College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Viewpoint: Political lag

By David Muto

The Daily Texan Editorial Board

|

Published: Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, December 8, 2009

It’s said that with gay rights — much like any civil rights movement — politics lags behind culture.

On Wednesday, the same day that the New York Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill that many thought had mustered enough support to narrowly pass, high schoolers bounded and skipped across the TV screen in “Glee,” the hit musical-comedy that, in addition to attracting droves of young — many of them college-aged — viewers, has drawn praise for its positive, often casual depiction of homosexuality.

Among a multitude of other cultural signals, the popularity of “Glee” underscores the generational divide that has come to shape the modern debate on gay rights. Polls have consistently shown that support for gay marriage among Americans under the age of 40 stands at about 60 percent, but for those over 40, hovers around 30 percent. In universities across the nation, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals have built havens for themselves in which their sexualities have often come to inform their character only incidentally.

What, then, to make of recent student-led decisions on college campuses that have more closely resembled defeats the GLBT community has suffered politically within the past year?

Two weeks ago, the University of North Texas student body voted against allowing gay couples to run for its homecoming court. The measure, which had been similarly defeated in a student senate vote in October, attracted a record number of votes — 13.5 percent, or 4,895, of the 36,206 students at UNT — and was defeated decisively, 58 percent to 42 percent. A week later, the Southern Methodist University student senate shot down a resolution to add an GLBT representative seat to its student government, which already offers minority senate seats to the school’s African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American and international communities.

These small blows to GLBT rights at the campus level might not speak to a slowdown in support for gay rights among young people, but they do reveal that even on college campuses — those meccas of the same culture that is said to lead politics — politics is
playing catch-up.

The motivations behind the two outcomes are unclear. According to the Dallas Voice, debate at SMU before the vote seemed to center more on the merits of representation than judgment of a community. But both rejected bids, especially the UNT vote, suggest that GLBT campus communities still face struggles defining themselves — especially in a modern, more tolerant world in which blending in is not only desired, but often easy.

Even on the UT campus, this struggle emerges as a GLBT community attempts to assert itself while pushing for the extension of benefits for partners of UT employees. Students in the community can easily view the tolerant spaces they’ve found for themselves as signs of a changed world, but to effect real change, they must realize that the world around them — even the college campuses around them — must feel their presence.

“Glee” may serve as a barometer for young, modern takes on gay rights, but the real singing and dancing won’t come until those around us take the fight for equal rights seriously.

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

14 comments

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Jan 13 2010 09:29
If people made the sort of gross generalizations about motorists that get thrown around about cyclists, those generalizations would be. . . completely meaningless. Hey, how about that? Now don't go thinking too long about that one folks, because remember: without our willingness to generalize, prejudice is just not possible. And we are never so close to God as when we are judging others.
MY ACTUAL NAME
Thu Dec 10 2009 11:56
"I know Kurt’s mannerisms perpetuate a harmful stereotype of gay men, but I still laugh. " -- Ann Russo, Daily Texan Columnist, October 28, 2009.

What was that about “Glee,” drawing "praise for its positive, often casual depiction of homosexuality" again?

I have nothing against cyclists who obey traffic laws. For some reason cyclists in Austin, and particularly those around UT and on Speedway, think traffic laws don't apply to them and frequently run red lights and STOP signs. Cyclists have even admitted in the Daily Texan that they haven't bothered to learn the local traffic laws and get really angry when they are enforced on them.

Pedro
Thu Dec 10 2009 00:40
I'm confused. How is society, "historically and currently", built upon "the family"? Sure, a sustainable society needs people actively reproducing, but that no more implies society is built upon "the family" any more than it implies that society is built upon reproductive organs or immune systems (people that die of disease aren't very useful to society).

If anything, I'd say society is built upon laws. The United States is built upon several basic principals, as well, as enumerated upon in, among other places, the Bill of Rights.

"Really, though, UT researchers proved this - and what gay rights advocates argue - beside the point when they identified that gay couples are really more concerned with the financial benefits of marriage than they are the symbolic tie between two people. If this is so, then give gay couples civil unions, but leave actual marriage and raising children to man and woman."

I've not seen anything to suggest that financial incentives are what gay rights advocates are primarily interested in. It may be one of their more memorable arguments but that it's more memorable doesn't mean it's their chief motivator. Besides, you can be a gay rights advocate and not be homosexual. A heterosexual persons justifications for gay marriage may be primarily financial but they don't speak for homosexuals.

Regardless, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right - that homosexual couples, by and large, are not interested in raising kids. In that case, why ban it? If homosexual couples don't want to raise kids then why is their raising kids even an issue? I mean, what's next? Should people be protesting the awarding of the Heisman Trophy to a female simply because she's a female when, in point of fact, female's aren't even eligible anyway?

I mean, if you're going to outlaw something because people don't want to do it are you going to, all of a sudden, legalize it when people *do* want to do it? At that point, why make it illegal in the first place? You don't need to pass a law outlawing something no one wants to do anyway.

David
Wed Dec 9 2009 20:05
The rhetoric of the gay rights movement says that if two people love each other, no matter what gender they are, they should have the legal right to be bonded together in marriage. Thus, this argument is based entirely on the premise of romantic love as means to a happy marriage, an idea that I don't condone in the least. Sure, love is an essential aspect of marriage, but the idea that "Romeo and Juliet" are supposed to be the foundation of the family, what societies historically and currently are built upon, is both naive and irresponsible.

Really, though, UT researchers proved this - and what gay rights advocates argue - beside the point when they identified that gay couples are really more concerned with the financial benefits of marriage than they are the symbolic tie between two people. If this is so, then give gay couples civil unions, but leave actual marriage and raising children to man and woman.

There's a couple of arguments. I would post some links to what I think are well-written articles opposing gay marriage, but I believe (as someone has mentioned already) that the DT website prevents me from doing so. City Journal, a conservative quarterly published in New York, offers some interesting pieces from time to time, though.

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Dec 9 2009 16:43
Egad! " What other services will YOU shower us with on this fine December day?"

Zounds! No more on the matter, I promise!

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Dec 9 2009 16:42
I'm sorry, I meant to say " What other services YOU will shower us with on this fine December day?" in one of my previous sarcastic rejoinders. My most red-faced apologies for the lapse!
Your name
Wed Dec 9 2009 15:57
Condemning someone for posting as "Your name" is silly. Like Pedro said, dailytexanonline.com sucks. You write a long post and submit it and then it'll be rejected because the captcha is no longer valid. Your comment remains (thankfully) but your username doesn't. You could just type it in, again, but, all in all, it just gets fairly old fairly quick. And that's assuming you don't run into additional issues like your post being arbitrarily rejected because you happened to type in some banned word (not that you'll ever find out what that banned word is save through trial and error).
Pedro
Wed Dec 9 2009 14:48
One of the most convincing arguments I've heard against gay marriage is that organizations like the Catholic Church or whatever might not allow their own adoption agencies to place kids in states allowing gay marriages, but that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the easy thing to do. The United States could have avoided the Civil War all together if they just let the South do as they pleased and although that would have been the easy thing to do it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

I would be interested in seeing whatever links David could provide to back his claims up but then again dailytexanonline.com kinda sucks and doesn't let users post links so whatever.

Your name
Wed Dec 9 2009 13:04
See there you go again being a hypocrite, Cowardly Liberal. Asking for me to provide my real name, are you?

Why don't you go first and then I'll give you my real name?

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Dec 9 2009 10:34
Well, "your name" (is that what your mama calls you?"), you're a fine one to talk. Your bombastic screed might have a tad more credibility if you showed the courage of your convictions and used, oh, I don't know, YOUR ACTUAL NAME, maybe? Congratulations on serving as an object lesson in hypocrisy. What other services will shower us with on this fine December day?
Your name
Wed Dec 9 2009 10:23
Cowardly Liberal:

For someone who always asks for legitimate arguments, you sure as hell never provide any. Instead all you do is use circular logic and provide irrelevant examples, such as with cyclists...hypocrite.

The Cowardly Liberal
Wed Dec 9 2009 09:20
You're a real free thinker, aren't you, David? Care to share some of those well-written arguments with us? Or are you content to merely gainsay The Cowardly Liberal?

You know, for a time I was content with my mastery of the topic of quantum mechanics. But in time, I grew intellectually restless and moved on to string theory. Oh, I could tell you all about it, but I've got the galleys back from my publisher that require my full attention just now.

David
Wed Dec 9 2009 00:28
Disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't make anyone a bigot, ignorant, or hateful, despite what the nimrod above me thinks. I myself am an agnostic and disagree entirely with gay marriage on philosophic and scientific grounds, and there are well-written arguments against gay marriage based on similar ideas.
The Cowardly Liberal
Tue Dec 8 2009 09:37
Well, most folks at this point realize that racism is a terrible thing, but for some, it's still "kinda sorta maybe just a little okay" to hold bigoted attitudes towards gays because of what it may or may not say in the Bible. I suppose there were some who tried to use the Bible to justify their racism back in the day. And I don't mean to suggest that racism is a thing of the past-- but thankfully we don't see the lynch mobs like back in the '60's. But that very same hatred is now focused vocally on gays. (Because people are more likely to give you a dirty look and step away from you for a racist comment than for a slur on homosexuals. . .) And perhaps we can say the same for cyclists in Austin, though cyclists are probably assumed to be a subset of gays for the hating community. Not that there's anything wrong with just happening to be a gay cyclist! (Hey, I bet there are some out there-- really! Pedal on, my brothers and sisters!)






log out