Why Equality Means More than Marriage

I’ll be honest: I was disappointed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold state bans on same-gender marriage, especially since every prior circuit court had found them unconstitutional. The issue hits close to home for me; I’m a married gay man, who is grateful to live in a state where my marriage is recognized. More than this, I am terrifyingly aware of the fact that I dissolve my marriage every time I fly home to visit family in Texas.

As disappointed as I am by the Sixth Circuit’s decision, I am even more disappointed by the fact that marriage equality has become the LGBT rights issue of our day. Marriage is important because it automatically grants thousands of federal and state benefits, which range from trivial to profound, but marriage isn’t the most important issue for most LGBT issue. As the National Center for Lesbian Rights points out, you can be fired in 29 states because of your sexual orientation and in 34 because of your gender identity.

Right now, a same-gender couple can get married in Oklahoma on Saturday and be legally fired for doing so on Monday.

Congress has repeatedly failed to pass an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that covers sexual orientation, much less one that covers gender identity.

This is as important as marriage equality because a disproportionate number of LGBT individuals live in poverty.

Marriage equality is important, but it’s an issue that’s been primarily driven by white, cisgender, gay men, the sort of people who control the boards of groups like the Human Rights Campaign. I’m one of those people, and, like I’ve said before, I’m grateful to have a state-recognized marriage. However, as a Christian, I can’t just pursue justice for myself. I also have to pursue justice for my neighbor. (See Matthew 22:39.)

As Presbyterian minister Marvin Ellison reminds us, “a liberating Christianity, in promoting sexual justice as an indispensable component of a more comprehensive social justice, must advance a larger change agenda than extending the freedom to marry to gay men and lesbian women or even restructuring marriage on egalitarian terms.”[1]

The goal of dismantling the patriarchy is not to establish a new hegemony to replace that of straight, cisgender, white men. The world won’t be a better place if gay men or white women start calling the shots. But it will be a better place if we work to dismantle the interlocking systems of oppression that place queer people of color, especially queer women of color, on the bottom of the socio-economic heap. Refocusing our efforts to secure justice for LGBT people from marriage equality to ending workplace discrimination and raising the minimum wage will help us move toward that goal.

The Rev. Joshua Rodriguez-Hobbs is an Episcopal priest who serves a church in Baltimore, Maryland. He uses he/him/his pronouns. His seminary coursework focused on queer and feminist readings of the Bible and sexual ethics.

---

[1] Marvin M. Ellison, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: Continuing the Reformation of Protestant Christianity.” Pages 37-68 in Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion: Problem and Prospect. Edited by Marvin M. Ellison and Judith Plascow. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2007.

Allies: The Live Chat Part the Second

Last week, your intrepid bloggers met for a long and wide-ranging chat about allies, privilege, church hiring practices, reporting procedures, and more, partly in response to this article. We publish the chat here in two parts. 

Read Part I.

This chat has been edited for clarity and condensed. All views expressed are solely those of the individual blogger.

Robert:           Going back to what Jordan asked me earlier [about how it feels to intentionally get out of the way to create space for more marginalized voices], early in my formation – before I was named a postulant – a priest told me that unfortunately I had two things going for me: I was male and white. And he said this meant that I will have a much easier road as the “safe” option in nearly every congregation over similarly or better qualified women, POC, or lgbt+ folk. That was helpful for me to hear, and it meant that I spent a lot of time in seminary watching my classmates, and trying to step aside for those folks who might not get a fair shake.

Jordan:          I think that’s something we haven’t really wrestled with at all as a church. We keep focusing on the canons themselves, and opening them up to be more and more inclusive of who we ordain, which is great, but do we do anything to encourage congregations to employ those who are less “safe”? No!

Robert:          Because it’s one thing to say that “we welcome people” and another to say “we welcome their gifts.” And I aim for the latter when I can, knowing that I’m still privileged in ways that do not threaten my employment prospects.

Jordan:           In 2012, we removed any barriers to the ordination of transgender persons from the canons, but how many churches will hire a transgender priest? And how many Commissions on Ministry and bishops will advocate for those they ordain? How many bishops will tell a congregational search committee, “I really think hiring a queer person would challenge you in needed ways.”

Jocelynn:       There are churches that seek out women or LGBT folk, but often because they can’t pay the straight 40-something white guy they’d rather have.

                        In the 90s I would yearn for the days when I didn’t have to think of this stuff. I can’t believe 20 years later we still are.

Jordan:          I wonder: do you think it’s worse now? It’s definitely subtler.

Jocelynn:       Still feels like we take 2 steps forward and 5 back.

Robert:           I mean, even though I’m not sure if we’re better or worse off than ten years ago, there is still the fact that dealing with it is exhausting. And the internet has made possible a level of strategic sustained harassment that was not possible before.

Jordan:          But it also facilitates the finding of allies when you feel so alone.

Robert:           So even if we said “better” or “worse,” what is definitely true is that the field has changed.

Jocelynn:       I think now there are allegedly more channels we can take, or supposedly take, to report/deal with these incidents. That doesn’t mean anything will happen, but there are those who think *something* will if it’s reported.

Jordan:           Although, Jocelynn, do you really think that anyone thinks anything will happen? Or are these reporting procedures just an ass-covering measure, so that a woman’s critics can say, “Well, if it were a real complaint she would’ve reported it.”

Jocelynn:        That’s the thing, right, there are egregious sexist examples or clear cut abuse and then there are those that are grayer or less obviously shocking and they are so pervasive but we shy away from making a fuss (weighing out the downsides to reporting).

Jordan:           Right. When I was sexually harassed by my manager when I worked at a restaurant, I spoke to a family friend who was an attorney. And this friend very gently explained to me that the harassment wasn’t bad enough to rise to the level of a lawsuit. And he was right – what was I going to say in court, “He would flick my earrings and when I asked him to stop, would call all the other waitstaff over, saying, “Hey! Watch how uncomfortable I can make Jordan! She hates how I’m always touching her earrings!” No judge would say that qualified as sexual harassment deserving of damages.

Jocelynn:       Yeah, in college I was stalked by a guy, but it wasn’t “sexual” harassment so he was allowed to stay on campus. Never mind that harassment is dangerous and threatening.

Jordan:         It’s amazing how bad the things that “aren’t bad enough” are.

Jocelynn:       It’s like some guys know which line not to cross.

Robert:           Oh, if there’s one thing I know about some men, it’s that they know how to do the calculations. And they aren’t that difficult to do.

Jordan:           YES exactly. They know exactly how far they can go. And so it’s society’s job, not individual women’s, to walk that line back. Like you wrote about with the Yes Means Yes law,Jocelynn.

Jocelynn:         I don’t know if you all remember Anita Hill – I was in high school and was in the camp of thinking she was lying because who would stay in that environment? A few days in the workforce and I knew she was telling the truth.

                        So that’s story piece, right? She was telling the truth, women came out in droves to support or discredit her, she was ultimately not believed by Congress. And loads of HR policies later we’re still there.

Jordan:           Robert, I wonder if you could speak to your first experiences really believing women’s lived experiences, when they were describing something you couldn’t see, like you mentioned above.

Robert:           It was sitting with a woman in my freshman year of college who experienced sexual assault, and I listened as she – through sobs – wondered if it was rape because they had both been drinking. Never mind that she had been asleep. I watched men manipulate women. That made women much more believable at a time when I was more likely to hear “both sides.”

Jocelynn:        It seems like that insight is so crucial. Once, years ago, when we were in college, I was talking with my husband and I shared my and several friends’ belief that “all men are assholes, some just less so than others.” To which he strongly disagreed. He insisted he knew “good guys.” I said, “And how many of them truly treat women well, so that if you had a sister you’d want him to date her? He was quiet for a long time. He couldn’t name one person. Eye opening.

                        It really takes stepping outside your POV and seeing it from others' to make a difference.

Allies: The Live Chat

This week, your intrepid bloggers met for a long and wide-ranging chat about allies, privilege, intersectionality, and more, partly in response to this article. We publish the chat here in two parts.

This chat has been edited for clarity and condensed. All views expressed are solely those of the individual blogger.

Update: Part II of this chat can be found here.

Jordan:          Welcome to our live chat! I’m so excited to talk about male allies with y’all.

First, let’s talk about good experiences with male allies. What do they add to the feminist movement? Can you name a specific contribution from a male ally?

Jocelynn:       This has been a question for me throughout my academic career. On the one hand, we want to have safe spaces for women to be able to open up to share and support each other. But the other reality I’ve experienced is that we (unfortunately or not) need men to move things forward. They need to give up some power/privilege to make space for women & others at the table. So I think we need allies but it’s a tough balance. We really need men who understand the difference between being an ally and trying to define feminism for themselves.

Robert:          I wonder about how helpful I can be on my own as a male ally. While I might have more privilege in a conversation, feminism needs a critical mass of folk to really create social pressure. Because I still find that I can be written off by those who have no good faith interest in learning about feminism.

Jordan:           So you find that you can easily be written off as “not a real man” or “duped by feminists”?

Robert:           Duped/deluded would be words I think others would use to describe me. “Difference of opinion” is thrown around a lot. Mostly I get what I’ve written about before: men do not think they are actively contributing to misogyny.

Jocelynn:        I think that’s a real challenge because men who would challenge or disrupt the patriarchy face the same threats (physical and verbal) as women do. So there is a real risk to them.

Jordan:           I don’t know that it’s the same threats. Some threat, certainly. But look at #GamerGate – men who push back against the gamers are trolled but not doxxed or sent death threats like the women.

Robert:           I think men are more likely to get discredited/shamed/threatened/diminished before being physically threatened. There seem to be a few more steps on a spectrum of response before men have to deal with death threats. But I do think there is some risk to being a visible male ally particularly in online settings where anonymity is the rule.

Jocelynn:        When my husband and I were dating, he was playing hockey for his college. We were apart – he lived in Florida and I in Connecticut. At the end of the season, the coach told the team they would have their end of the year party at [a restaurant featuring scantily clad female waitstaff] because they were a team sponsor. He publicly stood up and said he wouldn’t go because he felt they were degrading to women. His teammates and coach laughed, but the coach said he had to be there (he was the starting goalie, and as such, had a particular place in the hierarchy of the team). He said he wouldn’t go, and he was called a fagg*t and all kinds of slurs by the team. But there were also players who admired him, in a way. Some said he did it because of me, or because I told him to which was absolutely false.

Jordan:          But even if that had been true, wouldn’t that have been ok? Like, that plays into patriarchy too, this idea that husbands of women shouldn’t listen to their wives or respect their wishes.

Jocelynn:        Exactly.

Robert:          There is this pressure men feel to not be “whipped.”

Jordan:           A guy who does what his wife/girlfriend asks is whipped. A wife/girlfriend who patiently puts up with her husband/boyfriend is a good partner.

Robert:           The ideal woman in fact. Proverbs 31 and all that.

Jocelynn:        They were talking like I had brainwashed or yes, “whipped” him, but we had had conversations about [this restaurant] and he already felt that it was a bad place, and in some ways to be with me gave him space to acknowledge his real feelings.

Jordan:           I wonder if being with feminists, either as a romantic partner or as a friend or colleague can give men words to express feelings they’ve long held about the injustice of the patriarchy.

Jocelynn:        Yes!

Jordan:           Like, they knew it was wrong before they knew why it was wrong. And then talking with feminists helps them figure out why it’s wrong and express it intelligently to other men.

Robert:           You know, I often wonder about that. The last ten years of my life have felt like dropping a mask, which included a sense of hypermasculinity. I bet a lot of that had to do with my wife, but many, many other women too. And it’s possible that it happened more by story than theory.

Jordan:           As Christians, I think we know the power of story. I’ve never yet met a Christian who was compelled to be one because of Cyril of Alexandria’s defense of Christ’s dual natures, but rather because of the story of God’s love for the world.

Jocelynn:        Haha there are some students who are wooed by the theology first, but certainly they are few and far between.

                        It seems like the men that “get it” as described in that Slate article about male allies are deep thinkers and tend to be pondering this as their lived experience intersects with their thoughts.

Robert:           I started my Christian walk because of story, came back because of the theology, and am staying because of relationship with the divine.

                        Jocelynn, your mention of that article reminds me of a few things. In seminary, I would hear stories from other white men about how they felt attacked in class. I never felt this way, which is surprising, given my interests. But in any case, my understanding of feminism was that no matter what happened in the classroom, once we walked out that door, privilege would immediately take back over.

Jordan:          Did they ever talk to you about why they felt attacked?

Robert:          Things like people saying “check your privilege” as a trump card in any discussion.

But I really mean *as soon* as I left the classroom – the Ivy League is still deeply bound in sexist, racist, classist patterns.

Jordan:           I had an experience like that at seminary as well. While putting together a worship service for Black History Month, I sought advice and help from a few black students I knew well. Hearing their feedback was hard. They were actively being as kind as they could be, but listening to them describe the latent racism they had seen in my words hurt bad. But when that conversation was over, I could’ve ignored them. I still had that privilege. None of the white people who would be the primary congregation for the worship service would have noticed what they noticed. No consequences would have followed for me. So as much as it sucked to be called out like that, I still had so much power.

                        Later that spring, I wrote a Blues Tenebrae connecting the Cross and the lynching tree. Holy Wednesday was the same day as the anniversary of the martyrdom of Dr. King that year, and I used a lot of his words, as well as James Cone’s newest work, The Cross and the LynchingTree. After the service, one of those black students came up to me to say, “Now, didn’t that feel different? See how good it can be.”

Jocelynn:       Wow!

Robert:          I’m glad to hear that because the Tenebrae service was fantastic.

Jocelynn:       There is an apocryphal story about a famous feminist theologian who, when she’d teach or give a public lecture, would tell men to put their hands down, because she only takes questions from women. There are plenty of profs who would answer men’s questions, go to them.

Robert:          Jocelynn, that is quite a story … wow.

Jocelynn:        I know, on the one hand I want to cheer, on the other it’s like ouch. And she has a level of privilege to be able to do that, right?

Robert:           For me, it’d be like, do I trust male professors as much as I trust a feminist theologian on this particular subject.

Jordan:          So often, particularly in the church, we say “two wrongs don’t make a right”, whether it’s calling God by feminine pronouns, or privileging women’s voices in a particular conversation or setting.

Jocelynn:        Yep! And yet ….

Jordan:           Sometimes I’m like, “When we’ve called God ‘she’ for 2,000 years, let’s talk. Or when we’ve said ‘peace on earth, goodwill toward women’ every Christmas for generations. When our entire society has been reoriented around privileging women, when women have equality or superiority in even one sphere, then we can talk about how two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Jocelynn:       Well, the question of pronouns is always interesting for me. People often say that the male centric language “doesn’t matter.” So if it doesn’t matter, then we can use feminine language, right? Apparently not.

Robert:           Going back to the public space and conversation bit:  this is how new I am to this more public advocacy and space-creating for women. When I published a post a few months ago, I specifically said that it was not a space to make a “not all men” argument. I didn’t deny men space to talk. At. All. I simply carved out one line of argument as out of bounds. Which two men ignored.  So I get what the theologian might have been going for in terms of setting the bounds for a conversation.

Jocelynn:       I think that’s the key difference with someone who is an ally – as Jordan found in her experience above. You have to be willing to *really* listen to the Other and hear what they are saying and then potentially revise yourself in response.

Robert:          Yes! It is a really hard thing to do: maintain humility without defensiveness in light of criticism about things you either cannot see or are actively trying to work on.

Jordan:          I think in America we have this robust free speech tradition that is so awesome, but in practice means that some voices are privileged above others. And as soon as you try to carve out a space for less-frequently-heard voices, more privileged voices come in and shout censorship.

                        In fact, the more privilege they have in the first place, the more likely they are to shout censorship, because they’re so used to being heard that they cannot fathom a space where their voices are unwelcome.

Jocelynn:        Bingo to you both!

                        What’s worse is the men that *think* they are allies and then dominate the conversation. And sometimes that means allies who have good things to say have to be quiet for a bit. Which is, I think, what that theologian was getting at in a crass way.

The conversation continues with Part II of Allies: The Live Chat.