Get off my foot

The use of the term “traditional marriage” has always bugged me no end, when used to refer to the practice of one man and one woman marrying each other voluntarily for love.  It’s an egregious example of revisionist self-serving history.   If you’re going to use language that way, there’s no reason not to call pigshit fried chicken.

A quick fact check or a good history of marriage – here,  for example – will reveal how unsound the claim is that people married traditionally for love.  The idea that a man without sexual experience and a woman without sexual experience should find and marry each other and that neither should ever have sexual experience with another person has got to be one of the quaintest notions to come down the pike in a long time.  Definitely an oddity.   One possible route to happiness, I suppose.  But hardly anybody’s idea of a standard practice.  

Our standard practice, from an anthropological perspective, is not exclusive monogamy but serial monogamy.  Even the most middle-class of American women who settle down and make a happy family have likely had a “practice husband” or a series of “getting to know each other” boyfriends before doing so.  Contending that sexual exclusivity is the only way to go is pure fantasy on the part of religious dreamers.  Many of us find a richness of sexual experience enriches not only life itself, but improves the chances you will appreciate a life partner all the more, once you find somebody you want to commit your life to.

Society is plagued by religious groups known for making absolute truth claims, including what constitutes a "traditional" marriage.   The Roman Catholic hierarchy, for example, suffer under the illusion they speak for all Catholics.   Some seem to believe they speak for all humankind.  These folks are fond of speaking in declarative language about “is” when they are doing nothing more than ticking off what they think “should be.”  “God wants us to… God will answer your prayers…  God gets angry when….”

That said, one of the curious events of our time is the all-out effort on the part of gays and lesbians to claim the institution of marriage as their own.  Unimaginable a generation ago, same-sex marriage is now the bellwether of the mainstreaming of LGBT people in society.   When it reaches universality – it’s well on its way already – LGBT people will have half a chance of being viewed no longer as pariahs, freaks and weirdos, but as colleagues and neighbors and aren’t they cute when they’re in love.

For this reason, it strikes me as curious – and perhaps the word “bizarre” is more apt – that groups like the Catholics and the Mormons should be working so hard to keep lesbians and gays out of the institution they now claim is theirs to define.  Mormons look particularly silly here, stomping about these days, incensed that somebody should want to define marriage other than the way they see it.  An institution they embraced in its “modern” form barely a century ago.

Polygamy (specifically polygyny, the practice of marrying more than one wife), was instituted by the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Jr., some time in the 1830s.  Even after it was outlawed by the federal government in 1862 by the Morrill Act, Mormons insisted it was their right to practice their religion as they chose to, and the tradition of plural marriages, as they call them, went on until 1890, when church president Wilfred Woodruff issued a Manifesto, eliminating the practice.  He specifically left plural marriages already performed intact, however.  Even then the Mormon tradition continued, even after a Second Manifesto was issued when so many Mormons refused to heed the first one.

Utah was able to become a state, in 1896, only by agreeing that a ban on plural marriages would be written into the state constitution.    It wasn’t the Mormon tradition, but they complied, and a century later, in 1995, Utah, with two-thirds of the population claiming Mormon roots,  would become the first state in the country to enact a DOMA (so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act).  For a group that loves the word “tradition,” they are remarkably capable of turning themselves around to go with the flow.

Nine years later, in November 2004, two-thirds of the population voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  They were now using the term “traditional marriage” to refer not to polygamy but to the marriage of one man and one woman.  But unlike their Catholic bed partners in the fight against gay rights, they are careful to avoid reference to traditional marriage as “the way God always intended.”  The ones who know their history, at any rate.

On December 20, 2013, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling (Kitchen v. Herbert) saying that the 2004 law violated gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment and ordered the ban be lifted immediately.  Same-sex couples in Utah began marrying.

Then, three weeks later, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and placed a stay on that decision.  Same-sex couples could no longer marry after January 6, 2014. 

That raised the question of what would happen to the 1360 couples who had married in that window between December 20^th and January 6^th.   What happened in Utah was a replay of what happened between the time gays and lesbians started marrying in California and Prop. 8.  Fortunately, this time the federal government was on top of things and Attorney General Holder quickly announced that the federal government would recognize those marriages, regardless of local Utah efforts to have them annulled. 

So what happens next?

It’s clear that Utah is no longer the Mormons’ exclusive earthly Zion.  13% of the population is now Latino.  And while the majority of Utah citizens still identify themselves as Mormons to census takers, when church leaders speak, they need to keep in mind they are speaking to a Utah population where the majority are not active Mormons (The 2010 census showed only 42% of the population to be ‘actively Mormon.’)

While a majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage, and 72% see it as inevitable, Utah’s socially conservative largely Mormon population is particularly opposed to homosexuality.  This enabled Utah governor Gary Herbert to instruct state agencies on January 7  not to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Utah and insist the status of the couples that are already married is up in the air and in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Not only that, by putting the new law on hold, according the state authorities, even marriages between same-sex couples conducted elsewhere will not be recognized in Utah. 

On the other hand, an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday pointed out that the state has simply re-created the conditions that were in place when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Specifically, Utah, like California following Prop. 8, now has three classes of citizens: straights, who may marry at will, gays who are married, and gays who may not marry.  And to cancel the 1360 marriages that were legal in Utah at the time they took place would beg the question, if this was ultimately found unconstitutional in the California case, why should it not be also found unconstitutional in Utah?  No heterosexual people would gain, and only gay people would lose.  

What is it that drives such animus? one has to wonder.   What makes a live-and-let-live policy impossible?  Why can't they marry each other at will and leave the rest of us to do likewise, those of us not of their religious persuasion?  

It’s bad enough the Mormon Church should be one of the prime movers behind efforts to withhold rights from LGBT Americans – and remove them when they are recognized.  Now they have to twist the knife by a stunningly arrogant suggestion that seekers of those rights should be scolded for their lack of civility.

On Friday (two days ago) The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles  sent out instructions on how to respond to the latest action by the Supreme Court.

…(W)e encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father's purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children,

the statement starts out.

...Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society.

Absent, you’ll notice, is any reference to God’s decision to do this in the 1880s, when God apparently had a change of heart from his earlier idea of what marriage should look like.

…Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society.

The Presidency and the Quorum at least recognize there is a lack of congruence between civil law and what they consider to be God’s law.  That’s hardly news.

The question is what are we to make of this difference of opinion.

“Be nice,” apparently.

…Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders' and members' constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution," the LDS Church says.

Notice the declaration of the obvious here.  “Constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions…free from retaliation or retribution.”

Who would argue with that?

And here’s the rub.  What is left out of this declaration is any indication of where the line is between speech and action.  Absent is any recognition of the Mormon Church’s political role in turning back the rights of California Citizens in Prop. 8.  Millions of dollars.  Millions of hours of church-led efforts to snatch marriage licenses out of the hands of fellow citizens with little or no interest in the Mormon view of God’s law.

… Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages.

Not a problem.  Your meetinghouse belongs to you.  Use it in good health, any way you like.  If you want to keep Lutherans or Jews or black people or people with unruly mustaches from making use of the facilities, be my guest.

We have common ground here.  Civility, yes.  By all means, let’s withhold violence and threats of violence.

But don’t be naïve.

When you’re standing on my foot, and I shout, “Get off my foot, motherfucker,” you’ll have to understand that scolding me for being a potty mouth might not be the best way for you to reach across the gap.

photo credit 

Let's hear it for familias homoparentales

Math whiz Alexis Héctor Castillo, his sister, and their mamas

El Día, the Santiago (Chile) daily, carries a brief reference in their “Social” section to a well-done video today put out by the AVP Campaign.  “No more families without rights,” reads the headline, the slogan of the MOVILH organization.  MOVILH  stands for  Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Nacional Homosexual/International Movement for National Homosexual Integration and Liberation.    AVP stands for Acuerdo de Vida en Pareja/Life Partner Agreement.   Chile is on the move to become perhaps the next country to approve same-sex marriage.  It’s a ways off, and there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip, but we’re on our way!

If you’re of the Spanish-speaking persuasion, check out the video at the site.  If it’s down by the time you read this, you should be able to get it on YouTube here.

The video shows what can happen to a couple who want to marry, but can’t.  Two women.  One gets sick and dies.  The other nurses her through it and then loses the house to her family, who do not approve of the relationship.  The story has been told over and over, in each country where same-sex marriage rights are withheld.  Each one becomes an isolated individual case. Each struggle is fought one at a time.

But there is good news in Chile, not to offset the first story – that won’t be done till same-sex marriage rights are recognized legally – but to indicate reason for hope.  A same-sex marriage bill cleared committee by 28 votes to 6 on Tuesday and is now in the Chilean Senate for consideration.  Also in the Senate chamber, no surprise, were opponents with signs reading, “Return to Christ.”   Fortunately, the president, Michelle Bachelet, is behind the bill, and behind LGBT causes in general.

Then there is the story of a boy named Alexis Héctor Castillo.  He’s from Rancagua, a copper mining town south of the capital.  He just won the prize for best math student in the country.  Now his mothers are at pains to explain it’s not that “las familias homoparentales son mejores o peores que las otras…”  - it’s not that families with same-sex parents (I much prefer the Spanish word “homoparental”) are better or worse than others – it’s just that the State needs to recognize they are in no way different, and good things can just as easily come from them as from the standard variety.

If you look at a map of South America detailing where same-sex marriages are recognized, the image is striking. 

   Same-sex marriage

   Other type of partnership

   Unrecognized or unknown

   No recognition, same-sex marriage banned by the constitution

   Same-sex sexual activity illegal

60.7% of South Americans live in Brazil, Argentina or Uruguay (in  ) where same-sex marriages are legal.

An additional 15.5% of the population live in Columbia and Ecuador (in  ) which have civil unions and where the pressure is on to extend the right to unions to the right to full marriages.

Not too shabby, all things considered.

¡La Lucha Continúa!

Picture credits:

Alexis, his sister, and their mamas

Map of South America 

Thomas Hitzlsperger comes out

Thomas Hitzlsperger, right, playing for Everton (UK)

I came across an article in the Munich paper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, this morning that made me feel good.  It's the story of the coming out of the footballer (or to use the American term: "soccer player") Thomas Hitzlsperger.

Coming out stories are not as noteworthy as they once were, even when they involve professional athletes, and I might have simply read it and moved on. But the Süddeutsche made a big deal out of it, attaching several other articles to it, including interviews with Hitzlsperger's colleagues and other professionals, and read in the aggregate, I found it a real upper.

There has been a serious setback in Utah.  I don't know whether the Supreme Court is moving tactically toward a clear victory for LGBT marriage rights, as the optimists are maintaining. Possibly.  Possibly, too, this is a more serious longterm setback.  In any case, it's the end of a great run of victories on the gay liberation front, a sobering moment, and watching the shark-feeding frenzy by the religious right over this win for their side, I needed a bit of an antidote. This article did it for me.

Hitzlsperger played for several teams in England (Aston Villa, Chesterfield, Everton and West Ham) and for Lazio in Italy, as well as being a big name in soccer in Germany (Wolfsburg, and the German National team) where he played in the World Cup in 2006.  He retired last September after a series of injuries.

Here’s the interview transcribed for non-German speakers, in case you’re interested.  I trust I am not breaking any copyright laws here.  If I am, I will of course take this down immediately.  The transcription and translation are mine, so any errors you discover will be mine, as well.   

If you want to watch it on video, it’s available in German here. 

There is a 10-second intro. And then the interview:

Warum bekennen Sie sich jetzt zu Ihrer Homosexualität?	Why are you acknowledging your homosexuality just now?
Für mich ist es der richtige Zeitpunkt, weil ich vor gut sechs Monaten aufgehört habe, aktiv Fußball zu spielen.   Ich stehe vor einer neuen Lebensphase, und möchte einfach die Zeit nützen, auch über meine Erfahrungen zu sprechen als homosexueller Fußballprofi.	For me it was the right moment, because I gave up playing soccer actively a good six months ago.  I’m starting a new phase of my life and want to use the time to speak about my experiences as a homosexual soccer professional.
Warum haben Sie sich als aktiver Fußballprofi nicht zu ihrer Homosexualität  bekannt?	Why didn’t you come out while you were an active soccer professional?
Es war für mich ein langjähriger Prozeß, das halt auszufinden.  Zu Beginn meiner Laufbahn war ich mit einer Frau in einer Beziehung ganze acht Jahre, und erst danach, als ich allein gelebt habe, ... mir, ich habe Gefühle für Männer, ja, und ich möchte auch mal mit einem Mann zusammenleben.  Aber das hat eben sehr lange gedauert, und deswegen war das für mich nie ein Thema in der aktiven Zeit als Fußballprofi, das zu bekennen, oder überhaupt darüber Auskunft zu geben.	It was a long process that took many years for me to find that out.  At the beginning of my career I was in a relationship with a woman for eight years, and only afterwards, when I lived alone, did I realize that I have feelings for men, and that I would like to try living with a man.  But that took a long time, and for that reason it was never a topic for me to take up while I was active as a soccer professional, or to give any kind of information out about it.
Hätten Sie sich auch in Ihrer aktiven Zeit zu Ihrer Homosexualität bekennen können?	Could you also have come out during your active time?
Natürlich hätte ich das tun können.   Aber bei mir hätte die Bewusstwerdung eben länger gedauert.  Ich denke, aber, daß junge Spieler heute, die sich vielleicht viel früher im Klaren sind über ihrer Neigungen, die es eben tun können – die können darüber sprechen, die können offen damit umgehen, weil sie auch sehen an meinem Beispiel, dass man sowohl homosexuell sein kann, auf der einen Seite, und auf der anderen Seite, ein erfolgreicher Fußballer  und das soll auch jungen Spielern Mut machen.	Of course I could have.  But then the consciousness raising would have taken even longer.  I think, though, that young players today who are maybe aware much earlier about their tendencies, they can do it.  They can talk about it, then can be open about it, because they see my example of how one can be both homosexual on the one hand, and on the other hand a successful soccer player.  And that should give young soccer players courage.
Herrscht im Profifußball ein schwulenfeindliches Klima?	Is the atmosphere in the world of professional soccer hostile to gays?
Diese Frage kann ich nicht eindeutig beantworten.  Ich kann nur sagen das es homophobe Äusserungen gab, es wurden Witze über Schwule gemacht in meiner Gegenwart auch, aber ich konnte auch mitlachen, wenn der Witz gut war.  Es ist, im Gegensatz zum Rassismus, schwieriger zu beurteilen, weil beim Rassismus weiß man ganz klar, gegen wen der Haß sich richtet.  Beim Fußball gibt es keine bekannten Homosexuellen.  Und daher ist es schwer zu sagen, ob es wirklich schwulenfeindlich ist.   Man muß abwarten auf den ersten/die ersten Fußballer, die sich bekennt zu ihrer Homosexualität.	I can’t answer this question unequivocally.  I can only say that there were homophobic remarks.  There were jokes told about gays in my presence as well, but I was able to go along and laugh, when it was a good joke.  It is, in contrast to racism, harder to judge, because with racism you know very clearly whom the hatred is directed at.  In soccer there are no recognized homosexuals.  And so it’s harder to say whether it’s really hostile to gays.  We will have to wait for the first gay or lesbian soccer player to acknowledge their homosexuality.
Haben Sie erlebt, daß “schwul” als Schimpfwort benutzt wurde?	Have you had an experience where “gay” was used as an expletive?
Ich habe es ab und zu erlebt, wenn es darum ging, einen schwachen Paß zu umschreiben und da sagte man ganz gerne mal ein “schwuler” Paß.  Eben man denkt schwul sei weich, schwach, und das traf auf mich nicht zu, weil ich war bekannt für einen harten Schuß, für ein gutes Paßspiel, und deswegen ist es ein ganz klarer Widerspruch, über den ich im Nachhinein immer schmunzeln konnte.	From time to time, when it was a question of talking about a weak pass and people would like to say a “gay” pass.  That’s because people think of gay as soft, weak, and that didn’t apply to me because I was known for my hard shots, for good passes, and so it was a direct contradiction that I could laugh about later.
Was für Reaktionen erwarten Sie jetzt?	What kind of reactions are you expecting now?
Darüber könnte ich jetzt spekulieren, aber daran habe ich keine Interesse.  Es ist auch für meine Familie und für meinen Umfeld unwichtig, daß ich über meine Homosexualität spreche.    Wichtig ist es nur für die Leute, die homophob sind, andere ausgrenzen auf Grund ihrer Sexualität, und sie sollen wissen, sie haben einen Gegner mehr.	I could speculate about that now, but I’m not interested in doing that.  It’s also unimportant for my family and for those around me to have me speak about my homosexuality.  It’s only important for those people who are homophobic, who shut others out because of their sexuality.  And they should know, they have one more opponent.

Perhaps even more interesting (to me, at least) than this interview are all the other videos linked in the Süddeutsche Zeitung article, to reactions to Thomas’s coming out.

Here’s a sample from one of the links, comments from Herzlsperger's colleagues.   Not an exact translation this time, but a summary:

  

1. Arjen Robben, Bayern München – For me personally, I find that totally normal that he has outed himself.    Fantastic.  Really good.    When I look around and listen to all the discussion about it I think to myself, “What’s to discuss?”  He outed himself and that’s all there is to it!

2. Sebastian Kehl, Captain, Borussia Dortmund -  I was a little surprised at first, but then I was glad that he had the courage to come out.  I think we should stop with all this excitement about the whole thing.  It’s something natural…

3. Hans-Joachim Watzke, Business Executive, Borussia Dortmund – What’s the big deal?   As a football player, he has a huge bunch of fans and I can only join them.

4. Holger Badstuber, Bayern München – A whole lot of respect.  Yeah, with soccer it’s not a topic we like to talk about much, but privately everybody can do what they want.  He’s decided he wants to express this, and that’s perfectly in order, and we will tolerate it.

5. Magdalena Neuner, Biathlon – world record holder -  He didn’t have to do this.  He could have quietly gone his way.  But he wanted to do something for the other athletes and to provide an example and to fight for the right of gay people to move around more freely and be open about it when playing the sport.

6. Arjen Robben (again) – I could out myself as hetero if I wanted to.  For me it’s exactly the same thing.

Just another day in paradise.

Not really.  But if there were to be “just another day in paradise” it might well include things like this.

photo credit