Struggling for same-sex equality
In the style of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic,” which portrayed a typical Midwestern American couple of 1930, MSU graduate students and couple Matt Earls and Paul Holland pose to illustrate a relationship that is growing in cultural acceptability, same-sex marriage. Though not legal in Michigan, same-sex marriage currently is legal in six states.
Tweet
More information:
Marriage is something urban planning graduate student Matt Earls says he’s always dreamed about. But for Earls and his boyfriend, public policy graduate student Paul Holland, marriage remains a dream in Michigan, where a 2004 amendment to the state constitution banned same-sex marriage.
“I guess I just don’t know why my same-sex preference is stopping me,” Earls said. “There’s just something about marriage that seems a lot more concrete than, ‘I’m in a relationship.’ I think it adds more stability.”
Holland and Earls, who have been dating for more than a year, are one couple out of thousands in Michigan hoping for a change to current restrictions on same-sex marriage. The couple said they are confident Michigan is headed toward equality.
History
Michigan’s 2004 vote to approve Proposal 2 created an amendment to the state’s constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, making same-sex marriage illegal within the state.
Video: Student Stances ...
The proposal was designed to protect families as the foundation of society, said Marlene Elwell, who helped draft it as director of Citizens for the Protection of Marriage. The basic unit of a family, which is the strength of a nation, has always been a man, a woman and their children, she said.
“A marriage is between only one man and one woman,” she said. “It doesn’t mean you have four women together and that defines a family. It’s been like that forever. It’s just that in recent years, people want to change that.”
Holland said although he understands the position of a person who doesn’t want to see a religious term used to define something against his or her beliefs, he doesn’t think it is fair for marriage to be tied to civil statute. The benefits that come with marriage should be available for everyone, regardless of their sexuality, he said.
“Since the word marriage is entwined in civil law, then civilly, everyone’s entitled to marriage,” he said.
Three years after the proposal was approved, MSU, which began offering domestic-partnership benefits to same-sex couples in 1997, was forced to change its policy in 2007, MSU Trustee Colleen McNamara said.
The former policy was illegal under the amendment to the constitution, she said. McNamara said MSU’s current policy, which now complies with state law, still has the effect of providing benefits to same-sex couples employed by the university.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, which filed a suit against MSU for the same-sex benefits it offered, said offering benefits to same-sex couples equates their relationship with marriage, which is unconstitutional.
“The only thing states can recognize as a marriage is the union of one man and woman,” he said. “(That union) is a role-model relationship for each successive generation of children.”
Since Proposal 2’s approval, all Michigan legislation promoting benefits for gay people has occurred at the county and township level, said Julie Nemcek, co-director of Michigan Equality. Twenty percent of the state’s population now resides in areas where ordinances prohibit housing and employment discrimination on the basis of sexuality, she said. Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, recently announced plans to introduce legislation to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage in Michigan. Byrnes could not be reached for comment.
Changes
The greatest progress made toward same-sex benefits in Michigan and in the nation as a whole are changes in the prevailing attitude toward gays, Nemcek said. The public has developed a greater understanding of gay people and relationships, she said.
Twenty years ago, Holland said some people still used the word “degenerate” to describe a gay person. Now, he said, the word is recognized as inappropriate. Progress toward equality is under way, even though it is moving slowly, Holland said.
“Our country, even through hiccups and starts, has become more equal over time,” he said. “In the next 10 years, I’m pretty confident gay marriage will be in Michigan. I think we’re headed in that direction.”
MSU social science professor Stephanie Nawyn said as more gay individuals feel comfortable coming out, the public grows more understanding of the importance of gay rights, she said.
“More people now know they have friends, they have family members who are gay and lesbians and what that’s done is made people see they aren’t crazy or sex-crazed, they’re people that they know, they’re people they love,” she said.
“That has done a tremendous amount to change people’s attitudes toward gay marriage.”
Research now indicates most Americans think gay couples should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital and inherit each other’s estates, and more than half support some form of same-sex marriage, Nawyn said.
Nationwide
In the past 10 years, six states have legalized same-sex marriage and three have created provisions for partnerships, said Michael Craw, an MSU professor in James Madison College. Beginning with Hawaii in 1993, the movement to extend marriage to same-sex couples has taken off in recent years, he said.
Iowa was the most recent state to legalize gay marriage in April, joining Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut, he said.
In the long run, the outlook is positive for same-sex marriage, as exposure to and acceptance of gay men and women has expanded nationwide, Craw said. Nawyn said people who have friends or family members who are gay are more likely to be open to same-sex marriage, using former Vice President Dick Cheney as an example. Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, now supports same-sex marriage, she said.
“These are people who sit at your dinner table,” she said. “As it has become more acceptable, people become more open to allowing them the same rights — and marriage is just one of those.”
But the issue will play out at the level of each individual state, Craw said.
In Michigan, if the issue of same-sex marriage could return to the ballot, Elwell said she would be prepared to fight again to keep marriage between a man and woman.
Holland said although he doesn’t think Michigan will legalize same-sex marriage by the time of the next election cycle, it could be possible within six years. He and Earls have discussed marriage, and would be disappointed to have to leave the state if they decided to get married before the state makes marriage legal.
“Both of us were born and raised here, we’ve gone to school here,” Holland said. “We both have pride in our state and we love our state. It’s not only inconvenient, but it’s nothing that weighs us down. We just wish it wasn’t that way … It’s something you hope for.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Tak
(06/24/09 4:25am)Report
There has been a massive generational shift on this issue. People over 30 are divided on the issue of same sex marriage, but most people under 30 really don’t see what the big deal is. This trend will follow in the next generation, and so on.
In other words, before too long, resistance to gay marriage will quite literally die off.
Sometimes justice comes with the sword, sometimes the scythe.
John
(06/24/09 8:17am)Report
Fantastic article, Brittany Shammas. This is just another reason why the people of Michigan need to dust off, step up and work hard to make the state an accepting and progressive place to live.
Michigan Law
(06/24/09 8:50am)Report
§ 28.570 (MCL §750.338) Gross indecency between male persons; attempts; penalty; commission by sexually delinquent person; penalty.
Sec.338.
Any male person who, in public or private, commits or is a party to the commission of or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of any act of gross indecency with another male person shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life. Michigan’s sodomy law
Matt
(06/24/09 9:27am)Report
Hey Michigan Law,
The Michigan Sodomy Law was declared unconstitutional in 1990 in the case of Michigan Organization for Human Rights v. Kelley. Furthermore all anti-homosexual sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in the US Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Your repeating an old law is like quoting the Michigan Anti-Miscegenation Law, a law which forbade interracial marriages, which has since been repealed. What is the merit of your post to this discussion?
Kham
(06/24/09 10:05am)Report
Marriage is NOTHING MORE than a legal contract between two people and the state. I can’t see the opposition’s side to this. Its just a contract, nothing more. As far as I know, gays are not demanding to be married in YOUR church. They are just demanding equal treatment as a tax payer. Thats fine by me.
shadow_man
(06/24/09 11:13am)Report
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”
shadow_man
(06/24/09 11:15am)Report
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will. This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
Chelsea
(06/24/09 11:44am)Report
In reply to shadow_man. You are wrong. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. You can twist and make excuses all you want, but it literally states it as a sin.
A sin. Just a sin. Just like any other sin. Something that needs to be confessed and worked on and eventually stopped. Just like I need to stop swearing or putting other things before God or being mean to my sister.
God loves everyone. EVERYONE. You, me, every homosexual, the SAME. Will they go to hell? I have no idea. I know that I won’t because of my sin, but I have confessed and have been forgiven, so I have assurance.
I’m sorry that other Christians have not been loving toward homosexuals. This is wrong and is a sin. Our aim is not to judge, but to help turn those struggling with sin back toward Christ.
Marie
(06/24/09 11:56am)Report
excellent post Chelsea
Todd
(06/24/09 12:05pm)Report
So if homosexuality is not a choice, then that must make it a genetic defect, right? That makes sense, since the ultimate biological goal of sexual relations is to procreate the species.
Matthew
(06/24/09 12:31pm)Report
What doesn’t the Bible condemn? Sure there is murder, adultery, rape and incest, but who are we, mere mortals, to ignore all the precepts of the Divine Creator? Have you ever worn clothing made from two types of material? Have you ever made a bet? How about ordered your steak rare or undercooked? I’m sure you all keep Kosher right?
Sure Christians like to say, they have entered into a New Covenant with God and that all the Old Testament commands (except the ones they conveniently choose are valid). However, this argument is false. Did Jesus not say in the Book of Matthew, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
You’d better think twice about wearing the cotton polyester blend shirt for it is an abomination in the eyes of God!
Dave
(06/24/09 12:40pm)Report
Ben,
I know it is easy to pull the knee-jerk reaction when told you are no longer allowed to do something, but lets take a moment to honestly look at how you are framing “equality”. Under the current status quo, only heterosexual couples are allow access to the legal benefits of marriage; Homosexual couples are being actively denied access to those same rights. Allowing equal access to such benefits does absolute nothing to restrict the ones you yourself already have the ability to enjoy, which is the basic idea of equality in the first place. I’m sure you could try to make a stab at “They are denying my right to deny rights to others through legislature”, but that would be a pathetically juvenile line of debate that I hope can be avoided.
As fun as it is to imagine a dystopian future of gay rights where heterosexual men are tracked down in the streets and forced to marry a gay out-of-work stage actor from the West Village, such thoughts are best reserved for bad science fiction authors and not a discussion about equal access to rights. No one is going to break down the doors of churches and force a gay wedding to be held there against the will of the parish. The religious and legal separation of marriage need to be distinctly separate, as even sharing the same word that has divergent contexts depending on how it is used allows for the dissemination of misinformation on the issue.
Steven Leong
(06/24/09 1:03pm)Report
God created Gay! It’s definitely not a choice! Anyone who knows a Gay person knows this “truth”! The question many Christians should be asking is “Why did God create Gays?”. THE WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED WITH LIMITED FOOD AND NATURAL RESOURCES…HETEROSEXUALS ARE ABANDONING CHILDREN FOR WHAT EVER REASONS …Maybe God came up with an ANSWER!
Instead of working with God, so many churches are pouring instead, OBSCENE AMOUNTS OF MONEY into trying to stop two people created differently form themselves from “tying the knot”…money which could help the poor.
I believe Christ had a word for this … “HYPOCRITES”! The Goliath Churches who continue to crucify these people created by God will eventually see the light!
WHAT ONE SOWS, SO SHALL THEY REAP!
Steve Leong – Hawaii
Chelsea
(06/24/09 1:24pm)Report
Steven Leong: God did not create sin, we did, but just because temptation is present does not mean we cannot overcome it.
You are right, hypocrites and those who judge will reap what they sow. Those who do this are in the wrong and sinning. I apologize for their actions and I am saddened by their lack of love for others. My interpretation of the efforts to stop homosexual marriage is not to interfere or not help the poor, but to help protect and encourage the ways of life that God created. Marriage is not just a contract (Kham), it is a union before God and man and a promise. Marriage was encouraged and sacred and still should be.
Chelsea
(06/24/09 1:36pm)Report
Matthew: We are not bound to the law. The reason we look back on the laws of the Old Covenant is because they were created to show sin. They were created in context of the times. Jesus meant to keep in mind the commandments and laws, but to not let them rule over you. Not to be ungodly, but also not be legalistic. Jesus himself healed on the Sabbath, which would technically break the law if what you are saying was true, but we are NOT bound by the law, Jesus did not sin and was perfect atonement of the sin of the world.
Matthew
(06/24/09 1:54pm)Report
Chelsea: Again, my complaint is you are picking and choosing laws and commandments from the Bible at your own discretion. How can some laws be created in the context of the time they were written but others be absolute for all ages and all people? Who decides which ones are still valid and by what authority does he/she make this decision?
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about divorce? Is that not the gravest crime against marriage? Does not divorce and remarriage constitute the sin of adultery? (“What God has joined together, let no man put asunder..”)
Kham
(06/24/09 2:01pm)Report
Chelsea Yes is is a contract, and GOD has NOTHING to do with it. Why are you forcing your God on others. Separation between Church and State Chelsea, if you dont have that you only have a different flavor of Islam. Yes sure you believe in God, and Jesus, and thats fine, if you talk to me about is I will tell you why thats stupid. When you push your beliefs upon others, you negate any respect you will get from me. Faith does NOT equal respect, and you shall receive all the respect you deserve because NONE is acutely due. Faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. These People, these gays, are taxpayers and citizens. You cannot deny them the right to get married by your logic unless you also denied people the right to get a divorce.
Kham
(06/24/09 2:05pm)Report
(sorry for all those typos, I had to go self edit all the bad words out, and I made a mess of things, again, I apologize)
Paul
(06/24/09 2:40pm)Report
Please stop bickering about ancient scriptures that have absolutely nothing at all to do with our civil law…this is not about what you “believe” or how you interpret your scriptures…it is about secular civil law and equality before the state…it is a legal argument and is not a difficult one if those preoccupied with their tribal and fanatical superstitions would embrace even a ounce of incredulity…everyone ought to be governed by the same law, under the same process…this is equality and it is simple…no church is being consulted and religious followers ought to keep their babble and bickering within their churches and let the rest of us adults work to build a more just world for all people while they pine for death and the “kingdom” to come…
Chelsea
(06/24/09 2:50pm)Report
I’m really sorry if I have offended anyone. I’m only here to voice my opinion!! I completely understand if you agree and you are welcome to disagree. We all have our views and I don’t want to force mine on anyone, just voice them :-)
Anyway..
Matthew: We do not pick and choose laws. I will not sacrifice an animal to earn forgiveness because Jesus has done that. I will not go through purification rituals before entering a church either. I will however, do my best to obey the 10 commandments. I follow doctrine found and prayed over by those who are smarter and wiser than me. It’s not necessarily their right, but if God speaks to them then he does. My view of Christianity is built upon faith, not rules, theology or logic.
Divorce is a sin, but God understands our sin. He hates it, but understands us and has given us free will to sin. The Bible allows divorce in the case of adultery. I don’t believe in it, but I understand that not everyone holds my beliefs… so when I vote, I do not vote based on moral issues. Unlike many I know (not that I am right and they are not or vice-versa) I vote based on politics and views, not on moral issues. I have my opinions but it is not my job to decide if gay marriage or abortion is right or wrong for someone else. I don’t agree with it, I won’t “support it”, I will even speak against it, but I am not the judge of the world, and my vote will not stop what will be done by the world. Many sins are legal, that doesn’t mean they aren’t sins.
Kham: Maybe you don’t see the contract having to do with God, but I do. America was founded upon radical Christian beliefs. Yes, they are fading, but they are still there, and you can’t blame me for trying to hold tight. Christians came here for religious freedom, and they have it, and we have given freedom to all other religions as well. Although marriage is a legal union, I view it as a spiritual and official union before God, recognizing unwavering and permanent commitment that God created between one man and one woman. I’m sorry, but it’s true.
I am not asking for respect because of my faith, but as your equal. Sorry if I offended you, once again!! I do not wish to push anything upon you, just to show you how I feel in contrast. As much as I want you to understand my view I want to understand yours and not upset you!! :-)
Paul
(06/24/09 3:34pm)Report
“America was founded upon radical Christian beliefs.” This is patently false Chelsea, I don’t know what they tell you in church, but the American government was founded on radical secular sentiments; a government of civil law enacted by the people, not a government of god administered by the church. I must be mistaken about the Treaty of Tripoli being unanimously ratified in the Senate and Signed by President Adams in 1797 and proclaims that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” As for “Christians hav[ing] given freedom to all other religions…” I guess I should thank you and all those charitable Christians for giving me my freedoms. I guess I ought to give some cash to some televangelist. For some reason (possibly reading books) I thought that my freedoms were founded on the liberal (heretical) notions of natural and civil rights. I seem to remember something about religious persecution occurring throughout our nation’s history and for some reason I thought the persecutors were Christians. I must be really confused. Let’s stop this nonsense and govern civilly and secularly as was intended and as it ought to be.
Kham
(06/24/09 3:36pm)Report
Your idea of history is jaded. The Founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson (Christianity is the most perverted system that has ever shone on man), James Madison, Benjamin Franklin (Lighthouses are more useful than churches), John Adams (This world would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no region in it) These guys? I dont know you, but usually at this point you folks jump to the” In God we Trust” argument. I would urge you to google search “in god we trust on money” So you can see for yourself that it was not always there, and the founding fathers did not have anything to do with it. Don’t take anyone word at face value, look it up yourself. I would go on to guess your next argument will be “ One nation, under god,” Again, that was added in 1954, well beyond the years of the most healthy of the founding fathers.
DJJ
(06/24/09 3:37pm)Report
Best solution: abolish state recognized sanctioned marriages, leave it as private contracts between individuals, get the state out of it. Eliminate special heterosexual marriage insurance benefits. So literally, THIS WHOLE EFFING THING IS ABOUT INSURANCE BENEFITS, because gays certainly aren’t concerned about not living in sin.
Kham
(06/24/09 3:42pm)Report
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.”
Franklin, Benjamin on Faith
Dave
(06/24/09 4:08pm)Report
Access to insurance benefits is certainly a component of the issue, but far from the whole thing. Issues with inheritance, adoption, spousal privilege, and co-ownership of property along with numerous other outstanding issues need to be addressed. The simplest way to go about that from where we currently are is to drop restrictions that marriage can only be for a heterosexual couple and allow homosexual couples to operate within the established social and bureaucratic framework.
To be frank, saying that the whole thing is about insurance (money, essentially) is terribly offensive. This is a human rights issue, one which obviously has financial components but regardless is still fundamentally about human rights.