A brief history of how we got here

This excellent article in the Atlantic tells the whole story, starting with a man named Baker....

When Wolfson was a law student at Harvard in 1983, his adviser tried to discourage him from writing his thesis on gay marriage, on the grounds that it was too far-fetched. Sullivan’s 1989 New Republic essay, “Here Comes the Groom,” got a similar reception. “It was difficult just to get past the laugh factor at the beginning,” Sullivan recalled. “I remember going on Crossfire in the early days and having Gary Bauer laugh in my face—‘It’s the most bizarre and silly idea to come down the pike in a long time! It’s ludicrous!’”

and then, how the message changed after the cluster of the Prop8 campaign, as the participating groups started to strategize together

There was stiff resistance within the movement to the new approach. Some thought it made no sense or wasn’t aggressive enough; some resented the strictly vetted, disciplined, sanitized faces the movement was putting forth. But in 2012, after 31 straight losses for gay marriage at the ballot box, Freedom to Marry spearheaded a centralized, politically savvy, message-tested campaign in four states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. On Election Day, the gay-marriage side won in all four states.

The secret history of same sex marriage.

Well, who knew?

If we conceive of marriage as the long-term, exclusive cohabitation and sexual union of two people, then, in the Christian west at least, few male couples would qualify before the dawn of the 20th century. In fact, for the last 400 years, the practice of same-sex marriage has been largely the preserve of women. 

To begin with, this was a secretive and punishable matter. In medieval and Renaissance Europe, it was often not even possible for two women to live together independently: households were supposed to be headed by men. Yet we know of a few 16th-century cases of women who disguised themselves as men and lived in marriage with other women. ....

Such cases were even more common in 18th-century England. In the early 1730s, when both were in their late teens, Mary East and her girlfriend decided to move to London and make a life together as husband and wife. Mary put on male clothes and turned herself into “James How”. The two of them became successful publicans and pillars of their East End community. Everyone presumed they were married. Over the years, James was elected to almost every parish office: s/he served as the foreman of juries, on the night watch, as overseer of the poor. For more than three decades, they kept their secret, and lived as a married couple. 

It is impossible to tell how many other female husbands lived undetected with their wives. Quick, secret marriages were easy to contract in London until the 1753 act: there was a busy trade in no-questions-asked ceremonies in taverns, brothels, prisons and chapels. On 15 December 1734, a Soho couple calling themselves John Mountford and Mary Cooper decided to get hitched. The first clergyman they approached refused to do it. “Suspected 2 women”, he wrote in his notebook. But they would easily have been able to find another priest. A few years later, a London minister performed the wedding of Elizabeth Huthall and John Smith, “a little, short, fair, thin man, not above 5 foot”. Afterwards, he wrote “my clerk judged they were both women”, but they left as a legally married couple. “After marriage I almost could prove them both women,” runs yet another laconic cleric’s note, “the one was dressed as a man.” That pair, too, departed happily married. (Bishops and legislators take note: same-sex marriages have already taken place within the Church of England.)

Same sex marriage is nothing new

In the very early years of the 19th century, 30-year-old Charity Bryant and 22-year-old Sylvia Drake essentially married. 

40 years later, in 1850, Charity's nephew wrote,

If I were permitted to draw aside the veil of private life, I would briefly give you the singular, and to me most interesting history of two maiden ladies who dwell in this valley. I would tell you how, in their youthful days, they took each other as companions for life, and how this union, no less sacred to them than the tie of marriage, has subsisted, in uninterrupted harmony, for forty years, during which they have shared each other’s occupations and pleasures and works of charity while in health, and watched over each other tenderly in sickness; for sickness has made long and frequent visits to their dwelling. I could tell you how they slept on the same pillow and had a common purse, and adopted each other’s relations, and how one of them, more enterprising and spirited in her temper than the other, might be said to represent the male head of the family, and took upon herself their transactions with the world without, until at length her health failed, and she was tended by her gentle companion, as a fond wife attends her invalid husband. I would tell you of their dwelling, encircled with roses, which now in the days of their broken health, bloom wild without their tendance, and I would speak of the friendly attentions which their neighbors, people of kind hearts and simple manners, seem to take pleasure in bestowing upon them, but I have already said more than I fear they will forgive me for, if this should ever meet their eyes, and I must leave the subject.

They are the subject of a new book,  Charity & Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America by Rachel Hope Cleves.

You see, we have always been here.

"Overturning the will of the people": we've been down this road before

Once upon a time, there was a decision in California that extended protections and rights to an unpopular minority.

The response was a ballot initiative to reverse the decision, and to amend the state constitution so that the protections and rights were rolled back. This passed convincingly at the ballot box.

There was a legal challenge. The state refused to defend the amendment, to the ire of its supporters.  The courts stepped in, and ultimately found that that the amendment was unconstitutional. Despite the support of the majority of voters, it was declared invalid.

Proposition 8? No.

I'm talking Proposition 14, which was passed in 1964 with a whopping 65% majority, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967.

The story: in 1963, the California legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act that stated property owners could not refuse to rent or sell property to anyone because of ethnicity. It also included religion, sex, marital and family status, and physical handicap. This was considered an important landmark for civil rights.

In 1964, Proposition 14 (sponsored by real estate and Republican groups) stated that property owners could indeed discriminate. As I said, it passed convincingly.

When it was challenged in court, the state declined to defend Proposition 14, because  Gov Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father) considered it unconstitutional.  The California Supreme Court found that Prop 14 violated equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The Supreme Court of the US agreed. In Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), SCOTUS invalidated Prop 14 by a 5-4 decision.  From the decision, they pointed out the real consequences of Prop 14:

The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, could now discriminate

As Wikipedia tells us, "Reitman established a significant precedent because it held that state assistance or encouragement of private discrimination violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. As of 2013, this precedent remains good law."

You might want to pass this along to the bloviating anti-equality die-hards, who continue to advocate for the right to do just that.

How history supports the SCOTUS decisions on marriage

From Inside Higher Education:

Rarely have historians played as important a role in shaping the outcome of a public controversy as in the same-sex marriage cases.... 

Briefs filed with the Supreme Court by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians demonstrated that far from being a static institution, marriage has profoundly changed its definition, roles, and functions, and that today's dominant marital ideal, emphasizing emotional intimacy, has nothing to do with gender. Currently, marriage's foremost public function is to distribute benefits, such as those involving health insurance, Social Security, and inheritance, making it all the more valuable for same-sex couples. 

... the historians showed that two broad themes characterize the shifting law of marriage in the United States. The first is the decline of coverture, the notion that a married woman's identity is subsumed in her husband's. A second theme is the overturning of earlier restrictions about who can marry whom.
...
Marriage today bears scant resemblance to marriage even half a century ago, when the male breadwinner family prevailed and dual-earner and single-parent households were far rarer than today. The contemporary notion of marriage as an equal, gender-neutral partnership differs markedly not only from the patriarchal and hierarchical ideals of the colonial era, but from the notion of complementary spousal roles that predominated during the age of companionate marriage that prevailed from the 1920s into the mid-1960s.
Change, not continuity, has been the hallmark of the history of marriage. ... 

History, in the same-sex marriage controversy, was not simply "preface" -- an interesting but ultimately insignificant detail in cases involving equal treatment under law. History lay bare a series of dangerously misleading assumptions -- above all, the notion that same-sex marriage deviates from a timeless, unchanging marital norm.

Marriage equality opponents will be embarrassed in 20 years

Michael Kinsey writes, 

“Not every disputed institution or practice is destined to be discredited,” the Princeton philosopher Anthony Appiah wrote a couple of years ago. Looking back, he contrasted abolition (a cause that came “to represent moral common sense”) with Prohibition (a cause eventually seen as “quaint or misguided.”)  

Appiah suggested three signs of a practice that seems harmless today but will seem indefensible tomorrow (or, presumably, vice versa). First, “a particular practice is destined for future condemnation” if the argument against it has been building for a while. “The case against slavery didn’t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity.” Second, the defenders of current practice “invoke tradition, human nature or necessity” rather than morality. Third, the defenders engage in “strategic ignorance.” We might say they are in denial about “the evils in which they’re complicit.”

Sounds about right.

Important, but not the first

The first time actively serving gay military personnel marched in a Gay Pride  Parade:

1. San Diego, 2011
2. Chicago, 2002
3. New York, 1975

If you guessed San Diego, where over 250 marched last weekend-- you are wrong! THe answer is (3). As MIchael Bedwell reports, we're way too good at ignoring our past. Perhaps that is why we keep repeating it.

We have some phenomenal LGBT history, but even we don't know it.

Harvey Milk—first out gay elected official. Nope. That was Kathy Kozachenko, elected to the Ann Arbor, Michigan, City Council three years before Harvey was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. OK, then Harvey was the first out gay elected to a “major office.” Nope. That was Elaine Noble, elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, also in 1974.

OK, OK. Then Harvey was the first out gay man elected to office. Wrong again. That was Allan Spear, reelected to the Minnesota State Senate in 1976 after coming out.

ALRIGHT! Then Harvey was the second out gay man elected to office. Sorry, no. That was Jim Yeadon, elected to the Madison, Wisconsin, City Council months before Harvey’s November ’77 election.

The “Courage Campaign”trumpeted that California’s John Perez was the first out leader of a state legislature. Nope. That was Spear again, who was President of the Minnesota Senate for 10 years.

And bans on gay service in the military were declared unconstitutional 31 years ago.

Go, read, learn, and teach!

Loving v. Virginia: video Sunday

It's the 44th anniversary of the landmark Loving v Virgina decision by the Supreme Court that overturned anti-miscegenation laws.

New Poll: ABC/WaPo

By now you may have heard about the recent ABC/Washington Post poll, which joined a series of other polls in showing that marriage equality now polls at more than 50% approval (53% in this one).

More than half the country now agrees that same sex marriage should be legal.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it. On the issue of inter-racial marriage, which was legalized in 1967 by Loving v. Virginia, , it took until the 1990s!!!! for half of America to think it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. 25 years after it became legal. Same sex marriage is illegal in more than 30 states.

But the rate of change is amazing. I graphed the individual data for you. Look at the Catholics and MainLine protestants -- support is really growing there. Even the Evangelicals are showing progress.

Here are the data for approval of same sex marriage:



As Steve Benen wrote,

But even the most radically anti-gay conservative has to realize that equality is inevitable. As the arc of history continues to bend toward justice, most of the country now believes two consenting adults should be legally permitted to get married if they want to. It's exceptionally unlikely that trend will ever reverse -- civil-rights trajectories simply never move that way. Society becomes less prejudiced, less hateful, and less bigoted over time.

Oh, and the picture? If you Google images for "arc of history bends toward justice" this is at the top. And the reason that cracks me up, is that's me! with my rainbow sparkly "Arc of History" sign that has been my trusty companion at marriage equality marches since 2008. I look forward to being able to put it away for good. Meanwhile--keep an eye out for me. :-)

The changing face of "traditional" marriage

It has long been pointed out that Biblically "traditional" marriage is one guy with multiple wives. But even in modern times, marriage has changed in really revolutionary ways. From the WaPo, marriage scholar Stepanie Coontz writes, Gay marriage isn't revolutionary. It's just next..

...We are near the end of a two-stage revolution in the social understanding and legal definition of marriage. This revolution has overturned the most traditional functions of the institution: to reinforce differences in wealth and power and to establish distinct and unequal roles for men and women under the law.

Coontz goes on to point out that really traditional marriage was about controlling property and power. Think of arranged marriages between the aristocracy, loveless marriages that merged companies and estates. Marriage was, frankly, a contract between men: a groom and the father of the bride. The woman was simply part of the payment.

For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Often, servants, slaves and paupers were forbidden to wed.

But a little more than two centuries ago...Love, not money, became the main reason for getting married, and more liberal divorce laws logically followed. After all, people reasoned, if love is gone, why persist in the marriage? Divorce rates rose steadily from the 1850s through the 1950s, long before the surge that initially accompanied the broad entry of women into the workforce.

Okay, so there's revolution number 1: it allows that the couple who are to marry are the ones to make the decision, not their fathers, not their clans, not their tribes. This is a hallmark of modern society, but even so has not uniform. Lots of cultures still arrange marriages. And brides are still property, commanding a bride price, or a dowry. (Aside: interesting, isn't it, that in some traditional cultures the groom is essentially bribed by a dowry, while in others, he has to pay for her.)

Adopting love as the basis for marriage meant other changes, too, especially greater acceptance of the idea that men and women had a fundamental right to marry, even to people of whom their parents - and society - disapproved. By the 1940s and 1950s, many state courts were repealing laws that prevented particular classes of people from marrying. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to prohibit interracial marriage. In 1978, that court struck down a Wisconsin law prohibiting marriage by parents who had not met prior child-support obligations. In 1987, it upheld the right of prison inmates to marry.

So, we can see this as the broad culmination of 2 centuries: we can choose our partners. SO that's part of the argument. But really, as in much of LGBT rights, the issue is entangled with sex roles and the status of women.

...marriage continued to be based on differing roles and rights for husbands and wives: Wives were legally dependent on their husbands and performed specific wifely duties. This was part of what marriage cemented in society, and the reason marriage was between men and women....By the early 19th century, the old ideas that women needed to be under male authority because they were more prone to sexual passion and religious error than men, and that husbands ruled the home just as monarchs ruled their kingdoms, had given way to a gentler but equally rigid gender ideology.... Women were frail dependents whose nurturing nature and innate sexual purity predisposed them to sweet submission.

This redefinition of gender allowed 19th-century Americans to reconcile the new ideal of married love with a continued claim that husbands and wives had completely different rights and duties. And in the 20th century, even as the right of individuals to choose their partner became the cultural norm and legal reality, the insistence that marriage united two distinct gender stereotypes became increasingly shrill.

It's worth reminding you here that in the US, women were not allowed to vote until 1920. Contraception was outlawed in many states, and it wasn't until 1965 that the Supreme Court found that there was a right to contraception. It was legal for a man to rape his wife, because she belonged to him and owed him sex. Of course, this is all tangled up with property and power too, because of inheritance. Culturally, we have a lot invested in the control of women and their fertility.

During the 1940s, '50s and '60s, sociologists and psychiatrists remained adamant that marriage required strict adherence to traditional feminine and masculine roles....Well into the 1970s, marriage was still legally defined as a union that assigned differing marital rights and obligations according to gender....

During the 1970s and 1980s, however, a new revolution in marriage rolled across North America and Europe. As feminists pressed for the repeal of "head and master" laws enshrining male authority in the household, legal codes were rewritten so that they no longer assigned different rights and duties by gender. ...

And that's really the root of the issue. Homophobia (heterosexism) is just one strand to SEXISM. The problem with same sex marriage is that it makes explicit that marriage is a partnership between equals, not an unequal power arrangement. Both have equivalent rights. It's a change, of course, but as Coontz makes clear, it's not the gays who have made the change. Perhaps it's the pace of the change that is the problem. As Coontz points out, it's no accident that Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop8 federal case spent some time on discussion of gender roles. And it's no accident that many if not most of the opponents of LGBT marriage equality have very old-fashioned "traditional" views of marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that this trend will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage. But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed, and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage.

The political risk of supporting GLBT rights

From Sunday's LA Times:

[T]there may be good reasons for the president to move slowly. Historically, American presidents have rarely gotten far ahead of public opinion on civil rights issues, and the few times they have, they've paid a substantial price for doing so.

There follows a long list of examples, including this one:

During the first two years of his presidency, John F. Kennedy refused to support civil rights legislation, which would have alienated the Southern Democrats who had proved vital to his election in 1960 and whom he was likely to need again in 1964. Kennedy even declined to fulfill his campaign promise to eliminate racial discrimination in federally subsidized housing "with the stroke of a pen," leading civil rights critics to deluge the White House with ballpoint pens in their "Ink for Jack" campaign.

It was only the momentous street demonstrations in Birmingham, Ala., and other Southern cities in the spring of 1963 that prompted Kennedy to act on civil rights. After opinion polls found that the percentage of Americans ranking civil rights as the nation's No. 1 priority had increased to 52% from 4%, Kennedy went on national television to announce that civil rights was a "moral issue as old as the Scriptures and as clear as the American Constitution." That summer, the administration introduced groundbreaking civil rights legislation, which was enacted into law the following year.

Concluding,

Should Obama be reelected in 2012, he almost certainly will endorse gay marriage during his second term. By then, a majority of Americans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats, will support the practice. Could Obama shift his position before 2012 without endangering his chances at a second term? Possibly.

But in many of the states that proved to be battlegrounds in the 2008 presidential campaign — Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida — majorities still oppose same-sex marriage. A presidential pronouncement in favor would rally conservative opposition and could prove crucial to some swing voters. For many political progressives who believe that the issue already may have cost Democrats one presidential election (and, with it, two Supreme Court appointments), the risk isn't worth taking

. So much for fierce advocating.