The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

Courthouse marriage

The gay-rights movement took a chance on fighting for the right to wed. It's finally paying off.
By STEVEN STARK  |  April 21, 2009


While political analysts understandably regard elections and politicians as the key forces of social change, nongovernmental forces are the ones that most often actually influence and transform our culture.

Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1850s novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, probably did as much as any political event to help shape northern opinion in a way that made a Civil War inevitable. Martin Luther King Jr.'s decision to emulate Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence gave the civil-rights movement a broader appeal that sped the pace of change. Civil-rights' lawyers strategic litigation, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s, did much the same.

In a similar vein, the decision to re-label the anti-abortion movement the "pro-life movement" was a brilliant tactical move that has helped it to continually recruit followers in the decades that have followed Roe v. Wade.

When historians look back at our era, they'll likely view the growing acceptance of gay men and women by the non-gay majority as one of the great social changes of our time.

True, this cultural shift is due to a confluence of factors. But perhaps the primary impetus sprung from a strategic commitment about a decade ago within the gay-rights movement to push for same-sex marriage — and not through the ballot box or legislative action, but through litigation.

It was, at the time, an extremely controversial decision. And there was reason to believe it couldn't possibly work, since the growing conservatism of the courts was thought to make the kind of "rights revolution" seen in the 1960s now impossible.

But it has worked, and in the process has helped make the cause of gay rights more acceptable and legitimate to mainstream America — just as it was intended to do.

This is our liberation?
According to George Chauncey's compelling and exhaustive history of the cause, Why Marriage?, the strategy has its roots in the desire to protect same-sex couples from discrimination in child-custody, living-wills, and insurance matters. Yet it was not a particularly popular cause in the early days of the movement in the 1970s.

"That isn't the freedom we want," wrote one critic within the movement. "That isn't our liberation." Even some 15 years later, there was a strong element in the gay community that viewed marriage as an institution too identified with both assimilation and male domination of women to be a strategic goal.

Chauncey pinpoints a group of lawyers at GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a New England legal-rights group) and Lambda, the nation's oldest and largest gay-rights legal organization, as the key figures in changing course. Like most such groups, they were modeled on the experience of lawyers in the civil-rights movement, when many of the racial gains of the time had to be attained through the protections of the legal process, rather than through the ballot box.

Gay marriage became the focus because it "provided a vocabulary in which non-gay people talk about larger and important questions — questions of love and commitment and dedication and self-sacrifice and family," Evan Wolfson, an attorney at Lambda at the time told Chauncey. By using that vocabulary, he and other activists understood, "we make it easier for non-gay people to understand who we are."

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: California matters, Jubilation!, California’s shame, More more >
  Topics: Stark Ravings , Massachusetts, New York, Politics,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
HTML Prohibited
Add Comment

Share this entry with Delicious
  •   HAS OBAMA PEAKED? YES, HE HAS  |  November 12, 2009
    To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.
  •   MEN PLUS MONEY EQUALS MESS  |  May 14, 2009
    Since Iceland is something of the epicenter of the global financial crisis — its government being the first to essentially go belly up — it's probably not surprising that the Icelanders have come up with the most novel and interesting theory as to what caused the meltdown. And they may be right.
  •   ARLEN THE FAMILY  |  May 11, 2009
    So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. That's old news.
  •   SPARE CHANGE?  |  April 28, 2009
    A tension lies at the heart of the Obama presidency. After 100 days in office, the public still seems uncertain how to interpret the historic nature of the election last November.
  •   COURTHOUSE MARRIAGE  |  April 21, 2009
    While political analysts understandably regard elections and politicians as the key forces of social change, nongovernmental forces are the ones that most often actually influence and transform our culture.

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group