesus thought that they literally become one flesh? Do you think that Jesus thought women should not have legal agency or property rights?
I think Mary Magdalene was a disciple. I think Jesus was egalitarian, but those who came after him weren’t.
But, it’s not my fight—I’m not a Christian.
This thread is going off the rails. Let me ask a question. Assume, for the moment, that national marriage equality is inevitable. Now what? What do opponents of equal marriage want?