Argentina, a country that is 92% Catholic and, at least outside of cosmopolitan Buenos Aires and Córdoba, quite conservative (by American standards), has done something only 5 of 50 American states have managed to do after years of lobbying and protesting: legalize gay marriage and child adoption.
I've spent most of this summer working with the Ministry of Education in La Rioja, a western Argentinean province near Córdoba and Mendozza. Like many towns in the area, the prettiest (and perhaps tallest) building in sight is the church. Life is "muy tranquilo" as residents profess, and people are ever-willing to invite you in for a drink or help you in any way at all. When I was in the hospital for a few days (not all Argentinean steak is good steak) officials from the Ministry constantly visited me. People I had never met before were coming by and asking me how I was doing. Some brought books/clothes from my hotel to make sure I was comfortable. Indeed, many of them were ones I had been trying to get meetings with for days beforehand. They may not have returned calls or answered emails, but when they heard I was sick, they came quickly and in numbers.
I was quite surprised, after talking to them and other townies, that they were fiercely and unquestionably opposed to gay marriage. From shopkeepers to school teachers, not a soul approved of extending the right to marry to homosexual couples. Adoption? Even more horrific. Although many expressed their acceptance of LGBT individuals, the obviously suppressed gay population here spoke to just how tolerant these areas are.
Yet, despite hundreds of thousands of people marching in opposition to the bill's passage, the Senate voted for it 33-27 (3 abstentions). Exasperated La Riojans blame the "loss" on political corruption. The legislature was voting with its wallet, not its morals, they say. Often referenced is the Roman Catholic Church's Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio: "children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother." Apparently, that right has now been stripped.
It made me wonder. Only two decades ago, Argentina saw its first peaceful transition of democratic power between two parties. Less than one decade ago, unemployment was at 25% and the country was in economic and social chaos, accepting billions in International Monetary Fund loans. Abortion remains strictly limited. Cristina Kirchner, the current president, is considered a "diva" by many, her populist politics extremely unpopular. So how on earth did gay marriage get a front ticket on the government's agenda? After all, the United States has been in relative peace far longer than Argentina, giving it more time to focus on social progressivism. "Liberal" institutions that Argentineans would readily reject (such as abortion) are alive and well. Our country is vastly less Catholic (24%) and religious in general.
There were a couple of different answers that came to me. One is that our political systems could be designed to react to such situations differently. Perhaps Argentina is better equipped to protect the rights of a minority over a majority's desire. Conceivably, the majority did support the bill, despite the country's relatively homogeneous and religious composition. Or maybe America is naturally slower to respond to progressive issues like the legalization of gay marriage, despite striking similarities in governmental structure? The Economist offers its own opinion, stating it was a ploy by the Kirchner government to garner short term support from an increasingly hostile voter population.
Either way, it struck me as odd that Argentina would be so vastly more progressive than the United States on a social issue like same-sex marriage. Perhaps America has become complacent without any recent upheavals, crises (non-financial, that is), or dictators. Disorder and disturbance is fresh on the minds of the people here. History is a painful, not-so-distant memory for many. In Buenos Aires, one of the largest avenues (Avenida de Mayo) is constantly shut down due to fierce protests by unions, political lobbies, and other interest groups. There lives a spirit that the population at large in the United States clearly lacks. Perhaps, then, it is this sentiment of movement--of change--that fueled the passage of July 15's bill, and not dirty politics or religious backfire.
I'll continue searching for the answer with the few precious weeks I have left. Until then, I applaud Argentina for its forward-thinking new law.
By Ned Shell
Editor-in-Chief
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posts
I'm in Argentina too and the youngish people I've talked to here are fine with gay marriage (granted there's a huge bias only by only meeting people in hostels and bars in Mendoza and BA). My sense is that the folks here who support or at least tolerate gay marriage are pretty quiet about it, whereas the protesters against (backed by conservative culture and the Church) are pretty vocal about their opposition. In the US, both sides are loud and we get a sense of balance.
ReplyDeleteWhether intended by the founders or not, the political system in the US is biased towards the status quo. The balance of power protections sort of ensure that no sweeping changes ever get made. The same encumbered system that makes it hard for the US to make gay marriage a universal right also makes it hard to ratify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
I'm not saying our inherently conservative system is good or bad, but it's what we have, and things are always going to be slow in the US. We were 10 years behind the UK on slavery and women's suffrage, and I'd expect us to be 10 years late on gay marriage and any other progressive rights movements that come along. But we were also late in joining WWI&WWII and slow enough in approving Thalidomide, which saved a lot of American lives. We're the lumbering giant and things are slow to change.
It's nice that states have enough room to move ahead and protect rights that aren't guaranteed federally. It's worth remembering that the rights of freed/escaped slaves were protected in some northern states well before the Emancipation Proclamation. With that struggle for rights in mind, having to move to New England to get married isn't the worst thing in the world.