Amos's River of Justice

Category: Same-Sex Marriage

  • Progressives Are Not the Democratic Establishment

    We call our movement progressive. Most progressives know what that means. It’s clear to the candidates and it’s clear to the voters. Unfortunately, the Right seems to think ‘progressive’ is a synonym for ‘woke,’ and they happily use it to malign everyone, from the Democratic establishment to socialists. Progressives are not the Democratic Establishment. In addition they don’t represent the Socialist Party. However, some progressives lean toward solutions that are more socialist than capitalist.

    We Are Not Twentieth Century Progressives

    In our most important policy positions, we don’t really resemble the progressive movement of the early twentieth century either. For example, progressive reformers of that period accepted the suppression of voting rights, as well as policies restricting immigration.  On those two issues alone, we are miles apart from them. Again, this doesn’t seem to be important to the progressive candidates in the trenches. They know who they are. The Right doesn’t appear to know it however. It insists on lumping today’s progressives with today’s political establishment as well as yesterday’s socialists and communists.

    Is The Right Just Pretending it Doesn’t Understand?

    Is the Right pretending that progressives and their policies are the problem, or do they really believe it? Maybe it is a mistake, after all. Or maybe both bourgeois parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, use each other as straw men so that they don’t have to respond to the common-sense demands of progressives.

    The Church of England Thinks Same-Sex Marriage is a Progressive Project

    The easiest way to demonstrate the resulting problem in the conversation is to return to Gavin Ashenden, who with many other members and clergy of the Church of England, has left the Church over its decision to bless same-sex marriage. I don’t necessarily disagree with him on this issue, but I disagree with his analysis of the problem. I also disagree with his assumption that same-sex marriage is a progressive project.

    Same-Sex Marriage is Blamed on Feminism

    Ashenden argues that feminism is the root of the problem, and that it was always going to lead to same-sex marriage, or at least to the acceptance of homosexuality. This is an obvious disconnect. Acceptance of homosexuality is not identical with same-sex marriage. And the legalization of same-sex marriage does not naturally imply that the Christian Church must bless these unions. However, he may have a point about feminism.

    Modern feminism is a product of the bourgeois Democratic establishment. Inconveniently for our right-wing critics, progressives disagree with most of the policies of the Democratic establishment. This includes CFR and CIA feminists. They are really just meritocratic, elite hawks. That is not who progressives are.

    The Issue of Gender Rights Did Not Originate with Progressives

    Ashenden follows his logic to also lay the issue of gender at our doorstep. However, many progressives disagree that this issue is progressive. It is true that some well-meaning progressives accept it as progressive, but whatever you think of this issue it didn’t originate with us. It sort of appeared out of nowhere. That should inspire more curiosity than it has.

    So, Who are Progressives?

    Progressives today are big-picture, internationalist progressives. Climate change, food and water insecurity, and class warfare are global problems, and it simply won’t work to save privileged islands of the global population and leave others to die. Aside from being cruel and self-centered, the world is too connected for that. We all need each other.

    Same-sex marriage and transgender acceptance, on the other hand, are not big-picture issues. Their function seems to be to annoy religious and conservative men. I think it also serves to distinguish the Democratic establishment from the Republicans.This is necessary because their policies are similar.

    The statements made in this article might decrease the confusion for progressives. Unfortunately, if the Right is purposely categorizing progressives with the bourgeois establishment, they will probably continue to do so. Nothing I have said will make any difference to them.

  • Same-Sex Marriage and a Woman’s Place

    The Catholic Church is being criticized for its recent announcement that it will not bless same-sex unions. I’ve written previously about the problems I see in modern marriage, but that is not what I want to talk about here.   The argument I’m making in this article is that the Catholic Church’s stance toward marriage is pro-woman.  My focus is not the same as the Church’s focus.  My concern is the impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage on a woman’s place in marriage and, through marriage, in society.

    Conflicting Views of Reality

    Since same-sex marriage is already the law of the land, I am hopeful that this discussion will not be overly threatening to same-sex partners. I’ll start with this: it seems to me that the gay lobby’s insistence that the Church bless same-sex unions is a challenge to the Church’s definition of marriage, more than an attempt to advance gay rights.  And as a claim about reality its influence may be all out of proportion to the number of same-sex marriages.  I believe it is intended to be a challenge to the definition of marriage because the Gay lobby has already won the right for same-sex couples to marry, and yet they choose to engage the Church publicly.  Also gay people represent a small percentage of the population, and a small percentage of that small percentage will be Catholic and/or choose to marry.

    The Church’s refusal to bless same-sex unions is also a statement about reality.  This reality was defined by the church’s sacrament of marriage long before this issue arose.  I hope this discussion will help women see the importance of this debate in their own lives.

    True love and same-sex marriage

    I wrote an article about same-sex marriage when it was first legalized.  I said that the only criterion left in our society for heterosexual marriage is true love.   Since it is impossible to argue that same-sex couples are not as capable of true love as heterosexual couples, denying marriage to same-sex couples would be discriminatory.  This was meant as a criticism of our casual approach to marriage rather than a defense of same-sex marriage.  I’m writing this now because I think there is potential for injustice in the direction we are headed .  I think it is important to consider the implications of same-sex marriage for a woman’s place in society.

    What does same-sex marriage say about the place of women?

    At some point, LGBTQ rights always seem to challenge the place of women.  This happens with trans-women in sports, and it happens when the gay lobby challenges the definition of marriage.  The Church defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating children.  This is as close as it gets in our society to acknowledging a woman’s place in society.  So I argue that in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, the Church’s definition of marriage protects a woman’s place in marriage, and in society.

    Most women have trouble imagining how the marriage of same-sex partners can be a threat to heterosexual marriage.  Perhaps the main threat is not to marriage but to women.  It seems to me that the gay lobby’s demand for the Catholic Church to bless same-sex unions is a renewed attack on a woman’s place in marriage and in society.

    Female Same-Sex Families Are Still Vulnerable to Misogyny

    But what about female same-sex partners you ask?  Don’t they benefit?  I would argue that they don’t in the same degree.  There are twice as many gay men as gay women.  In addition, half of gay women identify as bi-sexual and many of them are already in heterosexual marriages. So for the most part we are talking about male same-sex partners.

    Another reason I focus on male same-sex partners is that female same-sex couples remain more vulnerable to harassment than male same-sex couples.  At the same time a judge in Utah threatened to remove a foster child from the home of a lesbian same-sex couple, male same-sex couples living in Utah were not threatened.

    Worse-case scenario for a woman’s place

    Even though gay people make up a minority of the population, the view of marriage the gay lobby espouses, and the way the media amplifies this view, has the potential to make women even less important than they are.  When you include the fact that male same-sex partners may adopt children, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage actually makes the presence of women optional in the families they create.  But again, this all seems to make sense because of our current understanding of marriage.

    The Status of a Woman’s Child-bearing Role Was Already in Question

    There is a precedent for the diminished status of women in their role of bearing children.  Women are relegated to a peripheral position every time a baby is taken from a single mother and given to a heterosexual couple.  In other words, it is generally accepted that a woman can lose her baby by default. This practice may have added legitimacy to the adoption of children by male same-sex couples.

    Conclusion

    A remedy might be to ask how we can encourage the Church’s definition and protections of marriage for women and at the same time deal humanely with the way people actually live.  One way this has been dealt with in the past is to impose sanctions on people who don’t fit the mold.  This seems to have had destructive consequences.

    These are very old questions and no society has answered them in a satisfactory way.  But in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, the Church’s definition of marriage is pro-woman.  Our incomplete understanding of marriage is to blame for the fact that we have failed to examine the connection between same-sex marriage and a woman’s place.

  • Transgender Rights, Same-Sex Marriage and Women

     

    Germaine Greer is now being criticized for saying that trans women are not women. Although demand by trans women that the world call them women makes many women uncomfortable, it’s the women rather than trans women who have to defend their position. Same-sex marriage also presents problems for women. In my opinion it may be even more threatening. It is becoming increasingly clear that transgender rights, same-sex marriage, and women’s rights, are connected.

    Must Women Defend Their Territory?

    Often women defend their territory by talking about the difficulties of being female as opposed to the privileges. Discrimination and humiliation seem to be the only proof we have of a unique right to call ourselves women.

    This is not Greer’s fault but it’s pretty sad. Worse, it doesn’t stop the intrusion. Trans women answer that they’ve experienced all the same trials and therefore, they are women.

    Women counter by saying that the ability to bear children makes them women.  This doesn’t seem to impress trans women, but I think the women on to something. The child-bearing role of women is relevant to both categories, same-sex marriage and transgender rights. It’s also relevant to heterosexual relationships, but this is not acknowledged in a way that benefits women.

    Terms and Definitions

    There are many other sources of confusion here, not least of all the terms.  But at least it’s easier to agree on terms and definitions. If there are differences, most people are willing to accept correction.

    A transgender individual who has transitioned, whether or not surgery was involved, doesn’t want to be called a transwoman because this would indicate that he or she hasn’t transitioned. The term ‘trans woman’ is preferred to transwoman because trans is being used as an adjective describing a specific kind of woman. However there are some who prefer to just be called women.

    I was surprised to learn that none of these terms refers to sexual orientation. Also transgender people are not necessarily interested in same-sex marriage.

    How Does Same Sex Marriage Affect Women?

    Even though same-sex marriage is different from the transgender issue, I run into a similar problem when trying to argue its effects on women. My first piece of evidence is pretty straight forward—same-sex marriage was legalized at a time when female reproductive rights were under attack. Subsequently, same-sex marriage has competed for attention with reproductive rights.

    Reproductive Rights

    And now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. There is no comparison between the issue of same-sex marriage and reproductive rights. That’s also true between gender rights and reproductive rights. Compared to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and gender rights are vanity issues. Women know this, but childbirth is treated as trivial to the point where they don’t quite believe it themselves. Instead, the focus is discrimination and misogyny. That situation should be more remarkable than it is. What it’s really saying is that  the place of women has been turned  upside down. They should have more privileges, but they don’t even have the right to claim their own unique identity.

    Bride Wealth

    The importance of the role of childbirth was once recognized in the custom of bride wealth, but bride wealth has never been practiced in the United States. Therefore, it’s impossible to argue that it’s threatened by same-sex marriage. However, it would be if it still existed. That is meaningful.

    Child Custody

    The other problem that same-sex marriage ignores is child custody. The irony here is that it was only the payment of bride wealth that made men equal to women in custody matters. Now even custody is in question.

    Childbirth as a Moral Obligation

    We may not like to hear that the childbearing role is our only claim to superiority, probably because this idea is now used against us. Conservative men insist that women are privileged, usually with the purpose of increasing the birthrate. But this is an anachronistic claim–the value remains but we have no memory of the privilege. Patriarchal lip-service is not now and never has been an element of social organization.

    Background Noise from Right-Wing Traditionalists

    After I wrote about Hermes in India I tried for quite some time to discuss my concerns about Hermetic influence in the United States. People aren’t really concerned that Hermes can morph into, say, Jesus Christ, or that he has taken over our medical system. I worry that the LGBTQ issue remains under the radar in the same way.

    Often, same-sex couples are unaware of the ideological meaning behind transgender manifestations. Ellen Degeneres for example is baffled by the fact that Caitlyn Jenner is Republican and not particularly supportive of same-sex marriage.

    I don’t know Jenner’s affiliations, but the possibilities are endless. I found a movement while researching this article, the North American New Right, and this movement has taken an interest in Jenner. She’s been interviewed on the Counter Currents website. This article is no longer available, but here is a book by the same interviewer, James O’Meara.

    To this way of thinking the only true homosexuality is the type practiced by those mythical bands of men who roamed the earth before the birth of human culture. A modern example would be the Nazi männerbund. This movement thinks same-sex marriage is irrelevant if not silly, and it mocks what it calls the ‘Fake Left’ for insisting that homosexuals are just like everyone else in their desire to be married and raise children. Homosexuality should be an escape from marriage, they say, rather than a reason for it.

    Rene Guenon and Baron Juius Evola

    The vogue of using a mythical past in pursuit of political aims was popular in Europe before and during the world wars. Rene Guenon represented this type of Traditionalism (denoted with a capital ’T’). Thanks to Guenon’s influence, so did Albert Gleizes. The North American New right acknowledges Guenon’s influence, and, surprisingly, it also acknowledges the Traditionalism of Baron Julius Evola.  Evola was a Traditionalist of another sort.  His ideas are more closely associated with Nazism than those of Guenon.

    Gender Rights are enshrined in law

    In the United States same-sex marriage is water under the bridge, and compared to the ideological aspects discussed above it may prove to be relatively harmless. But I doubt it. When was a smoke screen ever harmless?

    It’s only when you consider the casual nature of marriage and the fact that the only real criteria for it is ‘true love’, that it becomes outrageous to deny same-sex partners the right to marry. If you ignore all of these factors, legalizing same-sex marriage seems progressive. True love has become a substitute for the economic necessities that acknowledge these realities. And these realities are inseparable from the role of women. Without the appropriate economic arrangements, married life, while it’s marginally better for women than single life, is a cynical proposition.

    Elizabeth Stoker wrote a helpful article for the New Republic on Traditionalism from the Catholic point of view, Francis Agonistes, New Republic, March 1, 2015. (It’s no longer available on the same website but you may be able to find a copy.)

  • Why Should I Care About Same-Sex Marriage?

    I’ve been wondering if the determination to control the message might explain the White House guest list for the Pope’s reception. ((Vatican pushes back over White House invite to Catholic Dissidents, Catholic New Agency, September 18, 2015. Available: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-pushes-back-over-white-house-invite-to-catholic-dissidents-51001/))

    I say this because I’m getting tired of the same-sex marriage issue taking over the conversation.  In fact, I’m tired of the LGBT issue, period.  I ended up writing this blog because of Wikipedia’s misogyny–women’s rights were my focus and with good reason–but instead of making headway on this problem women have been blindsided with legislation limiting reproductive rights, while in the same period the same-sex marriage initiative has been a great success.

    It’s not hard to make the case that fighting misogyny is more important to our society than same-sex marriage.  Half the U.S. population of 319 million is female while Americans identifying as gay or lesbian make up only 1.6 percent of the population, and those who consider themselves bisexual represent only .7 percent. Yet the LGBT issue vaults ahead, both in the media and in the courts.

    Many thought it was surprising that the Supreme Court approved this measure, but considering the character of these justices this should have made us suspicious about the potential uses of this issue.  What has happened here, besides the drowning out of women’s issues in the media, is that women have finally been made irrelevant.  Now men can marry and adopt children, while single women continue to lose their babies to adoption.  

error: Content is protected !!