In his 2004 book, “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage” author and journalist David Moats explores the issue of gay rights and same-sex unions by examining the events of the legal proceedings involved in Vermont. David Moats seeks to offer readers an insider’s view of what occurred and although his bias for gay rights is somewhat detectable, he does make an effort to gather opinions on all sides. In addition to presenting “real world” stories of those directly involved in the legal battle for allowing gay marriage, David Moats covers the thoughts and actions of several key politicians and leaders as well as those who were both championing and protesting the cause. The final result of “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage” by David Moats is a book that offers readers a thorough view of the many different ideologies surrounding the debate and leads to far more questions than answers. To Moats, at least according to “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  the battle for gay marriage and gay rights in general is not something that is or should be confined to Vermont. He asserts that what took place in Vermont is merely, “the latest tumultuous chapter in a decades-long struggle for civil rights in America” (Moats 2004) and compares the scope and meaning of the issue to the civil rights movement for African American rights in the south. In “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage” David Moats is also careful to present the two main sides of the debate without overgeneralization and while again, his bias is present, he does not make sweeping statements about religious versus secular ideas. These two ideologies are most at odds throughout the book and while they might not be a theme necessarily, they drive both camps and force the reader to take sides.  In addition, what makes this book and the debate in general so engaging is that it confronts both issues of civil and basic human rights as well as those of a religious and moral nature. It makes finding a “correct” opinion about gay marriage quite complex, even when one has the basics of the debate laid out clearly as they are in the book. Still, armed with the evidence presented in Moats’ work, it seems that gays should every right to enjoy the same privileges that straight people do. By presenting readers with numerous interviews and ways of understanding the issue, one is more informed and able to make a qualified decision.

By equating the struggle for equal marriage rights in Vermont with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s in Alabama and elsewhere, Moats does not make this an issue of secondary importance in America or in his book, “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage” . In fact, he sees how it is a matter of vital importance because it influences nearly every sphere of our country’s thought, calling the battle a “political, social, and cultural war” (Moats 2004). Throughout “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  he offers examples of how the political establishment handled the battle by offering the viewpoints of politicians on either side of the debate. These politicians discussed the social implications of granting Vermont homosexual couples the right to marry, and Moats made sure to demonstrate how their statements reflected on their status as politicians looking for votes. What he pays closest attention to are the social and cultural influences affecting the debate in Vermont. By examining closely the opinions of the general population, both gay and straight, the reader is able to get a grasp on where they stand in relation to those interviewed. It is during these times, especially when some speak of the religious and moral implications of allowing gays to enjoy the same rights, that it seemed that there should be no reason to disallow gay marriages. One had to wonder throughout reading “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  if those arguments about how the bible viewed same-sex unions were weak and unfounded and this lead to even further questions about the depth of homophobia as a social problem was prevalent. To emphasize his point about the problems with seeing the issue as a religious or moral nature, he tells the story of one woman, Sharon Underwood who had a gay son. When she became fed up with the problems her son was facing she wrote an angry editorial and came under fire. In response to her story, Moats wrote about the “hypocrisy and self-righteousness of those who had adopted a moral tone to condemn and attach their neighbors” (Moats 2004). While he is careful to avoid calling those with religious or moral claims against gays and their rights hypocrites, he does hint at it. The reader cannot help but feel compelled to agree, especially when it is clear the way morality and religion are being used against people.

One of the most striking aspects of “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  is the way morality and civil rights seemed pitted against one another. In order to reconcile these two things, Moats makes an effort to show how these two issues do not require complete separation. While continually showing the degree of intolerance present among those with religious and moral claims, Moats offers another picture of how those two aspects can be brought together. One of the first introductions he makes in the book is to the lesbian couple Holly Puterbach and Lois Farnham. Instead of painting them as simply a typical lesbian couple without any supporting details, Moats demonstrates how they are simply ordinary citizens who happen to be gay. What adds punch to his description of this couple in “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  is that they are able to successfully combine the more “secular” nature of their relationship with an active role in community and most importantly, church. When he describes these women he tells the reader how, “They ran a Christmas tree business and had served on a variety of town boards and committees. Holly had been deacon on the United Church of Milton and Lois was head of the women’s society at the church” (Moats 2004). In addition to this, this same-sex couple had adopted a number of foster children and in general, had served their community admirably. In other words, they are described just like any heterosexual couple might be, the only difference is their choice of partners. What Moats is trying to suggest through portraying the couple in such a light is not only the fact that they are just like any typical heterosexual couple, but more importantly, that they (unlike their critics who have moral objections to their lifestyle) are successfully able to blend the secular and religious into their daily lives. It seems that by practicing a lifestyle that integrates many social elements (such as community, church, and academia) they are demonstrating that it is possible that everyone else could. In addition to this, once it is seen how hard these women fought for their rights to live with the same benefits as other couples, it seems even more unfair that they should be denied the right to live fully in a way that made them happy.

What is most perplexing about the issues raised in “Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage”  is the way religion and morality operate in our society as a whole—even aside from the gay rights debateMoats presents. From the very beginning, he recognizes that the paradox is deep because at once America is based on idea of personal liberty and freedom while at the same time it is intricately connected with religious and moral principles. As the author states, The dignity of the individual was a moral value that rested on religious and philosophical traditions prevailing in the eighteenth century” (Moats 2004). Unfortunately, this dignity and right to individual happiness is being overshadowed by moral concerns that this threatens the very notion of democracy and personal liberty. Again, Moats is always careful not to make sweeping judgments when it comes to religious or morality-based social beliefs, but by offering these reminds he lets readers know that there is a deeper issue at stake in this debate—that of our founding principles of democracy and individualism. Moats constantly points out the ways in which these rights for gay couples are interconnected to the greater ideas we hold sacred in America, including what is laid out as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It should be possible for every citizen, no matter what their religious, sexual, or racial affiliation to enjoy these rights. Moats sees that there is a problem with what “should” be rather than what is and reminds readers in one of the important quotes from “Civil Wars: The Battle for Gay Marriage”  “Since the dawning of the gay rights movement thirty years before, gays and lesbians had been engaged on numerous fronts to establish protections against harassment and hatred, to secure equal rights, and to live with dignity” (Moats 2004). In numerous instances, he shows the way that there are few protections for gays, even aside from the more central question of marriage. He points out how gays have faced discrimination for years and is most critical of the fact that much of this discrimination is founded in ideas of a religious or moral nature.

Despite all of the evidence presented in the book on either side of the issue, there was nothing on the anti-gay marriage side’s argument that seemed to appeal to reason. Many of those interviewed or quoted in the text had very general claims against gay marriage and made vague assertions about how it will threaten traditional marriage, how the bible does not support it, or how it is just morally wrong or perverted or goes against the natural order of things. Conversely, the arguments that went to support gay marriage seemed a little more grounded in practicality. For instance, many posed the question (at least in essence) of, as in one of the quotes from the book “why not, it doesn’t hurt anyone” and this, despite it’s equal vagueness, seemed to be the most logical and supportable position. Although he does an excellent job of not condemning opinions on either side, Moats seems to take great care in showing the reader the ways in which both sides are difficult to support. While it is clear that he is in favor of gay marriage and gay rights in general, he demonstrates this by presenting the gay “characters” that play into the Vermont battle as normal people, whether they are straight or gay, religious or not. The problem is for the reader to consider as he or she muddles through the various arguments and watches as the tale of what happened unfolds. Even though the ending is known, listening to how people on either side explained their positions in most informative yet just leads to more questions. Perhaps that is why this is such a difficult and divisive issue; there is no answer that can be grounded solely on the basis of perfect logic or reason. Moats does not claim to have an answer for the way things progressed, but by offering a journalistic view of the different sides the reader leaves feeling more informed if not (at least at moments) more confused about the issue.

Other essays in the Main Archives related to this topic include : Gay Marriage and the Crisis of Definitions  •  Argument in Support of Allowing Gay Marriages  •   Questioning Restrictions on Adoption for Certain Individuals  • Analysis and Review of the Documentary Film “Transgeneration •

Source

Moats, David. Civil Wars: The Battle for Gay Marriage. New York; Harcourt. 2004.