A Civil Right Isn’t a ‘Use It or Lose It’ Proposition
Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 11:24 am
- 10 Comments
At the turn of the 20th century, opponents of women’s suffrage pondered the low numbers of women taking advantage of a newly granted civil right — the right to vote. Opposition leaders argued that a low voter turnout among women was proof that women did not want the right to vote.
In a recent post at her Star Tribune blog called Think Again, columnist Katherine Kersten ponders the decrease in the number of Massachusetts gay and lesbian couples taking advantage of a newly granted civil right — the right to marry. Kersten posits that because the number of same-sex marriages has trickled, gay couples never really wanted marriage in the first place.
While voting and marriage differ greatly in their place in society, historical similarities between the push for women’s suffrage and the push for same-sex marriage are uncanny.
Those who opposed women’s suffrage argued that they wanted to protect the traditional family unit. Speaking before Congress in 1871, opponent Catharine Beecher said that a women’s right to vote “would introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation…(they would) increase the already alarming prevalence of divorcartners [an old fashioned term for divorce]… a man’s wife would become his opponent, his antagonist, the democrat when he is a republican.”
Orestes Brownson, while an advocate of suffrage for all men no matter their race, also predicted the breakdown of the family as a logical result of letting women vote. “The conclusive objection to the political enfranchisement of women is, that it would weaken and finally break up and destroy the Christian family. The social unit is the family, not the individual; and the greatest danger to American society is, that we are rapidly becoming a nation of isolated individuals, without family ties or affections. The family has already been much weakened, and is fast disappearing.”
Do these arguments sound familiar? They should, if you’ve read Kersten’s columns on gay marriage, listened to “pro-family” rhetoric on the subject or heard a preacher condemn homosexuality. These arguments continue the historical legacy of denying rights by inducing fear of familial breakdown among the masses. Gay marriage will ruin the family unit, they claim today, just as their ancestors said about women’s suffrage 100 years ago.
more insideWhat’s more, Kersten’s post suggests that the push for gay marriage might be an intentional tactic by gay and lesbian couples to do away with marriage itself. “Could it be that many see the campaign for marriage as a vehicle for making a larger and opposite point – that marriage is a fatally flawed institution, and that it needs to wither on the vine so that new arrangements can take its place?” Anti-suffragists rarely, if ever, actively accused suffragists of actively wanting to destroy the family unit. Perhaps history just gets more vitriolic when it repeats itself.
But, the argument that women’s suffrage would undermine the traditional family was not the only rhetorical tactic anti-suffragists put forward.
In her book, “Woman Suffrage and the New Democracy,” Sarah Hunter Graham recounts the struggle for women’s suffrage in Massachusetts in 1895. Opponents said that women didn’t want to vote anyway, so why all the fuss? When voter turnout was dreadfully low for a referendum to allow women to vote in Massachusetts, “anti-suffragists gleefully pointed to the low female turnout as proof that the vast majority of Massachusetts women did not want the vote.” Anti-suffragists had spent considerable time and money persuading Massachusetts women to stay home from the polls.
Similarly, Kersten asks in response to the reports of fewer gays and lesbians getting married in Massachusetts, “could it be that gays, as a group, don’t really have much interest in marriage? If there’s such a great need for same-sex marriage… then shouldn’t the number of gay married couples be increasing every year, at least after the initial surge?” It probably should, but it’s premature to draw a conclusion from only one state’s experience and after just four years.
Consider that it took until the 1970s, nearly 50 years after passage of the 19th Amendment, for the voter turnout among women to come close to matching that of men.
In all, 9,695 gay and lesbian couples have married in Massachusetts. How many marriages would it take for Kersten to think that gays and lesbians were properly exercising their new civil right? I think it’s fair to give gays and lesbians a little time to adjust to a new civil right, and even if they don’t, a civil right is not “use it or lose it” proposition.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter10 Comments
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
She. Is. So. Ridiculous. KK’s leaps in logic astound me.
Nice article, Andy.
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
civil rights isn’t use it or lose it proposition
Is marriage a religious institution?
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60′s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Gay/Lesbian Marriage There is another obvious reason why the number of gay and lesbian marriages in Massachusetts has begun to decline. Many of those who were married in the first year after marriage was legalized were older couples who had been together for many years and who were now taking advantage of an opportunity they never before had. There was, in other words, a kind of “marriage backlog.” Once that backlog disappeared the numbers declined. I assume that the marriage rate will now settle into a pattern that won’t vary much. And yes, some gay and lesbian couples prefer not to marry. That is fine. The opportunity should be there only for those who want it.
Comment posted June 8, 2007 @ 9:24 am
KK is a nutjob I am continually amazed that the Strib gives a voice to KK. She is so out of touch with MN. She would be more fitting as a commentator on Faux News. She could sit next to Hannity or be Bill O’Reilly’s sidekick.
Comment posted June 8, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Civil Unions v. Marriage Marriage is quasi-religious. But one can be married without stepping into a church. (I oughta know — we skipped the whole church thing and just got married by a judge.)
The reason the name “civil union” is favored over “gay marriage” is because the Cons have gone to great lengths to make people think that “gay marriage” means “forcing the Pope to marry you in the Vatican” rather than “allowing that nice lesbian couple down the street to raise their kids without fear”. If civil unions have all the legal benefits associated with marriage, it’s not a problem. The problem is when civil unions in a given city/state/nation/whatever are markedly inferior legally to traditional marriages.
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 9:05 am
She. Is. So. Ridiculous. KK's leaps in logic astound me.
Nice article, Andy.
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 9:47 am
civil rights isn't use it or lose it proposition
Is marriage a religious institution?
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they'll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It's unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60's. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn't need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don't we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don't get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I've heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don't have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn't until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn't until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren't allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation's history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I've heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.
Comment posted June 7, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Gay/Lesbian Marriage There is another obvious reason why the number of gay and lesbian marriages in Massachusetts has begun to decline. Many of those who were married in the first year after marriage was legalized were older couples who had been together for many years and who were now taking advantage of an opportunity they never before had. There was, in other words, a kind of “marriage backlog.” Once that backlog disappeared the numbers declined. I assume that the marriage rate will now settle into a pattern that won't vary much. And yes, some gay and lesbian couples prefer not to marry. That is fine. The opportunity should be there only for those who want it.
Comment posted June 8, 2007 @ 4:24 am
KK is a nutjob I am continually amazed that the Strib gives a voice to KK. She is so out of touch with MN. She would be more fitting as a commentator on Faux News. She could sit next to Hannity or be Bill O'Reilly's sidekick.
Comment posted June 8, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Civil Unions v. Marriage Marriage is quasi-religious. But one can be married without stepping into a church. (I oughta know — we skipped the whole church thing and just got married by a judge.)
The reason the name “civil union” is favored over “gay marriage” is because the Cons have gone to great lengths to make people think that “gay marriage” means “forcing the Pope to marry you in the Vatican” rather than “allowing that nice lesbian couple down the street to raise their kids without fear”. If civil unions have all the legal benefits associated with marriage, it's not a problem. The problem is when civil unions in a given city/state/nation/whatever are markedly inferior legally to traditional marriages.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
