Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEndangering Choice
Do you remember the New Yorker cartoon showing a couple in their living room reading the newspaper? "Gays and lesbians getting married," reports the husband to his wife, whereupon he adds, "haven't they suffered enough?"
This was an arch and ironic commentary on the image of a beleaguered minority actually trying to break into an institution.
Last week it happened again. Connecticut became the third state, after Massachusetts and California, to let homosexuals break into the institution of marriage. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that even in a state with civil unions, separate wasn't equal. Anything less than marriage violated equal protection laws.
This ruling was greeted with cheers from couples who had sued for the right to marry. Among them were the two women, mothers of adopted twins, and two men, one of whom proclaimed cheerily, "We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage."
I am fully aware that same-sex marriage is a polarizing issue and an engine for backlash. It's back on the ballot in three states this November, including California, where couples are rushing to the altar before they can be de-married. But Connecticut is a good reminder of how fast attitudes toward gay rights have changed. And how fast the public image of gays has gone from San Francisco flamboyance to suburban sobriety. The fear-mongering of the "Gay Agenda" is now the wedding registry at Home Depot.
When the Connecticut decision came down, I was at a Yale Law School conference on "The Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights." Here academics and activists were talking about gay rights and abortion as law, and as tools for the culture-war recruiters.
Stanford law professor Pam Karlan was the first to compare changes in the last two decades. "Gays have come out of the closet," she said, "and women who've had abortions have gone back into the closet."
The long slow process of "coming out" means that today nearly everyone knows someone who is gay. Gays are no longer some foreign "them," especially to younger Americans who are four times more likely than their grandparents to support marriage equality. Even Sarah Palin painted herself "tolerant" during the vice presidential debate and talked about her "diverse" friends and family.
The long slow process of "going back in" has meant, in Karlan's words, that "we don't always know that we know someone who's had an abortion." Has the invisibility of these women made it easier to chip away at their rights?
This change has happened in public as well as private. In 1989, "thirtysomething" was boycotted for a single gay scene. Today, as Yale historian George Chauncey says, "There are many sympathetic gay characters on TV and the movies." But he adds, "almost no sympathetic characters who are getting abortions." Hollywood's heroines from "Juno" to "Waitress" to "Knocked Up" barely think about it.
The analogy is far from perfect, as I will hear from every pro-life reader who equates abortion with murder. And it's been a long time, thankfully, since we read stories of victims of illegal abortion. To the degree that the gay rights movement has focused on marriage, it's seen as intrinsically conservative, even pro-family. On the other hand, an abstract set of abortion rights is framed as an individual choice.
Moreover, the narrative of same-sex marriage ends with the sound of a champagne bottle popping at a wedding. An abortion, on the other hand, may be followed by an assortment of emotions, but certainly not joy.
Because we rarely see real women, it's easy to forget that one out of every three American women has had an abortion by the time she's 45. As Karlan said, "Look to your right. Look to your left. One of you has had an abortion." Because we rarely hear from women, it's easy to forget that over half those women already have children and are making their decisions in that family context.
Abortion was legalized on the grounds of the right to privacy. And so it remains private. But the more private it is, the more we think it only happens to someone else, someone "unlike us." The more unlike us she is, the less public support there is for the right. Abortion rights slip away as the woman slips out of sight.
Here is the conundrum in the closet. For all the lingering opposition to same-sex marriage, being gay is losing its stigma. Having an abortion is being more deeply stigmatized.
Look to your right. Look to your left.
30 Comments so far
Show AllAs Mr Hawkin said, "All you have to do is keep on talking." My fear is that is exactly what people are not doing, despite the narrowing confines of the so-called global village. Let me amend that - we all keep talking, but we are not listening to each other. We are planning our next sentence before the other person has stopped talking. Creates ignorance. Which leads to fear. Which becomes "us" and the "other", which is a fine excuse to stop listening to people who are not from "our" group.
'Truthteller?!'
You want to teach inner city youth thrown away by this fascist society? You won't do it at a 'corporate charter school.'
I spent 17 years in a California Youth Authority institution teaching every race. This was an 18-25 year old group, incarcerated for every known crime on the books, and some new ones. My first 3 years were a living hell of frustration, seemingly failure and administrative/security indifference. I worked it out by knowing one thing. Treat everybody fairly.
I started ignoring administration's hard case discipline. They weren't the teacher trying to educate and balance hypocrisy and the ignorance of security, while maintaining classroom order and learning. I was.
So I ran it the way it might have been run by a more enlightened society.
I forgave them and they forgave me. Without any B.S. Bible. But the bible of the street. I've been retired awhile, but I'll still get a phone call, a Christmas card, a request for a recommendation.
Justice is a grey area not to be found in a court of law.
Nietzsche
We need one new law to take the place of thousands now on the books:
MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS and allow others to do the same.
www.imnotsorry.net
To bad we didn't get Romney and settle it once and for all: Marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman, or one man and a couple of women, well maybe one man, a dozen women, and a few young girls; or possibly one man,a dozen
women, several young girls and a couple of neutered young boys; OK,OK l got it now: one man, a dozen women,several young boys and girls, and a couple of domesticated animals (preferably mammals).Yeah that should make a marriage made in heaven.
Reproductive choice and gay marriage are both important topics, but are very different in their ramifications. Gay marriage would provide a legal and economic benefit for those couples; allowing them to have legal rights as in health insurance, hospital admittence, inheritance laws, etc. But not being able to be married (if gay) does not factor into their personnal health. By not allowing women to make reproductive choices over their bodies (whether we are talking about restricting birth control, sexual education, or being able to have an abortion) we are saying that women are not SMART enough or CAPABLE enough to make those choices for themselves. And the ramifications of such control over an individual have long term, far reaching effects upon the woman's social, economic and physical health status. I fully support both individual rights, gay marriage and choice, as it is the only logical and fair decision. Anything else is a direct effort to restrict our ability, guarenteed to "all citizens", to pursue happiness and success.
I am going to say it again; the only way to control life is to control the woman. Controlling a woman's ability to conceive is a very powerful aphrodisiac for those seeking to gain power.
In centuries past, the term virgin was a misnomer. You were considered a virgin if were not with child for nine months. This was to make sure you had no one else’s children. You were “virgin”.
If a man wanted your property, the only thing he had to do was make sure you had no children to pass it on to, and when he married you, your property then became his and HIS childrens.
Hi, thanks for the clarification on those issues. I don't to dismiss them as totally unimportant. I do believe that these choices be kept if we are to move towards getting back our freedoms. It's just that the GOP are using them as distraction issues to get their target voters foaming at the mouth even though they have no plans to tackle them once in office.
"Abortion" is just a DISTRACTION. Roe v Wade is already irrelevant thanks to the various ways of chipping away at the decision. The real dominant one is Casey v Planned Parenthood these days. The same rightwing lunatics who complain about "abortion" don't mind ABORTING people once born, be it the environment, out of control violence, cannon fodder for resource wars, privatization of healthcare and good food all the while subsidizing Big Oil/Agri/Pharma/Corn, etc ... Both candidates were IDIOTS last night to even talk about the issue. If you don't want a same sex marriage, don't have one and instead learn to understand the opposite sex better. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't get a job. How hard is that to understand ?
Absolutely.
If Progressives cared as much about School Choice for poor minorities, and firearm choice for all of us, I might not think they were such hippocrytes.
Typical rightwing bullshit. You already have plenty of choices for firearms so go purchase one and knock yourself out. Gun control is just a red herring. As for school choice, what's that voucher gonna do for you anyway? Yeah, a $1000 "voucher" to enter a typical $10000 a year private school filled with bastardized "conservatism", eh? Yeah, that'll "improve" education in America. You couldn't even afford to send your own children to private schools even if you had a school voucher. People already have choices on where to send their kids, be it another school or even home schooling all together. Fake school "choice" by the bastardized "conservatives" is also another red herring. You might as well leave the country and move to Saudi Arabia where your typical rightwing bullshit will be welcomed by the Saudi royal elites.
Hey, excuse me. I am sorry I am trying to do SOMETHING to prepare black kids to be something other than janitors. I forgot that that means that YOU will have to pay more to find a maid.
Shit, excuse me....
What's a bible thumping private school going to do for the kids anyway? It's not as if those crummy schools produce better kids anyway.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
It will do no worse than a secular unionized inner city public school. And, it probably will tolerate less gang activity...
It is getting so that only the truly single person [straight or gay], is the one no one really cares about. Our rights are always at risk for abuse by others and the discrimination is very hurtful and expensive. I think we should just do away with tax preferences for martial status and see just how advantageous marriage gets to be for so many.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
As a single person who can barely afford rent and all those programs that they put into place "to help people", I have been turned away, denied and told to get a job. Just because I was single and have no children. "We need to save those for families."
It is QUITE true that no one gives a crap about singles.
Excellent point herbalist. As if creating a family is the most important thing people can do. Why not fiscally reward people for NOT procreating? Given our lifestyles, human being ARE burdens to the Earth. Each and every cuddley baby will one day be a job-needing/consuming adult. Think about this.
Ironically, lesbians and gays (absent of rape) will NEVER be in the position of having to have an abortion. All those children of gay couples are WANTED and PLANNED.... Imagine the world this way.....
You might try "Alternatives to Marrigage Project" at atmp@unmarried.org. Just remember that the unmarried [single, not remarried], ages 18-65 constitute between 43-48% of the population [varies by locale] as per the 2000 US Census. It is just a matter of time before things change. Don't get discouraged.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
I find Ellens use of pro-life as opposed to pro choice to be wrong. I am opposed abortion, but I adamently support choice. So you can be pro-coice and pro-life so to speak. I've never understood how anyone feels qualified to make this decision for someone else if they sren't taking direct responsibility for their decision for another person.
Gay marriage ian't an important social issue, only equal rights is. If you hasve equal rights under the law in a legal union, I still don't see any reason for inssisting on calling it marriage unless the object is to make people that don't approve knuckle under.
“I still don't see any reason for inssisting on calling it marriage unless the object is to make people that don't approve knuckle under.”
If there is no substantial difference between “legal union” and marriage then why are people upset? Consider if there was opposition to blacks in the US being called “people”. Opponents suggested that they be called “legal beings”. Do you think that african americans would object?
So if the terms have the same effect, then why the fuss, and why on both sides?
…And incidentally, marriage confers many historic, legal, financial benefits and it is recognized around the world. Not so with some new made up term. It is just dancing around the issue. Either gays can marry or they cannot. I don’t think any church should be forced to marry gays. I also don’t think any church should stop someone from getting married. You can separate religious customs that are different in every denomination, from a legal status in a secular society.
The church did not recognize marriage before the 16th century. It is, said that marriage was imposed upon a “reluctant” church. It was a ceremony borrowed from the pagans.
Excellent point.
I think its because "marriage" is and always has been a religious ceremony and legally acknowledged by governments as between man and woman.
To suggest that two people of the same sex can't have a legal union, conferring exactly the same privilages, benefits and responsibilities as a "married" man and woman would be stupid. We've got friends that have been together for 16 years and Suzy and JJ love each other and are more faithful than some masrried couples I know. They should have the same privilage my wife and I have.
As I understand it, in California, a legal union confers every benefit marrieds have, this is really about the word married. I may be wrong, please tell me if I am.
"So if the terms have the same effect, then why the fuss, and why on both sides?"
There we get to it. I don't believe myself that the term "marriage" should be used by Gays, never has been,why now, so to me, I can't see why the word is so important to them? Before it was the rights, that they should have, now it seems...to be a need for approval or strictly political...I just don't see the importance of the word for them.
Have a legal union and call yourself married if you want to.
I'll ask Suzy and some others what they think, should have before. Thanks for your thoughts.
I am a woman, married to a man, but our ceremony was 100% secular. Would you be hypocritical to call our marriage a "marriage?" Or no, just because of our genders. That sounds like a confrontational question but I'm truly curious.
What other word should they use, if perhaps we decided for them that marriage isn't appropriate? United? Bound? Ah the connotations! ;)
RE: abortion in the closet. Does anyone else remember the movie Roe v Wade with Holly Hunter? It seems amazing, absolutely amazing to me, times being what they are today, that this was a made-for-TV movie! Can you IMAGINE any of the networks broadcasting that now. (It was made in the late 80s I think?)
"I am a woman, married to a man, but our ceremony was 100% secular. Would you be hypocritical to call our marriage a "marriage?" Or no, just because of our genders."
Frankly I hadn't considered that. You have a valid point. Because yes, I would call you married. So.....then I guess if it becomes legal....gays would be "married"
I still don't understand why the word is that important to gays? What difference if the legal status is the same? Why stir up that kind of opposition to legal unions and delay the benefits they say they want?
For myself, I don't really care, I simply thought the word should be reserved for traditional marriage. Frankly your point changed my viewI think.
But there are is a majority of folks out there that this raises their hackles and they will fight it tooth and nail. I'll be surprised if the item on the ballot in California is decided in their favor. The courts ruling will be defeated I think.
I certainly didn't take your comment as confrontational, heck....folks disagree with me all the time. Disagreeing isn't confrontational.
If you are a man with a net worth of less than ten million (excluding the value of any real estate or stocks)US dollars (hopefully you have converted them to Swiss Francs), voting for McCain is like a rooster voting for Col. Sanders.
Thanks for marking change Ellen. California will be a litmus in three weeks. If they can hold on, I believe we will see some acceleration. Inequality is always a "meat and potato" issue for a real democracy.
Barack Obama is a passionate advocate for women's rights, and has a long and consistent record of standing up for women's health care. As president, he will improve access to quality health care for women, support and protect a woman's right to choose, support comprehensive sex education to keep our young people healthy and safe, and invest in prevention programs, including family planning services and breast cancer screenings.
Women voting for John McCain is like chickens voting for Col. Sanders.
Choice and gay marriage are important social issues but have no bearing on what it takes to run a country the size of America smoothly while pursuing peace and of course prosperity for all. They are important issues for providing an open society where the concensus of the citizens is to 'live and let live.' Unfortunately, there are many who feel that their race, or gender, or sexual orientation is superior and it becomes necessary to hang on to those convictions in order to remain 'in control.' Until we realize that we are all part of a giant mass called humanity we will continue to dwell on social issues in place of meat and potato issues that directly affect each and every one of us.