The part of my brain that does the writing can be annoying; it is often difficult for to sit down and write about what I mean to write about – often the topics seem to select themselves, and I just come along for the ride.
In this case, I meant to finish a pretty unfavorable commentary I’m writing on George Soros’ article on Iraq in this month’s Atlantic. ‘The Bubble of American Supremacy,’ and instead started writing about the recent Massachusetts court decision on gay marriage.
As is typically the case with me, I have three responses which somewhat collide, so writing this is a chance for me to try and set them out and see what evolves (probably why I’d rather write this than comment on Soros’ article; I already know why that’s wrong).
The facts, law, and politics, are already well covered by others, so I’ll make a quick point of information, than start rolling. Here’s the news: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided this week that denying gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional, and ordered the legislature and executive branch to come up with something in the next 180 days.
Here are the three perspectives: One is broadly social, and talks about why it is that I support gay marriage and think that it should be legal. One is moral, and talks about the thorny issues that are presented when rights collide with deep-seated beliefs. And the final one is deeply personal, and I hope will explain why it is that I will always personally support gay marriage.
On the social front, I’ll suggest that we spend all too much time focusing on the wrong part of the body – the crotch – and not enough on the part that matters – the heart – of those involved. This is a part of the broader issues I have with the way society deals with sex, and with the collapse of traditional sexual norms and the fact that nothing has stepped forward to replace them.
Look, it’s like this. What is marriage about? It’s about a deep commitment between two people who promise to care about and for each other. Historically, it has been tied to sex and procreation – which means heterosexual sex – but that tie is eroding, in the face of the increasing sexualization of society.
Eroding? It’s eroded, folks. Paris Hilton may be ‘deeply shamed’ by the release of her self-made video; but the next celebrity won’t be, and soon we’ll have migrated celebrity to something like Gibson’s character Tally Isham, whose entire life (especially the naughty bits) becomes the subject of a reality show. Soon we’ll be just a credit card away from the weekend cavorts of our media stars, whose stardom will be reinforced, not destroyed, by granting us this access.
Please don’t take me for some kind of neopuritan – I’m not, and my own history (two marriages and divorces, with a variety of relationships stacked around them) doesn’t exactly make me the poster boy for durable relationships. But hey, I’m trying…
The old models are broken, and we can do two things – we can fight a rearguard action to try and reclaim them, or we can look at them anew, try to see what it is that we saw of real value in them, and forge new models that include those things.
What it is that matters in a marriage? Commitment. Duration. Primacy. It is a commitment – which means that in the face of conflicting desires, you have to anyway. It has duration – meaning it gains in value over time. An old good relationship is better than a new one. My dream is to grow old with TG, and to have the span of our history together as a part of what we share. It means that I will take care of her, and be taken care of by her in turn, and that in the time where long shadows come over our lives, we won’t be alone in facing them. And it has primacy over your other relationships. The act of saying to this person “You are the most important person in my life. Not my children, not my boss, not my pastor or anyone else matters more to me than you do,” fundamentally changes both one’s life and one’s relationships to others.
These are good things. They are not only good for people, they are good for society. They bind people to each other, and bind them to a future. They create the kind of ‘units’ of people that can successfully build societies and raise children.
The kind of sexual equipment that the people involved have, and what they do with that sexual equipment, has nothing to do with these core values. You’d hope that they were sexually compatible and satisfied, since seeking out other sexual outlets tends to conflict with the core values. But for crying out loud, what difference does their sexual behavior make to what really matters?
The answer to that, of course, cuts to the second point.
At one of my first blogger events – Roger Simon’s book signing – someone asked how I felt about gay marriage, and I replied “For it, of course.” Cathy Seipp was a bit put out – and I think rightly so – and pointed out that reasonable people could well disagree on this, and that for some people, it might actually be a deeply moral issue.
There are people for whom homosexual sex is, literally, a sin. For their government to recognize homosexual marriage – and put it on a par with normal marriage – means that their government is caving in to sin.
I used to be frustrated with those people, who thought abortion was murder and homosexuality was sin.
Then we deliberately got pregnant (not me, exactly, but my first wife).And the nature of what was going on in doing abortions fundamentally and irrevocably changed for me. Do I stand outside clinics with pictures of bleeding fetuses? Not a chance. I’m still on the other side, and support abortion, but with a wince.
And I do understand how, legitimately, people might want to stand outside a clinic, or how legitimately, people might be uncomfortable with the acceptance of homosexuality, and I won’t condemn anyone for those views (I will freely condemn them for their behavior, however, should they choose to commit murder, arson, or simple rudeness in my presence).
To me, people may choose to live pretty much however they want to. I have friends who are ultra-Orthodox Jews, and friends who are devout Catholics; each operates their life around their principles, and wishes everyone else did as well. But I draw the line when someone restrains another from leaving – as some Muslim families violently do with their adult daughters, or Muslim men do their wives (note that this happens with Christian sects as well, and over issues other than religion; I’m wary about pointing to Muslims, but I’m more wary of ignoring the real stories in order to be inoffensive). And I draw an even bolder line when someone wants to change the laws of the state to make them congruent with their especial cultural choice.
So how do we resolve these things? Awkwardly and over time. We all operate in a mesh of invisible social norms, which change slowly – and inexorably. The tug-of-war that we are going through is the tension that drives that change, and while we all participate in it, we all ought to be understanding of it for what it is, as well.
Do I support gay marriage? Of course. Do I think that all right-thinking people do? Of course not.
But for those who don’t, I keep wanting to ask – given the array of horrible sexual behavior that we all see around us every day; given the fact that most of the specific sex acts homosexual couples commit are committed by heterosexual couples as well – shouldn’t we look more favorably on a gay couple that has made a lifetime commitment and is living it out, and willing to do so before the state, and maybe a bit less favorably on someone like me?
And finally, I support gay marriage because of the piece of paper on my desk. It’s a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care; TG and I are updating ours (since we’re not yet married), and I pulled this out of the file.
Back in the 80’s, I made a lot of money, and actually had investments (as opposed to bills). I hired a pretty good asset manager, and he became one of my closest friends. He ultimately became the godfather to my oldest sons. His name was Steve, and he was gay and died of AIDS in the early 90’s.
When he came out, he was fired by his parents from the family owned firm that he was a partner at; when he got AIDS, he was fired from his job at Drexel. As he got sicker, he couldn’t always manage his medical affairs, and his parents – who had fired and rejected him, became conservators of his estate over his objections. He didn’t want them to take control of his medical care, so he asked me to.
He’d been in a committed relationship for six years at this point, and his parents undid much the estate planning he’d done to ensure his partner’s financial security; his partner couldn’t do anything about it – after all, in the eyes of the law at the time, he was a nonentity. His partner couldn’t legally control Steve’s health care without a document; and because of the legal conflicts over the financial matters, Steve was concerned that it would be invalidated. So I took the legal responsibility. His partner made the decisions; I was the formal authority that the hospitals could use to validate it. Because his partner was, after all, a legal nonentity when it came to the legal authority over Steve’s care.
Ultimately his parents lawyered up and attempted to get me removed. We’d have won, and I’d have gladly spent the money to win, but at the very end, Steve did what he should have done in the beginning, and married.
He married a casual lesbian friend, who managed his care for the last six months of his life, and when he died, took the remaining assets and left Steve’s partner – the person who should have had them – destitute and alone.
You know, if you believe homosexuality is wrong, I can understand not doing business with Steve. I could understand not socializing with him, or even politely expressing your disapproval.
But I have a really hard goddamn time understanding why it is that his control of his dignity and assets should be stripped from him – and the man who he had lived with in a committed relationship for as long as I had been married to my first wife – because of it.
And so personally, I’ll support gay marriage until it becomes legal. If we need to do anything about marriage in this country, it ought to focus on we straight people who seem to be doing such a bad job of marriage on our own.
(in a personal note, TG is certainly working on that issue as far as I’m concerned.)
FEB/04 UPDATE: TG and I are taking the plunge and getting married ourselves!. There’s a good friend who we’d like to have at the wedding. Can you help?
–
You captured more or less exactly how I feel. I’m all for gay marriage for the reasons you give.
Permitting gay marriage may do serious damage to the institution of marriage as its opponents argue; I don’t really know.
But I find it hard to believe that gays can do half as much damage as straights have done themselves.
Of course, the worst possible outcome is the one which we seem to be heading for: watering down marriage itself with “civil unions” which will weaken the meaning of marriage even further. Personally, I’m more in favor of a compromise solution: full gay marraige in exchange for some restrictions on divorce and the total abolition of extra-marital privileges. Something for liberals and conservatives both.
This stuff really worries me. The legal freedom we enjoy is predicated in part on our own ability to control ourselves and to take responsibility for our actions. Sexual licentiousness may be a ton of fun (to be honest, I wouldn’t know), but it has a number of devastating effects, both on individuals and on society. And, of course, the general decline of inhibitions and impulse control is not a favorable development.
On the legal side, the MA decision is an abomination. I used to regularly call my state legislators to encourage them to enact gay marriage; the courts are not the place for this decision.
Good piece.
I’m a bit confused about your friend Steve, though. I understand why his partner wouldn’t be able to automatically get his assets. But what precluded Steve’s simply writing a will and leaving them to him? If one can leave your one’s assets to one’s cats, surely it’s possible to leave them with another human, even a gay one to whom you’re not married?
James –
Because by the time he thought to do so (change the terms of the trusts that held his assets), he was arguably incompetent due to the effects of the disease – or at least that’s the argument his parents made, and were making to have me removed as his medical attorney-in-fact.
A.L.
Well said.
My personal favored solution is to get government out of marriage altogether. Privatize it, in effect. For legal purposes, anyone would be able to enter into a civil union, but only churches would actually promulgate “marriage.”
I understand why you support gay marriage – I would also like to extend all the legal protection that marriage affords to homosexual couples. But I have difficulty with courts deeming it a ‘marriage’.
The best way I can explain my position is with an analogy (not a good one, sorry, but the best I can do.)
Imagine if the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided that, from now on, obseity and fitness will now be recognized as ‘equal’ conditions in society. That no negative value judgement will be placed on obesity for any reason, because it hurts fat people’s feelings.
Now, we all know that obese people are capable of being loveable, productive, desireable, wonderful people in their own right, and that obesity does nothing to detract from their value as people, and that all care should be taken to protect them from discrimation, but the fact remains that the condition of obesity is not an ideal one for a number of reasons, regardless of how much a court would wish us to be non-judgemental about it.
Similarly, calling a homosexual civil union a marriage is an attempt by the courts to confer some sort of validation to the arrangement that cannot be.
One could put forth that there are many homosexual relationships that are stronger and healthier than hetero ones, and few could argue (in the same way there’s many heavy people who are actually more fit than some thin people) but overall it’s a condition that, by its very nature of being an aberration, will be viewed by society as such.
It would be like the court telling everyone that, from now on, everyone will consider the color green to be blue.
I say give them all the legal protection of unions recognized by the state, but don’t muddy the waters by trying to change the definition of marriage. It’s not necessary, and it probably won’t work.
Praktike,
Just changing the name will satisfy some opponents of gay marriage, but not many. As one conservative recently said (roughly), “We are trying to protect an institution, not a word.”
Anemone,
I take the exact opposite approach. Marriage is an ancient institution which carries much highly desireable baggage (fidelity, devotion, permanance), and despite cultural attacks and modern reality, most people still thing “’till death do us part” means exactly that.
“Civil unions” are new and without cultural baggage; we are essentially making it up as we go along. The meaning of “civil union” might come to be “marriage of convenience,” or “marriage without pesky fidelity requirements” or “fraudulent marriage for immigration purposes, only with somewhat less paperwork.”
I consider the redefinition of the word “marriage” to be less dangerous and difficult than the redefinition of the concept of committed relationships through a new and unknown kind of relation.
In short, I want to bring gay people in to the highly succesful, if somewhat beleaguered, concept of marriage, rather than let straight people out of it. “Oh, sweetheart, I’m not ready for marriage, let’s just get a civil union and see how it goes.” That sounds nuts, but I suspect it will happen.
I would consider this to be a very conservative and traditionalist project, which keeps with my conservative and traditionalist tendencies. It places me at odds with most conservatives, I know, but I think, contrary to their expressed sentiments, that they are, in fact, defending nothing more than a word, to the detriment of the institution they want to protect.
Rob –
“Oh, sweetheart, I’m not ready for marriage, let’s just get a civil union and see how it goes.”
— You have a point there. I can most definitely see that happening….
What does working out social norms slowly and awkwardly over time have to do with a bunch of unelected mandarins all-too-willing to play lawgiver to the entire nation?
I’m a little confused about what happened with the lesbian wife-of-convenience: was her taking his remaining assets part of the deal, or did he want them to go to his lover, but she had the legal right and decided to hang on to them?
IOW, was she getting the agreed upon payment for her efforts on his behalf or was she a thieving bitch?
I fail to see how the proper role of government is to somehow save the institution of marriage. Call me crazy.
Let gays marry. Let them suffer with the rest of us when paying the “marriage tax”, get robbed by Social Security when a spouse dies and suffer legal robbery when a relationship fails.
No, praktike, I won’t call you crazy. The libertarian in me agrees that the government’s job here is to follow the culture and do what the culture wants.
But, see, in real life, it doesn’t work that way. The government is going to shape the culture. It can’t help it. The advent of no-fault divorce had a profound effect on the way people thought about marriage. It was a progressive attempt to end fradulent and destructive claims of adultery, cruelty, etc. But it has been profoundly subversive to the institution. I think that most people still think, in their heads, that marriage ought to be for life, but in practice it doesn’t work out that way, as we all know.
The government wasn’t the whole reason behind the increase in both cohabitation and divorce, but it played a role.
I started, at this point, to argue that marriage is desireable socially and has all kinds of positive consequences: reduced poverty, reduced crime, etc. It would take thousands of words to make that case, so I won’t try; if you don’t believe me, that’s fine. I’ll just say that the government’s modern fights against both crime and poverty would be substantially simplified and reduced by strengthening marriage and encouraging some kind of sexual restraint. Altering our “follow your dick” culture will allow for a social order which is less restrictive and overbearing, legally speaking. The restrictions will come from within rather than without.
Insofar as the government is paying for cops, welfare, and prison guards, it might as well be attacking the roots of the problem. Or, at least, it should avoid destroying what is left of our culture’s self-restraint.
Rob, I’m not sure you have the problem diagnosed correctly, but I agree that marriage is socially desirable in general.
I think the transition from women being wholly owned by their spouses to women being full members of society probably has a lot to do with it as well.
Moreover, I think that urban problems have a lot more to do with the state of marriage in cities than the reverse. The “root of the problem” is poverty, period.
I’m mystified by your suggestion that the government taking an active role in discouraging sex will lead to less intrusive government.
The “marraige” that the cultural right proposes is a fantasy land. I have been reading about the Duke of Wellington. He was considered a happily married man and a credit to the idea of marraige. Yet he had numerous liasons with courtesans.
In those days such behavior was only considered a problem if it kept one from doing one’s duties.
So the cultural right’s idea of marraige is a bit blinkered in the light of history.
Then we have the gay bit.
Look up what Jesus had to say about the Centurion. (Hint: he found him one of the most godly people he had ever met). Then consider that in those days boy slaves like the boy slave the Centurion had were used for sexual purposes. I have yet to have a Christian explain that one to me.
As to government enforcement of morality – alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition have been stunning successes haven’t they?
The purpose of government is the reduction of violence. Period.
As soon as it gets involved in all these social issues it only increases violence (the drug war) and discord. The government is not your daddy. It is not your church. It is not a dating agency. (Except for Bill C.) It is not in charge of social relations. For a very long time churches kept marriage registries not government.
I have the feeling that the major reason why social conservatives dislike gay marraige is their inability to deal with men having sex with one another (they probably like the idea of women having sex with one another, however). 🙂 One can call it the “icky” factor. I also believe it is similar to those who are disturbed by “inter-racial” relationships (keep in mind that I think the notion of human races is a crock of shit).
anemone,
Hmm, “inter-racial” marraiges were viewed as an aberration at one time too; ones which in the US carried criminal penalties as well. Quit trying to limit the ability of humans to grow up.
I always find it humorous when social conservatives start to act like Soviet culture warriors. Its all about individualism until someone exercises that liberty in some way that offends their prudish sensibilities. Conservative political correctness if you will.
In defense of Marriage…
I believe a second tier of ‘civil unions’ continues the trend of undermining marriage and allowing ‘Gay-marriage’ has the potential to strengthen marriage as an institution in this country… why?
Marriage has been attacked by the anti-christian lefties with Orwellian laws like ‘no-fault’ divorce, which in fact makes a marriage no partnership in that there is no accountability… Yet now these same christian bashing activists want the stamp of legitimacy for same-sex marriage and I have to ask… who would be the ‘favored’ party in a divorce of two women or two men?
Exactly… worse, a ‘special’ partnership, or ‘civil-union’, wouldn’t force the marriage contract to be reviewed and repaired by re-establishing it’s contractual fairness and therefore it’s strength.
Certainly freedom of religion needs to be protected, even at the potential cost of allowing many of those religions to refuse to perform gay marriage’s… but a special class of non-marriage marriage only perpetuates existing problems with marriage.
Besides… I really can’t go down the path of judging the morality of the issue… I just don’t believe that happiness should be begrudged and as I believe in the genetic basis for many people’s gender issues I think ‘normalcy’ and ‘tolerance’ really are the best solution.
I leave judgement to a higher power…
why does everyone seem to assume that the religious argument is one against gay marriage (or that there is just one strong religious argument to be made)?
there are many priests and rabbis that are quite willing to perform gay marriages.
is not the lack of legal recognition for those marriages just as counter-religious as all the stuff the social conservatives are complaining about?
as for the “genetic basis” for gender and sexuality issues, it would serve many people engaged in these debates to learn a lot more about genetics, identity, and cognitive development.
the idea that such complex and intimate behaviors can be boiled down to arguments about being “born that way” vs “lifestyle choice” just blows my mind.
One way to parse arguements about gay marriage is along the civil vs. religious line.
Not: all puns in this comment are intended.
The civil (i.e., non-religious) institution of marriage is niether divorced from nor wedded to its religious roots and existence. It is this not-same, not-different nature of civil marriage which creates one of the negotiating spaces for gay marriage. Because civil marriage carries legal benefits with it, and is part of the services and protections governments extend to their citizens (which religious institutions do not provide), the argument logically runs that under equal protection, gays and lesbians should also have access to these rights and protections like other citizens do.
The religious arguments–all well covered by others, so I’m not going to get into them in depth–are related to sociological history; morality; and legal precedent (i.e. we have never had gay “marriage”), among others. There is also a religious marriage institution, performed by various religious figures in various houses of worship, with creeds, vows, and ceremonies.
You go to a judge to get a civil marriage. You go to a religious house and a religious leader to get a religious marriage. The two intertwine and overlap–some people don’t have a religious ceremony, others do–but no matter where you went or who officiated at your wedding, if you’re straight you end up married, with full benefits.
It is possible to understand that “marriage” is no longer a singular civally religious, or religiously civil, institution, and has already been split into civil and religious marriages.
Gays didn’t do this. It happened long, long before LGBT people challenged the system. This drift began the moment governments granted civil benefits to marriage.
Because of this, however, I support gay marriage. The existence of a differentiated, if not “separate,” civil institution of marriage has set a course which allows the courts, in the most recent case Massachusetts, to use equal protection to grant LGBT couples the right to marry. Not separate but equal (civil unions), but equal.
If there are religious communities and leaders which do not believe in gay marriage, they are within their rights to refuse to perform gay marriages, or to support those LGBT couples who may, God knows why, choose to remain in such a congregation.
The separation of Church and State, and the already differentiated insitutions of civil and religious marriages, allows for both gay marriage and religious opposition to exist, although not without great strife and enmity, I fear.
In other words, the false marriage failed. He would have been better off with your legal help.
Under existing law, he had all the protection he needed. He would have had his wishes filled, except that he did not take advantage of existing law and chose instead to trust a stranger.
That story supports keeping marriage as it is.
Less emotion and more logic, please.
Andrew Hagen,
Actually, he could have drawn up all sorts of documents, and these, after his death could have been challenged and his will could still have been thwarted.
Less bigotry on your part, more rationality please.
I submit the following is actually a testimonial to a societal change. I remember when Anna Quindlen was writing a regular op-ed for the NY Times, she observed that she received lots of thoughtful mail on abortion, but none on homosexuality. According to her, the anti-homosexual letters were uniformly hysterical and abusive. (I do believe I’ve remembered correctly and it was not vice versa. Google, no help, too long ago.)
Andrew Lazarus,
That’s because the enemies of homosexuality haven’t a moral leg to stand on.
M. Simon wrote:
“Look up what Jesus had to say about the Centurion. (Hint: he found him one of the most godly people he had ever met). Then consider that in those days boy slaves like the boy slave the Centurion had were used for sexual purposes. I have yet to have a Christian explain that one to me.”
First of all, you don’t know that the slave was used for sexual purposes by this centurion. There’s no proof of that. Your argument is a bit like saying that guns are used in murders, so every gun-owner is a murderer.
Second, Jesus didn’t say that the centurion was godly. He said that the centurion had faith – that is, the centurion believed that Jesus could heal his servant.
Matthew 8:8-10
The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, ‘Go,’ and he goeth; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he cometh; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he doeth it.”
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”
Praktike,
You could be right that I have mis-diagnosed the problem.
But I’m not prepared to accept that “the problem is poverty, period. Poverty is much lower than it was, say, in the 50’s; yet crime is substantially higher. Why? The rise in crime corresponds roughly with the breakdown in traditional marriage. Correlation isn’t causation, I know, but what’s your explanation?
In addition, at an individual level, it is much harder for a single mother to rise from poverty than a poor couple, and much harder on the kids who have to spend a huge proportion of their lives in day care.
I don’t favor government enforcement of sexual morality. But government encouragement is a bit different, is it not?
Jean B –
I see nothing in Andrew Hagen’s post that would constitute bigotry.
Rob,
Thanks for responding. You make some good points.
First, I have to admit that I was extreme when I said “poverty is the problem, period.” There are in fact many contributing causes to our social problems.
Second, although it rose steadily through the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80s, crime (aggravated assault, robbery, and homicide rates) actually went way down during the 90s. Property crime declined pretty heavily as well. Why?
According to the Urban Institute, it’s generally thought that the main factors were:
1) Economic trends
2) Community efforts
3) Targeted changed in policing strategies and numbers
4) Gun availability (modest influence)
5) Higher incarceration rates
6) The decline of crack
Now, it may very well be that switching to “no-fault” divorce does contribute to crime. How would we test this? It’s not easy. Indeed, it would be very hard to separate out the effect of divorce laws on crime.
I live in Pennsylvania, so I’ll use my state as an example. PA enabled no-fault divorce in 1980. In 1980, there were 3,736.3 crimes for every 100,000 Pennsylvanians. By 1988, there were 3,176.4. If no fault divorce were a big problem, we’d have seen different results, right?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm
Not only that, but divorce rates themselves didn’t actually change all that much. In 1979, the divorce rate was 3.4 (out of 1,000 people). By 1992, it was still, yup, 3.4.
http://www.health.state.pa.us/pdf/hpa/stats/vital/marr-st.pdf
I’m not saying no-fault divorce has no effect. PA could be an outlier. Who knows?
But it’s clear to me that it’s not the biggest piece of the puzzle.
As to whether single mothers and their children would be better off in stable and healthy marriages, I don’t disagree.
As for “government encouragement of traditional morality,” I’m fine with that as long as it takes the form of incentives such as marriage tax credits, but not reactionary intrusions into civil liberties such as gag rules, abstinence rather than contraceptive education, etc.
Praktike,
I guess I should be clearer (which means I’ll have to figure out exactly what I think before I write.)
No-fault divorce doesn’t cause crime (or maybe it does, but that’s not what I want to claim). Single parenthood, which underwent a dramatic rise starting in the ’60s, is a big-time factor in crime (and in poverty, which is itself a major factor in crime).
Making divorce easy is both the effect and the cause of a gradual decline in the seriousness of marriage. It didn’t come into existance out of nowhere; obviously people wanted it. But I think its presence tends to make people less serious about marriage–they don’t think as hard about marriage (“We can always get a divorce.”) and they don’t think as hard about divorce (since divorce doesn’t require an accusation of adultery or other sound reason.)
Overall, the problem I’m addressing is more irresponsible sexual behavior than any particular law. AIDS, poor single mothers, angry young crimnal men: the products of following our dicks wherever they lead. I think gay marriage will tend to encourage responsible sexual behavior among gays; I think civil unions will tend to encourage irresponsible behavior among straights.
As for the causes of the ’90s drop in crime, there is one procative theory which you didn’t mention: abortion. The drop came at exactly the time that children aborted after Roe v. Wade would have turned about 20, when criminality is near its peak.
No comment from me as to whether I think that theory makes sense. I haven’t the faintest clue.
Oh, BTW, the liberation of women probably does have something to do with changes in divorce law. But I suspect that liberation has impacted well-off, well-educated women much more than the poor. Thus the impact of easy divorce and looser sexual mores may be different on the two different populations.
I have no dog in this fight, as I’m not gay and it doesn’t affect me one way or the other if someone who is gay wants to get married. It also doesn’t bother me if they aren’t allowed to marry, as marriage is a social construct, not a right. One way or the other, I could care less.
That said, I’m confused as to why gays would fight so hard to be allowed to marry, when heterosexuals are doing their damnedest to devaulue the institution. Is this a club they really want to join? The way things are going, in 20 years it won’t even matter.
The thing that really bothers me is that marriage is the closest most people come to a serious, lifelong commitment, one where you truly (should) value the feelings and needs of another over your own. There are people in this world who find other ways to experience a commitment of this intensity, but by and large, John Q. Public is isolated from them. How much can it damage our society if we remove or weaken the one powerful commitment that is closest to all of us?
Rob-
I *really* don’t think you want to talk about the abortion theory. You seem like a nice guy, and it doesn’t seem like you’ve made up your mind, so maybe I can nip this in the bud right now. First, there already was a bit of a youth population bulge in the 90s, and yet contrary to all expectations, crime and youth crime still declined overall. Second, my reaction to the idea that “abortion was a good thing because it killed off a bunch of potential criminals” is one of complete revulsion, recalling Herbert Spencer and Joseph Mengelev. I don’t think you would be comfortable with where this leads.
I think civil unions will tend to encourage irresponsible behavior among straights.
I really haven’t gotten this one yet, so please spell it out for me. What’s the mechanism? Is it that civil unions necessarily lower the “transaction cost” (in general terms) of marriage? If so, wouldn’t we see increases in marriage rates with the spread of civil unions? And wouldn’t people be getting married younger? Well, the very opposite is happening, and I strongly suspect that it has a lot more to do with women entering the workforce than with anything else.
As for the “thinking with your dick” culture…I don’t have any good ideas about that yet. But I don’t like reactionary policies in general, and I really don’t like government telling people what to do with their dicks.
Finally, what’s been lost in this debate is that I actually agree that marriage is a good thing for the gay community. And, several thousand bytes later, that was your original point, I suppose.
Praktike,
I’m not a big fan of abortion; it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. But I’m not a fan of supressing or ignoring ideas because they make people uncomfortable, either. We could go back and forth about the demographic makup of that bulge, the consensual nature of abortion vs. eugenics etc. But let’s go ahead and drop that point since it’s peripheral.
My point about civil unions is a purely cultural one. The “transaction costs,” in literal terms might be identical to marriage (or they might not). The exact legal structure might be the same or different from marriage. If it’s different, it makes my point stronger.
Some people would, I believe, prefer a civil union to a marriage, even if the forms and legal rights were identical. They are still carrying what’s left of the cultural notion of marrige as a lifetime commitment, and they may seek to avoid that (and what’s left of the stigma of divorce) by getting a “civil union” instead of a “marriage.” That is, they may come to associate CUs with a lower level of commitment than marriage, and thus, in many cases, may come to prefer them. Cutting down on commitment is a bad thing, especially where children are involved.
I think it will be hard to keep straigts away from CUs, especially if they are imposed by courts. The logic which dictates that gays MUST be permitted to marry can be deployed to argue that straights MUST be permitted NOT to marry, but still to enjoy some of the benefits of marriage. That is quite substantially likely if CUs end up being easier to get into and out of than marriage, with somewhat fewer benefits.
Fundamentally, I don’t think people should get the benefits of marriage–sharing of assets, inheritence rights, medical decision-making, what have you–unless they are willing to make a lifetime commitment, and make every effort to keep their vows. Sometimes they will fail; but I frankly think a lot of people don’t try hard enough. CUs may reduce the cultural incentive to keep trying.
Now, I don’t have proof that any of these undesirable effects will come to pass; possibly I’ve got it exactly backwards and CUs will save marriage from gays while letting gays manage assets effectively. That’s what *Jonah Goldberg* thinks. Maybe our culture will define CUs to be MORE serious than marriage. I don’t know.
But I am fundamentally conservative and I don’t like strange innovations, the cultural and legal impact of which is substantially unknown. Nobody thought that the ERA would make gay marriage legal, yet MA’s version of the ERA is the basis for the recent decision (and was the basis for the Hawaii decion, back in 1993).
To me, gay marriage seems like a smaller innovation than the creation of “marriage-lite.”
Thank you, Anemone. Much appreciated.
Armed Liberal wrote: “Ultimately his parents lawyered up and attempted to get me removed. We’d have won, and I’d have gladly spent the money to win, but at the very end. . . .”
To repeat: “We’d have won. . . .”
The man made a bad choice at the end of his life. The law as it existed even then was perfectly capable of fulfilling his wishes, had he simply followed the advice of his legal counsel. If you need a will, hire a lawyer. Then, listen to your lawyer.
Finally, even pertinent anecdotal evidence for gay marraige would not by itself constitute a good argument for it.
Andrew H-
Sadly, you’re missing the entire point of my anecdote.
It would have taken $20,000 in legal fees to develop a series of trusts that would have withstood his parent’s attack. Why? because he couldn’t simply stand in front of a judge and sign a simple certificate giving him and his partner rights that are commonly recognized.
Why? Why should committed couples have to jump through absurd hoops in order to enjoy the rights that I do? If you’ve got a justification for that, I’d love to hear it…
A.L.
Rob-
You said the ERA was the basis for the MA decision. It was not. Although a separate concurring opinion noted that the ERA made sex-based classifications subject to strict scrutiny, the majority opinion said it was not necessary to even reach that point. The Department of Health had offered no rational basis for the discrimination. Even without an ERA, the state still needed to have at least some rational basis for its classification. You are correct that an ERA was the basis for the Hawaii decision.
Armed Liberal, stand back and look at your anecdotal argument. First you give us one story, which doesn’t make you look particularly good. Then, you throw in something about $20,000 in legal fees. You have every reason to want to inflate that figure, because every dollar in hypothetical fees would make your argument better. Even if your guess is accurate, you don’t tell us how much the entire estate is worth.
Second, you said “We’d have won, and I’d have gladly spent the money to win.” So you were willing to work pro bono? And he turned you down?
Third, why not just write a will? That would seem like the normal way to go, although I am not a lawyer.
In the end, I don’t feel like I can trust your anecdote, and even if I could, why should the plight of one or two people force the entire nation to abandon the institution of marriage?
Galois,
Thanks for the correction. I haven’t read the decions myself from MA, although I have read the HI one.
I find your characterization troubling for one reason, though: laws can’t just be invalidated because they’re irrational; usually there is some kind of constitutional basis to even get into court. What part of the MA constitution was involved?
I’ll read it when I have time, but it will be some time before I have the free time.
Andrew Hagden,
Wills can be challenged; and are done so all the time. A will is not challenge proof in other words. In the situation of a marraige, even if a will is invalidated, the spouse gets an automatic share of the estate, full if it the spouse is the only person to collect, part if their are children of the deceased.
Gay marriage, ultimately, will not just be about homosexuality and heterosexuality, as so many seem to think. It will be about bisexuality and androgyny, and this is what we should all be asking—where does that lead?
Not to mention the mathematical improbability (not exactly computable, but almost certainly very high) that androgynization of the concept of marriage will be able to last long in any culture, on account of the simplicity of the idea coupled with its extreme rarity in the past, and the fact that so many cultures tolerated homosexuality but virtually none androgynized the concept of marriage.
The talk about the erosion of marriage and the claim that civil unions are the worst of all reactions to the same-sex marriage issue reminds me of the innumerable establishment clause debates. While traditional marriage is not (just) a religiously-based institution, religious, moral, traditional and ethical values permeate and undergird it. Engrafting such institutions on to the civil law, like establishing churches, enacting blue laws and Sunday closing laws, and all sorts of other moral and/or religious strictures on civil laws often has a detrimental effect on religions and the tenents that comprise them — witness low church attendance in countries with established religions. So to use civil marriage as a means of encouraging committed behavior between partners seems misguided. Those factors which encourage or discourage interpersonal committment — community support and approval, social and physical mobility, longer life-expectancy, economic security, etc. — have very little to do with the marriage laws, and can have very little to do with them. Trying to pervent the erosion of interpersonal commitment by tinkering with marriage laws is like trying to legislate against the tides.
I find it interesting that all of you conservative moral “family values” types out there don’t have a problem with parents who are actively trying to steal from their child while he is dying.
On the contrary, Mitch, they have a tremendous problem with that. Such conduct strikes right at the heart of any meaningful definition of “family” OR “values” (sounds to me like this crew had neither, in any meaningful sense).
Their question is whether the solution involves changing the concept of marriage, or whether that constitutes the wrong weapon against the wrong target.
Many conservatives are quite happy to go down the road with a “civil unions” solution that would have left Steve’s parents in this case with no say whatsoever. They believe this option would work without treading on marriage as they see it, or creating a threat to separation of church and state via the state dictating to churches on questions of religious doctrine. That strikes me as a fair position – one may disagree, but there’s nothing dishonourable about it at all.
Other may contend that existing rights were adequate, and that had Steve chosen to fight it in court his parents would have lost. Sadly, we’ll never know (and I say sadly especially because I think the tragedy would have been averted if that approach had been taken). A good will and a durable Power of Attorney, they might argue, cover all bases here. I’m not sure they’re right, but they do have a case.
Personally, I think it should have been easier for A.L.’s friend to defend his rights and that of his partner against his family’s maneuverings, even without an explicit will. I think that should also be true when heterosexual people are involved in situations like this – some are.
Could that be achieved without addressing the issue of gay marriage? Almost certainly.
Which means this is an important cautionary tale (for everybody and anybody!), but its relevance to the question of gay marriage per se is slim insofar as it is not a necessary solution to this particular problem.
But is gay marriage a solution to other problems? Ah, but that’s another question, and a separate debate.
Wonderful – I was referred to this from Andrew Sullivan’s site.
I love the inclusivity of your argument.
I had no health insurance, and what looked like a major heart condition. I was already out thousands in emergency room bills. What did I do? I got married to my girlfriend/domestic partner. We had never planned to ever get married: just keep our “civil union.” We had, and still have, zero regard for marriage as something different from our domestic partnership. It means nothing to me as a social tradition. But it got me health care. Instantly. I can’t imagine why someone like me should have the power flippantly abuse the institution when couples who actually have a deep appreciation and desire for it are denied it, despite the fact that they are capable of everything it requires, including being parents.
I will never be angry at those who don’t support gay marriage. But I do think that their position is fundamentally immoral. And I I do think it is disingenous to pretend that governments are dictionaries. Governments do not define words: only common usage defines words. You can define “marriage” however you want. What is at stake is the accesibility of a set of civil rights, not a definition.
It is sad that people increasinngly have the idea that culture and religion is something that the government can or should control. We do not need the government to lead us in prayer or tell us what is or is not an acceptable marriage in the eyes of God. In fact, it cannot ever really do so, even if it tried. People battle over government handouts and pats on the head for favored institutions because they for some reason are failing to appeal to what is supposed to be their responsibility: free civil society. Sure, it’s harder and scarier to work in this arena. And unlike with government, you can’t force everyone to agree with you. But it’s the legitimate and honest way. If your church doesn’t want to acknowledge gay couples as married, don’t. Nobody is forcing you too. But don’t restrict their civil abilities.
I’ll never understand the people who, when the Cali court ruled that schools could not lead kids in the religious-fringed pledge, started making noise about how they would definately say the pledge anyway. Hello? You _always_ had a right to do that. And indeed, it’s inspiring that you care about the pledge enough to say it without being forced to. All that is at stake is whether you can get the government to help you pressure others into saying it.
So too with gay “marriage.” It’s inspiring that you have a concept of marriage that mandates having man with woman only. Do that. Advocate that. Acknowledge that in your churches. But don’t use that as an excuse for unequal treatment under the law just because the government calls its civil unions “marriages” too. Pressure people in civil society, where that pressure is honest, legitimate, and the core of a liberal (in the old sense) western state. Not through the laws.
Dear Anemone,
“I see nothing in Andrew Hagen’s post that would constitute bigotry.”
Maybe that’s because you’re a bigot? To say that gay love compared with straight love is what obesity is to fitness is offensive. To refer to homosexuality as an aberration and that it would therefore muddy the water of straight marriage is very hurtful language. It’s the same as saying gay love undermines straight love. It muddy’s it. Why? Because it’s different and not as common? Perhaps because it’s not natural due to the fact gay couples can’t procreate… does that mean they chose to be gay, then? Would you? The fact is they didn’t, not anymore than you chose to be straight. So if it’s not a choice, than it’s natural my friend.
But maybe that’s what this comes down to. If gay people feel the same depth of emotion, what is identified as love, as straight people, why can’t they express it the same way if it is the same feeling, in marriage? Because you (and supporters of civil unions, not marriage) don’t believe it’s the same feeling fundamentally, it’s less than. That’s the point of civil unions; give gays equal benefits, but don’t call it marriage so as not to confuse the fact that gay love isn’t really the same thing.
You don’t want to believe it’s the same thing, it’s obesity vs. fitness.
That’s bigotry.
I am in a 7 year relationship sharing an address, bills, and rent. Isn’t that a common law marriage? Oh yeah, I’m gay. I guess not. It’s nothing.
I don’t get any of the same protections that straight people have bestowed upon them by our government, so I shouldn’t have to pay any taxes that go to support your survivorship social security benefits I don’t “qualify” for.
By the way – I am deeply gratefull for the intelligent discussion of this issue here. I have been growing cynical that straight people don’t care about what is right and wrong about this issue, since it “doesn’t affect them.”
Thanks
I do think that the idea of a “civil union” is one that assumes that love between two homosexuals is somehow lesser than love between two heterosexuals. I don’t believe that this is true. I’m bisexual, and my attraction to men doesn’t feel any lesser than my attraction to women. I could commit either to a woman or a man. It may be difficult for a heterosexual person to understand how a person could be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn’t make homosexual attraction something lower than what heterosexual people feel
Some of the distinctions being made in this discussion, between civil and religious marriage or its legal and cultural effects, are very useful. All that is at stake is civil marriage and its legal attributes. Though I grant this may have consequent effects on the culture one should not assume a mechanistic effect that legal gay marriage will automatically make homosexuality normative. Roe v Wade may have actually hardened some attitudes against abortion and definately mobilised anti-abortion as a political phenomenon.
Civil marriage is not a right in any meaningful sense; it is an institution that accords a set of privileges. As a married man I acquire all sorts of authority over my wife’s children, for instance, since it is assumed they are mine. Given that the community, in the form of the state, accords us married types privileges it is reasonable that it also demand something from us. In this respect I think that the argument that the extension of civil marriage to include gays and lesbians should be twinned with a higher bar on divorce is totally logical. In Ireland, for example, we have no fault divorce, but one can only divorce after four years of separation. This avoids the danger of fictive divorce suits, retains the no fault structure but does nothing to undermine the seriousness of marriage. Ther eare also a set of provisions that direct any property settlement in a divorce to the care of any children. How could the most crusty conservative object to any couple of whatever orientation submitting themselves to such a set of duties?
The assertion by gay marriage advocates that gay “love” is the same as the love between a man and a woman bothers me. Where’s the proof of such an assertion? How could such an assertion be proved? How many gay attractions lead to committed lifetime relationships, compared to the love between a man and a woman that has been at the heart of the human experience since our ancestors came down from the trees? I have a feeling the proportion is totally out of whack. Differential treatment of gays is not the same as discrmination on racial grounds. The concepts are entirely different. What is “gayness” anyway? How does one know when someone is gay? Would potential gay couples have to prove they were gay? How exactly would they do that, since being gay is a state of mind, not a difference in sexual equipment or skin color? Why couldn’t two straight people of the same sex get married for the financial benefits? If you could prove they weren’t gay, could they be barred from marrying? My basic contention is that homosexuality does not exist.
“Why I Support Gay Marriage, and Why I Will Never Be Angry At Those Who Do Not”
So you will never be angry at people who oppose equal rights for gay people? Otherwise stated, you will never be angry at people who support the fact that the state discriminates against relationships of same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) in favor of relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called “marriage”)?
If so, you are a horse’s ass.
You insult this man because he is aware of and respects that homosexuality is against the religious values of people?
Since you cannot demonstrate that anything is “right” or “wrong” all you have is subjective cultural values like your, “discrimination is wrong no matter what” versus their, “legitimizing homosexual marriage is wrong”
if you were more adult you would see that while their position is unacceptable to you, they have a right to believe what they do.
My position is that government should be completely out of the marriage business. it is a religious rite for almost every culture. so if one religion wants to recognize gays and another doesnt.. who cares.
the government should not hand out goodies based on such a thing as “marriage”. instead we could have for legal purposes a designate spouse or spouses. this being a merely a legal term for anyone you should so designate. after all if it is untenable that “marriage” be just for heterosexuals, it is equally discriminatory to deny it to those who have other alternate arrangements and lifestyles.
which makes this all the more hypocritical and convoluted because gays want their relationships legitimized (naturally) but in their push for this they refuse to acknowledge that their logic demands that we recognize these other relationships. making marriage between two people is just as arbitrary and discriminatory as saying marriage must be between a man and a woman.
in short… no government goodies for anyone based on “marriage” and this problem goes away for everyone… save those who wanted goodies :>
One of the themes of the argument here and Andrew Sullivan’s is that marriage is about friendship and partnership and lasting commitment, and it’s the far right that make it all about sex and genitalia, due to their hang-ups about sex from years of repression.
Well, if that’s the case, then why is the restriction against same sex marriage at all onerous, to the point where it’s an equal rights issue and those who oppose it are bigots? It seems like a gay person, depsite being attracted to members of the same sex, ought to be able to form these partnerships with members of the opposite sex. If it’s not about sexual attraction, then there should be no problem.
Or is there really a connection between sex and marriage after all?
Robert Speirs,
Currently, two persons of opposite sex can get married. If I could prove they weren’t in love could I have their marriage annulled?
Robert Speirs writes,
My basic contention is that homosexuality does not exist.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to tell my partner that one….
“On the social front, I’ll suggest that we spend all too much time focusing on the wrong part of the body – the crotch – and not enough on the part that matters – the heart – of those involved.”
It’s more than crotches. Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways, as more and more research shows. If you don’t grasp this, I see why you’ve had trouble with past relationships and fear for your upcoming marriage.
Of course, this does not justify taking away a person’s right to handle his own affairs as he or she sees fit. But neither does it follow that every committed relationship is a marriage.
As much as anything, I think many of us are offended by the abuse of language and semantics being foisted upon us. Yes, homosexuals have relationships, and they may be committed relationships. But marriage means something more specific than that, including those qualities that make men and women fundamentally (but not wholly) different creatures.
Peace be with you.
To Robert Speirs:
As someone who has been “gay” their whole life, I can tell you that I’ve known since early childhood. My sexual orientation was not a choice, was fixed at birth or an early age and is not changable. Coming to an acceptance on this is often a very painful and wrenching experience for the majority of gay people The bottom line is that gays and lesbians DO exist and society needs to accept this fact. In fact, the “homosexual question” rather needs to be the heart of the discussion.
The majority of those that think that oppose homosexuality and see it is a sin also believe it is a choice. I would ask a logical person: Who in their right mind, besides a masochist, would make such a choice and choose to be rejected by family, friends, religion and society? Others, such as the Catholic Church, believe that homosexuality is simply an inclination or temptation that needs to be avoided, like alcoholism, and that celibacy (and staying in the closet) is the only “right” way for them to live. I wonder how many heterosexuals would choose not to enter heaven if lifelong celibacy was mandatory.
The “gay marriage” debate needs to be transformed into a dicussion about the nature of homosexuality and reframed as a human rights issue. If being gay is an innate and natural variation of human sexuality, then it stands that discrimination in any form is wrong.
It is amazing to me the lack of scientific and logical inquiry into the entire issue of homosexuality. For those like Robert and the many other bigots, I wish they could stand in my shoes for just one day.
Robert Spiers –
Well, I tend to have a basic level of respect that takes people at their word (to digress, I’m a hawk in large part because I respect the Islamists enough to take them at their word when they say we’re at war).
And to point to the historical lack of committed gay relationships – when social and legal standards didn’t permit such – is kind of disingenuous, don’t you think?
A.L.
Jimbo writes: It’s more than crotches. Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways, as more and more research shows. If you don’t grasp this, I see why you’ve had trouble with past relationships and fear for your upcoming marriage.
Nice, a personal attack on the writer always helps your argument.
And he continues: As much as anything, I think many of us are offended by the abuse of language and semantics being foisted upon us.
Actually, it’s the fault of language for not being more expressive. Marriage is used as a religious term, and it is the original basis for the rights bestowed on couples by the state. The state, however, isn’t a religious organization. The state grants licences and performs marriages without a priest, minister, or rabbi. Wouldn’t you agree that this is a wholly separate excercise that is now more based in rights, tax code and law than it’s religious cousin?
Are there differences in men and women? Sure, but in the US at least, we agree that all men and women are created equal, and should thereby be given equal access to any benefits the state may provide.
“Yes, homosexuals have relationships, and they may be committed relationships. But marriage means something more specific than that, including those qualities that make men and women fundamentally (but not wholly) different creatures.”
So what does marriage mean? You need to elaborate.
jimbo –
Well, I’ll acknowledge the intent to insult, and point out that a big part of what I’m trying to do in my post is move past the notion that you’re a bigot for taking that view; I think your beliefs are genuinely held and come from a long history of culture and belief, and I bear you no ill will for them. I’ll even point out that I’ve long acknowledged that there’s a germ of truth in what you say.
But…
In the world we live in today, the issue of whether homosexuality per se is percieved culture-wide as a sin or perversion has been brought to the table and found wanting. I do think there are aspects of homsexual sexual behavior which are bad – as I think that there are aspects of heterosexual sexual behavior which are bad and restructive. Rob Lyman put it damn well upthread when he said:
Gay peole say they want long-term, committed relationshjips in which they share their lives and property – as do straight people (and me, since I’m planning on marrying again and lucky enough to have found someone to take me).
You don’t want to do that, that’s fine. You don;t want to live in the middle of the Castro Haloween Parade, that’s fine too, neither do I. But if the couple next door – the one that waters their plants, mows their lawn, paints their house, goes to work every day and church on Sunday, happens to be two men or two women, I’m missing the problem.
A.L.
John McG posts, “It seems like a gay person, depsite being attracted to members of the same sex, ought to be able to form these partnerships with members of the opposite sex. If it’s not about sexual attraction, then there should be no problem.”
— with this logic, a straight guy would be able to form these partnerships with another straight guy, even though he might (for some reason we wont discuss) prefer to partner with a a woman. Wouldn’t be very cool, though, if that were his only choice, would it?
Mitch,
Maybe it wouldn’t be “cool,” but it wouldn’t be an affront to his dignity, either. Remember, it’s not about sexual attraction, it’s about commitment and friendship, if you believe these commentators. So, the sex of the partner shouldn’t matter.
Of course I disagree; I think sexuality does have something to do with marriage, as well as do children, which are the fruit of marraige.
The attempts by commentators like AL to divorce sexuality from marriage confirms my concerns that same sex marriage will lead to “marriage” not meaning anything at all.
Actually, John McG, there may be different reasons why someone supports gay marriage. One person might support gay marriage because it provides legal protection for gay couples, for their assets, allows them to use each other’s health insurance, make health-related decisions if one partner is incapacitated, etc. Another person might support gay marriage because he/she and his/her partner want to raise a children together.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage not meaning anything at all.
Crap. Pardon my typos.
If marriage is mostly about procreation, like many are saying, then why are there so many straight people out there on there 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages who are choosing to get married and NOT have children? Sounds sinful to me and an abuse of having sex for reasons other than producing offspring…
Andrew Sullivan also made a good point that if conservatives believe so highly in the “sanctity” of marriage, then why is their mouthpiece, Fox News / Newscorp, producing program after program defiling marriage such as “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”
And where is the outrage about Britney Spears and others who flipantly marry in Las Vegas on a whim, only to have it annulled hours later?
Claiming a ‘moral highground’ and hypocritical talk of procreation is just an excuse to cover up their bigotted and repressive viewpoints.
The emporer is wearing no clothes, have you noticed?
Evan
Marraige means (or used to mean) a lifelong committed realtionship between and a woman for the transmission of life.
Same sex marriage explicitly removes the connection between marraige and procreation. Some argue that this was already happening, and I might agree, but same sex marriage normalizes it.
The Armed Liberal’s post talks about marriage not being about sexuality, further eroding what we mean when we refer to “marriage.”
Now that this is chucked, one can’t help but wonder what else is up for grabs.
When I tell my daughter that her mother and I are married, I want it to mean more than that she wants to be covered by my insurance. I want it to mean that she can count on us to stay together, and that raising her is one of the things that unites us.
Yes, how we behave has more to do with that belief than how the government defines “marriage?” And yes, there are other societal forces working against this definition.
But it does make a difference.
James,
To quote Shakespeare
“Would not that which we call a rose by any other name smell as sweet.” I have no problem with or without calling same-sex unions marriage as long as whatever they call them carries the same legal benefits and equality as marriage. I shudder to think what would of happened in the late 50’s and early 60 if someone had proposed an amendment to the constitution defining whites as being superior to blacks. Why codify prejudice into the Constitution now and make a sacrilege of the most precious document that was ratified to make all of us equal.
Russ
Evan,
Maybe you could actually engage arguments rather than call people names.
If termites were eating away at your house, and you had not yet hired an exterminator, would you be justified in defending your home from a burglar? (Please excuse the analogy, I am not meaning to draw a moral equivalency between homosex and burlary). Using your logic, you wouldn’t be, and all your talk about defending your house would be hypocritical.
And to answer one of your points, the Catholic school teacher who took part in “My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance” was released from hthat job, in part because of what that show says about marriage.
And while the FNC might have a conservative tilt, social conservatives have never been fond of most of the Fox Network’s programming.
Sorry, you’re going to actually have to engage some arguments rather than sit back and call us bigots.
Now that this is chucked, one can’t help but wonder what else is up for grabs.
John — you seem to be expressing concern that things change. But society constantly changes. The point of debates like this one is to figure out whether certain types of change are OK or not. I contend (as do others) that gay marriage is an OK change.
When I tell my daughter that her mother and I are married, I want it to mean more than that she wants to be covered by my insurance.
What do you want it to mean? That you and her mother love each other, will always be together, and will always be there for her? Most gay couples who would get married want to do so for the same reasons you do — love, commitment, stability. Shared health insurance and other benefits are the things that help encourage and reward stability. Sure, a minority of gays who marry might do so merely for the health benefits, etc., but that’s true for a minority of straight people, too.
If I’m unclear as to what you want marriage to mean, please explain.
Let’s talk about kids. Others have pointed out that plenty of opposite-sex couples who marry will never procreate, either because of inability or by choice. If marriage is primarily for procreation, should these couples be barred from marrying? If not, why deny same-sex couples the other legal benefits of marriage that those non-procreating straight couples enjoy.
Also (and this should be obvious) plenty of gay people do have kids, either “naturally,” or by adoption. Anything wrong with this? If so, why? And if not, why not allow them to marry?
This whole argument always seems to go ’round in circles to me with points constantly being re-raised and re-rebutted. I’d like to consider the following point of contention…
A man has met the love of his life, a beautiful charming woman he could see growing old with happily. They’re compatible in so many ways, everyone agrees they’re a beautiful couple. What should they do? Why, they should GET MARRIED. Or at least that’s the reaction I’ve seen in my experience. “They’re in love, they seem to be stable… they should get hitched”. Where does procreation actually enter the equation? It’s not like you need to get hitched to make babies, after all. To quote Dan Savage, women have been falling down drunk and getting up pregnant since the beginning of time. It’s not like most people would consider, on an individual basis, the making of babies anywhere on the top ten list of their healthy reasons for getting hitched. It’s about loving the other person and wanting to ensure a good life within that bond. Sometimes that bond, even with gay people, includes kids and sometimes it doesn’t.
However, the truth is that conservatives are right. Traditionally, marriage was more about procreation than much else, most especially among the high aristocracy. Look at Henry VIII when he couldn’t get a male heir for a good example of a classic reaction. For centuries, IIRC, sterility was a very valid ground for annulment. Of course, during that same time period love didn’t factor in at all. Marriages were formed to bond two families for mutual advantage and to beget heirs but if the two people respectively involved liked each other, that was an added bonus. Women were accorded limited respect in the marriage and virtually no power. They were often dead within a couple years anyway, since the mortality rate during child bearing was atrocious. Is this the type of marriage that, say, JohnG would say he has? Because that’s the traditional sort. It was the definition for millenia, dating back to the Greco-Roman world at the very least. It’s not romantic in the least and I certainly wouldn’t want to embrace it.
What we today call a “traditional” marriage, a “romantic” marriage, almost forces pragmatism completely out of the picture. Everything is reversed in priority. You’re looking at a match which would, given the health care of today, last the majority of a person’s natural span. Love is the main driving force for marriage, compatibility the key. If kids come along and if the in-laws mesh, well so much the better. In such a marriage, there is no fundamental reason to exclude gay people if one concedes the point that they (rather, I should say “we”) can love just as well as straight couples.
The most cogent point I’ve seen so far against that premise is the “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” category of complementarity. Even that falls apart upon analysis, however, because such concepts work only when considered in averages of large populations. It’s an overlapping spectrum, not a harsh divide. Some men hold many traits which would be considered as falling on the “feminine” side of complimentarity, and vice versa for some women. So, when considered in a one on one basis, it is not impossible for two men or two women to find as much complimentarity in personality as one man and one woman. Furthermore, we seem to have gotten fixated on the image of a yin-yang as complimenting one another. They do, but real life is not as neat. Sometimes overwhelming difference, even mirror image, doesn’t work in a relationship. Opposites attract but they don’t have a much better rate of sticking in my experience. We tend to get all swept up in “men” and “women” that we forget we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about “a man” or “a woman”. Men may not find much romantic compatibility with other men, but “a man” certainly could. A woman could find love with another woman. A woman could find compatibility and complimentarity with another woman.
I’d like to consider, in closing, a quote I’ve heard used many times in wedding ceremonies.
“Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”
The words of Ruth to Naomi. Something to consider.
Priam –
The arguments may be going around in circles, but we’re covering ground nonetheless.
Look; lots of the comments here are horrified that a gay romantic and sexual relationship could be widely acceptable – they see it as of a pirce with the Wiemar decadence Peggy Noonan talks about in her WSJ piece in the Jackson family today. That’s a real issue; I’ve been to gay discos in San Francisco in the 70’s and 80’s (and let me comment that for a straight single guy, it’s certainly a ‘target-rich’ environment, to quote everyone’s favorite Scientologist) and decadent they absolutely were. If that was the entirety of gay life, I certainly wouldn’t be wasting a lot of time on the issue.
But it’s not. I know and have known a number of gay couples who are probably better at being couples than either of my marriages (and I had pretty good marriages, as divorces go) – but they don’t get the legal wrapping or social acceptance I do.
That’s wrong.
But the people who oppose it do so because they are part of a culture and tadition that goes back thousands of years and isn’t to happy with the notion that two guys or two women might have sex, much less share lives.
That’s changing, and no one should take what I say to suggest that it isn’t and shouldn’t. But the change will be gradual, erratic, and may require some tradebacks from gays – in greater sexual responsibility, in ‘fitting in’ better to an essentially suburban society – if they want the acceptance.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. I’m not interested in living in Weimar.
A.L.
I’m a homosexual who came out at age 17 (I’m now 35). As my coming out at such a young age indicates, my homosexuality was never an issue for me. I longed for the same things straight people did (love, companionship, loyalty, monogamy, marriage). I wanted all these things, but only with a man. The gay community did little to make me feel comfortable with those feelings. I was often ostracized by my fellow homosexuals for my desire to “mimic” the heterosexual lifestyle. But I couldn’t help that desire anymore than I could help being gay. Even the pressure from the gay community to reject my mainstream nature wasn’t enough to make me cave and conform to its ways. But something, oddly, is making me turn. Ever since the country has spiraled out of control down this Orwellian path of marriage brokering (and God knows where it will lead–maybe with breeding farms?) I’ve suddenly had this urge–little conservative, old-fashioned me–to finally pay a visit to the bath house down the street. (At least gay sex is legal.) I’ve never been one for promiscuous, anonymous sex (my reputation for refusing to kiss on the first date has left me alone many a Saturday night), but suddenly the idea of it seems like a pretty good idea. This is a true feeling of mine, I swear. I’m not sure I fully understand it. But I do feel I have a keener understanding of why so many homosexuals define themselves based on sex and why for many in the gay community sex is a form of civil disobedience more than an act of love. When it’s all said and done, for gay people, sex is all we’ve got.
“Gay peole say they want long-term, committed relationshjips in which they share their lives and property – as do straight people (and me, since I’m planning on marrying again and lucky enough to have found someone to take me)”
A.L.,
I never disputed this. I read Andrew Sullivan a lot (daily), and can’t disagree with his basic argument that we live in a secular society and can’t base laws and rights solely on personal religous and moral beliefs. We would quickly end up with a theocracy. And it’s hard to argue that committed homosexual relationships are worse than promiscuous ones.
That’s why I aimed my argument at the semantics of the whole thing. Words have connotations and traditions and in the case of marriage this is especially true. I agree with the poster who said that marriage is tied up strongly with religous and cultural beliefs, and the trouble is with glomming the same word clumsily onto a civic construct. Perhaps the answer is to get the state out of the marriage racket entirely, and replace it with something that religously married people would automatically qualify for but others would not be excluded from.
I disagree with the poster who said that differences between men and women are simply a matter of averages. For many things, this is true, but in other ways men and women are simply biologically different, in all but very rare cases. I really should research and post links at this point, but just don’t have the time or motivation to do so right now.
Interesting discussion. Peace be with you.
I don’t believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue at all. I think that homosexuality is wrong but I would not hesitate to be friends with or support a homosexual person in need. I believe that people who remain outside the accepted way of life (not just homosexuals) should have the courage of their convictions, and not try to make everybody else change to suit them. One issue that is never addressed in this discussion is the sex act and how it differs for homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. To me, women partners are rather laughable. The idea that what they share is at all related to the sex act of intercourse is unbelievable. I could myself live with another woman (I am a female), but I would never try to fool myself that the relationship would at all resemble a sexual relationship. As for homosexual men, I look upon their activities as unhygienic but somehow more understandable than lesbian women’s activities. In the end, as we grow older, sex itself is less and less important and therefore indicates to me that the prime reason for marriage is that of building a family and reinforcing one of the building blocks of a stable society. Bending it out of shape contributes nothing to society.
When I read comments like Kerry’s I wonder, should society allow certain straight people to breed? I mean, Kerry’s selfishness is so profoundly pathologically as indicated by her self-absorbed post, I can’t imagine what a horrible parent she would make. I think perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment that prevents pathologically selfish people like Kerry from reproducing. Imagine what a burder her disturbed child will be on society.
I agree that Kerry is a self-absorbed egomaniac. I can’t imagine wishing to instill my values on someone using the brute force of government merely because I don’t do what they do. Kerry is like a spoiled child pulling on her little dolly away from her little sister because she wants it all to her itty bitty self. What a sanctimonious, self righteous, spoiled brat!!!!
Kerry’s psychotic rant is the equivalent of saying that because I don’t bowl and don’t enjoy bowling, those who do shouldn’t be granted the same rigths as us non-bowlers. Kerry is truly a nut.
If we are concerned that traditional institutions corrupted by untraditional people can have dire consequences for society, then we need to prepare ourselves to delve into this matter deeper. Consider this issue: Should a husband be allowed to stay home and raise the children while the wife goes off to earn a living? To most, even the most progressive thinkers, this is an untraditional arragement. Some in our society might think such a man an aberration. Some might even think he’s gay. But regardless, since we’ve concluded that marriage has profound effects on our society, we need to ask ourselves how does such a personal arrangement between two people taking the tradition of marriage and giving it a twist effect all of society? Does it effect us at all? And if it does, how badly does it effect us? Does such effects warrant draconian govenrment intervention? Allowing the government to make these decisions, whether based on general consensus or not, will have consequences in other aspects of our lives, most notably the lives of women. If government is to take over the role of marriage counselor, then what options will be eliminated in our personal relationships such as divorce? What will women’s rights advocates say about legislation that may make it more difficult for women to get out of an abusive marriage? Currently, the CDC estimates that around 2-3 million women in the United States are victims of spouse abuse—another 600,000 men are also abused by their wives. Should these women and men be prevented from divorcing, and if so, should they be allowed to remarry given their track record of attracting abusive spouses? Perhaps governmet agents will be able to help us decide how we as couples raise our children and balance our household budgets? Have we become so dismayed by our limitless choices in our society we are now willing to give over our free will to bureaucrats?
John McG has a question to answer: He says that marriage is about procreation/”the transmission of life”. I’m one of those folks that Huntington and others speak of: A guy who is faithfully committed in a heterosexual marriage where the decision has been made to forego children. Logic dictates that if the bedrock argument one makes against homosexual marriage regards the inability to procreate, then that person MUST also oppose man/woman marriages that refuse to “transmit life”. John: Will you argue against my heterosexual marriage?
This thread has been quite enlightening (Priam, Mario, Maria, others)
I surfed over after seeing the link on Andrew Sullivan’s website.
I wanted to comment on something Kerry said—well, I’d quote her, but I don’t want to scroll back up and re-read her post. Basically, Kerry wondered at the things two women do in bed and the things two men do in bed. Surely these… things… that gay men and lesbians do with each other can’t compare to the… things… the glorious things… that straight couples do with each other.
Look, I’ve always acknowledged that there is something straight sex does that gay sex does not. Frankly, although I’m gay, I’ve always felt that there is a certain existential hole, if you’ll pardon the term, at the heart of gay sex. It is purely recreational, never procreational, it is about what it’s about, about the two people involved, and not about creating life. I don’t think it diminishes gay sex, or my sex life, at all to give props where props are due. I wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for straight sex. Let’s here it for straight sex — yippie.
However, what Kerry and other heterosupremicists seem to have a problem with is the idea that, ‘cept for makin’ babies, gay sex does everything straight sex does: Attraction brings two people together, and if they’re sane, healthy people, and emotionally available to one another, something good, lasting, and meaningful–something that is greater than the sum of the genitalia involved– can come of it, gay or straight.
I’ve always had a bit of an issue with straight people who seem to think that all gay sex is meaningless or sinful and, by implication, all straight sex is… elevated and infused with spiritual importance. Bullshit. I mean, I write a sex advice column for a living, and if Kerry thinks that straight people aren’t having anal sex, eating each other out, and generally getting into all sorts of trouble–including sex-sans-love–then she’s more deluded than anyone here has given her discredit for.
Finally, I’ve been with my boyfriend for nine years as of last weekend. We have a six year old son. We own a house, share our bills, take care of each other. When he’s sick, I rush home. When I’m sick, he rushes home. So long as I live and I can earn enough dough to feed and house him, the state won’t have to take care of him, and vice-versa. Same goes for our son. We’re a family, and we really ought to be married, my boyfriend and I — social conservatives should want us to marry. If not for our own sakes, then for the sake of our son, the child the state allowed us to adopt.
Amen, Dan.
I think you touch on something else that lots of people who oppose gay marriage have a problem with: gay adoption.
Those who oppose gay marriage need to understand that there are gay couples who adopt and raise children and love them just as much as any other adoptive parents would love their children. And children receive just as much love and attention when raised by same-sex couples as they do when raised by different-sex couples. Many conservatives still, in 2004, are unconsciously wedded (as it were) to the idea that all gay people are irresponsible, bed-hopping, club-hopping drug users. And even if most gay couples did fit this mold (a premise I will not accept without first seeing a direct survey of all gay Americans, closeted and uncloseted, urban and rural, religious and atheist, bookish and stupid, independent-minded and herd-minded) — don’t these particular conservatives realize that any couple that wants to adopt a child must be evaluated by an adoption agency first? Or do they think Bruce and Sven are going to pop into Prada, pick up some shoes and a baby, and head out to the clubs?
Thanks, A.L. for your rational and thoughtful commentary on gay marriage.
I may differ with you on one issue, however. Since there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality, there is everything wrong with anti-gay beliefs, no matter how weighty the historical traditions behind them.
These beliefs are wielded like blunt instruments by powerful lobbies, and the results have a tangible and profoundly negative impact on gay people.
I cannot take a supportive or understanding view of homophobes. While they have the right to their beliefs, these beliefs cannot be given power in the public sphere. Both because they are wrong, and because they are concretely, undeservingly detrimental to gay peoples lives.
“Those who oppose gay marriage need to understand that there are gay couples who adopt and raise children and love them just as much as any other adoptive parents would love their children. And children receive just as much love and attention when raised by same-sex couples as they do when raised by different-sex couples.”
This brings us back to the biological differences thing. Do many homosexual couples with children love those children and care for them as best they can? Of course.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the relationship between a boy and his mother, a boy and his father, a girl and her mother, and a girl and her father are fundamentally different relationships. Each relationship contributes something special that cannot be fully replaced by any other.
We know that boys without a father in the home tend to get into more trouble than boys with a father in the home. Girls without a father in the home are more likely to get pregnant or have sex before they’re really ready. I don’t think we have enough data to assess homes without mothers, but I don’t think many would say a home without a mother is better.
Yes, a home with a loving homosexual couple is better than a home with abusive or irresponsible biological parents. But a home with a loving mother and father is simply better for children than any other arrangement.
This is just a fact of our biology. There may be cases where the best is not available, and a home with a homosexual couple is arguably better than, say, a foster home. But in as many cases as we can, we should strive for the best possible environments for children. Our society and civilization depend on it.
“I agree that Kerry is a self-absorbed egomaniac.”
No need to bring the Democratic primaries into this! 🙂
We know that boys without a father in the home tend to get into more trouble than boys with a father in the home. Girls without a father in the home are more likely to get pregnant or have sex before they’re really ready.
Couldn’t that be due to the fact that those kids are raised by single parents, who unfortunately don’t always have enough time, energy, or resources to devote to their kids? Aren’t two parents better than one?
Can you cite a study showing that kids raised by two parents of the same gender commit more crimes, do more drugs, that sort of thing, than kids raised by parents of different genders, or is this just based on preconceptions? There are well-adjusted kids out there who were raised by two loving parents of the same gender. Sure, those kids will have a different experience, but so what? Kids have to deal with being different all the time. What about a Jewish kid growing up in a Christian neighborhood? What about a kid of mixed-race parentage? We don’t ban those arrangements.
B.P.: Yes, I would argue that your marraige is not as full as one that is open to procreation.
I guess one difference is we can’t tell that by looking at you, or before you were married, as we could with a same sex couple.
A same sex coupling is publicly closed to procreation in a way that heterosexual marriage is not, even yours.
B.P.: Yes, I would argue that your marraige is not as full as one that is open to procreation.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the legal status of a particular marriage. Are you saying that couples should have children first and then get married? If that’s what you believe, then I guess that’s what you believe.
Also, what does “publicly closed to procreation” mean?
Great thread! It should be noted that g/l/b/t folk have kids and get married on a regular basis every single day. Millions and millions of kids have one or more g/l/b/t parents. Aside from the argument over whether a same-sex couple should be able to legally tie the knot is the question of these families. Every year thousands & thousands of marriages take place in which one of the parties is queer. The social and familial consequences of these decisions affect the entire society. No matter what the solution is to be we must keep the kids and affected families involved in these decisions. It’s all very well and good to get in semantic and lofty arguments about the proper definitions of words and the proper role of marriage in our society but the real issue is how do we best manage & recognize the varied types of relationships which exist no matter how the word “marriage” is defined.
Oh yes and Jimbo said: I don’t think we have enough data to assess homes without mothers, but I don’t think many would say a home without a mother is better.
Actually studies have shown, I don’t have any close at hand sorry, that girls raised by single fathers do very well thanks you very much.
(Single father here – 1 daughter)
And as a divorced dad with primary custody of my three sons (all doing damn well, thank you – AFROTC-boy is an honors student at UVA, Middle Guy is in Acadmenic Decathalon and will probably go to States in debate, and Littlest guy is probably smarter and happier than they are) I’ll also suggest that while the ideal of a loving household with a mother and father committed for life is a nice notion, many of us manage somehow to raise kids into good adults in other ways.
A.L.
Actually, studies show that kids raised by a single FATHER are more intelligent, successful and better adjusted than kids raised by a tradtional mother and father.
Hello,
I”m new here, but not to the debate on gay marriage.
Those opposed to it, if you wanted to reduce their argument to it’s lowest and most common are literally left with:
“we think we’re special and superior (heteros) and God said so and that’s that!”
They are looking at marriage through a Christian male and Euro centric lens. Which is very narrow.
As are the laws that qualify a person to marry in the first place in the US as we know them.
The things most damaging to any family or couple isn’t disapproval or homosexuality, but extreme debt, addiction, violence, neglect and adultery and promiscuity.
Yet any human being that engages in these things isn’t prevented from marrying.
These attributes have nothing to do with sexual orientation, but require lying and betrayal to be maintained so therefore are immoral.
Gay people want to be honest, forthright and open about their orientation and who they are with.
There’s a difference in asserting sexuality as opposed to asserting one’s humanity.
Christians opposed to gay people really haven’t cornered the market on the ability to make a distinction about what’s moral, truthful or an assault or threat.
Our halls of government are rife with adulterers and the divorced.
It was as insulting to watch the President sign the DOMA(with his marriage in the condition it was in) as it was for this same draft dodger to implement the DADT policy in the military.
Which all points to this:
gays and lesbians are being punished for succeeding at what heteros would like to think is their domain alone.
Family, fertility, and child care-courage and sacrifice.
Rather than an inferior product of nature to be isolated and disappeared.
Gays and lesbians are in fact an important and talented pool and integrated into all family.
Thus the universal and indigenous fact of gays as a part of human life forever.
Besides, those not burdened with the expense and time that children require, directly and indirectly benefit from people without children. Such as gays or the single or infertile.
So to say that ONLY those who can have kids or plan to are the only people to be considered for marriage is bull.
The Constitution DOES consider the minority and protect it.
Because majorities aren’t always right.
Segregationists and sexists found that out.
If you don’t believe that race and sexual orientation is the same, you’d be right.
But it can be recognized as inherent, immutable and irreversible as one’s race.
We’ve never in nature EVER been pure. In gender traits, color, ethnicity-marriage rites, sexuality or religion.
And these do not make one superior in how children fare.
Inferiority in ‘the natural order’ would come naturally. The laws of man wouldn’t have to ENSURE IT.
Kerry needs to get a clue.
Women were making a mortal decision just to have sex. AIDS is just the new syphillis. Syphillis has been around longer and was without cure and had the same devastation for centuries as AIDS does now and sexual orientation makes no difference.
Men and women have been at violent ODDS through the centuries. Marriage wasn’t necessarily romantic, beneficial or non violent. It’s refinement and definition has evolved and the greatest progress made in the 70’s. And as said before, it’s been progress for the better.
Gay marriage is a step towards the better and NO ONE has proven otherwise.
Other marriage trends have a history and precedence we already know is negative and biased such as polygamy and incest. Which still isn’t about sexual orientation.
We should know better now about demonizing ENTIRE groups and punishing them for being social successes.
Dwelling on conjecture doesn’t stick to the issue.
Which is is our country going to stick to it’s creed of equality where it’s citizens are concerned, or renege when the moral and political arguments are dired up?
We’ve seen this movie, where the same old men try to look for a superiority loophole in the law.
Segregationists accused the justices who invoked equality before of being liberals, leftists and subversive of the majority’s rights.
Oooops! I meant to say, those burdened with children, benefit from those who aren’t. Directly or indirectly.
For what it’s worth, I’m a hetero woman, married interracially. My union still isn’t accepted all the time, and even less to back in the 50’s.
A huge majority disapproved of mixed marriages and considered the children damaged.
Of course, it wasn’t what the couples did that was wrong, but the RESPONSE to them
This is true of gay couples and their children.
What do the anti gay want to do, throw rocks at families with two dads, or two moms…or if they are single walk up to them and demand to know if they are gay?
Notice:
That Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Billy Graham, Lew Sheldon, Phyllis Schafly…all the staunchest of ‘family values’ advocates have NEVER adopted a child? Let alone a child of color with HIV or drug exposure?
No, they make a BIG deal out of their nuclear, biological, socially inbred families.
They have little to answer regarding the many thousands and thousands of warehoused children abandoned abandoned by their hetero parents.
They also have little so say to the fact that no matter what kind of family or structure you come from, homosexuality is as spontaneous as heterosexuality and environmental factors within the same households don’t have the impact they think.
The only environmental influences are acceptance of the child’s homosexuality.
Gay headed families tend to have less racism, sexism and a more realistic attitude about sexuality than children from more strictly traditional homes.
Gee, a future generation without racial, sexist or sexually unrealistic stigmas.
This is a BAD thing?
Kerry, ya think?
I think it all comes down to this: Do we really want adulteres in government telling Americans how to manage our personal affairs? And what could be more personal than a marriage? Remember, the reason why our Founder Father’s established the radical idea of individual liberty is because no one can be trusted with power, first and foremost because of the hypocrasy. How many people actually practice what they preach? Not only did the adulterer Bill Clinton sign DOMA, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another adulterer, held a prayer visual with the Clintons in the White House. If that isn’t enough to make one lose his lunch, nothing will.
Very interesting post and comments.
I have to admit I’m still on the fence about gay marriage, and stories like this one tend to pull me in both directions.
On the one hand, for me fairness and compassion are the strongest arguments in favour of gay marriage. I hear a story like that one, and it just seems wrong that a loving, committed couple should have to be put through that.
On the other hand, the fairness and compassion argument could just as easily be applicable to other, less traditional, relationships. Couldn’t many of the same arguments be applied to elderly siblings living together, or “couples” made up of three or more people?
My concern isn’t about two men with wedding rings living next door to me tomorrow. It’s what small changes now could lead to by the time my son is my age. Maybe the risks of any large scale changes are small, and maybe it wouldn’t be the end of the world if the concept of marriage did end up being radically reworked. But I don’t know that and I don’t think anyone else does for sure either, and the possibility makes me uneasy.
If I were forced to take a stand on this, I think the potential risks are outweighed by the real problems that real people are facing today. I suppose that means that I am in favour of gay marriage, but it isn’t without some trepidation.
Last time I checked there was no fertility test for heterosexuals getting married. If marriage is all about procreation, then why are elderly women allowed to marry?
People who are against gay marriage have the option of not getting married to someone of their same sex. They should not have the option of denying this to other people.
There is no rational, non-religious reason to prohibit same sex marriage. There are plenty of irrational, illogical reasons. That is not good enough.
Hi Sean,
To qualify to marry, you need only four things.
1. to be of age.
2. to not be related
3. to not be already married
4. to be opposite gender
We can knock out the fourth rule, easily.
As I said in my other post, there is a precedent that has been rejected because abuses and biases were evident in polygamist or incestuous relationships.
Where is the demand for them in general, really?
Considering how many first spouses and first born children are abandoned, I doubt ANYONE would demand the right to have even MORE of the same to abandon.
That polygamist in Utah with the five ‘wives’ and 29 children was hiding a lot worse going on.
He has tried to make a play to co opt his issue with the ‘privacy’ one regarding sodomy.
However, there was a public interest clause in there as well.
This polygamist had children by two sisters and a mother and daughter. Creating a dangerously inbred situation.
The sisters were thirteen and fourteen when they got pregnant.
Also, he had no job. The four women he wasn’t married to were eligible for welfare and were receiving it.
He’s in jail now for statutory rape and welfare fraud.
He’s saddled the public with his child support responsibility, and abused young women.
And he cites religious expression to do it.
Which is the motivation for all US polygamists.
However, when Saudis visit the US, their multiple
wives are recognized.
Most marriages anywhere are recognized everywhere, gay marriage being the exception.
The riskiest sex to the public is hetero sex.
Children being the problem, there are too many millions who go neglected and abused. When they are aborted, they are killed-still a terrible option for what might be the birth of a healthy infant.
Being a talented parent isn’t the exclusive domain of heterosexuals, it’s not even the exclusive domain of humans.
It’s an individual talent, not bestowed on GROUPS.
Gays and lesbians after all, come from families too. Even better if it’s an accepting and inclusive family-that way a child needing adoption would come into a well balanced familial network.
I know few people who adopt children without that sort of network.
For example, when people adopt a different color child from themselves, their social network has plenty of people who do look like that child.
Same for different gender or orientation or physical talents.
Good parents know when they have a certain void and find the right person or people to fill it.
To talk as if gay parents live in such isolation voluntarily is a very poor argument against adoption simply because an ideal isn’t there.
Who’s life is EVER ideal, or STAYS that way without extenuating circumstances?
I am distressed with your statements concerning the recent Massachusetts’ Supreme Court Statement.
What is your logic? Do you not believe that All American citizens should be afforded the same rights and privileges? The court only ruled that the legal protections afford by a marriage license should be available to all couples willing to agree to the current legal terms that the government has set forth. There are obviously positive and negative implications. However, if two couples one homosexual, and the other heterosexual both agree to abide by those legal terms, why would the government fail to recognize one but not the other?
Marriage is an institution our society has formed to assist and provide unique rights to rear children. Indeed, raising children does require unique resources and support. If this the reason to reject homosexual couples marriage licenses… that gays not procreate (although many gay couples do raise children), then apply the same litmus test to heterosexual couples as well. Why not give heterosexual couples five years to create offspring or their marriage certificate changes to a domestic partnership certificate.
However, I think the logic in your position is not really based on the fact that homosexuals can’t procreate and therefore do not need the support and protection afforded them through a marriage licenses. I think it is more prejudice. Am I correct? And if this is the case, what other prejudices and whom else do you believe should have special treatment under the law?
You should carefully reconsider your position here. Although this is a emotional issue for many, it is not either constitutionally, morally, or logically a defendable position.
Sincerely,
Jeff Krieble
Plantation, Fl
“My concern isn’t about two men with wedding rings living next door to me tomorrow. It’s what small changes now could lead to by the time my son is my age.”
You mean if the gay marriage ban goes forth small changes like the government eventually telling your son who he can mate with? Give the government an inch, it takes a mile….
Banning same-sex marriages could have serious economic consequences. Think of the millions of dollars that these businesses could lose if they could not cater to same-sex couples who want to wed: caterers, photographers, tuxedo rental shops, bridal shops, bakers, liquor stores, printing shops, musicians, decorators, the Post Office, hairdressers, make-up artists, ministers, Hallmark, and eventually – divorce lawyers should the marriage fail.
The main problem with saying that reasonable people could indeed oppose gay marriage is that reasonable people could believe absolutely anything at all, because what passes for “reasonable” these days, isn’t.
I will join the debate later on.
For the moment, a practical suggestion for gay couples concerned about estate and medical issues.
Each party should execute a Revocable Trust naming the other partner a Successor Trustee, while at the same time executing Durable Powers of Attorney. Cost, hundreds of dollars, not thousands.
Diogenes
R.H. Garcia –
And make damn sure to do it when there is no possible question as to your legal competence to do so.
A.L.
I doubt that gay marriage will ever gain recognition on the national level. Marriage has always be primarily a state matter. I doubt that gay marriage will ever gain recognition in more than a few states, leaving us with a mixed bag of laws across the country. Marriage is fundamentally a contract between two people. Valid contracts are enforceable under contract law. Two people, regardless of gender, can enter into a written contract, file it of record in a courthouse and have everything that marriage provides except the “benefits” which government bestows on marriages. Government has always dicriminated against those who are not married. Look at the unequal treatment of individual, unmarried tax payers compared to married couples. Let’s start by removing the benefits which married couples now enjoy. Then there will be nothing to be gained by gay marriages except the pride of identification in society as a legally married couple. Yes, for some people pride is everything!
Diogenes
Diogenes,
Single tax payers are discriminated against? Then what was/is the “Marriage Penalty?”
I’m so confused.
*REBUTTAL: FAQS ON THE FEDERALIST PERSPECTIVE TO GAY MARRIAGE (with apologies to Dean Barnett)*
The process of legally appointing a guardian of estate (including person and property), frankly, is not that difficult to do, and do legally. If you’re really so hard up on the $500 or so which it takes to get a competent attorney to make one out, spend some time on the web looking up the law in your state on the matter. (If you want to roll the dice, you could try having it done by an attorney who charges less, but I would advise against it.)
Nowadays, there is really no reason you can’t find everything you need to know, translated from legalese to English, on the Internet. It might take a good couple of hours, or 8, but again, it’s just not that difficult to learn — even including making sure that any potential conflicts don’t wind up causing problems during incapacity, or later, in probate.
Yes, you say, but why should I even have to take the time or spend the money to do so, when married heterosexual couples need not?
Well, it’s about more than morals, in a strictly judgmental religious or otherwise-based sense. (Alhtough “morals” are, contrary to what some say who misconstrue the Supreme Court opinion in _Lawrence v. Texas_, perfectly within the purview of a state’s police power. Think, for example, about laws criminalizing sexual relations between an adult step-child and his or her step-parent.)
The reason the government puts forth for granting such default, automatic legal and monetary benefits on heterosexual marriage is due, in good part, to the state’s belief that heterosexual marriage is the best environment to provide for the raising of healthy children. Fairly legitimate reason for the state to have for getting involved in such matters, don’t ya think? (By the way, that standard — some possible rational relation to a legitimate government interest, quite a low threshold, is all a state needs to pass a law with regard to its police powers (the power to impose restrictions that are reasonably related to promotion and maintenance of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public), provided the law does not conflict with other fundamental rights or “suspect classifications” (of which sexual orientation, according to law, is not included).
Well, you don’t agree that the whole “child-rearing environment” is a good enough, fair enough, or accurate enough reason? Tough luck – again, the law only requires a possible, rational reason for a statute in such cases.
And, by the way, what is the basis of the underlying rationale for preferring heterosexual couples in child-rearing environments? Well, historically, it has been shown that a stable, nurturing, non-abusive couple, *male with female*, is the most likely one, compared to all others, for raising a successful, healthy, productive adult.
*Can* a homosexual couple rear a child to be a successful, health, productive adult? Of course. *Can* a heterosexual couple provide an environment that is not stable or nurturing or non-abusive? Of course. But an exception does not make the rule. Certainly, I would prefer a child who otherwise would be placed in foster care or a “group home” to be adopted by a loving homosexual couple. And the laws of most states do allow this, with varying degrees of obstacles in different states. Still, based on thousands of years of empirical evidence, it is simply undeniable that, *all things being equal*, the complimentary and different aspects which a male and female bring to a child-rearing environment are more beneficial than those, again, *all things being equal*, which a same-sex couple can provide.
So, fine, you say, why must benefits such as guardianship presumptions, probate administration, tax benefits, etc. be exclusive to heterosexual marriage? Can’t the state still provide for all these benefits to married couples while still providing them for those in homosexual relationships, such as by allowing for “civil unions?”
Well, if you’re the state, and if you buy into the who notion that heterosexual marriages are a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for providing the *best* possible environment for child-rearing, then it is rational (there’s that world again) to want to encourage society to embrace marriage and to incentivize entering into the marriage relationship. The laws benefiting marriage have the *express* purpose of providing for these advantageous incidents to marriage. Otherwise, why bother getting married if you don’t really care about the need for your relationship to be officially “blessed” by the state? Why bother with the hassle, the potential later problems (including the legal and financial ones of divorce), the lack of flexibility incurred from marriage?
Now, these state-induced “nudges” are indeed helpful to promoting marriage over simple cohabitation with your significant other. But, for men, even these nudges may not be enough. Face it, men are more likely to cheat than women are. Men are more likely to lose interest in the relationship once the physical bloom of sexual attraction has worn off the flower. And men are have a very small part to play, just considering the investment of time, in pregnancy, not to mention that men don’t have to deal with the other physiological and psychological effects of pregnancy on women. A man is therefore more likely to leave a pregnant woman than the pregnant woman is to leave the man.
The sad male who decides that the negatives outweigh the positives in the situation of his female significant other becoming pregnant is not likely to be swayed by state-provided financial benefits. There is, however, one thing that does induce such men to “settle down” with a woman he has impregnated and otherwise loves and cares for, but lacks the desire or responsibility to overcome his natural desire to not stick around for the child-rearing part: societal stigma. Fortunately, it is still frowned upon to get a woman pregnant and then decide you don’t want to stick around. Still, if there is no “official” marriage, it is much easier to change your mind later in pregnancy or after the child is born. If this societal stigma is responsible, in part, for the decision to go “all in” and get married, then not only is the actual benefit of marriage achieved, but also the concurring mental change in the male mind to shifting his outlook in a manner which will lead to wanting to stay in the marriage and “work things out” during the difficult times. (Flip side of the coin: the very slight stigma still left about divorce combined with the state imposed detriments of divorce help to ensure that there is still incentive to “work things out” if the appropriate mindset does not take hold once married.)
The state role in helping induce marriage for those who otherwise would not get married but also would not leave their pregnant significant other is clear. But, what about those who not only won’t marry, but are inclined not to even stick around? The societal stigma, conscious or unconscious, plays a not insignificant role there. And this why those who not only oppose gay marriage also oppose civil unions. It helps to further erode that stigma against cohabitation without marriage and impregnating someone who is not your wife. This stigma is born out of thousands of years of civilization and is not something which is natural to society otherwise. It goes against some otherwise powerful urges men would otherwise have, urges acted on without a second thought in pre-civilization days.
Now, maybe these theories about the best environment for raising a child are wrong, and maybe societal stigma has very little to do with inducing marriage or inducing the male to stick around. But, what if they’re right? If you don’t think they are right, are you absolutely positive? This is why slow, incremental change, in which we aware of what we are doing and its consequences, should be the method of those who do not believe in the the above theories – because what if they’re wrong?
(By the way, this is part of the argument against liberal judicial activism, that is creating new individual rights. [Yes, of course, there is also conservative judicial activism, usually thought of as restricting already existing individual rights or imposing moral laws based on some sort of federal police power (which does not exist) on the states.] Those against liberal judicial activism who are equally against conservative judicial activism base their views on the though that we let “liberal” states who want to make their state a “petri dish” of societal experimentation change their laws, without imposing these changes on other states. If it works, great, we see that there is no harm in gay marriage. If it doesn’t, well, now we have such definitive evidence why gay marriage may not be the best idea. This, boys and girls, is called federalism. It’s what you don’t have when the old farts in robes (i.e., judges) in state courts or the federal courts decide they know better than the rest of his or her fellow citizens, and are impatient with the ignorant, backwards Neanderthals who don’t see things their way, and decide that they can ignore the legislatures or make up their own laws and “speed up” the process toward achieving their eventual utopia.)
This societal stigma was not easy to achieve, took a long time to achieve, and goes against the normal grain of human nature. Once we let the genie out of the bottle, it may be very, very difficult to put back should we want to do so.
i feel that gay marriage is so awesome dude! =]
like i did my research and the reason that i know of why they didnt make gay marriage legal is because of religion stuff. its so hard cus like they [christian or catholic or w,e] say that god wants everyone to be happy but yet he disapprove of people being/ falling in love with the same sex. marriage to me is important even though people love each other and thats what really matter but marriage is the proof that someone do loves someone.! but yeah if people disapprove on same sex marriage then its fine dont think or talk about it just ignore it and let people live how or the way they want to live.
With all the talk about gay marriage I, as someone who has sought the help of many “marriage counselors”:http://www.marriagemax.com was curios about whether the divorce rate of these marriages. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were below average.
What will be the long term effect on Gay marriages? What spiritual leaders says?