security risk

Stephanie Coontz wrote an op-ed that appeared in Tuesday's New York Times under the headline The Heterosexual Revolution

It's a good column and makes an important argument.

Also, it's not really right in my view to say that "Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too." This formulation is problematic in three ways. First, it treats "heterosexuals" (a word she uses over and over again) and "gays and lesbians" as existing transhistorically across periods for which those terms should not be used at all. Second, it ignores the fact that many "gay and lesbian" people lived (and still do) in cross-gender marriages and thus were inside the "heterosexual revolution" rather than outside looking in. And third, relatedly, it denies the ways in which changes in sexual categories themselves, such as the develoopment of hetero and homo, were profoundly constitutive of people's understandings of marriage. Put another way, we wouldn't have gay marriage without gay activism and self-identified gay people. You can't just bracket, as she does, the question of where "gays and lesbians," and "heterosexuals," come from. Finally, giving "Enlightenment thinkers" credit for starting off the decline of traditional marriage seems too generous to me.

All that said, I'm glad this appeared in the Times.

The most deeply moving part of the critical milestones of gay rights in those two countries is the stunning speeches of the two countries' prime ministers, both of which cast gay equality as an integral part of some larger drama of freedom and national purpose. Two powerful heads of government, the kind of men with whom George W. Bush and even Benedict XVI may someday have to appear in public, have declared in effect that the President and the Pope are on the wrong side of history. It is moving because it represents a majority standing up for the rights of a minority, and it is inspiring because it represents a nation attempting to be a model for the rest of the world instead of invading and occupying it.

From Doug Ireland's blog:

SPANISH PREMIER ZAPATERO'S REMARKABLE GAY MARRIAGE SPEECH

When the Spanish parliament yesterday took its historic vote
legalizing both gay marriage and adoption of children by gay
couples, Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero (left) -- who put the full prestige of his office
and party behind passage of the gay human rights
legislation -- made probably the most remarkable speech in
favor of full equality for those with same-sex hearts ever
delivered by a head of government anywhere, in which he
quoted two of the most illustrious gay poets in history.
Here are excerpts from Zapatero's speech:

"We are not legislating, honorable members, for people far
away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity
for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends
and, our families: at the same time we are making a more
decent society, because a decent society is one that does
not humiliate its
members.

"In the poem 'The Family,' our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda
(left) was sorry because, 'How does man live in denial in
vain by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?'

"Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people
who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights
have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their
identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the
Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve,
recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms
their identity, and restores their liberty.

"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph
is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who
oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet:
because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes
all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it
makes our society better. Honorable members, There is no
damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing
two people of the same sex to get married. To the contrary,
what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the
potential to organize their lives with the rights and
privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the
institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this
law enhances and respects marriage.

"Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in a
profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I
wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage
code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil,
that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless
suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids
senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better
society.

"With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another
step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by
the democratic change of government. Our children will look
at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our
mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them
that people had to stay married against their will even
though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can
offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each
access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and
sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and
praise.

"Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can
better themselves and can cross barriers and create
tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and
humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our
countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great
Greek gay poet, left ] one century ago:

'Later 'twas said of the most perfect society/someone else,
made like me/certainly will come out and act freely.' "