My Chat at Mac

On Tuesday afternoon, I went to Macalester College to interview Dean of Students James Hoppe. It was my first interview for my project, and some of my questions ended up being multiple unfortunate fragments of sentences mashed together. However, despite my lack of articulacy, Mr. Hoppe did an excellent job of answering my inquiries. In this post, I have re-worded some of my questions so that they can be easily understood (some of them were simply a mess live). Originally, I was going to summarize or analyze the whole interview; but after listening to it, I think that the best way to get Mr. Hoppe’s perspective across is to let the words speak for themselves. He was thoughtful, poised and very honest throughout the interview.

The Proposed Amendment

Are you for or against the Marriage Amendment?

Against.

Is it necessary to put this issue to a popular vote?

No. The Legislature decides things every day. There has been such a myth created about the ‘redefinition of marriage’ that’s used to justify lots of things, and to try to detract from the fact that it’s really discrimination.

Some who are in favor of the Marriage Amendment have said that it is to protect Minnesotans from an activist judge from making the decision to allow gay couples to marry. What is your reaction to that?

I think that’s another construction that’s been created. [Judges] are responding to what’s already in the State Constitution. And so, [judges who rule in favor of marriage equality] are not being activist, they are (like they do every day) making decisions based on the [State] Constitution and the laws that exist. It’s because there’s this fear that the existing laws and [State] Constitution don’t support the discrimination. They’ve got to create this fear in order to justify [changing that].

If the amendment is passed, how would gay couples and gay people in Minnesota be harmed?

I wouldn’t have [fewer] rights the day after it was passed. {However}, I worry that, as we’ve seen in other states, there will be moves to further restrict rights. [Examples of this might include] taking away health benefits or making more difficult for cities to pass domestic partnership ordinances. The bigger issue is that it empowers people to make bigoted statements which have a really negative effect on not only me, but [also] on kids who are struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.

If the amendment fails, how would that affect gay couples in Minnesota?

I wouldn’t get any more rights the day after. I might feel safer in the community, and I would feel a little more affirmation that Minnesota is a place that really wants to treat all of its citizens fairly. It leaves open hope that we might be able to lobby for, not even just marriage, but additional rights.

If the amendment is not passed, how do you think those who are for the amendment will react?

[Their objective] is motivated by fear and bigotry. Those two forces never stop.

Marriage

What is the purpose of marriage, in your opinion?

There is a macro-view of marriage: to bring two people together and form a union, which [often times] involves children, and defines a status for people.

[The other view of marriage is this]: to dole out rights and make distinctions between people.

This is why other countries have distinguished between marriage in a church and a civil union by the State.

Many who oppose marriage equality have state that marriage should be between a man and a woman. What are your thoughts on this statement?

If there are churches that only want to perform a marriage between a man and a woman that’s fine. My church is Presbyterian and would gladly perform same-sex marriages if they were allowed to. The Marriage Amendment would use the State Constitution to define what our church can and cannot do, which feels like a pretty big intrusion to us.

I have a partner, and we’ve been together for practically 18 years and we have two small children. So I don’t know that I would be so opposed to having a civil union or a list of rights. I’m not arguing that I think that I should be treated separately or less than, but it comes down to practicality. I don’t think that I should be treated any differently than the two straight people who live next door to me. At the same time, if I could get the right not to be kept out of the hospital when my partner has to be there, or to not be hassled when we try to take care of something with the kids, that practicality would be nice.

Some politicians who oppose gay marriage have alluded to the idea that a family without the presence of a father and a mother is inferior to one with the presence of both. What is your opinion about this idea?

So does that mean that if you become widowed or you become divorces you lose your children? I wish they would just be more upfront and say they don’t like gay people. As far I can tell, it’s based on a study that used the term mother and father, but was really about a two-parent household [as opposed to a one-parent household].

If it were legal for gay couples to marry, would that change the American culture? If so, in what ways would it change? If not, please elaborate.

As this country has become more aware of whom it gives privilege to and [to whom] it denies privilege, it has changed culture.  But I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. Culture changed when it became illegal to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin. I don’t think legalizing gay marriage is going to destroy culture in the way that it’s being promoted. Culture hasn’t been destroyed in Massachusetts, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Argentina, or South Africa, or Canada.  They’re just more inclusive about who they’re allowing to be full participants in society.

If it were legal for gay couples to marry, would religious freedom be affected in any way? If so, in what ways would it be affected?

What would be challenged is [the power of] one religious group to force everyone to abide by their religious values. We were a country that was founded to not let one religion dominate the others and that’s exactly what [the Marriage Amendment] is trying to do.

If the U.S. had marriage equality, how would those in a committed same-sex relationship and their families be affected?

They would have to make a choice [of whether or not to get married]. I think it might continue the conversation about how benefits and privileges are granted.  Along time ago, I didn’t think I wanted to get married. I think now, especially with kids, I would want to do that for their safety and protection.

Because you don’t get the same benefits as heterosexual couples, what are the struggles you have faced as a family?

In a lot of respects I feel very lucky. But to be honest, I get questioned a lot. But I’m a confident person, and I just kind of push past it and it doesn’t seem to stop me all that much. I can think of two occasions since we’ve moved to Minnesota (eight years ago) where someone in a position of power tried to say “no you can’t because you’re gay.” At the same time, it’s a little annoying to have to rely on luck all the time. 

So for example, we went to get our kids passports. The person behind the counter was very nice, a very well-meaning person, but just wasn’t getting it. He kept telling us ‘no, you need the mother’s permission’ and ‘who are you? You can only have one father.’ After we explained it to him and he got it, he moved on. He wasn’t trying to discriminate against us, he just wasn’t aware. I wish I didn’t have to go through that, but I don’t begrudge him for that. We’re not the mainstream. At the same time, he could have stopped us. I know other people who haven’t been so lucky. I know someone who was told by a teacher ‘your kids deserve to be bullied and harassed because you should have thought about that before you brought these kids into this relationship.’ I’ve never had that kind of experience, and I’m really lucky, but it is a little unnerving to have to rely on being lucky all the time.

Do you think a repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is in the near future?

I think that’s why there are some folks who so are anxious to have there be a federal constitutional amendment. It’s not about activist judges. If you took a strict, constructionist view of the Constitution, you would see that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Where else would we say you have to stop at each state line and be treated differently on such a basic part of who you are? It’s not the same as different income taxes or this state allows fifty thousand tons on this road but the next state only allows forty thousand; it’s about humans.

Closing statement:

There’s a difference between being challenged, and being oppressed. I’m a member of a certain political party, and not everybody believes in [what my party believes]. That’s a challenge. But if I was told I couldn’t do things because I’m a member of this party, then that’s oppression.

As always, feel free to leave a comment or question, and I would be happy to respond! Thanks for reading.

Kari