The White Peril 白禍

I cherish freedom of assembly as much as anyone, but it sure does bring out the lamest in some people, on all parts of the political spectrum. You have puns that not even Dad would stoop to:

On the Capitol steps, Brian Mock held a sign chastising the governor that read "Truth is not RELL-ative." He said he had little hope that lawmakers would repeal the civil union statute, but said they need to know voters are watching.

Especially the majority of Connecticut voters who approved of the idea of civil unions?

You have self-refuting inanities:

"Civil unions are merely a stepping stone to redefining marriage," he said at Sunday's rally. "Anyone who voted for this bill voted for same-sex marriage."

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed the bill last week after it overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. The law, which takes effect in October, also defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

And you have those tin-eared folks who think satire has unlimited usefulness:

Meanwhile, about 80 gay rights activists took part in a mock wedding ceremony on the Capitol lawn Sunday, criticizing civil unions as second-class citizenship. Many said they were happy the state approved civil unions but wished lawmakers had given gays and lesbians full marriage rights.

One thing I'd like to know--the article doesn't mention, and there may be no way of finding out--is how many of the 3000 protestors against the bill were from Connecticut. I suppose you could say the same about the participants in the mock wedding, but there were only 80 of them.

New rule! New rule! It's improper for legislators to vote on any issue that wasn't an explicit plank in their campaign platform. I don't think many US congresscritters mentioned military responses to terrorism in the election cycle before 9/11, but you didn't hear the right squawking when they voted to authorize them, even most of those who represented leftist urban enclaves. Yes, I know--that was an emergency, and it was at the national level. But that's all the more reason to conclude that Connecticut voters have had ample time to register their opinions on civil unions with Hartford.

I can't read Spanish and haven't seen the text of the bill, so I can't determine whether the hilarious spelling mistake in the second paragraph of this Reuters report is accurate:

Spain's parliament gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage on Thursday in a move likely to rekindle conflict with a Catholic Church that has just elected a new conservative pope.

A packed public gallery erupted in cheers and applause as the speaker announced approval of the Socialist government's proposal, making Spain the third European country to legalese gay marriage.

"It's unfair to be a second-class citizen because of love," Socialist legislator Carmen Monton said. "Spain joins the vanguard of those defending full equality for gays and lesbians."

I can't say I'm entirely impressed by the reasoning used by one quoted activist: "I'm going to get married for the sake of activism, for love, and for a question of dignity." Getting married to make a point? Lovely. But then, activists of any stripe often do have a serious case of single-issue-itis.

In any case, the bill has another round or two of approval to go through, but it's apparently expected to pass. It also appears to have good public support.

Civil unions have been signed into law by the Connecticut governor. No court case. Very cool. Even the marriage-or-bust types are reeling it in enough to recognize that there's much to celebrate:

Love Makes a Family, a gay rights organization that wanted legislators pass a gay marriage bill, called civil unions an important step toward protecting the rights of same-sex couples. But Anne Stanback, the group's executive director, said the fight is not over. ["Love Makes a Family" sounds like the kind of entity that should have a headmistress, not an executive director--SRK]

"As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," she said.

Naturally, it's that last quotation that 365Gay has seen fit to use as its quote of the day. Whatever. On the opposite side of the country, the Montana domestic partnership bills were voted down by its House of Representatives this week; that it passed the Senate was apparently big news. Things go in fits and starts.

The Connecticut House has passed its civil unions bill. The governor hadn't threatened a veto, but she had supported an amendment (eventually added) to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Following the House vote Rell issued a statement saying, "I am pleased that the House of Representatives passed this amendment and made it clear that while we will recognize and support civil unions, marriage in Connecticut is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

"Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut."

Good for them.

It's touching that Dean has the patience to keep coming up with new anagrams of his position on gay marriage, as if one day one of his gay friends might listen. But then, as someone's bound to point out, I'm sitting here writing this post, so who am I to talk?

Anyway, one thing he's going off about in the comments is the epidemic of revisionist history among quite a few SSM advocates. I think it's worth expanding backward on that point a little.

People used not to understand fertility. I don't just mean human fertility--they didn't understand why crops grew and hunt animals were plentiful sometimes but not others, either, any more than they understood why sex sometimes produced children and other times didn't. Further, the competition for precious resources was fierce. Even after the invention of cavalry and chariots and catapults and cauldrons of pitch, war essentially meant hand-to-hand combat; and there was a lot of war. There was also a lot of disease.

What all this boiled down to was that human societies knew they desperately needed to keep replacing themselves and the things they subsisted on, but they were never quite sure what was going to work. Things like nitrogen-based fertilizer, filmstrips of sperm and ovum meeting under a microscope, and mechanical refrigeration are all very, very new in human history.

You already know this, so why am I bringing it up? Because I think it's easy to forget how the pressure to ensure fertility at all costs has shaped civilization. (Well, Japan, with its disorienting blend of super-modernity and raw primalness, has not lost a lot of its old rites.) When people oppose gay marriage because they assume there's no love or commitment in our relationships, they're being ignorant and need to be told so. Even in old times, there were people who reproduced and people who didn't. There's no reason gay people can't contribute to civilization just because we're not contributing children, and having two people willingly take stewardship over each other's welfare has obvious benefits.

But you can argue that, and argue that our ability to care for each other needs protecting in a world of competing interests, without necessarily concluding that marriage has to be expanded to do it. The ability to choose your own life partner is a pretty new thing. Maybe it needs a new institution. Maybe it would do better without any overarching institution but a range of contract options. Maybe, maybe, maybe. The point is, the debate is still going on, and not even all of us who are gay can agree that SSM should be legalized or why. Its advocates are not doing themselves any favors by acting as if the correct conclusion were obvious to, like, any fair-minded person with a brain.

Michael has posted a review of a new book on gay marriage. It's an issue he and I disagree over, and from what he says, the book doesn't break a whole lot of new ground--though even I hadn't heard Naomi and Ruth described as lesbians. Did Orpah leave because she felt like a third wheel? Anyway, Michael's a fair-minded guy, and his evaluation is worth reading. The book is In Support of Same Sex Marriage and Gay Rights in America.

Megan McArdle has an essay up about gay marriage, which is a fascinating read. It's fascinating both because she makes good points and because she falls all over herself to assure people that she's not just ragging on gays. Personally, I find it a little insulting to be approached so gingerly, but I can understand where she's coming from. These days, we're flatly informed that anything less than full marriage equality is a mark of second-class citizenship.

Added on 4 April: Megan says that there's nothing wrong with assuring friends and loved ones that you're not trying to stick it to them. Point taken, especially since she didn't soften her argument itself in order to do so.

Eric has his own post up that, as always, is worth reading. I think there are gays who are sincere in wanting to commit to the obligations of marriage in order to get the benefits, but the far louder talk about getting our relationships respected sure makes it hard to believe that the majority aren't more concerned with self-esteem-building. It's a mark of how mainstream we've become that we're as entitlement-minded as everyone else now.