Why I can’t care about same-sex marriage
When I decided on this article’s topic, I realized that it would offend the majority of people who read it. If you are one of those people, I sincerely apologize. Also, I urge you to develop thicker skin. This is a political article, and I find modern politics to be a source of incessant personal offense.
Each time I suffer the misfortune of running across a campaign ad, which is never more than a blatantly vague character assassination, I am offended. Whenever I try to forgivingly reevaluate our political system, for instance by subjecting myself to the presidential “debates,” I am outraged by insubstantial questions posed by powerless moderators that are met with buzzwords and tag lines for answers.
There is an underlying message to all of it, and it’s always the same: you, as a member of the United States’ voting population, are either stupid or powerless. You can either accept the terms by which our political process is defined, in which case you are a fool, or refuse it and come to terms with your powerlessness in light of the fact that there is no alternative dialogue with any significant power or exposure.
For months now, we have been immersed in what should be the most dynamically perceptive and critical political climate in our nation, that which precedes the presidential election. Instead, the media is saturated like never before with irrelevant topics as debated by full-grown adults trying to shout over each other. It is this phenomenon, the disproportionate public attention paid to topics that, from a humanitarian perspective, are relatively irrelevant, that gives my article its title.
I can’t turn my head without spotting the “Vote No” logo on a t-shirt, poster or sticker, but nobody seems troubled that neither major presidential candidate plans on lowering the Pentagon’s base military budget. In a country whose military expenditure is the highest in the world, greater than that of the next ten countries combined, whose national security is under no imminent threat, where do we get off discussing gay marriage as if it is the hot-button topic of our nation’s values?
Maybe I’m getting my lines crossed by discussing foreign policy and domestic issues at the same time. I don’t really believe that our military budget is unrelated to our domestic lives, but for the sake of argument I’ll disregard it as an issue competing for exposure. Still, there are countless, pressing domestic issues that not only underreported, but virtually absent from discussion both in the media and in everyday life among Americans.
For instance, after over a decade, one would hope the vanishing act performed on our civil liberties following the September 11th catastrophe would show up in the national dialogue. Or perhaps the fact that the last presidential term saw the precedent set for the normalization of extra-judicial assassinations targeting American citizens might draw the attention of those concerned with our nation’s values. Yet these issues remain in the dark while the nation’s eye is collectively deprived of any alternative but to focus on the legality of same-sex marriage and abortion.
A sense of political disillusionment is seeping into the American population. The complaint that there is relatively little practical difference between a vote for either political super-party is an increasingly prevalent one, but the jaded shouldn’t respond with defeatist apathy.
If this system is in fact faulty, the issues that are being neglected as a result of the apparent corruption should be diligently considered. This is why I can’t care about same sex marriage, because too many people already do. As important as this issue is to many Minnesotans, no single political discussion deserves a virtual monopoly on the national dialogue.
I think that this is a very perceptive argument and an important discussion for our community (at Gustavus and on a national level). We could all certainly benefit from having more far-reaching discussions and bringing to light the issues that aren’t being covered in debates. Maybe that would help us to be more effective when making decisions, or even when developing our own, personal appeals to presidential candidates and campaigns in hopes of seeing the most important issues covered. I’m sure it would make us more educated voters.
However, I don’t think that lobbying for same-sex marriage and being more considerate of all of the important issues during election season are mutually exclusive and I think it’s dangerous to assume so. I think it’s somewhat ineffective to target the Vote No campaign because the presidential election and the two ballot questions were completely different decisions for people to make. Despite a possible correlation between the way people voted on the ballot questions and who they voted for in the presidential election, there is no direct causal link between voting the “right” way on a ballot question and choosing the “best” presidential candidate. I personally think that the ballot questions were THE most important voting issue for Minnesotans this year because they were the most direct. These votes impacted policy, not representation, and while both of these things are massively important, if the marriage amendment and the voter ID laws had passed they would have had immediate repercussions specific to our state, so of course it was a hot topic!
I would also like to add that, as a woman who is directly affected by the abortion debate by nature of having a uterus and having particular views about how people discuss said uterus, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to consider this to be one of the most important issues I vote on. That being said, just because I think it’s important to vote with my uterus in mind doesn’t mean that I’m closed to considering other important issues. The difference is that I am immediately affected by policies targeting my uterus and because of that I have a special awareness of that issue. I think that it’s a common characteristic of voters that we pay attention to what we latch onto, and usually it just takes a little bit of prompting to get people to think outside of the box. I also happen to agree that there were a number of issues poorly covered that are ALWAYS poorly covered. For instance, post-Building Bridges ’12, I was frustrated to recognize the lack of recognition of issues affecting the Native people of the Americas. However, it’s my own damn fault that my community didn’t talk about it because it was my responsibility as a member of that community to draw attention to it.
(Just for the record, I don’t mean to say that all women vote on their uterus. I’m just using the example because it’s something I care about and connect with. Obviously there are really awesome and intelligent and cool women thinking about and prioritizing issues that having nothing to do with uterus, and there are men who care just as much about uterus as I do, and there are genderqueer people who exist and have opinions about uterus, and gender is a construct, etc…)
Perhaps a more constructive way to engage the community in conversation next time would be to use the space you have in the editorial section to bring up those issues. Perhaps a list of the top ten most important and least discussed election topics would have been helpful BEFORE election season had already ended. Perhaps it would be better not to say “Stop talking about same-sex marriage so much” and start saying “Here are some ADDITIONAL things you should really consider thinking about.” Believe me, you can care about same-sex marriage and also care about other stuff. It’s just that the people who were lobbying for the freedom for same-sex couples to marry were doing what others did not: they were identifying what they perceived as the most important topic for this election, and they were trying to challenge and educate people about it. I think it would be awesome if the Weekly would do more in the future to locate the political issues that deserve a spotlight in future elections or policy discussions. But it’s important that we bear in mind that we are a community and that we ALL have a responsibility to make our voices heard during this important time, and it is OUR responsibility to make that happen.
Thanks.
You know, Andy, I completely agree. I want to stop talking about same-sex marriage. I want to stop talking about why the “Todd Akin”s of the world are an embarrassment to the Republican party and U.S. government. Trust me, Andy, you have no idea how much I want to stop talking about it.
No, really, you have no idea, because you’re a straight white male.
I don’t know if you’re aware of, frankly, anything about gay rights and where we stand beyond what you’ve heard in the media the last six months. Homosexuality itself was illegal until 9 years ago, in 2003. Might as well have had laws in states like Texas that said, “Its illegal to be black.” Once it was decriminalized, huge amounts of states immediately passed Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Most of the 33 states banned it in the three years afterwards (’04, ’05, ’06).
This is NOT a case of the selfish homos like me taking up your valuable space in political discourse, Andy. This is a fuckton of straight people making my orientation illegal until 9 years ago, and then after the Supreme Court made the perfectly reasonable assumption that the government shouldn’t give a fuck who is in my bed, another fuckton of straight people decided that they get to choose who does and doesn’t get married. And I have a problem with that. Many people have a problem with that.
And the problem is, that same fuckton of straight, white males still DOMINATES political discourse in this country, in every single possible way.The U.S. Senate has the MOST women it has ever had: 19 (of 100). We elected the FIRST openly lesbian woman this year as well (Tammy Baldwin). Did you know that Barack Obama was the FIFTH black U.S. Senator in history, and since he was elected President the number of total black U.S. Senators EVER has increased to… six. There are two latino/hispanic Senators.
Understand what all of this means. In the next legislative session, the U.S. Senate will be:
-95 white people
-81 Men
-99 straight people (assuming there are no closeted-LGBT Senators)
This country’s discourse is decidedly dominated by straight, white males. And because straight, white males are never targeted by legislation, sweeping generalizations, slurs, hate, etc., there are many, many, many people who say, “Why do we have to make a big deal about this?”
And that’s sad. I was raised to believe in an America where equality is valued, yet that’s not the case. I was taught that America valued freedom and equality that our forefathers fought and died for, yet that’s not how our politics play out. Our politics play out in a fashion where rich, white, straight men make most of the decisions, and too often for my tastes create inequality and discrimination by whipping out their privilege and flailing it around.
So I agree, Andy, that we should stop having to talk about topics like same-sex marriage, or a woman’s right to choose, or what rape is, etc.
And all it will take is white men realizing they are not the center of the universe, calling out those advocates of discrimination, and standing up for the freedom and equality their ancestors fought for.
Until then, I’m going to go get a megahorn and keep screaming over your privileged position in political discourse, because that’s the only way for me to be heard.
Nick, it looks like you were really emotional when you wrote this response so I don’t want to nitpick things when I’m pretty sure I understand the point you were making. However, I think “No, really, you have no idea, because you’re a straight white male.” is a really arrogant statement to make.
I can understand the point the author is making when he says he’d rather talk about thousands of people dying than people getting married. I don’t agree with him, because those issues have some pretty stark differences.
All other things equal, I believe people being killed is a more important issue than people getting married, and I don’t think that is a radical opinion. The key difference is that the solution to people getting married is much simpler and more attainable, i.e. legalizing gay marriage. The solution to ending the War on Terror is neither simple nor readily attainable because of scale of the consequences of any action is huge.
So I think the dialogue for the marriage amendment was warranted because it was a key battle that was winnable and the timing was critical. The problem has not yet been solved, but voting down the amendment was an important step.
So Nick, although you and I and everyone else have different experiences, each individual has just as much ability to discern right from wrong. When people want to discriminate against others, I don’t oppose them because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. I oppose them because I believe discrimination is wrong.
I was emotional. Angry and condescending is my style. Is that a bad thing?
And Drew, I agree. It IS more important. I forgot about all the gays who put a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot when they controlled the state legislature. CLEARLY us emotional gays are at fault for that.
Like I said. Would LOOOOOOOOOOOVE to talk about shit other than how LGBTQ people are not second class citizens. But for some reason people keep lobbing this shit at us.
The only logical conclusion to you and Andy’s argument is that the minority threatened with an oppressive amendment should simply lie down and take it out the goodness of our hearts, because damn it there’s more important things to talk about!
“The only logical conclusion to you and Andy’s argument is that the minority threatened with an oppressive amendment should simply lie down and take it out the goodness of our hearts, because damn it there’s more important things to talk about!”
If that is the only logical conclusion you can draw from Andy’s argument and my own, then you have very poor logical reasoning skills. Also, don’t think that LGBTQ are the only people getting this shit lobbed at them. There are many straight people who find it ridiculous that these rights are not recognized already as well.
I’ve never really understood the purpose of Amendment 1, especially with respect to the context of which it was introduced:
On May 11, 2011, the bill passed in the MN Senate. The House passed the bill shortly after.
Less than 2 months later, the government shut-down. Why the hell our state officials were interested in this bill vs keeping the government running bewilders me. Every part of my being simply cannot comprehend their decision-making at that time.
If my business was in risk of closing, do you think I’d be asking my customers and employees about gay marriage? Of course not, I’d spend 100% of my time with my finances and figure out how to keep my business running. Instead, they wanted to put a group of individual’s personal goals and futures in the hands of every Minnesotan age 18 and older.
The reason why this issue became so important is that it affects me and my future (and others and their futures) directly, potentially for a lifetime. I can deal with a temporarily slow economy, lack of funding for my education, and all the other political issues. Being unable to get married is something that I cannot ignore. If they were tampering with the future of your right to get married, I am willing to bet a large quantity of money that you’d be a little upset, too.
Try to imagine being unable to marry the woman you love, or any woman for that matter. Put yourself in our shoes. Something that inhibits or reduces your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is something that everyone should care about regardless of affiliation.
I think you are right about the amendment potentially affecting people for a lifetime, and I think that is why there was a deafening amount of dialogue regarding it. It was worth putting the resources into defeating the amendment because constitutional amendments are so hard to repeal. I agree with the author that it’s too bad there was so much dialogue about gay marriage, but it’s something that would have been really hard to deal with down the road if the amendment passed.
Andy, you are a damn good writer, and a class act. I don’t have the time or, frankly, the interest to respond to Nick’s spittle-flecked comment, other than to say that far too many at our school have chosen to adopt an attitude of interest group navel-gazing at the expense of humanity as a whole. The former is easier, and it has the added bonus of making it look like you really genuinely care. I have not yet come across a gay rights activist who was equally concerned with the unmanned drone strikes in Yemen that killed three legal US citizens, one of them 16 years old, among many other less politically charged human beings. I’m sure it is possible to care for both. But it is not common. Keep up the good work, Andy.
I think he brings up a good point, though. It’s only ok to discuss ‘social’ issues on campus and it’s only ok to be on one side of the social issue. For myself and for a few others, issues like Foreign affairs and Defense issue are important and it should be important to the rest of us too since $.60 of every single tax dollar is going to the Department of Defense. I think they should publish and televise every single flag draped box returning from overseas, myself. Maybe it would force people to confront U.S. Foreign Policy. We aren’t the Naval Academy or West Point, but that doesn’t make it any less important here.
Danny,
Go tell that to the straight, white men who put marriage on the ballot. Let them know there are more important things to talk about.
In the mean time, I’ll be standing up for my rights against people who tried to Constitutionally ban them. Please don’t tell me that’s wrong, or that I shouldn’t make all the noise I can when something like that is being voted on to be put in to the Constitution.
He’s not saying it’s wrong. He’s saying: “What about__________?” (insert any other issue that may be important) He’s not highlighting some obscure issue of no importance, but an issue that is currently founded in the 9/11 attacks, which I would argue has altered the course of our generation. How we function as a nation was changed by those events ie: The Patriot Act, The War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution of 2001, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to name a few. LGBTN issues are not the only issues at stake. And I think that is the point the author is trying to make. These other issues are not trivial. $16 Trillion National Debt, 6,636 KIA in the last 11 years of War in the Middle East of which the average age of death is 26. These are tough pills to swallow, but matter little on this campus. Teenagers are dying. A kids from Iowa was killed on Monday, but does anyone care or even know about it? No. Voting no is not the only thing young people should consider.
Again, tell that to the people who put this on the ballot.
I wasn’t sitting around 2.5 years ago going OMG I HOPE WE GET TO ARGUE ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. I REALLY WANT TO USE $15 MILLION AND MANY MANY PEOPLE’S TIME AND ENERGY ON A SINGLE ISSUE.
But the Republicans in power did.
At that point, the state had two choices: ignore the issue in light of “more important issues” or deal with the flaming dog shit on my porch.
You know which one got chosen.
You can wax poetic with statistics and numbers taht make Nate Silver swoon, but that doesn’t change who is at fact.
Andy asserted that the people yelling VOTE NO VOTE NO should think about other issues. My response is, we were forced to this position by those with the luxury to dictate discourse, and his agenda of “most important” issue is best served by telling the MN Republicans to shut the fuck up and focus on real things instead of polarizing social issues.
About intervention… If I had to guess (though it isn’t ralely a guess) I would suggest that the problem IS government intervention. If the government wants to help it should extricate itself from the arena posthaste. Stripping tax laws, social work interventions, food stamps, and almost all other involvement between married men and women, and their children (and others as well). While it might get ralely ugly, ralely fast, and for a while, a balance would eventually take hold. A natural balance. Anything else, I am guessing (really guessing here, though based on reliable history) will only make matters worse.Actually, this will occur one way or another. Either society, and the government, will hit a tipping point and collapse (though in which order I can’t tell as they seem neck and neck in the race over the cliff). Or this society will become so weak it will simply not be able to tend laws on arcane books as foreign interlopers of one stripe or another will take over. Or the government will remove itself from family law and and the many interventions it is currently forcing. If it is failure or outside interference, neither will support the artifices of today’s, let alone yesterday’s, social norms.Then again, like with me, it might already be far too late. Perhaps there is no medicine to fix the problems and only lumps remain.
For the record, I think that Andy DOES have a legitimate point to make, especially in the wake of the DFL retaking the MN Legislature, that there are very, very important issues we need to tackle as well.
Frankly I think he could have made a similar argument that wasn’t steeped in privilege and misunderstanding that’s more along the lines of what David Carr said: last session our elected officials chose to put forward a ballot measure about banning same-sex marriage while simultaneously letting the government shut down and ignoring heaps of other, more important, issues because they wanted to pass a law that effectively CHANGED nothing other than make it really, really difficult should Minnesota ever choose to legalize same-sex marriage.
I think it could be written with a tone of tragedy that there are people who are legitimately concerned about what two consenting adults do in their own time while we ignore the plethora of issues, as well as encouraging Democrats, the LGBTQ community, and the MN Legislature, to not ignore more pressing matters like the budget, repaying the public schools after not paying them at all last year, etc. I think both sides of this issue, now that its over, could use a reminder that one side wasted a lot of time better spent on real issues and the other had to, sadly, spend a lot of time and energy to defend themselves and allies.
That would be a good article. I wholly support that idea.