The poet Edward Everett Hale once wrote,
“I am only one,
But still I am one.
I cannot do everything,
But still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do
The something that I can do.”
This artistic expression of action versus thought, praxis versus theory, remains at the epicenter of human relations. From Jesus to Marx, the Buddha to Nietzsche, Churchill to Obama, many of us have divided our core identities into those that “walk the walk” and those who simply just talk about the walk. In a world where action is becoming as harmful as it is liberating, one needs to question how we stand up for beliefs via action. In other words: how do we walk the walk without compromising the ethics we hold and the morals of others?
Andrew Lohmann, a psychology professor at CSULB, felt this weight bearing down on him the day Proposition 8 was passed here in California. Of course, the communications surrounding this issue have largely focused on the discriminatory aspects towards the gay and lesbian community and the analytical aspects of marriage and its meaning (the lbpost.com having already commented on both). However, there has been little discussion on the inverse effects of Prop 8’s passing, mainly being that there is the possibility of discrimination being imposed upon straight married couples who voted against Prop. 8. In other words, by being married and having voted against Prop 8, the designation of their marriage loses what meaning it held for them; the passing of 8 becomes just as discriminatory against gays who can’t marry now as those who are married. And Mr. Lohmann has decided to put words to action: he is choosing to annul his marriage in favor of a civil union so as to avoid participating in what he and his wife now consider an institution of discrimination.
“I derive certain levels of benefits for being white and male,” says Lohmann, “that many Hispanics, blacks nor other minorities do not receive. As I have taught, I began to become more emotionally aware of the issues of the involved in receiving these benefits. Interacting with students and dealing with their questions led me to develop my own questions.” As his years of teaching progressed, Professor Lohmann’s attitude and perception of these social benefits exacerbated to such an extent that he wished to diminish them in any way he could. Following the passage of Prop 8, he felt he was pushed into a category he no longer wanted to be in: married. After years of teaching and learning about the effects of discrimination directly with his students, why bother eradicating that voyage by being a member of a discriminatory social institution?
It is not necessarily that Professor Lohmann considers himself a torch-bearer for the gay community either. While of course he considers himself gay-friendly and a supporter of human rights, he attempts to approach same-sex marriage objectively. “We were discussing discrimination, racism, sexism – ‘institutionalisms.’ In terms of same-sex marriage, I told my students that there was not a single legitimate argument that I had heard that favored Prop 8 and wasn’t grounded in some religious prejudice. There is religious marriage and civil marriage – and while the two operate in parallel, they are separate and distinct. There is no legal argument against gay marriage that holds water.”
Kimberlee Woods, Executive Director of The Center Long Beach, notes her support of Lohmann’s stance by quoting Martin Luther King Jr.: “A right delayed is a right denied.” She elaborates, “What someone believes about God and marriage has no bearing on who we love. It does, however, have bearing on the one thousand plus rights that will be denied Federally and locally if we are only allowed a civil union. It is the argument of separate but equal over again.” What this entails is that, via the passage of Prop 8, marriage itself becomes a discriminatory institution. Following this, some of its members – all the thousands of married couples who voted against Prop 8, the passage lying outside their own volition – become discriminatory subjects, furthering what many have called the “hate factor” through their very own participation in their very own marriage.
“It was a few days after the election and I asked myself: do I want to participate in an institution that I clearly acknowledge my participation in, both publicly and personally, when it has become discriminatory? It just offended me on so many levels. So I called my wife and said, ‘I had a quick question: do you wanna get a divorce?” His wife, who works as a grant writer for low-income housing in San Bernardino County, agreed with complete support following her husband’s darkly funny “question.”
“It was time,” said Andrew, “for us to stop talking and turn our back on this discriminatory institution.”
Of course, they did not want to get a divorce per se; they simply hoped to have their social title changed from “married” to “civilly unified”. Given the state’s claim that both are supposedly equal, one would assume that this transition would be simple and easy via a form. To the Lohmanns’ dismay, it is anything but simple. The county registrar was confused by their request, asking them why they wished to have it changed as well as asking if they were getting along. They were eventually told that a divorce would be required, in which following the legal separation they could then apply for a civil union. A lecturer is, by no means, a lucrative profession and the idea of spending money on something that should be a monetary-free transition was absurd to the Lohmanns.
In response, the Lohmanns wrote a letter to Attorney General Brown in what they felt was the only logical next-step. They state in the letter, “[I]f same-sex marriages are to be ruled as not recognized by California, those same-sex couples that are currently married will need to be classified as civilly partnered. We only ask for equal treatment under the law for different-sexed couples who desire that option. We want the option to change the status of our legal relationship so we are not part of an institution that is currently grounded in religiously-grounded bigotry and discrimination.”
“We would love for every straight married ally to go before the registrar with such a request,” stated Woods. “It is in alignment with the non-violent protesting of Gandhi and King and is the very action that created the case that went before the California Supreme Court. Professor Lohmann and his wife truly know what it means to be an advocate and experience privilege.”
Professor Lohmann, despite his humble and reserved nature, has taken a step that is truly praxis, a step of action. “I am not doing this in any sense of advocacy; my motivation is much more selfish. I need to be comfortable in my position in the social world. I’ve talked to some of my neighbors and they are considering the same action. But I am not saying one should or shouldn’t do the same thing I’m doing… The notion of advocacy isn’t necessarily one that is intentional.” Though it may not be his intentions and he is most certainly not proclaiming his choice as the ethical stance par excellence, Mr. Lohmann represents a fascinating figure in the politics of marriage and sexuality and, at least for some within the gay community, someone who’s transgressing hate in ways that few have.
Despite one’s stance on the issue of same-sex marriage, there is little argument that the Lohmanns are exercising the values that America holds dear: a strong upholding of one’s own beliefs, even if it means standing up to the choice of your fellow citizens. Numbers should never dictate a wrong or a right, for that falls into the line of “talking the walk” instead of taking the walk. Of course, there is not a value placed upon talk versus walk, theory versus praxis. However, the synthesis of the two creates a powerful way of approaching politics, discrimination and self-reflection.
By Brian Addison, guest columnist