What do hate mail, gay rights, and women's rights have in common?
I'm writing to introduce myself to the TPMCafe, which I'm delighted to join. My longtime preoccupation is social justice (I know, I know--no one on this site is going to be against.) Since 1992, I've been publishing on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) questions. More recently I've been returning to my intellectual roots and writing about injustices facing women, especially the wage gap and the startlingly common forms of sex discrimination that lead to that gap.
Is there a link between those two interests, gay rights and women's rights? Of course there is. The status of gay men trails the status of women. Societies that endorse women's ...
full spousal equality have a lot less trouble with the idea that two equals - i.e., two women or two men -- want to marry. Reproductive rights and gay rights are essentially interchangeable, for a variety of reasons that I promise to get into in depth sometime but not just now (since I'm on deadline on an entirely different subject ... and since we've got Alito, Abramoff, Wal-Mart, and lots of other juicy and urgent topics underway). So here's a less intellectual link between the two. In my recent writing about the wage gap and about sexual harassment, I've gotten the kind of hate mail that I used to get, ten years ago, when I wrote about lesbian and gay rights. Makes me kind of nostalgic. Sure, there's a difference between the two: on women's rights, no one's sending me repent-or-go-to-hell pamphlets. But the implied violence and die-you-lezzie-b** ** sentiments are heartwarmingly familiar.
More soon,
EJ
As we approach Martin Luther King Day, let's paraphrase MLK and " long for the day when people are judged by the content of their character and not their sexual orientation."
January 13, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that marriage in America is still seen by many as a union of non-equals is exactly right.
I saw an awful anti-gay-marriage bumper sticker today and wish I'd read your post, E.J., before noticing it and going into a rage.
But I always go back to wondering how a nation which embraces freedom can take a word -- a concept -- like marriage and limit its definition. What next are they going to define for the convenience of their scaredy-cat campaign contributors?
January 13, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are wired differently, and some versions include insanely bigoted and xenophobic types that are immune to argument. What is needed is facts that force the less-radical folks to face reality.
I anticipate a case of marriage involving sex-change. What definition of woman or man would meet all circumstances? How about a marriage occuring during the practice period before surgery?
The other test would be the relationship with adoption. A crucial feature of marriage, at least until recently, is the legitimacy of offspring. This is now modified to be questions of proper parenting. If adoption is universal, marriage faces no impediment. Or, if marriage is universal, vice versa.
Since it is generally legal to raise children in unwed situations I would follow that avenue to argue gay marriage can satisfy proper parenting.
January 13, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This issue make me wished I had replied to the Kathleen Parker article that asserted that gay marriage was a bad idea. Her premise was that straight men wouldn't marry because it wasn't a "special" union. In other words, hetero men would boycott wedlock until they were put back in the position of primacy. (They would also hold their collective breath until they turned blue, presumably.) Yes, anything that smacks at taking the divine right of the American man to be the omnipotent ruler of his home, with absolute dominion over his wife and children, is equal to psychological castration.
Makes me glad I'm a gay man....
January 14, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you joined TPM and hope you post regularly.
Gregory
January 14, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really looking forward to future posts! It's been getting a little too regular in some parts of the lefty-blogosphere that feminist and GLB issues are mentioned only to be dismissed as symptoms of the dread "cultural elitism".
January 14, 2006 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
My definition of social justice includes protecting gays and lesbians in housing and employment discrimination. We should certainly favor vigorous prosecution of violent crimes directed toward the gay community and support AIDS funding. I have no problem with local domestic partnership registration ordinances which can provide documentation of a relationship for hospital visitation and domestic partner health benefits provided by some employers.
Gay marriage is a step too far though and I think the public will reject a political party that embraces same sex unions.
Democrats need to be the party of working families. Of course, we should favor social tolerance toward gays and lesbians, but the stability of the traditional family is what is most critical to our national well-being. A party that is unable to connect with mainstream America on values will be a minority party for a long time.
January 14, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be a reflection of the gender gap in wages rather than a sexual orientation issue?
January 14, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink