When asked about gay marriage last night, Sarah Palin said: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue. But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
I wonder, when we grapple with defining words, if we ever really stop to think about the way in which other words have changed. Indeed, the word "marriage" has gone through many changes. To pretend as if this is the first is ignorant. But maybe Palin and others who hold this fear of shifting definitions oppose all change to the word marriage, and are just holding on to what's left of the institution. Maybe they support that women were pawns in a property transfer, were not allowed to own their own property, were victims of dowry murder and sati, only had political representation through their husbands until 1920, that miscegenation laws were on the books UNTIL 1967 in Loving vs. Virginia, that polygamy was prevalent at some point in most cultures or religions, and that religion was not a factor in marriage for a long time.
Does Palin want to go back to that, to any original definition of marriage then? Or is it this one specific change that makes her cringe? I think her opening line, "Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman," could be rewritten as, Not if it gets closer and closer to infringing on my unique status as a married, heterosexual person. And as the rhetoric of "special rights" rages on, I wonder if marriage, with its 1,049 unique rights and benefits, at state and federal levels, is not a "special right." Singling out one group, heterosexuals, seems like a pretty selective and "special" status to me. Next, she goes on to assure us that despite this heteronormative, privileged, discriminatory stance, that she is "tolerant." Her answer suggests that she might even have GLBT friends. What a great mix she has concocted. Pleasing the conservative voters while remaining tolerant. I call bullshit.
For some reason, we attribute a great deal to the word "tolerance." But why? If Palin wants to argue definitions, then let's work on defining tolerance. Tolerance is a far cry from acceptance, Ms. Palin. A far cry. If you indeed have gay friends, I'm sure if I was one of them who would not be thanking you for tolerating me. If I were in your constituency, I wouldn't be thanking you for tolerating me, while also asking for my vote. You don't tolerate friends; I would argue that a really humane person doesn't attribute the act of toleration to any human being either. To tolerate something, as the dictionary tells us, is to: 1-allow the existence of; 2-to endure with repungence; 3-to endure; 4-to experience, undergo, as pain or hardship. So when Palin said, "...if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant..." I think we need to think about what she is actually saying. She is willing to allow gays and lesbians to exist (gee, thanks!), endure gays and lesbians, but with repungence, and to experience gays and lesbians as a pain and hardship. I don't know, but I don't feel really friendly toward someone who considers me a necessary evil to be endured.
Admittedly, Biden also said that he did not support changing the definition of marriage. He can't, because he wouldn't get elected. But he did cite the Constitution (remember? Document, you saw it on your 8th grade DC trip... long, handwritten....we haven't seen it for 8 years?) as calling for the rights of same-sex couples. In closing, unfortunately, he went on to surmise that niether he or Palin want a distinction in civil rights for straight or same-sex couples. I think that perhaps on paper, that might, maybe, be true. I think though, when you express "tolerance" of a group of people though, it doesn't bode well for that group. I wonder where the disconnect is here. Would someone who espoused tolerance for African Americans not be called out on it? Replace what she said about homosexuals with "black" or "people of color." Yeah. That wouldn't fly. I know things are changing. Since the 1950s when Hay, Rowland, Jennings, and other met as the first homophile organization, so much has changed for the better.
Yet, we aren't far enough. We aren't near freedom. And I'm not suggesting the marriage equality is freedom, because marriage is a choice that not everyone wants or should need to make. But, everyone should have that choice. When I chose to marry my partner of 5 years this past summer, it was so hard to tell our gay friends. I felt like I was gloating, like I was inviting them to watch me do something they could not do. My two dads helped us plan everything; one of them walked me down the aisle, and the other was ordained online to perform the ceremony. During the entire thing, I kept looking up at Dwayne, talking to us and the guests about what love means, what friendship means, what commitment means. Knowing that they were the two people in that room who knew the definitions of those words more than anyone else, yet they could not legally bind themselves to one another was awful. We tried to be mindful of our privilege by commending the California Supreme Court in the programs, and, since we got married on the 39th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, lit a candle in remembrance. But there was still a part of me that felt sick about it all. That part of me still does. I don't know when things will change. But I know they need to. I know that tolerance isn't the way we're going to get there.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tolerance.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9682
Well said. Tolerance is not acceptance. Tolerance kind of like saying "I'm prejudiced against you but that's ok because I don't actively discriminate against you."
One comment though (I brought it up in another thread too), that while Biden in the end did say he would not support gay marriage, if you listen about 50 seconds into that portion of the debate (after the moderator asks the question about same-sex partner privileges), you'll notice a 'slip' where he does speak of being supportive of gay marriage.
I really think that said a lot. We all know what politicians have to say to get elected, but I think those little goofs that people often right off really say when they are thinking.
I noticed that too, Taisa; also thought it was a slip, but good to hear that he supports gay marriage even if he can't say so openly. Freudian slip? :)
Honestly, I think it depends on how people want to view marriage and whoever is running our country is going to pretty much dictate what marriage is and isn't, although many people disagree. Personally, I see no harm in redefining the term marriage at this point. Any way you look at it, it is the joining of two people for life. What does it matter if it is a heterosexual or homosexual couple? People shouldn't be concerned about whether or not they can get married based on the fact that they are gay or worry that people will look down on them. It is what it is and I think we need to take bigger strides toward changing the traditional definition and making it more universal for everyone.
When she said that she and McCain would not prohibit hospital visitations etc my partner and I just rolled our eyes. You don't have to prohibit these things - they're already prohibited by the system. And if you're not willing to do anything to change the system then you might as well be actively prohibiting them. This is also true for unmarried hetero couples who have been living together for years and years.
I'm so glad you made the point about tolerance. Everytime Palin said it I kindo of flinched a little....because of exactly what Taisa said, tolerance is less than acceptance.
I read a quote once (anyone know the original source?) that basically said that a "tolerant" viewpoint implied that differences were obstacles to be put up with. So really, tolerance is accepting racism (and sexism, classism, etc) but pretending otherwise.