Why (the term) “Marriage Equality” Troubles Me
Not long after marriage because the cause du jour of gay activists, the term “marriage equality” came to define their movement. So prominent has this term become that a google search (with the expression in quotation marks) yields over 2 million hits. No fewer than 2,884 news articles on yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision used the expression.
While I realize those who use the term to mean granting same-sex couples the same benefits traditional marriage has long afforded to heterosexual couples, there has long been something about the expression which has bothered me. Indeed, I’m troubled that all gay organizations (including, alas Log Cabin) as well as numerous gay activists and individuals have adopted “equality” as the defining word of the gay political movement (more on that in a subsequent post).
The noun “equality” (as opposed to the adjective “equal” in the expressions “equal opportunity” or “equal right”) has socialist overtones, while liberty is more fitting with the American tradition. But, if the goal here were liberty, it would have already been reached. For gay people are free to marry, it’s just that only two states recognize their unions as such (and grant them the privileges of the institution).
Perhaps, what bothers me the most about the term “marriage equality” is its abstraction. The California Supreme Court did little to clarify this, indeed, seemed to further muddy the waters when it defined marriage as “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own.”
Does that mean that all unions of two adults are equal? Is a monogamous union equal to a nonmonogamous one?
It’s not just the ambiguity of the term that bothers me, it’s that it serves to erase the difference between the sexes. Men and women are different. Men relate to each other differently than women relate to each other and differently than they relate to women in intimate relationships. To adopt the term “marriage equality” suggests that men and women are the same and that a male-female relationship is identical to a male-male relationship or a female-female one.
To be sure, “marriage equality” is easier to say than other expressions which might more accurately describe the movement. But, when equality becomes the operative noun and marriage almost an adjective in this expression, it seems to be reducing the traditional notion of marriage as the monogamous union of a man and a woman to any relationship between two adults. And shouldn’t be trying to elevate only certain same-sex relationships, those between individuals who have accepted the responsibilities long defined by traditional marriage, to that hallowed ground?
Perhaps, I would be less troubled by the term if more advocates of gay marriage made an effort to define that this “equality” involves that elevation of gay unions rather than a reduction of the institution. To do that, they’re going to need to define marriage as something more than the union of two adults in a loving relationship.
“Equality” doesn’t have socialist tones to me. It’s the “equality of outcome” that sounds socialist.
In terms of how society views them, no, they are not equal. In terms of the government, how would it even confirm monogamy, much less enforce any rules that would ensure or encourage it?
In terms of what rights and privileges a government grants to couples, why does it matter how men and women relate to each other?
A noble goal, but since we haven’t been able to do that with heterosexual couples, how could would do the same for homosexual ones? I certainly agree that we should emphasize that we want the same rights and responsibilies of marriage, not just the perks.
If you were testifying in court, how would you define marriage? “Two adults in a loving relationship” is certainly where is starts, although it goes beyond just that.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 16, 2008 @ 11:56 pm - May 16, 2008
I’m “equally” bothered by the term for the very simple reason that is it a lie. Not only does it try to pretend as if there is no difference between men and women, it asks us to pretend there is no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. And each of us owes our very existence to the fact that there is.
That is a deeply meaningful and important difference to society, and gays will continue to lose the marriage debate as long as they insist that society believe otherwise.
Comment by American Elephant — May 17, 2008 @ 1:07 am - May 17, 2008
I’m not pretending they aren’t different. I’m asking whether or not that difference is a justification for making marital rights exclusive to heterosexual couples. So far, I have yet to see a compelling argument for denying gay marriage beyond “because it’s tradition” or “it’s what’s best for children” without any real explanation of why it would be a detriment.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 17, 2008 @ 1:35 am - May 17, 2008
Men and women are different and unequal physically, emotionally, and most importantly they are different and unequal legally.
So if M != F, then how on earth are two men equal to two women, much less equal to a man and wife?
Are two apples equal to two oranges? Are two keys or two locks “equal” to a lock & key?
Only someone with an ingrained gender bias could ever convince themselves of such a lie.
Comment by Marty — May 17, 2008 @ 9:52 am - May 17, 2008
What equality means to me is that the state does not differentiate between its citizens. Some people don’t have rights that others do not. White people don’t have rights that other ethnic groups are denied, for example.
I do understand your problem but you are thinking of it in a communist sense of everyone being guaranteed the same financial status (which never existed even in the communist countries either).
The state must treat all it’s citizens equally except in cases that involve due process (for example, incarcerating people convicted of a crime).
But what I find most odd is that you are falling into the political correctness trap of being more concerned what something is called rather than what it is. I don’t care if you call it marriage equality or marriage freedom as long as I have the right to marry.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 17, 2008 @ 10:43 am - May 17, 2008
“Two adults in a loving relationship” is certainly where is starts, although it goes beyond just that.
Why two? If the sex of the two adults in the relationship is irrelevant, than why should the number of persons be relevant? If a third or fourth person are being denied their right to marry whom they choose, are they not also being denied a right and treated differently than others?
This is a Pandora’s box, but it wasn’t teh gheys that opened it. When heterosexuals decided to make easy divorce and serial marriage commonplace, they devalued marriage to the point where people who probably otherwise would not see it as an option now do… especially when it comes with bennies.
Comment by V the K — May 17, 2008 @ 12:58 pm - May 17, 2008
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equality
You are focusing on only one meaning of the words equal or equality. It does not necessarily mean “no difference between” so what’s the point of arguing about semantics.
The “gays are free to marry” argument is one of the most cavil used by our opponents, and apparently some of us. Silly word games to justify an unsupportable position. At least you didn’t go so far as to say the rest of the nonsense “they can marry a person of the opposite sex”. Since the issue is the legality of our relationships “free to marry” is a lie.
Over and over and over again we here the statement like yours “reduction of the institution”. How does SSM in anyway reduce heterosexual marriage? Nothing is being torn down or destroyed or damaged. Man/woman/child is just as important as it has always been, as the same value, the same benefits, the same positive (usually) contribution to society. Except for a few fringe folk who believe in tearing marriage down who is suggesting otherwise - oh, some of you of course, but I’m referring to the rank and file of LGBT people. It just doesn’t make sense to say that adding to something is taking away from it. Of course there are those who will take it lightly but is that any different from the heterosexual communities?
Comment by Dave — May 17, 2008 @ 1:57 pm - May 17, 2008
No, Dave, the term, “free to marry” is not a lie. I want to make an important distinction here. Mildred Loving had a choice 40 years ago, leave the state of Virginia or go to jail.
If a gay couple gets married, say in Massachusetts, and goes to any state today and says they’re married, they won’t face such persecution.
I say “reduction of the institution” for a reason. All too many advocates of “marriage equality” use such banal and treacly terms to describe marriage as if it’s just a union between two loving adults (as the California court seemed to suggest). They don’t discuss the institution as more than that.
But, if you read my post thoroughly, you would see I’m asking advocates to do a better job of what they mean by marriage. And my belief that they would be better served by using a different term than “marriage equality.”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 17, 2008 @ 2:12 pm - May 17, 2008
It very simply all boils down to this….
Does society have the right to encourage the nuclear family or not? That is, do they have the right to believe that children being born and raised by their biological mother and biological father is the best case scenario?
Only an extremist would argue that they don’t.
And if they do, which they do, then there is no requirement for them to also encourage gay marriage.
Identical to the decisions of every other Supreme Court in the nation that has heard the case other than CA and MA, which are outliers because they are activist courts, which is made clear by Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States:
What the CA Supreme Court did is pure judicial activism. It’s oligarchy. And the ends do NOT justify the means.
Comment by American Elephant — May 17, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - May 17, 2008
Here’s how to fix the whole issue….stop having government entities issue marriage licenses and stop giving special benefits (ie tax breaks) to people who consider themselves married. That way, n one would care that the government is treating people in an un-equal way, and marriage can be a purely personal statement by the individuals involved.
Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2008 @ 3:43 pm - May 17, 2008
#10: “…blah, blah, blah,…and, like, la, la, la, la, la,…and y’know, me, me, me, me, me,…and, then a, cha-cha-cha,…and marriage can be a purely personal statement by the individuals involved.”
Wow, Kevin! Why didn’t anyone think of that before? If only straight people had had the foresight to regard their unions as ambivalently and inconsequentially as gay people regard theirs, this whole mess could have been avoided! Next, you’ll tell me these tacky red shoes had the power to take me home all along.
Comment by Sean A — May 17, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - May 17, 2008
are we back in kindrgarden, or just trying to be as communist as possible here. If I can’t have the toy, no one can. Or, in order to make everyone equal, let’s make them equally miserable.
AE has been repeating over and over again, so now I’ll do it as well. The benefit to a stable thriving society is children raised by their biological parents. For some reason all societies that we in the West feel worth emulating have figured this out.
Here’s the other side of the coin, traditional families take care of their own old and infirm. With the break down of said family we are seeing more and more old people relying on the State. And the State isn’t doing a very good job. Hopefully Kevin, you’ll be there for your parents as they age. But who will be there for you?
The responsibilities of marriage go way beyond children, it involves whole families - and often those responsibilities toward the aging in laws just aren’t any fun. But up until the selfish, me - me - me, sixties, they were a simple fact of life.
All I’m hearing now, is I want rights, and if I can’t have them, then others can’t either. Even if in the final analysis it’s me you are going to be coming after in your old age. Since I’m going to be the tax paying State you will demand to take care of you.
So here is a point for Dan’s discussion, monogamous marriage among gays is good for society - the couple will take care of each other as they age.
Comment by Leah — May 17, 2008 @ 8:20 pm - May 17, 2008
All I’m hearing now, is…
That the civil institution of marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities there-of, cannot be denied to two individuals, on the basis of their gender. That’s what the Court has said.
What you’ve heard is that gay couples want the same, legal, ability to raise children, join families, take care of their old and infirm, etc., that straight couples do. In California and Massachusetts, they now do.
Comment by Jody — May 17, 2008 @ 10:24 pm - May 17, 2008
Of course marriage cannot be denied to two individuals on the matter of their gender, it’s given that they will be man and woman. That would put the cart before the horse, so to speak. The fact is that marriage can be denied to two individuals for the same reason that smoking, drinking, and so on can be denied to individuals: the over-riding interest of the State. Let’s face it, homosexuality is a perversion of natural sexuality, and the fact that such relationships bare no fruit is against the interest of the State. Likewise a nation of perverts is likewise not in the interest of the State. The so-called ‘traditional family’ (otherwise known as the ‘family’) is necessary for the production of upright men and women whose civic virtue is patriotism in deed as well as empty words. The fact is that you cannot engage in the homosexual lifestyle and support our Nation.
Comment by Nurglitch — May 18, 2008 @ 2:15 am - May 18, 2008
To be perfectly honest, although I have plenty of moral objections to polygamy, I haven’t yet thought of a valid legal argument against it. I wish someone would give me a good one.
The question, as it relates to this topic, is would allowing gays to marry devalue the institution more? There are plenty of people who think so, but I haven’t seen a reason why.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 18, 2008 @ 2:46 am - May 18, 2008
The real question is whether or not the government should encourage the nuclear family or not. There are plenty of behaviors that society encourages or discourages that should not involve the government. I would argue that it is in the best interests of the country and its citizens for its children to be brought up in the most stable and prosperous environment possible. Therefore, I have no problem with the government granting special considerations for married couples, even though as a currently single man, this means that I am treated differently.
The next question is whether or not allowing gays to marry has any detrimental effect on the nuclear family. I would argue that it does not. I have yet to see any rational argument why allowing gay marriage would have any effect on straight marriages at all. Are straight couples really going to be less likely to marry and raise children if they see gay couples doing it?
I find the arguments that government encourages the scenario that children be raised by their biological parents to be invalid. Obviously, I don’t know all of the laws, but I’ve never heard of one that only grants special privileges to biological families, but denies those privileges to families with adopted children or step-children. In fact, there are special tax breaks to families who adopt children to offset the costs of the adoption process. Do these special privileges somehow devalue having biological children? And if the government does not distinguish between biological children and other children, then why should it distinguish between children raised by straight couples and those raised by gay couples.
Of course, in a perfect world, all children would be raised by the two parents who made them, but that’s a pipe dream. Even before the decline of marriage, there were countless children who were in the care of orphanages or the state who deserve to be raised in a stable environment. If that environment happens to be in the form of a household headed by a gay couple, why shouldn’t that couple receive the benefits that ease the burdens of raising a family?
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 18, 2008 @ 3:40 am - May 18, 2008
Give it to us or no one can have it!
pretty much sums it up.
Comment by American Elephant — May 18, 2008 @ 4:40 am - May 18, 2008
Howsabout we take the word “gay” out and try “gay brothers” or “a group of three or more gays” or “a polygamist commune” or “celebate mother and son” or “a charismatic adult and a band of orphan pickpockets.”
The time has come, the walrus said, to overturn the logical order and prove a negative thing.
Hellsbellsandpeanutbutter, the tradition of marriage has no meaning if……..the tradition of marriage has no meaning.
There! Fixed it for you. Now you do not have to think a thought at all!!!!! Hurryup and take your time. Move about while staying still. Have a peach, don’t eat. Geez, Alice, Wonderland is a strange place to try to think.
Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2008 @ 7:40 am - May 18, 2008
It’s true. These people, and some others over there, and a bunch of them, and a whole slew on the California Supreme Court just can’t see what the big deal is, so what the hell… If they aren’t presented with evidence demonstrating a clear, undisputed detriment to heterosexual marriage resulting from gay marriage (on the double) well, then there’s really no reason it shouldn’t be enacted through judicial feat by a handful of like-minded San Francisco liberals that wear robes to work.
Although none of these supporters of gay marriage find it relevant, there was an actual time in our history, many years ago, when specific, legislative determinations were made to, e.g.: enact state laws governing marriage; add a provision to the IRS Code granting a tax deduction for each dependent child; permit a heterosexual couple with different citizenship to marry and remain in the same country; etc. These issues were actually addressed and discussed in a legislative forum, and none of them became law before their social and fiscal impact on our society was considered.
But clearly, a legislative forum is exactly what the proponents of gay marriage wanted to (and did) ultimately avoid. Here, we get the reverse—show us how this will HURT all the other institutions and relationships, and if we aren’t happy with the answer, too bad. They refuse to accept the burden that the proponent of every other legislative proposal in our system is required to accept when trying to change existing law.
And the equal protection argument? A complete legal fiction. I know it feels good to scoff and dismiss the LEGAL RIGHT a gay man has to marry a member of the opposite sex, and have children, etc. because well….what?…..girls are yucky, I guess the argument goes? But whether this right is exercised or not, it is fully commensurate with the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution all by itself. It’s just my personal observations and experience, of course, but I’ve been practicing law in California for 12 years and there’s no doubt the California Supreme Court saw equal protection as a VIABLE MEANS to give us gay marriage in this state, but they know they stepped over the line (in the name of “social justice”), and that they could at least get away with it long enough until it becomes a different problem entirely beyond their purview. No one has to believe me, but even the most liberal law professors and lawyers that know anything about constitutional law know that the Court applied some kind of “public” standard of what equal protection means to the people waiting anxiously for this ruling, rather than the actual legal standards for equal protection that are safely buried in piles and piles of dusty old law books that nobody wants to read, least of all the proponents of gay marriage on this website. They know that a stringent, judicially-restrained analysis of equal protection precedent would NOT get the Court where it was determined to go in the first place, but it also knew that media reports of this decision would be focused on the “equal” and the “protection,” but not so much the “equal protection” part.
So, yes. There is gay marriage in California for now (30 days from now? Who knows when the Court decides to legislate?), but it sits upon a fraudulent foundation of “equal protection” that instead of looking at the actual legal benefit conferred to the recipients and the objective characteristics that made them eligible, as compared to those individuals claiming a deprivation, it looks to how the deprived individual FEELS, DEFINES, or VIEWS their own personal eligibility. If they FEEL eligible and the Court is satisfied that they genuinely WANT to be eligible, well, who are they to say no?
There’s certainly no way to measure or poll this, but if for some reason there was a way, (and since this is ALL ABOUT FEELINGS), I would love to know the statistics on the personal feelings of gay people throughout the state when they heard this decision announced. It would be interesting to see (1) the percentage of gays who were genuinely happy because they can now “marry” their partners, and (2) the percentage of gays who were genuinely thrilled because the California Supreme Court told every California citizen (particularly the straight, religious, conservative ones) that their marriages are neither unique or different from gay marriages. Anyone have a guess? I’m thinking 1% to 99%. Maybe 2/98, but that’s as high as I’ll go.
Comment by Sean A — May 18, 2008 @ 10:05 am - May 18, 2008
That’s right Sean because we all know that it’s the dream of every faggot to tear down the str8, religious, conservative marriages. At least Nurglitch has the balls to be honest, the rest of you arguing against SSM just hide behind your pseudo-intelligent words. It is one thing to complain about the way it was done in Cali, though the courts declaring a law unconstitutional is only horrendous if you disagree with the results. But to continually repeat the mantra that het marriage is superior is anti-gay propaganda at it’s best. Yes, marriage between two people of the same sex is different than that between man and woman but that does not mean they are not equal and one does not threaten the other. Unless of course you are among those who believe that all of a sudden heterosexual people are going to become infected with homosexuality and decide to quit having children, or if they have them just dump them on the state to raise (oh wait , that already is happening). Reading what I have on here I would not be surprised if some of you do believe that. It’s often said that liberals think and act out of emotion and feelings, well that’s a whole lot better than having none, which is clearly the issue for many here. A complete lack of respect for others is not conservative, it is uncivilized.
“But clearly, a legislative forum is exactly what the proponents of gay marriage wanted to (and did) ultimately avoid”
Oh and Sean, what planet to you live on? The same issue went through the legislature twice, that is not avoiding.
“girls are yucky”
Another juvenile stereotypes you want to throw around? If you had a case those 3 words blew it.
It’s often said that liberals think and act out of emotion and feelings, well that’s a whole lot better than having none, which is clearly the issue for many here. A complete lack of respect for others is not conservative, it is uncivilized.
Comment by Dave — May 18, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - May 18, 2008
oops, meant to cut not copy.
Comment by Dave — May 18, 2008 @ 1:08 pm - May 18, 2008
“That’s right Sean because we all know that it’s the dream of every faggot to tear down the str8, religious, conservative marriages.”
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s “every faggot’s dream.” But I definitely believe that there are elements of the gay left that are overjoyed whenever one of their policy victories includes some sort of implicit come-uppance for conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives. The emotionally-charged anger and bitterness that fuels these battles just proves it for me. Since we’re on the subject, this “faggot’s dream” is a world where no one ever uses the number 8 to abbreviate “str8.”
“…the courts declaring a law unconstitutional is only horrendous if you disagree with the results.”
No, it’s only horrendous when courts declare a law unconstitutional that isn’t unconstitutional because they’ve decided “it’s the right thing to do.”
“But to continually repeat the mantra that het marriage is superior is anti-gay propaganda at it’s best.”
I never said it’s superior, and I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean in your context. I guess if you interpret “superior” as enacted legislatively, with a specific rationale for government sponsorship, then FINE. It’s “superior.”
“Yes, marriage between two people of the same sex is different than that between man and woman but that does not mean they are not equal and one does not threaten the other.”
Terrific. Just one problem. Not everyone in the California agrees with you. And your personal, deeply-held belief that “one does not threaten the other” does not constitute a sufficient basis for the Court to rule accordingly. If it’s such a wonderful idea for our society, then it shouldn’t be a problem at the ballot box or in the legislature.
“Unless of course you are among those who believe that all of a sudden heterosexual people are going to become infected with homosexuality and decide to quit having children…”
Well, yes, of course, I’m terrified of homosexuality’s infectious properties. Who isn’t?
“…or if they have them just dump them on the state to raise (oh wait , that already is happening).”
You’re right heterosexual marriage is a disgrace—an utter embarrassment and our society’s greatest failure. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that? In fact, the California Supreme Court should have ruled that gay marriage is constitutional and straight marriage is unconstitutional. Straight people have clearly abused their “rights” (all granted to them by specific legislative enactments, by the way) and they should be taken away. This is obviously a job for the Court. I’m sure to some on the gay left, such a result would just FEEL RIGHT.
“Another juvenile stereotypes you want to throw around? If you had a case those 3 words blew it.”
I only used the “girls are yucky” reference to illustrate that you already had the same right as straight people to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because you don’t have any interest in marrying a woman (as I don’t) doesn’t mean you’ve been deprived of any rights on equal protection grounds, nor does it give you the legal option to re-define “marriage” as whatever union you might be interested in. Equal protection isn’t a J Crew catalog.
“It’s often said that liberals think and act out of emotion and feelings, well that’s a whole lot better than having none, which is clearly the issue for many here.”
So, what does that mean? If conservatives were more emotional they would analyze issues differently? That’s probably true but how is that better? Is that how the California Supreme Court should decide its cases? Whichever party is more distraught and emotional wins? What does that have to do with THE LAW? If I analyze a case and state that the court’s opinion is legally flawed, does that make me “mean”? Should we dispense with the law when clearly being “nice” is so much easier? Or are you really just saying that mean = unconstitutional.
Comment by Sean A — May 18, 2008 @ 2:23 pm - May 18, 2008
What a strange world we live in that two people loving each other and committing to each other freaks so many people out.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 18, 2008 @ 6:51 pm - May 18, 2008
17: In a country where laws are supposed equally to all citizens, what’s so wrong with that? Lordy, I can only imagine what this bunch would have said if the internet had been around during Brown vs. The Board of Education.
Comment by Kevin — May 18, 2008 @ 6:51 pm - May 18, 2008
Love it, Kevin, how you project things onto us. If you can’t see the distinction between the two, then you really assume all Republicans to hate all minorities.
Brown was rooted in the 14th amendment clearly designed to prevent discrimination in public facilities.
But, then again, what do your comments have to do with the issue I addressed in this post, my problem with a term describing the movement for gay marriage. I guess it’s that you come onto this blog to insult us rather than engage us. And hope that your insults serve to define us as you want to see us so you can more readily dismiss our ideas.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 18, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - May 18, 2008
#23: The only thing that “freaks anyone out” about those “two people loving each other and committing to each other” is their commonplace, indignant expectation that their choices be validated, protected, sanctioned, subsidized, approved of and celebrated by our government and the other 95% of the population without reservation or limitation.
Comment by Sean A — May 18, 2008 @ 8:20 pm - May 18, 2008
# 24:”Lordy, I can only imagine what this bunch would have said if the internet had been around during Brown vs. The Board of Education.”
Well, certainly a lot more than you, considering that Republicans got behind the civil rights movement long before it became fashionable among Democrats. Furthermore, our comments would have been consistent with the principles that we have explained here (and that have clearly gone right over your head). Laws that limited minority access to public accommodations were conclusively unconstitutional because differences in skin pigmentation were simply not a rational basis for two sets of laws. Not a hard call in the least.
The only people on this blog saying shocking and distasteful things about Brown v. Board of Education are you and your ilk. Gays like you don’t even pause for a second to consider how unbelievably moronic and ignorant you sound when you start comparing your own “plight” to that of other groups who actually WERE subjected to draconian discrimination and racism in the past. I’d like to see you pull that number in the presence of some seasoned black Americans and see how quickly and efficiently they would “take you to school.” You don’t have a fuc*ing clue.
Meanwhile, the facts that have gotten lost in this necessary and protracted debate about the Court’s ruling is that in California, gays now enjoy greater protection than straight people from crime (hate crimes laws), protection from employment discrimination (Fair Employment & Housing Act), and now have their pick between basic cable (domestic partnership) and the deluxe satellite package (gay marriage).
Kevin, I hope you don’t live in California, because what are you going to do with yourself when you suddenly wake up one morning and realize you can’t think of anything else to cry about? Who will you be, Kevin, if not the tragically oppressed gay victim, clinging to your security blanket of irrational fears and imagined hatred everywhere you go? How will you handle the crushing depression when you’re at the gay pride parade and you realize…every float is just a bunch of guys dancing around in harnesses and their underwear without a banner demanding “equal rights now!” anywhere in sight? What then, Kevin?
Comment by Sean A — May 18, 2008 @ 9:08 pm - May 18, 2008
Yo, Naturally Gay, Kevin, Dave and Houndentenor:
What combinations of marriage do you oppose and why? Would one form be a marriage between a goat and his man? Naturally Gay tells us:
Ergo, since a goat and his man are not a heterosexual couple and there will be no children, there must be, in Naturally Gay’s logic, some other justification for preventing such a marriage.
Houndentenor informs us:
So, clearly, Houndentenor and the goat fit his terms. “I don’t care if you call it marriage equality or marriage freedom as long as I have the right to marry….(my goat.)”
Now, Dave gets right to the point:
Opposing a goat and his man is……..uncivilized. Now we can’t have that.
It is Kevin who wins the day by advising that:
Heck, yes! Forget marriage. Let everyone take his/her partner of choice into the circle of patient indulgence in the light of the moon and exchange fingernail clippings and make the sign of the patient tapeworm. And, should the magic wear off, just yell “Jello makes me itch” three times into the mircrowave and the union is dissolved.
So far, my eyes have been opened wide to the destruction that limiting marriage to unrelated adult male and female couples has wrought. It is clear that the benefits to be accrued to society as a whole by extending marriage to same sex couples is not only vast, but undeniable. Naturally Gay, Dave, Kevin and Houndentenor show clearly that one’s personal predilections should trump any stodgy societal norm or tradition.
Let us never underestimate the force of human intellect.
Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2008 @ 10:01 pm - May 18, 2008
“Let us never underestimate the force of human intellect.”
And let us never OVERESTIMATE the force of Naturally Gay, Kevin, Dave or Houndentenor’s human intellect (or the intellects of their goat-life-partners).
Comment by Sean A — May 19, 2008 @ 12:29 am - May 19, 2008
There would be a very valid reason for this preventing this type of marriage. An animal is not capable of consent on a human level, therefore, it is rape.
Seriously, trotting out the “man marries goat” logic makes you look like an alarmist. Let’s keep the debate about what rules should apply to consent adult humans.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 19, 2008 @ 12:53 am - May 19, 2008
Ah, the person attacks come out. I was wondering when that would start up again. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that, even though I support the concept of gay marriage or civil unions, I don’t necessarily agree with the views of Kevin, Dave, or Houndentenor. Just lump us all together rather than debate our different viewpoints. It’s easier, I guess.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 19, 2008 @ 1:05 am - May 19, 2008
That’s because its true. Actually, its an understatement.
See! There you go again! Do you need a tissue?
Actually, Dave, Conservatives care far more than liberals. We care enough to investigate what actually works. Liberals don’t. You care only enough to throw other people’s money at a problem with no regard for whether it actually helps or not. That’s not caring, that’s self-indulgence.
The only people I lack respect for are those who have earned it.
Comment by American Elephant — May 19, 2008 @ 3:15 am - May 19, 2008
You, sir, would be entirely correct had I proposed marriage between a goat and his man. However, I posed this question to the four of you:
You chose to ignore the question. Therefore, I may assume that you do not have any combinations of marriage you oppose or that in opposing certain combinations, you can not give reasons.
Run back through my “alarmist” use of the quotes from the four of you and take out the goat and man union and substitute “adult gay triplet brothers.” That combo meets the definitions of Houndentenor, Dave, Kevin and Naturally Gay. But it does introduce the restriction on incest and the union of multiple partners. (Of course, the incest in a dead-ender vis a vis gays, so that one should be easy to permit.) Well, I will leave it to the four of you to explain the compelling state interest in keeping the three brothers gay from being married.
I anxiously await your instruction. I would ask the California Supreme Court, but I doubt they will take my call. Therefore, I turn to the four of you in their stead.
Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2008 @ 8:44 am - May 19, 2008
GPW:
I think the problem is that marriage in this country has already lost that hallowed ground you speak of. For one, no-fault divorce reduces the solemnity of the institution.
There are also couples who are non-monogamous, but allowed to remain married. In fact, proof of monogamy is not required either to enter into marriage or to be permitted to remain married.
My husband and I got married because we thought it was silly to go on calling each other “boyfriend.” The relationship naturally progressed to increasingly deep levels of commitment. If it hadn’t, we would have ended it since for both of us, marriage (and the deep commitment it entails) was what we wanted.
Also complicating the issue is that the government provides so many benefits to married couples, but lets couples self-regulate with regard to the rules under which their marriage is lived. For marriage to be that hallowed tradition again, you would need much more oversight on a social/community basis than we have now. The problem is that many people would regard such oversight as an invasion of their privacy and a restriction of their liberty to live as they choose.
On the one hand, people in this society want to be allowed to do their own thing. On the other hand, they do not want to be discriminated against for doing their own thing. Making divorce easier faciliatates the liberty of people to get out of marriages that are mistakes. On the other hand, it undermines the notion that marriage is a hallowed event signalling a lifetime commitment.
My husband and I talk all the time about how our marriage is the final relationship for both of us. When we have problems, we struggle through them, but there is no thought on either of our parts about separating. The words of the Quebec marriage ceremony (where we were wed) are quite moving, and we often re-read them.
I personally believe that much anguish gay men feel would be reduced if they had the option of marriage. Those who did not want marriage would be free to live as they choose, but those who do want marriage could self-identify and be able to recognize one another. Certain stages of maturity are not reached until a person makes a deep commitment to another person and then hopefully children.
The problem is that government no longer requires proof of deep commitment before granting a marriage license to heterosexuals. Britney Spears anyone? The institution of marriage has been lowered, but allowing gays to marry is not going to drag it to new depths. In fact, it may actually add some lustre with an influx of men and women who do believe in the hallowed nature of the institution; believe in it so much that they continue to fight for it against daunting obstacles.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 19, 2008 @ 9:37 am - May 19, 2008
Brian, I will be thoughtful of your comments, but you set off a few alarm bells. Do you feel there should be some type of government marriage police who confront back-sliders?
I am moved by your commitment to monogamy and working at keeping your partnership healthy and in tact. That is the ideal meaning of marriage and you have expressed it well.
I remain curious, however, why marriage is so crucial to you. You have, for all intents and purposes, a sham marriage. It is not recognized by the State of New York. (I am assuming that “Brian in Brooklyn” means Brooklyn, New York.)
I was married in 1964, before no-fault divorce. In Florida, we had to apply for a license and our intentions were published in the newspaper and posted on the wall in the courthouse for a two week period. During those two weeks, anyone could step forward and object or one of us could bolt and run. But not a soul in the license bureau required any “proof of deep commitment.”
Marriage has been state regulated to protect minors, the mentally incompetent, to avoid the medical problems associated with incest, etc. The state has favored marriage as the best way to keep track of families and property rights. The state has a vested interest in maintaining (at minimum) a replacement population. Marriage has worked as a great census tool in managing both the needs and statistics of the population.
Homosexual marriage, in the traditional sense, is an oxymoron. I will grant that marriage between barren heterosexuals does not fulfill the traditional meaning of marriage either.
In addition to no-fault divorce, I would add that pre-nuptial agreements are also a cold and calculating way to enter into wedded “bliss.”
If you want to see the natural progress of taking the church out of marriage and the state becoming lax in its requirements, you need only to look at Sweden. I suppose they operate perfectly well, according to their wishes and norms, but they have reduced marriage to a minor option for those who care.
I am comfortable with civil unions for gay couples who want the solemnizing power of committing themselves before the state to standards of propriety. From my perspective, it separates the committed gays from the butterflies on parade.
It has taken a long time and a great deal of research on my part, but I oppose gay marriage. Marriage is a definition and when you change the terms, you destroy the concept.
Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2008 @ 10:36 am - May 19, 2008
I most certainly did not ignore the question. I responded very specifically:
“There would be a very valid reason for this preventing this type of marriage. An animal is not capable of consent on a human level, therefore, it is rape.”
As to the “gay triplet brothers”, the topic of incest was covered in another topic on this blog. In summary, I oppose incestuous relationships, regardless of whether or not they can produce children, because of the psychological damages that occur. I’m not a mental health professional. Therefore, I cannot explain the problems in that much depth, but based on what I’ve read, these types of relationships are harmful to those involved.
As to polygamy, I expressed my views on that in an earlier post.
Are there any other scenarios you’d like me to answer?
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 19, 2008 @ 1:32 pm - May 19, 2008
Nope! You have dodged them all quite nicely. I asked: What combinations of marriage do you oppose and why?
You feasted on the man and his goat bait with great relish. Now, perchance, you will answer the actual question. Careful, though, it will require careful thinking.
Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - May 19, 2008
You did ask that question, but then you launched into a tirade using the “man marries goat” argument to imply what views we would take on the subject. The goat emphasizes was yours, not mine.
I answered the portion of comment #28 that was directed at me. I leave the rest of the comment to the other people to whom is was directed.
I answered your question as pertains to 1) bestiality, 2) incest, and 3) polygamy. If you want to ask me how I would react to other types of marriages feel free to ask. I’m certainly not going to go through the entire dictionary and consider every noun to explain why “noun 1″ shouldn’t be allowed to marry “noun 2″.
I’ll ignore the childish insults and answer you. You can glean my stance on marriages by reading what I’ve already posted. I support marriage between two consenting members of the same sex using the current criteria for straight couples (e.g., age of consent, mental health status, relationship proximity). Beyond that, I will consider the facts to the best of my ability and give you my opinion if you ask for it.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 19, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - May 19, 2008
Heliotrope:
No, I do not think there should be a back-sliding police. While I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I do think that that people who worry about the loss of traditional marriage should focus some attention on drive-thru divorce which is deleterious to the tradition of marriage in my opinion (I agree with you about pre-nups as well). For me, marriage should be about long-term, permanent commitment and drive-thru divorce laws make a mockery of that concept. A marriage that can be dissolved with no more effort than it takes to pay a parking ticket has no relationship to traditional marriage that I can see.
The problem was that when the divorce laws were revised there was no concomittant ratcheting down of the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Those rights and privileges were established in the belief that the two persons entering the marriage were intent on forming a permanent, committed bond. In effect, the privileges were the reward for taking on such a large responsibility.
As for my sham marriage, there is nothing sham about it since it is recognized in New York State. New York State recognizes out-of-state marriages that are valid where they are performed. What is currently illegal in New York State is to perform a same-sex marriage. For me, a sham marriage is the 55-hour matrimony of Britney Spears or one that undergoes a drive-thru divorce where children are involved. Whatever happened to “for better or worse, till death do us part?”
As you note, the traditional definition of marriage does not apply to people who are sterile or women beyond the age of bearing children. Since they are allowed to marry, the inability to bear children biologically does not seem to be an obstacle to marriage.
My parents could not have children so they adopted three (who, interestingly enough, have in turn adopted children). My family is just as much a family as one where the children are the biological progency of their parents. In fact, I think I got the better part of the deal when I listen to my friends who were raised by their biological parents talk about the abuse and neglect they experienced. Such stories make me skeptical about the argument that biological parents are the preferrable ones to raise children.
I do not see how allowing same-sex marriage would interfere with or impede keeping track of families or property rights. In fact, it would help with such processes since more relationships would be formed and, therefore, be part of a census.
Allowing same-sex marriage will also help with the replacement population since while gay men would have to adopt or use a surrogate, lesbians can give birth while married to each other. Same-sex marriages can also be the basis for families for children who are not able to be raised by their biological parents. Clearly, the state has an interest in seeing that such children are taken care of.
As for civil unions, I have no objection so long as they provide identical rights and privileges as marriage. If my husband and I are willing to commit before the state (as you write) we should enjoy the same liberties as other couples (unless by dint of the fact of being gay, we do not merit such liberties).
Marriage in 2008 — with the prologues of pre-nups and the breezy availability of divorce — is but distantly related to traditional marriage. To oppose same-sex marriage because it deviates from traditional definitions of marriage is to ignore the reality of marriage in 2008 (of course if you also want to see divorce reform so that it is granted in only the rarest of cases and the abolition of pre-nups, then, while I will still disagree with you, I will admire you for not being a hypoctrire in your positions).
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 19, 2008 @ 10:23 pm - May 19, 2008
Thank you, Brian for a clear and honest reply. I have no concerns with civil unions that should help to clear up most or all of the inheritance, care-giver, tax problems.
If this solution would be acceptable, then traditional marriage could remain unaltered in its structure.
The Islamic practice of plural wives has become an issue in the legal systems of England, Denmark and Canada. We can not assume that polygamy is not an additional point of argument for redefining marriage.
At some point, we will have to examine the reason(s) why the state should take any role in the marriage process, save some health, mental competency and age restrictions. Meanwhile, I do not want to see the institution of marriage further rocked by pressures to expand it and redefine it.
Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - May 19, 2008
Heliotrope:
My problem with civil unions is that they are neither portable nor consistently recognized. Friends in New Jersey who have gotten civil unions have had issues in this regard. If this problem could be solved, I would not care if they were called ham sandwiches. The terminology becomes important since privileges and liberties are often based on what word is used in denoting the union and not on the actual attributes of the union itself.
This situation stems from the fact that the term marriage has two applications — a secular one and a religious one. People often flip back and forth between the two without even realizing it. Companies and organizations (for the most part) accept proof of marriage from only a civil authority, so if my husband and I were to be married in our church (which does recognize same-sex marriage), almost no one would recognize it as an “actual” marriage (though we would have committed our union before God and not just the state).
This problem is rooted in the fact that centuries ago there was no concept of separation of church and state. But as the secular realm was established, one of the institutions that remained fuzzily defined was marriage. The consequences of this lack of intellectual rigor are now being felt. When a couple gets married today in a church, they are engaging in a double ceremony: a civil one and a religious one. But this distinction is obscured by using the same terminology for both events.
Marriage was further undermined with the introduction of domestic partnerships and other devices that attempted to provide “marriage lite” for same-sex couples. The irony is that if same-sex marriage had been permitted in the first place, then the damage to marriage brought about by domestic partnership agreements could have been avoided. In trying to save the patient, society actually increased its infirmity.
The fact is that there are many civil marriages that a person might consider not to be marriages from a religious point of view, e.g., divorced and re-married Catholics. Society seems to have found a way to deal with this duality between civil and religious marriages without resorting to new terminology. For example, divorced Catholics who cannot re-marry within the church, but do so in a civil ceremony are said to be married; they are not told that their only option is to enter into a civil union.
As for plural marriage, it is a problem in the United States as well with some Mormons out West. As you note, a discussion needs to be initiated about what types of relationships the state wants to encourage and those it wishes to discourage. My fear is that people will just hunker down in their traditions and not engage in dialogue. Beyond doubt, the world is a pluralistic place. But equally assured is the fact that all humans are given the wondrous gifts of reason and rationality that separate us from all other creatures and allow us to communicate with one another and build a just, free, and equal society.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 20, 2008 @ 10:15 am - May 20, 2008
Thanks, Brian. You have given a reasoned and thought provoking response to all of this. I find that a rarity among many gays.
I do not agree with my straight, conservative brothers who oppose civil unions. Typically, they have no opinion on common-law marriage and I find that their views lack consistency.
The “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution is at the center of the problem with states recognizing non-traditional forms of marriage. As you have stated, apparently New York recognizes your marriage. Yet New York is currently trying to deny welfare rights to the multiple wives of an African resident. Therefore, New York does not seem to practice reciprocity. Since your marriage and that of the African man were performed outside the US, there is no “full faith and credit” issue involved. Consequently, I am not sure of the degree to which your marriage is recognized by New York. Do the state tax, property, inheritance, and guardianship laws make no distinctions between your marriage and the traditional marriage recognized by the common law?
I oppose changing the traditional requirements of state recognized marriage. I readily agree that the state should not prohibit a man and woman of different religions, color, ethnic backgrounds or different countries of origin from marrying. I oppose opening the door to the slippery slope of recognizing marriages which are largely based on actions that can be controlled by choice.
This is where the problem for homosexual marriage comes to the fore in my thinking. So far as I can determine, homosexuality is not caused by a genetic force that can not be overcome. This is not to say that I am part of the “homosexual cure thyself” crowd.
To the great detriment of many gays, there is a loud and obnoxious group of gays who want to shove their sexual acts and proclivities into the public eye and consciousness.
I am content not to judge whether homosexuals are engaging in “perverse” acts, so long as I am not tacitly challenged to give approval to those acts. In this regard, I fancy myself a bit of the libertarian.
As a person who sees the complications that beset homosexuals in the legal arena, I am moved to try to help find a solution that is beneficial and dignified. But watering traditional marriage down is not acceptable to me.
In truth, gays are genetic dead-enders. Society is not structured to find ways to end itself. I think that enormous strides were made when society determined that gays should be permitted to adopt children. I have had experience with those who have undergone a sex change. I find that the very careful psychological treatment that accompanies a sex change is critical and I applaud the medical community taking such precautions.
All of this is to say that the number of gays in the population is quite small and within those numbers are many who are quite socially balanced and others who are, frankly, openly addicted to their sexual identity and its many forms of gratification.
If we (the straight majority) permit the requirements for marriage to accept gays, can we keep the keep the radical gays out? Of course not. What differentiates gays from heterosexuals is that gays have “different” sex that is solely for the purpose of gratification. The same might also be said of childless heterosexuals, whether they are childless by nature or by choice. But I can not see adding a child requirement to keep a marriage in force any more than I can see changing the one man and one woman threshold.
Civil unions coupled with a full faith and credit understanding is the best route for gays, in my opinion.
As to the religious right, I would think that gays would be working hard to get their strongest voices to approve civil unions. Industry has been largely accommodating of taking on the benefits needs of gay couples. I really do not think that getting pastors to admit to the benefits of civil unions would be that tough a slog. Once a significant number of states permit civil unions, the full faith and credit clause will give them national meaning.
Gay marriage is not an idea whose time has come. Even in Europe where religion is laughably weak, gay marriage is not a state sanctioned condition. The 27 EU nations do not have to recognize same-sex unions. 10 do not. Additionally, France and Italy grant very limited rights to same-sex unions. Same-sex unions in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have gained considerable “social” rights in the past 20 years.
But note: the EU deals with “same-sex unions” and not marriage.
With the push by Islamic fundamentalists to jam Sharia into the common law systems in Europe, Canada, Australia and, soon, the United States, I predict the gay marriage issue will go down in flames. How can the state possibly accept the terms of gay activists while denying the demands of Islamic fundamentalists and their Sharia Trojan Horse?
Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2008 @ 12:44 pm - May 20, 2008
What do you mean by “controlled by choice?” Are you saying the homosexuality is a choice or are you referring to the choices that homosexuals make to live their lives?
Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice or is a psychological problem of some sort? Homosexual behavior is rather common in the animal kingdom. I wouldn’t suggest that we model our sexual behaviors after animals, but I would argue that having animals with the brains the size of a pea behave this way helps counter the notion of choice in the matter.
Would you support the idea of all governmentally recognized unions being called “civil unions” and leaving the term “marriage” for society and religion to define?
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 20, 2008 @ 4:39 pm - May 20, 2008
Heliotrope:
As for New York State law and same-sex marriage: no one knows yet what the recognition of same-sex marriage means since it occurred only several weeks ago. As with many things, it will all be determined in the playing out (as you probably have realized, I am a fan of American philosophy, and my positions develop from the thought of Emerson, Mead, Pierce, and James. Pragmatism, for me, is the pinnacle of 20th century thought, and far too often overlooked by those on both the left and the right in favor of alien philosophies).
As for its recognition (if I understand the law correctly – I am not a lawyer), my marriage can be recognized because New York State recognizes out-of-state opposite-sex marriages that are not legal in New York State. Since the state grants recognition for opposite-sex marriages, it must, therefore, recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages or it would run afoul of the gay anti-discrimination law passed by the legislature. With the African gentleman, the question is whether or not New York State will recognize an out-of-state multiple-marriage that was performed legally in its place of origin.
I am not sure what you are referring to you when you talk about “actions that can be controlled by choice.” I can choose whether or not to have sex, but I cannot choose to feel waves of attraction when I look at my husband (any more than you can choose, I presume, to feel attracted to your wife and not other men).
You write that you think that homosexual desire can be overcome by choice, but as far as I know, no one has proven that it can be overcome. Such desire can be repressed and not acted upon, but I have not read of any way to change it. All the research I know of (my husband is a psychologist who specializes in sex and gender issues) indicates that human beings fall along a sexual continuum, and that while some people are capable of being attracted to both sexes (and often choose one to be the dominant attraction), other people are locked into one attraction.
As for keeping the radical gays out: has there been any effort to keep the radical heterosexuals out? My point here goes back to the very first comment I made in this thread: homosexuals’ sexual behavior is under greater scrutiny than that of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. There are plenty of kinky heterosexuals in the world — swingers clubs and other organizations exist all over the country. But I never read of anyone making the argument that the behavior of these radical heterosexuals imperils the rights of heterosexuals as a whole to be able to marry. If fringe heterosexuals are not fatal to opposite-sex marriage, why should fringe homosexuals be fatal to same-sex marriage?
I understand your point about not wanting to give your tacit approval to behavior you object to, but you do exactly that in terms of heterosexuali