No Marriage Referendum Needed

Richard J. Rosendall, rrosendall@starpower.net

K. West (themail, May 24) writes, “Whether you are for same sex marriage or against it, a referendum in the nation’s capital is a must.” Why exactly does this and only this issue demand that we set aside our system of representative government? West’s paranoid ranting about “carefully, brilliantly, and strategically organized ward political meetings to push the Marriage Equality or same-sex clause” amounts to a staggering double standard by which the most civil gay advocates are sinister, while members of the Missionary Baptist Ministers’ Conference (which excludes women pastors on biblical grounds, for those of you who thought misogyny had died) are given no criticism for packing the Ward 5 meeting with hostile people making anti-gay catcalls.

No one is stopping West from organizing more discussions of the marriage issue. As it happens, however, the twelve DC councilmembers whom West reviles were duly elected by the voters of the District. It is bizarre and obnoxious to suddenly deny the legitimacy of our representative form of government because you don’t like the result in one case. And running to Congress to overturn the District’s own decisions is a betrayal of self-government and of all those who struggled for the full enfranchisement of the people of this city. How much public discussion would have to occur before West would even acknowledge that it has happened? Anyone who thinks there has been no public discussion on the issue should visit the Washington Post web site and search on “gay” or “marriage.”

West writes: “Too many people and leaders make light of citizens’ concerns about the traditional worldwide (with some exceptions) definition of marriage as well as their convictions, belief systems, cultures, and religions.” West, spare us the phony victimhood and try honestly addressing the arguments of marriage-equality advocates. As GLAA says in its talking points on marriage, the claim that marriage has remained unchanged for millennia is preposterous. New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda points out, “Marriage is a dynamic institution that has evolved throughout history to meet the needs of society. In fact, much of what was associated with marriage in the past would today be incomprehensible to the majority of Americans. This includes arranged marriages, payment of a dowry, the legally inferior status of women in the marital relationship, polygamous marriages, and royal and aristocratic marriage between relatives, such as first cousins.”

Contrary to West, what is at issue is not people’s religious beliefs but public policy. Gay citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law regardless of your religious beliefs. West says, “Many do not see the gay marriage agenda as a civil rights issue. . . . Some are saying that the mayor and council are trying to change the image of DC from the once murder capital of the world to the gay capital of the world.” Thank you for your lovely sentiments, West, but what evidence do you have of this burgeoning citizen alienation from their government, aside from the impressions you’ve gathered from like-minded friends?

West: “Some seem to feel that the city leadership is caving into moneyed, powerful, political self-interest groups that know how to have an impact on elections.” This is a very old anti-gay slander, according to which a tiny percentage of the population is demonized as wealthy, powerful, and sinister. Well pardon me, but I am a taxpaying, longtime citizen of DC, and I have the same right to participate in my own government as anyone else. How exactly are your motives magically sacrosanct while mine are automatically suspect? What evidence do you have about gay people being “moneyed”? You can look up the Williams Institute for evidence refuting your baseless charge. By the way, DC’s local marriage equality activists are all volunteers; it is the anti-gay ministers who have access to deep pockets. If you add up the budgets of all the national gay rights organizations, they are smaller than the budget of one right-wing group, Focus on the Family. So West’s claim about money is the opposite of the truth.

West: “Some feel that the council passed the bill to recognize same sex marriages from other jurisdictions where it is legal as a backdoor approach to opening the gates to legalizing gay marriage in DC.” How can something so well reported and widely discussed be described as a backdoor approach? Please, West, read the Fourteenth Amendment and show me where it says, “except for people we don’t like.” West, hiding behind the constantly-invoked views of unnamed others, says that “the name Marriage Equality seems to be used to confuse residents that do not realize that is the same sex marriage issue.” West should really stop insulting the intelligence of District voters with this absurd pretense that people don’t know what this is about. Excuse me for not using West’s preferred phrasing, in which my equal rights are treated as some special, different thing. What gay people in fact seek, and what West clearly opposes, is equality under the law for same-sex couples.

West claims that many opponents of equality remained silent because they “felt that they might be treated like Miss California, who was ostracized because she said she did not believe in same-sex marriage.” Notwithstanding the silliness of Perez Hilton, who speaks only for himself, I am unaware of any well-funded campaign of vilification against beauty pageant contestants. So spare us the victim mongering. West continues, “Some people are afraid to stand up publicly for fear of retribution in the worst way.” Retribution? How, exactly? It seems pretty clear, West, that this is really about your sense of entitlement to get your way and not be called on your bigotry, which you have conveniently defined as something else. Excuse me, but just as you have a right to say what you think, so do those who disagree with you. And the evidence suggests they outnumber you.

West: “There is a civil war brewing. . . .” Thank you, Marion. Are you really threatening violence, or just being hysterical and reckless? West writes, “By the time anybody knew anything, the bill was passed by a twelve to one vote without public input and it was obvious that there was plenty of special interest group maneuvering.” West, do you really think that twelve councilmembers somehow got railroaded into harming the interests of their constituents? And when you talk to your council representatives, do you call yourself a “special interest group”? If not, why not? In any case, we have been discussing legal protections for gay families in DC for many years. If this were really so unpopular, there would not have been a long string of unanimous, public votes by the DC council for domestic partner protections.

West says, “This handful of politicians apparently wants to change an entire world system which some believe is defined by God. . . .” In fact, we are talking about civil marriage, not the doctrines or practices of any religious organization. No one is proposing repeal of the First Amendment. As it happens, gay people have religion, too. DC has many gay-affirming congregations. You have a right to your intolerant beliefs, but you do not have a right to impose your faith-based intolerance on everyone else. My fellow gay rights advocates and I have worked openly within our system of government, and the wider community benefits from our good efforts.

West says, “If one dares challenge the council or anybody else on the issue, then he or she is disingenuously and harshly declared a bigot or phobic by some zealous advocates on the issue.” West, I assure you that I am not being disingenuous when I say that your remarks drip with bigotry. I don’t know what the word could possibly mean if it does not apply to you.

West, once again speaking for an invisible horde, writes: “Citizens don’t judge peoples’ lifestyles or tell them to change. They continue to show love and respect to their gay family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, but they still insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there is not a civil rights issue.” Well, pardon this citizen for not feeling the love. As it happens, however, citywide polling shows that a majority of likely DC voters supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. If the question does reach the ballot, and there is a lot of rancor caused by right-wing zealots descending upon our city, and the pro-gay side wins anyway, what will West say then? For responses to several leading arguments against DC marriage equality, see http://www.glaa.org/archive/2009/talkingpointsonmarriage0517.pdf.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into each mailing.