Prior to this election, many gay rights groups, like the Human Rights Campaign, proclaimed that current compromises like civil unions for same-sex couples did not live up to the standard of equal rights. However, after voters in 11 status voted to ban gay marriage, the gay community will be lucky if it can even attain the goals it once rejected as mere compromises. For example, after Michigan passed its amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced that 30,000 state employees would no longer be able to share their benefits packages with their same-sex domestic partner.

Equal rights activists of all sexual orientations have surely asked themselves, 'Was gay marriage asking for too much?' Perhaps it was.

Two things must be understood about the culture of America. One, it is overwhelmingly Protestant. The churches that are tolerant of gays are dwarfed by the influence and sheer size of the socially conservative and evangelical congregations.

Suburbanization plays the second role in America’s heterosexism. David Brooks of the New York Times often celebrates the rise of suburban culture in the United States. In a column from December 7th, he writes that there is an overwhelming sector of the population whose 'personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do.'

And this family-centric suburban culture is gaining more size and influence on the electorate than big cities, which are usually havens for homosexuals. Brooks notes, 'The fastest-growing regions of the country tend to have the highest concentrations of children.' This is not to say that this portion of the nation is necessarily homophobic. Many of these ‘natalists’, as Brooks calls them, would say, if interviewed, that they had nothing against gay people.

Tolerance can only go so far. These people may be fine with gay people as long as they are confined to places like San Francisco, but when the issue of marriage comes into the national discourse, an institution that defines their entire existence, then they feel threatened, and thus their reactionary instincts are unleashed at the voting booth.

The harsh truth is that as long as marriage exists as a state-sponsored institution and as long as these two cultural forces remain dominant in American society, the concept of gay marriage may not ever enter in the American legal equation. As Laura Conaway, a lesbian voicing her post-election frustration in the pages of the Village Voice, put it, '[Conservatives] can pass anti-gay legislation almost anywhere, anytime, as they build their new consensus. They've now passed laws in some places that say my two-year-old son isn't my son. In such a climate, marriage may seem an unreasonable desire…'

But haven’t we come so far? Glancing at our contemporary popular culture, one would think that the current culture is relatively tolerant of the gay lifestyle. With more gay characters on TV shows and in movies, one would think that the average entertainment consumer, and thus the average American, does not fear the homosexual citizenry. Even Steve Fisher of the HRC contended, 'Over the past decade, we have seen more and more exposure of gay and lesbian culture on television. Overall, there has been an improved understanding through entertainment.'

A closer look at shows like Will and Grace or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy show that the American public can accept gay television characters if, for one, their lifestyle is essentialized to that of an urban fashionistas or lipstick lesbians and two, if the show’s theme works within a heterosexist world. These shows are socially acceptable because they do not present the struggle of equality in a heterosexist world.

So while many Americans may not hold terrible prejudices against gay people, they do, overwhelmingly, hold a high, sacred standard for marriage.

Given this truth, how can a new gay rights movement gain ground in the 21st century? The first step will be finding what really defines true equality. Like the inequality between men and women and between whites and non-whites, the lack of equality for gay citizens is an economic inequality. In terms of daily life, what really separates gays from heterosexuals are rights regarding taxation and sharing employment benefits insurance, and the ability to be employed. These essentials are, arguably, the more pressing issues facing the gay community than the concept of marriage.

The reactionary fervor against gays gaining these rights is less intense than those seeking to ‘protect’ marriage. Marlene Elwell of Citizens for Protection of Marriage, commenting on Michigan’s anti-gay marriage amendment, admitted, 'This has nothing to do with taking benefits away.' Because the institutions of economic equality do not necessarily threaten the seemingly sacred cultural institutions that define many Americans’ central values, a resistance to a gay rights movement based on economics will be weaker than the one we see right now.

Not only is the fight for equal rights for gays a fight for economic equality, but overcoming these hurdles in America is a more pragmatic battle. And as long as there is marriage-obsessed suburban and Christian juggernaut, fighting for cultural inclusion outside the metropolitan areas in America is, to put it bluntly, futile. We will see benefits packages long before we see same-sex marriage.

And as gay Americans gain these rights, it is possible that the popular concept of the institution of marriage will morph into a notion that will make gay marriage a more realistic goal.



-- Ari Paul writes the ‘From the Left’ column for Citizen Culture and has written for Clamor, High Times, the Baghdad Bulletin, and Creative Loafing.