I note with sorrow the success of Proposition 8 in California, which will amend the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Of all the threats that imperil us in these uncertain times, that this is what they chose to focus on is a depressing comment indeed.
I simply do not understand the argument here. I am married. I am not gay. But I cannot, try as I might, imagine in what possible way the “sanctity” of my own marriage, or, for that matter, anyone else’s, is diminished by allowing members of the same sex to be married as well.
Some have argued that the state has an interest in fostering stable families. Indeed it does. The vows of marriage, made publicly in the presence of the people whose trust and respect matters most, can have a powerful effect, one that works to redirect the libido toward productive and responsible activities. But the further claim that because same-sex marriages do not produce offspring, they therefore do not deserve the State’s approval, is nonsense. If this were the case, then to be consistent, the State should allow only those couples that are demonstrably fertile to marry.
Two people, very much in love, wish to make a public pledge to honor, protect, and cherish one another. What can possibly be wrong with that? It seems so petty, so spiteful for society to withold its blessing — so mired in unexamined instinctual and religious aversions, and so very devoid of empathy, of love, of all the qualities that we profess to admire as the noblest aspects of the human spirit.
Above all I simply cannot make out who stands to lose anything here. If another’s life can be enriched at no cost to my own, by what moral or practical argument can I possibly object? Why would anyone want to?
19 Comments
Well said. I completely agree.
Thanks, Peter.
Instead of extending the rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples, we ought to be eliminating the special status accorded to married couples. I’ve got nothing against people, of whatever sex or gender, in whatever numbers, coming to mutual agreement about their relationships and properties, and memorializing those agreements in legally enforceable contracts. But that’s not quite what’s on the table here. Rather, same sex pairs (not trips, quads, quints, …) are seeking the same privileged status that has long been enjoyed by hetero pairs. Well, those hetero pairs should never have been given privileged status in the first place. In practical terms, the unmarried have for a long time subsidized the lifestyles of the married — and that sucks.
Hi Bob,
Sure, that’s fair enough, and a reasonable topic for debate: does society have any interest in promoting marriage at all?
The real issue for gay couples isn’t access to subsidies, though, but recognition that their bond is as meaningful, and as deserving of society’s approbation, as that of hetero couples. They want to be accepted, to participate, and to belong.
Malcolm,
Articulation abounds today in a matter close to our hearts.
Thanks,
Jeanie
California always trumps Arkansas where these sorts of dumb laws are concerned. Prior to this most recent vote several legislative attempts to ban gay people from the foster care system in Arkansas were made. They always passed vote muster but could not pass Constitutional muster.
So. This most recent vote resulted in a ban on unmarried couples, hetero or gay, (but we realize precisely which couples were the target) from participating in the pure act of taking into a family setting, unfortunate children.
I’m not gay either, but while I’ve neither been a ward of the State, it seems to me that being a child in some sort of a family structure would be greatly preferred.
I, for one, bristle at the suggestion that my marriage is not “real” because my spouse and I do not have children. No, I am not gay, and my spouse is a woman. But we still don’t have any children.
“Oh, but at least you can have children,” the close-minded say.
Oh really? What about all the heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another, physically can’t have children? Does that fact invalidate their marriage?
Even though I am a Christian, I find myself frustrated and on the verge of boiling over with anger when I talk to Christians who support a ban on same-sex marriage.
Agree that it is a travesty that some people are denied the right to marriage. Also that there are certainly more pressing issues that face us, as a nation, as a world. Which I would take to hold for both sides. Maybe once we’re certain half of California isn’t going to be swallowed by rising seas, we can focus on who can and can’t get married there.
Hi Court, and welcome. Don’t think we’ve seen you here before.
Having spent many years traveling to LA to make records, it seems to me that the urgency of the rising-seas issue depends on which half gets swallowed.
Hi Charles,
The problem is that they, I’m sure, feel the same way.
I’m switching teams so I can avoid paying the 9.3% California income tax.
Hello Malcolm,
Thanks. Got here through Maverick Philosopher. I’m all subscribed here now.
Now, if it were just LA that were getting swallowed up by the oceans and not, say, the Maldives or Bangladesh, then I guess I wouldn’t be so opposed to global warming.
OK, since everyone here appears to belong to the right-thinking (that is, left-thinking) set on this issue, let me give it a shot. Marriage and the family that goes with it is just about the oldest institution of mankind (sorry, “humanity”). It also appears to be the fundamental institution of society; as evidence of this, just think of how we react when we hear of, say, Stalin encouraging children to rat on parents: we feel it outrageous, therefore family is more important to society than government. And we’re going to monkey around with the fundamental institution of society? Just because we “can’t understand” how it could possibly hurt marriage? (Reminds me a bit of those who don’t believe in evolution: “It’s incomprehensible to me.”)
A couple of objections, more political and less basic, are: as for how it could harm marriage, do you realize how difficult it is for young men to settler down in marriage? And that when they see gay men doing it that will make marriage look quite bad in their eyes? Why do you suppose that lesbians getting married are the front page photo of choice for this issue; do you think it might have something to do with lots of people seeing 2 men in a sexual relationship off-putting?
And do you really think that gays want marriage? Some of them do, but others, most IMO, are in it to mock it and harm it.
Dennis – I agree that family is more important to society than government. But what’s family got to do with the institution of marriage? Something tells me that family and society existed long before it began formally memorializing the living arrangements of it’s members. So I have no reason to believe that society (as distinct from society as we know it…) would be imperiled if it were to get out of the marriage business.
As an aside, it really does matter, for the cogency of both sides of the issue, that we recognize the difference between the heterosexual pair bond and the issue of offspring.
Hi Dennis,
I agree, as I think most people would, that the family is just about the fundamental unit of society — if individuals are the atoms, then families are the molecules. But, as Bob points out, nobody is “monkeying” with anyone’s family — and what’s more, nobody is imposing anything on anyone’s marriage, either. To allow gay couples to marry imposes nothing on anyone; my own marriage, for example, will sail blithely on, utterly unaffected.
It’s parenthetically interesting that men are bothered by seeing gay male couples more than women seem to be by seeing lesbian couples, but gay couples aren’t going away, and I honestly think that the last thing going through a young man’s mind as he contemplates marrying his sweetheart is whether or not gay men can marry as well.
Finally, having lived in New York City for the past 30 years — with my wife working in real estate, and myself in the music business — I know plenty of gay couples, and I think I can safely say that none of them has any desire to mock or harm anything. You just have to look at the loving couples lined up to marry to know that they value their own relationships, and the yearning to bind themselves to one another in marriage, just as the rest of us do.
I’m generally a conservative sort, but I’m with the Left on this one.
Well, having lived near San Francisco for quite some time, I can assure you that many gays HATE normal society, and will do anything in their power to bring it down.
As for what young men may or may not contemplate before marriage, perhaps you’ve missed the huge ongoing debate about the decline of marriage and the catastrophic rise in illegitimacy. Young men need all the encouragement we can give them to get and stay married. How many “Groom” magazines do you see out on the newsstand right next to the “Bride” ones?
It is exceedingly strange that with marriage being such a discriminatory institution, after all of the thousands of years of human history, we just figured this out in the last ten years or so. My aren’t we brilliant.
Dennis — there are all sorts of people, gay and straight, who hate normal society, and want to bring it down. That doesn’t mean we have to penalize those who don’t.
I am certainly aware of the decline of marriage, etc., but I don’t see how forbidding people who love each other from securing, stabilizing, and enshrining their commitment to each other by getting married contributes to the decline of the very institution they wish to participate in. Indeed, given that bridal magazines are all about clothing, decorating, party arrangements, etc., if gay marriage is permitted you will probably get to see more of those “Groom” magazines whose absence you lament.
It took us until a hundred years or so ago to figure out that maybe the ancient institution of slavery wasn’t necessarily such a hot idea, too. We are brilliant, I think, but rather embarrasingly slow, sometimes.
I’m coming late to the conversation, but I can’t resist one comment, starting with a question: Why on earth would a young (heterosexual, I assume, though that went unstated) man be influenced in his decision to marry or not to marry by the fact that gay men (apparently women are not so influenced) are or are not allowed to marry? Seriously, are there men out there who think like that? “Honey, I’d marry you in a heartbeat, except gay men are allowed to marry, so I’m not getting married.” Really?
If so–if a man (since apparently women don’t think like this, perhaps it would be OK to allow lesbian marriage?)–if a man were to decide not to marry because gay men were allowed to marry, I woud suggest that he probably shouldn’t be marrying at all. The odds of his staying married, whether or not gay marriage is recognized as legitimate under the law, seems slim, if his commitment to the woman in question is so weak as to be broken by such a consideration.
And in any case–why should one couple not be allowed to marry on the basis that if they are, another person will decide not to marry? Huh? If you buy that car, I’ll refuse to buy a car, so you shouldn’t be allowed to buy that car?
Truly, the logic escapes me.
Thanks, Addofio, and well said.