This week I read a comment on a thread that challenged the use of the phrases “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage,” arguing that instead the debate should be framed around the concept of marriage equality. I couldn’t agree more, and from now on that is how I will approach the subject.

Qualifying a marriage as same-sex or opposite-sex implies that there is a difference between the two. The ideologies that make cultural hegemony possible are described with the three P’s: persistent, pervasive, and pernicious. It is therefore difficult to maintain the objective distance that’s required to properly criticize the social mores that obtain in cultural hegemony. Allowing marriage to be differentiated by gender propagates the notion that same-sex couples are to be viewed and treated differently than opposite-sex couples.

I absolutely detest Proposition 8. However, its passage has both challenged and focused my view on the subject of marriage equality. I won’t go so far as to praise Prop 8, but at the very least it has brought better understanding of the ideologies that allow heterosexual cultural hegemony to persist. As the GI Joe cartoons used to say, “knowing is half the battle.”

In my university studies, I learned the concept of cultural hegemony. You can read the wiki in the link, but for the purposes of this post I’ll sum up two major points:

• Cultural hegemony is the dominance of one class or culture over another within a diverse society
• Dominance is sustained through the uncritical belief in a set of moral values or ideologies that serve the dominant group’s interests

I’ve been thinking about my previous post regarding Keith Olbermann’s response to Michael Steele, and what I failed to realize is that the whole debate is flawed by the acceptance of social moores that sustain heterosexual hegemony.

The question that no one, including me, bothered to ask, is “What allows us to morally justify the denial of benefits to a minority group?”

The answer is not pretty. There is no moral justification unless we view people in same-sex relationships as somehow less than human, and therefore less deserving of the benefits enjoyed by the heterosexual ruling class.

Michael Steele was closer to asking that question than was Keith Olbermann, albeit very obtusely. Mr. Steele’s economic justification not only reveals his bigotry, it reveals the social doctrine that allows sexual hegemony to persist. At least he gives us a starting point to challenge the doctrine.

Keith Olbermann’s flowery portrait of the overall positive effects of same-sex marriage on the economy, on the other hand, reveals absolutely no insight into why we’re having this debate. In that sense, his argument is even more morally reprehensible than Michael Steele’s. The fact that Keith Olbermann engages the economic argument belies his basic acceptance of the doctrines that sustain heterosexual cultural dominance.

In this video, Keith Olbermann attempts to rebuke Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s argument that gay marriage will cost small business owners by driving up the cost of health care coverage for employees who are gay and want to include their spouse in their coverage:

Keith Olbermann makes some great points about the overall positive effects that gay marriage can have on the economy, including increased spending and tax revenue from businesses that cater to the wedding industry. But he fails to counter Michael Steele’s original point, and worse yet, he fails to address the real underlying issue of discrimination.

While the wedding industry will gain, it is still true that business owners will spend more money on health care to cover spouses of gay employees.

What is troubling with the health care argument is that as long as gay marriage is not recognized, business is exploiting its workers based on sexuality. Do business owners actively seek to hire gay employees because they know that their health care benefits will cost less? If so, then they are discriminating against me because of my status as a heterosexual married man. And worse, they are actively exploiting their workforce by forcing homosexual employees to bear the cost of healthcare while their heterosexual colleagues receive coverage through their benefits package.

Let’s look at this another way. One exercise I’ve heard others use to expose bigotry is to replace the term same-sex marriage with biracial marriage, which as we all know was outlawed in many places until only fairly recently (and is still the subject of ire for many backwards-thinking people). What if Michael Steele said that allowing biracial marriage would cost business owners more money because of increased health care costs? It’s a ridiculous argument, and is no less ridiculous when applied to same-sex marriage.

Bottom line: employers should not care to whom their employees are married. The quality of benefits packages are already at the discretion of employers, and if they offer health care benefits then they can’t be allowed to discriminate against employees based on whom they’re married to.

A friend just forwarded me this link to a video urging the California Supreme Court to invalidate Ken Starr’s legal case to nullify same-sex marriages that were conducted before Prop 8 passed. I thought I would pass it on.

Fidelity (video link)

A recent California Supreme Court ruling declared that same-sex couples who raise children are legally bound to provide for their children if they break up. I heard the story on NPR this morning as well as a strange rebuttal from a man representing the Liberty Counsel, a group dedicated to

Dang that’s a long mission statement, done up in a terribly illegible font and grossly mis-capitalized, but I digress…

You can read his obfuscated opinion about the whole thing here: Linky. I won’t even begin to try to deconstruct his arguments since they are so badly formed that they deconstruct themselves.

I find it extremely hard to understand why people like the good folks at the Liberty Counsel feel so persecuted. They live in the US of freakin’ A. There is no better place for them to practice religion. How does enforcing payment of child support weaken society? How does gay marriage attack a person’s personal freedom?

Surely these folks understand that the tremendous freedom of religion that they enjoy permits other folks to practice religion whose definition of morality may conflict with their own? And that other religions (or lack thereof) may lead to family structures that differ from their own?