Because the long arc of the universe bends toward justice.

I used to keep my opinions to myself, not make trouble.  On May 21, 2011, a switch within me was flipped on and I am no longer the bystander I understood myself to be.

On that day, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted to send a ballot question to the people of the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes, giving Minnesota the unfortunate opportunity to vote on the rights of a minority group–whether or not marriage should be defined [restricted] as a union only between a man and a woman, thereby creating one group that can marry and another group that can’t, should the proposed amendment pass.

Prior to May 21, 2011, even in my bystander status, I had been generally aware of the dynamics of oppression and had been learning about systemic and structural “-isms” in recent years:  racism, classism, sexism. And heterosexism.

More recently, I’ve been focusing on four specific dynamics of society that seem to feed off of each other, reinforce each other, and perpetuate all forms of oppression.

Furthermore, since May 21, I clearly see and am witness to how the interpersonal oppression* experienced these days by the GLBTQ community feeds off of those same four dynamics:

  • Shame;
  • Silence;
  • Stigma; and
  • the Socialization of the above three as “norms.”

It’s not all bad news and a downward spiral, though.  From where I sit, and from other experiences I’ve had with overcoming oppression, there are antidotes and ways to transcend these four harmful dynamics.

  • Connection transcends shame;
  • Speaking out transcends silence;
  • Unconditional acceptance transcends stigma; and
  • Reclaiming our true, essential nature transcends the false norms we internalize through the socialization process.

When we begin to identify examples of when and how the media, politicians, schools, policy, religion, law enforcement, the legal system, and other structures of society reinforce stigma, point fingers, and assign blame to the minority group that has been historically oppressed, we can then “pull back the curtain” that has covered our eyes all these years.

The curtain falls away and we see the socialization process at work.  For the lucky ones who look like, pray like, have money like, or love like those who make decisions and are in positions of power, that socialization bestows privileges, access, and rewards, further helping those with privilege to garner more privilege.

For the unlucky ones who look different, pray different, don’t have a lot of money, or love different, the socialization process and those who reinforce it either shame us, silence us, or stigmatize us.

And when we finally see how that socialization process happens, we can never become blind to it again.  In fact, we help others see it happen, too.  When we help enough people see and understand the socialization process, we can work together to name it openly and find the historic trajectory of how we’ve been socialized to accept or reject certain behaviors, thoughts, and attitudes.

The more we challenge, examine, and illuminate the unbridled socialization process that has led to giving privileges to some while erecting barriers and for others, the more we aid in the development of a new pattern, a new trajectory–often equal but opposite from the oppressive one–that affirms equality, justice, and fairness for all of us.

*Interpersonal oppression is one stepping stone that leads to the larger, more insidious, ominpresent, and intractable structural oppression, in which systems of society are bound together by the cords of oppression.  Such systems include but are not limited to education, public policy, the media, the legal system, economics, religion, politics, law enforcement, etc.  Here’s an overview of terms and dynamics related to oppression.

This post is intended to be part of your toolkit when it comes to standing up for marriage equality for all loving, committed couples, regardless of the gender of each spouse.

It’s for pro-equality folks who are confused or baffled by how to respond to anti-gay or anti-equality remarks.

The offending remarks are often stated by well-intentioned people who have learned to parrot the lines they hear from socially conservative Americans, from their religious leaders, and from certain political parties, and from certain news media.  But accusing people of being hateful or bigoted doesn’t help change hearts or minds.

Below are sample anti-equality statements (S), followed by sample replies (R).  The replies are in italics.  As new remarks are made and given air-time within the mainstream media, I’ll update this post and add replies.


  • (Statement) “Gays, lesbians, and same-sex couples can’t have children.”
  • (Reply) Gays, lesbians, and same-sex couples can have children in any number of ways that Americans raise a family:  through adoption; through blended families as a result of a previous marriage; and through artificial insemination. 
  • (S) “Marriage is about procreation.”
  • (R) At one point long ago, for strategic reasons among royalty involving maintaining heirs to the throne, that was true.  Today, there are plenty of couples who are married and are unlikely to procreate.  Consider men and women who meet and fall in love in their 60s, 70s, 80s, or older: they probably have no intention of starting a family!  There are also infertile couples, and couples who marry and simply don’t wish to have children.  And there are the less frequent marriages between, say, an 80-yr-old millionaire with 20-something-year-old gold-digging wife.  In addition, once a woman in a heterosexual marriage is beyond child-bearing years, shall the couple be required to divorce?


  • (S) “Every child deserves a mother and a father.”
  • (R) Is this still true if the couple included a physically abusive mother and a neglectful father? Is it in the best interests of the child or children to remain in that household for the sake of having both a mother and a father?  What if both parents were active alcoholics and emotionally absent? How does that compare to every child deserves a stable, loving parent, whether there’s one or two committed parents, whether two men, two women, or a woman and a man, as long as the parent or parenting couple is loving, present, available to the children, demonstrating mutual care and generosity of spirit?
  • UPDATE:  Please read the comments for an additional response about this point.  –Liz
  • (S) “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”
  • (R) More and more countries, and six states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, allow and affirm marriage equality, indicating that marriage is between two loving *people* who make certain commitments to each other.  And the institution of marriage is far from perfect.  There have been shot-gun weddings, pre-arranged marriages, and strategic marriages in order to protect one’s land, wealth, and royal lineage.  It wasn’t too long ago when women  in the marriage were married off as property, transferred from one male-headed household to another.


  • (S) “They’ll impose the gay lifestyle onto heterosexuals and religion.”
  • (R) Just as no one can force religious communities or clergy to perform interfaith wedding ceremonies, no one can force those same communities to be required to provide same-sex marriage ceremonies. Marriage licenses are obtained through city hall or the county clerk’s office, not at your preacher’s pulpit.  Not to mention, so far it’s been heterosexual politicians, clergy, and supporters of reparative therapies who have been imposing the *heterosexual* lifestyle onto gays and lesbians.
  • (S) “They’ll teach the gay lifestyle in school.”
  • (R) The wholeness of humanity, not a select range of lifestyles, is what’s presented in our classrooms, including our collective history based on skin color, gender, nationality, and more recently, sexuality.  In addition, the heterosexual lifestyle has been over-represented, and until recently it’s been left unexamined, just as picture books and history books in the U.S. had been over-representing White society in the face of a diverse culture. Gay people and same-gender marriages exist, as do single-parent households, multi-racial families, extended families living under one roof, adoptive families, etc. Mentioning in a fictional or non-fictional story–even in a children’s book–that a child has two moms or two dads gives a snapshot of reality to balance out what otherwise would be an inaccurate portrayal that all of society is and has been White, able-bodied, middle-class, and male.


  • (S) “Gays are pedophiles.”
  • (R) If this were true, there would be headlines everywhere every week about “another gay person is arrested for pedophilia.”  There have been far more stories about sex scandals involving clergy and even politicians than about gays or lesbians.
  • (S) “Gay marriage will destroy the social fabric of our lives.”
  • (R) Again, where are the headlines from Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, the three other U.S. states that provide for marriage equality, and the District of Columbia, pointing to such unraveling? It appears that if the social fabric is deteriorating, it’s because of systemic racism, structural classism, Islamophobia, elitism, violence, and a national financial crises.  And if marriages fail, it’s because of adultery or irreconcilable differences, not because of two men or two women across town getting married.

Long-term, stable, committed couples who love each other and have a generous spirit lead to cohesive households, which in turn lead to cohesive communities.

There’s a link between White male doctors and heterosexual marriages. I’ll get to that connection in a little while.

. . . . . . . . . .

A number of years ago, my 80-something-year-old White heterosexual father began supporting marriage equality for all loving, committed couples regardless of the gender of the partners involved. (Why his change of heart is a subject for another post.)

More recently than that, in May this year I was explaining to my dad that a question to define marriage as only between one man and one woman would be on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012. He said, “Polls show that most Americans now support same-sex marriage, so that proposed constitutional amendment should be soundly defeated.”

I told him it wasn’t that easy. He asked me why not.

For one thing, I told him, not every heterosexual Minnesotan personally knows a loving, committed same-sex couple. Research shows, I added, that when a heterosexual person knows someone who identifies as gay or lesbian, or knows someone in a stable, loving same-sex relationship, that knowledge makes a big difference when it comes to who supports same-sex marriage.

But simply knowing someone in a same-sex relationship isn’t enough to get those same straight Minnesotans to begin to consider the issues tied up with the question of marriage equality. Some of the issues include which households get to have guaranteed visitation rights in the hospital during a health crisis–a very real issue for my spouse and me; which households are guaranteed the opportunity to make funeral arrangements for their loved one in the event of her or his death; and which households are guaranteed certain inheritances and social security benefits, without question or taxation, after said loved one has passed away.

Most heterosexual people think those guarantees can be achieved through civil unions or domestic partnerships. But not all states have these “separate but not quite equal” alternatives to marriage–and only marriage conveys the delight, hope, commitment, and public witness that so many–and so few–are able to enjoy. Furthermore, only a civil, legalized marriage is recognized from state to state, something that doesn’t happen with civil unions or domestic partnerships. Even some contracts that bestow certain qualities of marriage can be nullified, as in the state of Virginia.

The media itself clouds the issue by talking about proposed constitutional amendments that would “ban gay marriage.” Guests on radio shows, columnists for major newspapers, and pollsters calling homes at the dinner hour talk about or ask about if we are for or against banning gay marriage.

But when Minnesota voters go to the voting booth in 2012, we will not see the question, “Shall Minnesota ban gay marriage?” We won’t even see the word “ban” or the word “gay.”

Instead, the question for voters to consider will be printed without any context or commentary provided. It will read along the lines of:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

Had the question on the ballot been “Shall Minnesota ban gay marriage?” or “Shall Minnesota allow two people of the same gender to marry?” it’s unlikely that it would have passed, based on statements made by Maggie Gallagher, a Republican leader with ties to an anti-gay group.

This is where the doctor comes in.

When I was a child in grade school, I remember hearing discussions about who could or couldn’t be a doctor or a nurse. I remember hearing that men were doctors and women were nurses, and that certainly was my experience as a kid.

More specifically, given my upbringing in White suburbia, White men were doctors and White women were nurses, period.

But society was changing, and there was a push to expand the gender roles both in professions and at the home. Women could be doctors and lawyers; men could be nurses. Women could be attorneys; men could be flight attendants. Women could hold a job; men could change diapers and do laundry at home.

Even today, though, some 35-40 years later when I am nearly 50 years old, when someone asks me to picture a doctor and imagine what the doctor looks like, I still think of a White man. I need a beat or two to remind myself that there are in fact women doctors and doctors who aren’t White, but who are Asian, African American, East Indian.

So when Minnesotans come across the question about defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, those Minnesotans who haven’t thought about the issues thoroughly, or those who don’t have the historical context from which the question arises may not stop for a beat or two to remind themselves that there are in fact same-sex couples who have been married in religious ceremonies, who have acted as married couples for years or decades–but who haven’t been able to apply for a simple piece of paper that would affirm their love in the same way that their heterosexual peers can.

Minnesota voters may not stop to think about same-sex couples who have been married in other states or in other countries and whose marriage has had little or no harmful impact to their own conception of or direct experience of marriage.

We may not even equate that defining marriage as between one man and one woman is, in fact, a ban on same-sex marriage.

All it takes is the word “marriage” and bingo: Minnesotans think man, woman, married.

It fits with our initial, unexamined image of the fairy tale of the prince and the princess, and we quietly check the Yes box–even if we support marriage between two people of the same gender who love each other and want to grow old together.

I say, it’s time ramp up the cognitive dissonance:

Doctors don’t have to be Caucasian males, and marriages don’t have to be between heterosexual partners.

I’m the type of person who believes that we desperately want to be told the truth.

As a result, when I begin to see and hear and listen to the truth, I’m drawn into it–and along with a bit of resistance, I tend to feel a release rather than a rush of vengeance or meanness if the truth seems to challenge what I had understood or professed before.

Often, it’s a matter of recognizing that I didn’t know that I hadn’t been told, taught, or modeled the truth up to that time.

That’s what this letter is about:

There is a truth about gay and lesbian people and their long-term committed relationships that we didn’t even know we were yearning for.

People who identify as gay or lesbian deserve to be publicly affirmed in their loving, long-term, committed relationships–relationships that lack a simple piece of paper from City Hall that says “Married.”

Let me back up.

There is a truth about wishing the best for our children and how that wish gets twisted and ignored as our children grow into adulthood–especially our children who don’t fit the cultural mold.

When we see the infants and the children who we have in our lives today–our biological children, the children from our blended families, and the children of our friends and siblings–we often inwardly or outwardly say to them,

“I hope you find happiness! I hope you grow up to be strong and proud of who you are! You deserve the very best in life. You deserve to be happy and healthy. I want that for you!”

Do any of us look at these same children in our lives and say, “I hope you find an opposite-gendered person to marry and procreate with”?

Don’t we say to these children in our lives,

“Be all of who you are! Be your best self. Do your best to do right by others.”

Or do we start them off in life by counseling them, “Be who I myself tell you to be. Be who the world tells you to be. Be who the religious leaders tell you to be. Don’t be who you really are. Take care of my own discomfort by hiding your true self that otherwise wouldn’t fit into these worldly molds, so that no one will look at me or you and judge our family…”

Would we truly say such a thing–“Don’t be who you really are”–to a newborn baby, a toddler, 3-year-old, a 4-year-old?

At what point does the message and the hope we wish to instill in our children begin to change? And what accounts for it?

I believe that what changes is not our children whose authenticity and innate potential for fullness resides within them; rather it is the socially entrenched adult who changes.

As babies and toddlers grow older, we witness them grow into young people. Meanwhile, we adults have been socialized without our consent* to accept without question certain behaviors as the norm.

If such socialization goes unexamined–for example, who can be doctors, who can raise a child, who can be secretaries, who can marry into a loving relationship–then we unintentionally begin to separate out the “norm” from “not-the-norm.”

And from “not-the-norm” we worry about the “not-normal.”

And the “not-normal” is a close cousin to “not-right.”

And then–we have been taught–we need to draw the line: Whatever is not the norm is therefore “wrong.”

But that is not the truth.

That is not the truth we yearn for and that is not the truth we should be telling the children in our lives.

The real truth, the True and Principled Truth remains, even if only a whisper in our adult ears, minds, and hearts:

I hope you find happiness! I hope you grow up to be strong and proud of who you are! You deserve the very best in life. You deserve to be happy and healthy.

And yet…

When we as adults can’t even point to the slippery slope down from where we’ve come, then most likely we unknowingly and unintentionally discard our innate support for authenticity and instead begin to use some invisible yardsticks that measure and identify norms and not-the-norms, training our youth to live by them and not by the True and Principled Truth.

It’s our own response to the children that has changed.

It’s a response that is trained and cultivated within us by the wider society without our knowledge and without our explicit consent.

It’s a response that moves us away from our natural hope for goodness and for happiness in a child’s life, to a different response of “You need to fit into the world, and what you do is a reflection of me and our family.”

When we begin to see how we are being shaped and trained to offer these hurtful, limiting messages to our children, when we begin to see the pattern of socialization-without-our-consent through television, children’s books, news stories, politics, movies, and religion, we will begin to feel angry: “How dare they trick me into believing these things!”

The good news is that at the same time that we begin to understand how we have been socialized, we automatically become empowered to take action.

We begin to tell the Real Truth about our capacity and our children’s capacity to live fully and authentically, to love fully and openly, to reach for happiness and to spread it.

We begin to climb back up the slope, from atop of which we can view the world–and our children–more clearly.

So why take all this time to describe the socialization process…?

It’s about telling the truth about what marriage means, and who can or can’t, should or shouldn’t marry.

When we consider whether to restrict marriage as a union only between a man and a woman, we must also consider what message the invisible part of that restriction is sending to our families, to our youth, and to ourselves.

If marriage is solely “defined” by that restriction, where does that leave the authentic expression of happiness and love for people who happen to fall in love with the not-norm, not-normal, “wrong” person?

Where does that leave the authentic, mutual expression of love experienced by a couple that does not fit into that particular format or definition of a loving, long-term, committed relationship, declared as such through a public statement in front of family and friends, if not on a piece of paper at City Hall?

If marriage is solely “defined” and restricted as between a man and a woman, what seemingly small pebble is going to be sent to roll down the hill that is our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future?


*I don’t yet know who coined the phrase “socialized without our consent” but I first came across it at the 12th annual White Privilege Conference, held near Minneapolis, Minnesota.

If you are among the many invisible Americans who are conflicted about same-sex marriage, there are a variety of items to consider, including:

  • Understanding the dynamics of an identity shift.
  • Identifying creative tensions between values and experience.
  • Practicing being gentle with yourself as you sort things out.
  • Living “as if” in order to gain experience-based information.
  • Being “willing to be willing” as a way to alleviate inner conflict.
  • Addressing knowledge gaps proactively.
  • Exploring your own socialization process up to this point.

First of all, let’s name the dynamic you might be experiencing. If you have been conflicted about what to do about voting on the proposed amendment that would impact same-sex marriage, consider that what you are going through is an identity shift. Just naming what is going on can alleviate the stress and make it easier to address it.

An identity shift means that you are between trapezes, in a sort of limbo. You have let go of the trapeze that represented who you used to be, while being uncertain about what your life will be like once you grab the new trapeze. Or maybe you will return to the original trapeze you just released, realizing you aren’t ready to move into a new position or grasp and claim a new opinion.

It’s like walking to the edge of the high dive at a pool– and then, at that moment, realizing you’re not ready to jump.

With the issue of same-sex marriage and the proposal to define marriage as a union only between a man and woman, maybe you are shifting from the belief that marriage is always and only intended to be between a man and a woman, and you are earnestly and humbly seeking whether marriage can be expanded to include same-sex couples who also wish to make public loving commitments to one another, to provide mutual care for one another, and to grow old together.

Or maybe your belief is shifting in the reverse direction. So be it.

This identity shift and the status of being between trapezes is a process. It includes moving from the Known into the Unknown. The Unknown includes not knowing exactly when, where, or how the “incoming trapeze” will impact you.

Being in limbo like that is one of the hardest psychological tasks that we as humans will encounter, and that is likely why you are in such anguish.

Another reason for such anguish and inner conflict could be that you have a growing awareness of two or more things that are in tension with each other, pulling at you. Is there an unnamed conflict between the teachings of your own religious tradition and your personal values that you’ve been living by? Is there conflict between what your community or religious leaders are saying that go against your own direct experience of people who identify as gay or lesbian, or go against your own experience with people who identify as being part of a long-term, loving, same-sex relationship?

Maybe a religious teaching that you have followed is in direct conflict with a personal value, such as supporting the freedom for people to marry who they love; or it’s in conflict with what you know of the history of marriage, such as women were once considered a man’s property and marriage was a strategic way to transfer property or keep the peace.

Identify the rhetoric, behaviors, attitudes, etc. that you are most and least comfortable with and explore where the tension comes from. Discipline yourself to view this exploration as a refining process or as a way to clarify at a deeper level what you believe in. And give yourself time…

As I’ve said, being in limbo is a hard thing to live into. Give yourself the gift of practicing being gentle with yourself.

Begin to notice when your body tenses up as you think through certain points, when you read things in the news, hear them on television, or come across them on the internet.

Cultivate the simple ability to notice when your body tenses and when your body relaxes. Doing so can give you some indication of your own visceral response, which may in turn give you information about the direction you are naturally moving in, based on how you care for yourself and what your body tells you.

Another technique is to live one day as if you disapproved of same-sex marriage and would therefore vote Yes on the proposed amendment, supporting the idea of defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The next day, you’d live as if you were okay with same-sex marriage and would vote No on the proposed amendment, indicating that you wouldn’t support defining marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.

Check in with yourself each day you “live as if” and reflect on how you viewed couples and families through that temporary lens. Consider keeping a journal to record new awarenesses and insights you may have.

Another thing to do for yourself would be to practice what I call, “Be willing to be willing.”

If you don’t feel ready to open yourself to receive more understanding about the issue, then affirm that you are willing to be willing to understand where you are moving to.

Be willing to be willing to change.

Be willing to be willing to know what is the more loving thing to do in a given situation, and what stance more closely aligns with your values; those sorts of questions.

We might not be willing to be changed. That might be too scary. But we might be willing to be willing to be changed, and that can ease us into whatever change we’re being calling to, knowingly or unknowingly.

As a more intellectual step, take responsibility to explore your own knowledge gap about the history of the issue, about the dynamics of privilege and oppression, and about the impact on the groups who say they will be affected one way or another.

Get a handle on what evidence and what rumors are available about what impacts will truly occur.

For example, have those forecasted impacts occurred to heterosexual couples in other places where same-sex marriage is already allowed? Have they occurred to same-sex couples in places where same-sex marriage is barred?

In addition, in terms of identifying, addressing, or exploring knowledge gaps, consider what is the multi-generational impact of approving any constitutional amendment, versus having a law on the books that already prohibits same-sex marriage. Why was the constitution of any state written in the first place? What’s our current responsibility, if any, to standing by those original reasons and intentions?

There are many examples from history about how stereotypes are formed and reinforced, how they are broken down. Socialization happens in our families, in our political system, in our houses of worship, in our schools, among our peers, and through our newspapers, books, and television.

As infants and children, we can’t say, “Please teach me about unconditional love” or “Tell me about why Americans believe in the American Dream.”

We grow up in environments that decide for us what values and beliefs we should be exposed to–about White people, about women, about people of color, about vocation, about the value of education, the value of manual labor; about being on time and about taking time to connect with people we seldom see; about how tolerant and welcoming to be about differing viewpoints, or how dismissive…

Learn about how we are socialized, depending on if we are part of the dominant culture/majority group, or if we are part of the non-dominant culture/minority group. Then consider how that socialization plays into your stance on the issue you are exploring.

And remember the trapezes. We can spend a lot of time in between them, but the world keeps on spinning, oftentimes according to the whims and the will of the majority.

During one of the rallies at the Minnesota capitol in May 2011, I made a sign that said

I was bullied by my classmates and now I’m being bullied by my legislators!”

What does bullying look and sound like?

It’s repetitive and relentless. It’s unkind.

It’s based on intentionally intruding on the personal space and private life of someone else who was minding her or his own business, just because the bully wasn’t feeling good about himself or herself.

It’s based on not wanting to be seen as vulnerable and wanting to hold onto some perceived or distorted sense of entitlement or privilege, magically bestowed upon them “just because it’s always been that way”–whether privilege is based on skin color (White privilege), gender (male privilege), sexual orientation (heterosexual privilege), etc.

The closer to the truth that less-privileged people get, and the more visible the truth becomes, the harder the bully fights, makes up stories, and resorts to greater harm, either verbally or with action.

But when the power structures turn their gaze toward the bully, and when the power structures start to introduce new policy and laws that move the less-privileged group toward integration in a more just society, the bully may start to act all sweet and innocent, sometimes even blaming the initial less-privileged group for having started it.

Or the bully can get fiercely more vitriolic and violent, in word and deed.

On the threshold of marriage equality in the U.S., gays, lesbians, and our allies are standing up to the bully that has been dominating the discourse.

We are saying No more.

We see who the real bullies are, and we are calling you all out.

Equality is coming. And love will prevail.

Someone once said “We are socialized without our consent.” As the debate about moving toward marriage equality heats up again, a new message of Crying Wolf is being raised:

“Don’t let the gays impose their lifestyle on us!”

Excuse me, but it’s not the gays and lesbians who will be imposing on the heterosexual lifestyle. Minority groups work for equality and justice, not for everyone to become identical and homogenous.

Historically, it’s been the heterosexuals who have been imposing on the GLBTQ community:

  • So far, heterosexuality has been imposed upon gays and lesbians who haven’t had the inner strength to be who they are called to be and to love how they are called to love.
  • The imposition of heterosexuality onto gays and lesbians has looked like excluding certain men and women from religious traditions or even faith communities.
  • The imposition of heterosexuality has looked like pressuring certain men and women to enter into heterosexual marriages against their better judgment.
  • The imposition of heterosexuality has looked like censoring certain materials to keep them out of religious books, out of certain libraries, out of the public eye.
  • The imposition of heterosexuality has looked like banning certain youth from living at home with the single parent or the married parents who raised them.
  • The imposition of heterosexuality has looked like bullying elementary school kids and middle school kids who maybe look different or act different from the bullies themselves.

And what does bullying look like?

I’ll include that in another post.

Tag Cloud