Equal Marriage Defeats Remind Us Sexism is Alive and Well

Below the Belt: A Column by NOW President Kim Gandy

December 5, 2008

Even if you don't recognize the name Del Martin, you've probably seen her on television, in the paper or on the Internet. Del and her longtime partner, Phyllis Lyon, made news in 2004 and again in 2008 when they became the first same-sex couple to marry in the state of California. Photos and videos of their union crossed the country. Del was 83 years old and Phyllis 79 when lesbians and gays were first allowed to marry in San Francisco in 2004, and they had been together for more than 50 years. Their story and the moving images perfectly illustrated that the right to marry is worth the struggle.

By the time of their second wedding in 2008, Del was in a wheelchair for the ceremony, making the event even more heart-tugging. Sadly, we lost Del in August. Having known her as an early NOW leader, and having had the privilege of presenting her and Phyllis with Woman of Courage awards at NOW's 1999 Lesbian Rights Summit, it is difficult to look at those photos without tears in my eyes.

Had Del lived longer, who knows . . . she and Phyllis might have had to get married a third time. It's not certain yet whether the state will honor the marriages that took place after the California Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that acknowledged same-sex couples' right to legally wed. Just as in 2004, there is a chance that all those marriages will be invalidated. That's because California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, amending the state constitution to define marriage as between one woman and one man. Prop 8 effectively denies marriage rights to loving and committed same-sex couples, undoing the state high court's decision.

Why shouldn't couples like Del and Phyllis be allowed to marry? Forget the compromises of domestic partnerships or civil unions -- what is it about the word "marriage" that makes it exclusive to heterosexuals? Why are lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people so threatening, even when (or especially when) they are trying to adopt the traditional family unit that is often held up as so important in our society?

I'm not bringing this up to place blame for the passage of Prop 8 or the failure of our nation as a whole to embrace equal marriage. Pointing fingers is beside the point. The problem is that we still live in a sexist society. And misogyny and homophobia go hand in hand.

If I had to blame anyone it would be the right-wing politicians who have so little to offer the majority of the people in this country that they must turn time and again to the age-old tactic of divide and conquer. Exploiting fear and ignorance have been essential to their success.

The good news is that demonizing LGBT people is getting harder to do. Prop 8 passed with a bare 52 percent of the vote, compared with the 61 percent support for a similar ban eight years ago.

But the fact that voters in a generally progressive state like California could pass such a ban at the same time as they voted to elect Barack Obama -- well, that's a sad commentary calling for deeper thought than "it's their fault" or "you didn't work hard enough." In reality, we all need to work harder to understand what happened, and to change hearts and minds.

If we really want to understand and change the situation we have to admit that gender stereotypes still rule the day, and that these stereotypes played a significant role in the Prop. 8 vote, and in the similarly heartbreaking losses in Arizona and Florida on Election Day. I believe much of the angst about same-sex marriage, consciously or unconsciously, is about maintaining (or not) women's "place" in society.

Just this week, I turned to the op-ed page of The Washington Post to find Ruth Marcus promoting Larry Summers' idea that women probably aren't as smart as men when it comes to math and science, at least not at the top levels. It's a shame that people like Marcus subscribe to this theory rather than the more plausible explanations that (1) the small differences between women and men in the "standardized tests" she relies on for this theory actually are a result of gender bias in the tests, or (2) that centuries of diminished expectations and discrimination against women in the "hard" sciences have yet to be overcome. Is it a conscious effort to keep women down or just a lazy attachment to conventional sex roles that drives such attitudes? Whatever the reason, Marcus' own column in defense of Summers helps assure that another gender myth lives on.

I won't go into a longer recitation of recent examples of sexism in the public square. Just check out my previous Below the Belt columns and NOW's Media Hall of Shame. Anyone who watched the 2008 presidential election unfold - and who didn't? - witnessed some of our most enduring stereotypes on display. Women aren't supposed to be as ambitious as men, they aren't naturally as tough, and they are far more expected than men to put their families before their careers. Likewise, labeling someone with a quality normally associated with being "feminine" is more often than not a subtle put-down. And anti-gay slurs almost always trade on the notion that girly men and manly women are laughable freaks at the least and abominations at worst.

What does all of this have to do with marriage? Marriage traditionally has been a mechanism for the expression and enforcement of rigid sex roles. Coupling off with someone of the opposite sex has long ensured that the supposedly innate differences of men and women are played out: Breadwinner and homemaker. Man of the house and the little woman. Father Knows Best while mom nurtures.

Women have been rejecting this segregation of roles for a while now. We do it from within marriages, we do it by marrying at later ages, we do it by not marrying at all. And we do it by loving whom we want, including other women. This change in the common agreement that was and is our outdated society makes people nervous. Even good-hearted people are made uncomfortable by women stepping outside of the bounds of the traditional marriage and by others stepping in.

Throughout history, most organized religions have been adverse, even openly hostile, to the empowerment of women and the inclusion of LGBT people. In fact, Prop 8 was supported and funded by major religious institutions. This should come as no surprise because much of organized religion's power structure is built on the concept of male authority and female submission. Religious leaders must be willing to bring about fundamental change within the church in order to fully embrace equal rights for all.

Because there is no going backward. We must chip away at sexism and its evil spawn, homophobia, wherever they originate or thrive. If we keep pushing the envelope, proudly standing up for what is right, sharing the love and coming back for more, as Del and Phyllis did, we will wear down the old stereotypes and set everyone free.

Read more about Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

Read more about NOW's work on equal marriage and lesbian rights.

Or if you are on Facebook, join our Equal Marriage Cause.

Recent Below the Belt columns |