Are Debates on Important Social Issues Always as Lame as that on Gay Marriage?
While I wouldn’t call myself an advocate of gay marriage,* at least not at the present time, I believe the debate on gay marriage is one of the most important of our time. And not merely for gay people. Scholars increasingly recognize the importance of marriage in promoting emotional and financial** well-being.
If traditional marriage promotes good qualities among straight people, then it should also foster similar qualities in gay people. Too few advocates of gay marriage discuss the non-governmental benefits of this ancient and honorable institution.
Indeed, it seems that most of the advocates of gay marriage (with the prominent exception of Jonathan Rauch–though I’m sure he’s not the only one) are those least likely to discuss its social (as opposed to its political) benefits. In many cases, these people hold worldviews similar to those who, in the and 1960s and 1970s, questioned the value of marriage as a social institution.
Despite the importance of this issue, it seems that whenever I read a piece of gay marriage, on either side of the debate, the advocates and adversaries merely repeat talking points, misrepresenting the other side’s points and relying on cliches (and/or slogans) rather than arguments. To be sure, there have been a number of thoughtful pieces on both sides of the debate — and (at least) one really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other.
But, on the whole the debate has been particularly lame. Just take a gander at some of the comments to my posts on gay marriage. I’ll suggest how (I believe) advocates of marriage should talk about the issue and people will respond by attacking Bush, talking about “rights” or suggesting that those who opposed gay marriage are merely standing in the path of a foreordained outcome. That history will judge them all as narrow-minded troglodytes.
Too many of our critics rarely address the points we are trying to raise, just repeating the same slogans they would use to counter any opponent of gay marriage, barely noticing that my basic point has long been about the quality of the debate–the need to address (and promote) the benefits of marriage rather than merely pressing for the “right” (by which they mean “privilege” or “benefit.”)
The opponents of gay marriage are no better. At least those who comment here (most of them at least) do show some sensitivity to gay concerns (but that has more to deal with the nature of this blog than the overall caliber of gay marriage opponents for most of them just dismiss our ideas merely because of the first three letters of the blog’s name). They merely assume (given the behavior of a substantial portion of the gay male community) that gay people cannot meet the obligations of marriage, being more interested in securing its political benefits and not assuming its obligations, including monogamy.
Maybe it has always been that debates on important issues have always been lame. Perhaps that is why we remember the Lincoln-Douglas debates (focusing on slavery, the most important issue facing America in the 1850s) nearly a century and a half later. They stand out because both sides were different from other debates of the day; each man was particularly eloquent in his expression of his position.
As important as the slavery debate was to social improvement in the mid-nineteenth century, it may well have been that much of the debate was as silly as is our debate today on gay marriage. We only see more of that now because the Internet allows any group to publish its statements. So, rather than being lost to history, the most inane ramblings of the various advocacy groups are preserved for posterity.
Maybe I’m just an idealist in hoping for a good debate on this all-important topic. Perhaps it’s just that throughout history, the real quality arguments have survived over time while the rest have been lost to posterity. Fortunately, there are a few advocates with the rhetorical skill and intelligence of Lincoln and Douglas. It’s just too bad they’re not gaining enough prominence in the current debate. That way, we might better understand the valid arguments against gay marriage. And better appreciate how this ancient institution could benefit gay people.
If the debate on slavery in the 1850s was less lame than our debate today on gay marriage, then perhaps a gifted young lawyer from Illinois may not have captured the national imagination and gone on to serve as president — and save the union.
It would be nice if we had a few more Lincolns — on both sides of the debate. And not just on this issue.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
*******
*I believe we should push for civil unions.
** Via Instapundit.
21 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If anything deserves a “just read the whole thing”, the post by Jane Galt that you linked does.
Comment by John in IL — May 22, 2007 @ 12:50 am - May 22, 2007
What gets me is that Bush and Kerry (for example) hold the same views on gay marriage. Many prominant democrats share that same view as well. However, Bush is the racist, sexist, bigot homophobe and the libs are supposed to be the guardians of homosexuality and gay marriage.
You won’t get anywhere if you continue to be dishonest with yourself and those you wish to convince. But then they wouldn’t be leftists if they were honest.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 22, 2007 @ 1:30 am - May 22, 2007
“Too many of our critics rarely address the points we are trying to raise, just repeating the same slogans they would use to counter an opponent of gay marriage, barely noticing that my basic point has long been about the quality of the debate–the need to address (and promote) the benefits of marriage rather than merely pressing for the “right” (by which they mean “privilege” or “benefit.”)”
Talk about repeating yourself….
Comment by sean — May 22, 2007 @ 10:33 am - May 22, 2007
I agree with John. Jane’s really long post is worth reading.
I too am ambivalent re. gay marriage. I find the debate revolves around two general rhetorical areas:
1) Gay marriage is needed for material reasons such as inheritance, hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc. — upon which the state presumes a necessary interest of heterosexual partners, granted by marriage and reflected in the law. As I’ve argued before, these interests are not specifically marital and can be accomplished via ad hoc legislation. For example, inheritance is a matter of property rights, not marital status; if a gay individual leaves his property to his partner, that is his right as a property earner/owner and I fail to see why the state has an interest in usurping this right.
I suspect this material argument is one of the talking points that doesn’t so much reflect an endemic denial of individual rights, but as an oft-repeated (and therefore perceived) legal slight, assumes an unwarranted rhetorical importance. If there are many cases of this kind before the courts, I’m unaware of them — I’d be happy to change my presumptions if anyone can provide me the information. Overall, this line of argument reduces marriage as a series of economic/material benefits and cheapens the value of the discussion to mere haggling.
2) Many gay marriage advocates seems awfully wedded to the idea that the issue involves an emphasized equality above all else, meaning that the marriage of a homosexual couple is about a public display of legal exercise rather than about love. It is understandable that a group that has often been victimized by the societal majority (I believe this is overstated nowadays, but I also believe it to be undeniable) would have a difficult time seeing itself as anything other than a non-victimized community and in doing so, choosing to rid itself of its worst reflexive hypersensitivity. Thus, it is understandable that some in the gay community (particularly many of its spokespeople) advocate gay marriage as a means of final state approval, i.e. “It’s fine if you don’t privately accept homosexuality, but we’re going to use the state to force you to accept it as a legal entity and we’re doing it via the institution that most defines the societal value of heterosexuality.”
* * * * * * * *
Then again, I tend to be skeptical of gay marriage because I don’t like the political persuasion(s) of self-appointed gay rights spokespeople (and the apparently purely political and self-aggrandizing reasons they advocate it). I also tend to respect tradition; I grew up in a relatively conservative home without divorce or adultery (that I know of). Also, I’m not in a relationship with a guy I’d consider marrying, although I’ve certainly loved a few boyfriends with my whole heart. Perhaps if I were to find The One, I’d think differently. Perhaps if the right to marry were extended to me, I’d be more open to finding The One.
Also, I’m a firm believer that prejudice is merely ignorance, not malevolence and that much of this ignorance is due to a lack of exposure — a fear caused by a certain invisibility (out of sight, out of mind — this can be especially true for gay people because orientation is not a physical characteristic). For many blacks, the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s allowed for greater assimilaton in the face of bigotry; these laws provided the platform for their acceptance and much of the white fear and ignorance dissolved after a certain amount of face time with black Americans. By the same token, perhaps a legal basis for gay relationships would encourage a greater social openness, thus breaking down the ignorance and fear that plague so many. However, while this might be a beneficial byproduct, when we use marriage as a specific means to attack the general problem, we lose the sight of the inherent value of marriage between two loving people and the social value of the public commitment (as well as the legal responsibilities to each other and to their ostensible offspring), as becomes apparent when I listen to gay marriage activists.
In the end, I agree with Jane’s ambivalence and trepidation. There are ramifications we undoubtedly can’t see from our emancipated perspective. And we can’t unring a bell.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 22, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - May 22, 2007
Yup, Sean, I do keep repeating that point because I want to see a discussion. And critics like you continue to reply by repeating the same old slogans over and over and over agian.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 22, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - May 22, 2007
I agree with the theme of the post. I also believe we should put to rest the notion of “family values” as a political weapon. For everyone wants a family, just as everyone wants love. People who advocate for “family values” are merely advocating for the ability to dictate what our families look like.
Comment by Chase — May 22, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - May 22, 2007
What gets me is that Bush and Kerry (for example) hold the same views on gay marriage. Many prominant democrats share that same view as well. However, Bush is the racist, sexist, bigot homophobe and the libs are supposed to be the guardians of homosexuality and gay marriage.
It’s true that the difference between the 2 political parties on gay marriage is mostly symantics. However, the differences on other gay issues, such as employment non-discrimination, hate crimes, civil unions, gays in the military, et al, is quite real. Because the vast majority of elected Republican officials oppose such measures, as do “the base” of the party, Bush gets more criticism for his gay marriage stance than a Democrat would, because the average Democrat uniformly supports such initiatives.
Comment by Chase — May 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - May 22, 2007
#7
That’s a load of crap. “Symantics”? Are you putting me on?
The difference is “We all know that Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot homophobes because we say so!” To hell with any evidence. That’s just the way it goes. By the definition of many liberals, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards etc. are homophobes because they oppose gay marriage.
It’s not “symantics”, it’s about sticking to the pre-cut template by mindless gay borg types. It’s part of the agenda.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 23, 2007 @ 1:55 am - May 23, 2007
TGC: Not only that.. the DNC and Howard Dean are being sued for anti-Gay discrimination.
Yet , not a peep from these idiot hypocrites.
Details here
gaypatriot.net/2007/05/19/a-reason-to-smile#comment-548730
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 2:35 am - May 23, 2007
*People who advocate for “family values” are merely advocating for the ability to dictate what our families look like.*
I call BS.
The Family Values movement came about as a reaction to the left seizing control of the culture and the schools, and using them to tear down the traditional family. The notion that a man and a woman should commit to each other for life was “patriarchal” and “oppressive.” No, instead the left promotes the idea that any dude mom happens to be hooking up with this week is just as good as a committed father, if not better. The left promotes the idea that if personal sexual fulfillment means ditching your family to hook up with somebody of the same sex, you should go for it.
These ideas and others like them have been extremely destructive. Some family arrangements are superior to others, despite leftist propaganda to the contrary.
BTW, I note that CBS’s fall schedule includes a show about married swingers. But, the assault of family values by the left in the culture is just a right-wing fever dream. Right?
Comment by V the K — May 23, 2007 @ 5:37 am - May 23, 2007
I am in favor of civil unions. I tend to agree with some others here that there is simply too much opposition to SSM and a redirection of efforts toward CU’s might yield better results. IMO, marriage is a religious institution/ceremony anyway. Many years ago, Doc and I had a ceremony in our church conducted by our Rector, thus we feel “married”, despite the lack of legal recognition.
HH, the economic issues are a very important consideration. 23 years ago, we made the decision to co-mingle assets. At first glance this did not seem to be a big deal but the legal ramifications turned out to be vast. After spending several thousand dollars with an attorney/estate planner we were able to resolve some of the major issues, but the gift tax, and let this be a lesson to all unmarried couple who read this, still looms large. It is absolutely a fact that this is a tax code issue, indeed one of many, but what is easier to change? Tax code or allowing CUs.
Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - May 23, 2007
David, good point. I don’t think anyone should have to spend money on an attorney to defend how they choose to bequeath their assets, regardless of the status of the relationship. Whether it’s easier to enact CUs or change a series of specific legal hurdles is both a pragmatic and a philosophical consideration, but these issues become more stark when considering extending the right to marriage (as opposed to CUs). What does the gay community gain by insisting on marriage when most in society are against it, i.e. do we risk an already tenuous support for gay relationships by taking an all-or-nothing approach? Further, which comes first — societal support for gay relationships, then gay marriage or gay marriage as a legal, enforceable recognition, then society’s support? One could make the argument that it was only until integration required the white majority to wake up and recognize blacks and others as full, free citizens did the necessary positive societal change take place. And while important (as your example illustrates), don’t material issues merely provide the argument that marriage (as currently defined, meaning heterosexual) isn’t necessary as long as the litany can be addressed through other channels (including the legalization of CUs) — an important point when convincing general society that the definition of marriage needs to be changed? In other words, when activists and advocates emphasize these issues, I can’t help but think that changing the definition of marriage is not worth the economic and other benefits that can be otherwise addressed.
As far as CUs go, I think most would think this a prelude to eventual gay marriage and they may be right. Thus, this might be a better strategy both for the immediate economic and other reasons (visitation, medical decisions, etc.) we’re discussing and for the eventual acceptance of the idea of moving from virtual to actual marriage. Then again, enaction of CU legislation (if properly written) would rid pro-gay marriage argument of these benefits that activists regularly use in support of their cause and I can imagine many might think “Well, now that we’ve granted CUs, what rights do you people not enjoy?” But then again, moving from CUs to marriage would focus the conversation on what’s really important: love and commitment. And in a deliberation on love, straight society just might surprise us.
(By the way, I should mention that I use the black American experience merely as an illustration and probably because it’s obvious and convenient. I know blacks don’t like their struggle to be compared to that of homosexuals and for some good reasons.)
Comment by HardHobbit — May 23, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - May 23, 2007
No, instead the left promotes the idea that any dude mom happens to be hooking up with this week is just as good as a committed father, if not better. The left promotes the idea that if personal sexual fulfillment means ditching your family to hook up with somebody of the same sex, you should go for it.
What a load of BS. The leading candidates for the Republican nomination for President (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and New Gingrich) have had a combined total of 11 MARRIAGES!!
Additionally, Newt Gingrich once told an ex-wife that they were getting divorced while she was in the hospital and Rudy Giuliani informed an ex-wife that they were getting a divorce through a press conference!
I guess they couldn’t find the post-it notes.
Comment by Chase — May 23, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - May 23, 2007
Tax code, by far.
As an example, last year, congressional Republicans and the Bush administration changed the rules to allow you to transfer your remaining retirement plan monies upon your death to any beneficiary — without automatically having to pay taxes on it, a benefit that had previously been reserved only for spouses.
What the country is slowly realizing is that a lot of people will be stuck in the situation of needing proxies and seamless property transfers for people who they can’t marry — i.e. boomers with elderly parents. The tax code is ripe for changing to make matters more fair and equitable for glbts — if we can kick the moonbats who are using marriage as a means of acting out their own neuroses out of leadership positions in the gay community.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 23, 2007 @ 5:18 pm - May 23, 2007
David, I’ve got a response apparently in moderation. Stay tuned.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 23, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - May 23, 2007
Pretty dishonest of you to throw Mitt Romney in that list, Chase. Of course, he’s had only one wife and they’ve been committed to each other for decades, but by throwing him into the mix, you get to up your counts and smear Romney in the process. Typical leftist tactic.
Never mind the fact that I never argued that the Right, let alone Republicans, had a monopoly on family values. But one thing I have noticed about the leftist style of argument, when they can’t defeat your point on the merits, they try to throw up some kind of smokescreen to change to subject… usually by pointing out the personal hypocrisies of people outside the argument space.
If you ever come up with a real rebuttal, bring it on.
Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 10:45 am - May 24, 2007
Your fluff pieces on marriage ramble on and on–words looking for a thought. Stay off the pretty, frilly words–filler, really–and say something substantial. Then you might get some decent comments. But good comments require decent readers. The quality you have now–”GayLeftBorg,” etc.–really don’t make the cut. But good luck with the gay marriage seminar you wish you could be conducting on a blog filled with invective and nonsense charges from the other coast. Really, good luck.
Comment by jimmy — May 24, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - May 24, 2007
13, 16 Actually, if I were trying to make the point that Republicans are hypocrites on marriage or whatever, I would have intentionally left Romney out. Ten marriages for 4 people (an average of 2.5 spouses) sounds more “impressive” than 11 marriages for 5 people (an average of 2.2 spouses).
Later on, I’ll try to add something substantial to the debate, Dan.
Comment by Pat — May 25, 2007 @ 11:35 am - May 25, 2007
I’m rather disappointed in this post, since your main point — that proponents of same-sex marriage don’t discuss the non-legal benefits — is simply not true. I had left a link to this post, a response to your previous post on this subject, which you obviously did not read. My point was that the awareness of the non-legal benefits permeates the discussion and is not only subtext but has often been stated explicitlly. It’s there in court decisions, in interviews, in news articles, and in blog posts. I also made what I hope is a clear exposition of why so much of the public debate is necessarily about the legal and financial aspects.
Ironically enough, the banner headline on Chicago Free Press this week says, in big black letters, “Love and Marriage.” I think that makes it pretty clear what the emphasis is.
Comment by Hunter — May 27, 2007 @ 7:23 am - May 27, 2007
Hunter–my main point wasn’t that proponents of same-sex marriage don’t dicuss its benefits but that on the whole the debate on gay marriage is pretty lame. I do acknowledge that, from time to time, there are those who take the issue seriously and speak out accordingly.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 27, 2007 @ 11:39 am - May 27, 2007
[...] the quality of the debate in the New York Assembly seems to have been as lame as the general debate on gay marriage, this is how democracy works. While it’s unfortunate [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Meanwhile in the Empire State . . . — June 13, 2008 @ 2:34 am - June 13, 2008