Gay Marriage: Significant Social Change
In response to my quoting Jonathan Rauch’s observation that that honest advocacy of same-sex marriage “requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change.” in a post last week, commenter ILoveCapitalism (hereinafter ILC) wrote, “WHAT social change(s)?”
ILC’s not the first person to question whether gay marriage represents a significant social change. Others, in a similar vein, have claimed that gay marriage does not alter the definition of marriage. Both are wrong.
Just because they’re wrong, however, doesn’t mean gay marriage is. Over time, we’ve seen a great variety of social changes, many good and some not so good and some downright bad.
There has, for example, been a huge social change in the attitude toward gays over the past twenty years. That has been, on the whole, a good thing.
Now that gay marriage has come to the forefront of the national debate as well as that in our own community, when discussing it was all but taboo as recently as the early 1990s, advocates should embrace rather than belittle this notion of social change. Less than twenty years ago, many of our gay peers (particularly the men) dismissed marriage as a heterosexual institution, with some calling it a relic of a patriarchal era.
It’s not just that we are talking about adopting this ancient social institution as a means of defining our relationships, it’s also that representatives of many non-gay institutions, social, political, religious are considering recognizing them as such. That represents a huge change in the definition of marriage given that sexual difference has long been a defining aspect of the relationship.
Should marriage serve the same purpose for same-sex couples as it has long served for different-sex ones, as a social institution channeling one’s sexual passion and other longings into a relationship where the partners look after each other’s interests and those of their children while providing a model to which the unmarried can aspire, then it will indeed be a good thing.
But, it defeats the purpose of the national conversation on gay marriage to suggest it neither provides social change nor redefines marriage. Recognition of gay marriage does both things. The goal should be to ensure that change is a good one, which it will be provided the new definition doesn’t strip the institution of its stabilizing essence.
Given the way this conversation has been going, it seems that all too few advocates of this change appreciate — or even understand — the full benefits and meaning of this most ancient institution.
Related: Connecticut in context.
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“Should marriage serve the same purpose for same-sex couples as it has long served for different-sex ones, as a social institution channeling one’s sexual passion and other longings into a relationship where the partners look after each other’s interests and those of their children while providing a model to which the unmarried can aspire, then it will indeed be a good thing.”
This should be the main thing.
For gay marriage to be a beneficial change to society (as I believe it will be), it will also have to:
A. Be distinguishable from allowing the boogey men of polygamous, incestuous, bestial, or child marriages. (Check: it would only allow gay couples in groups of two, unrelated, of the same species, and of the age of consent)
B. Hold the same societal disapproval of sleeping around and “open marriages” as it does for heterosexuals. (Unknown)
C. Not harm heterosexuals or their marriages (Until someone conclusively proves how heterosexual marriage is devalued by the presence homosexual marriage, then Check).
Comment by Attmay — July 1, 2008 @ 8:18 pm - July 1, 2008
That social landscape is also changing within the gay community, as well as the general population. You….we….now have a young generation that never “came out”, they were just themselves; gay, young, dating in high school…like everyone else; going to college and settling down to coupledom, kids and possibly marriage…like everyone else. Never really that different than anyone else…just different.
To some of us, of a “certain age”, it’s getting to be a territory that we see in the distance but can’t experience. Especially if you don’t live in a gay-friendly, or more to the point, gay-popular place. Officially and legally I live in a gay-friendly state and community. My life, job and home are protected….I can even have a legally-sanctioned civil partner…but there’s no “gay” here.
Since we don’t need “gay bars” to safely congregate-in, the clubs have closed. Since “safe sex”, no sex, and serial monogamy have replaced the clubs, it’s Netflix at home on the coach with the SO…or just ourselves. We don’t “need” the gay coffee-shops and restaurants have a safe place to hold our partner’s hand in-public, so the gay shops and bookstores have closed. Since we can openly live in any community or neighborhood, the gay-friendly neighborhoods have faded-away.
And from what I’m seeing, much of the younger generation have casually-embraced a rather more-fluid “drunken fratboy”-view further-clouding the boundaries between the Kinsey-scale shadings between gay and bi in the first place. Go to a mall and if you’re a ‘bit older they all look interchangeably gay-or-straight-or-inbetween.
Regardless of how our generation and our AARP elders view “gay marriage”, DADT, ENDA, etc… in a few generations will there even be as issue to discuss and fight about? I’m just feeling increasing lost in a changing landscape.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 1, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - July 1, 2008
Ted, your comments are poignant and revealing. I am not in accord with your concerns.
Society is largely accepting or, at least, indifferent to the gay life.
I hang out at a hamburger joint where blacks. women and gays would never have been comfortable thirty years back. Now, we are all happily munching our politically incorrect food and taking each other at face value.
If a hard nosed feminist or a flaming, butt swishing gay or a ghetto, bigoted black were to go ballistic, I am certain the other females, gays and blacks would shut the jerks down. Believe me, the same goes for the old time redneck that thinks he is back in the bad old days. Many times I have seen tattooed white workers squelch some fellow jerk who steps out of line.
Our regulars include a lesbian basketball coach with an astounding career, a male black retired ER nurse, and a redneck who came out of prison for tearing up a gay bar in the ’70’s.
I firmly believe that time heals all wounds or all heels are wounded.
Where there is privilege there is always license, Those who benefit from the suffering of their elders will soon enough decide to require eveyone to emulate them and all Hell will break loose. It was ever thus.
I check in on a gay bookstore in Georgetown (DC area) that has gotten to be more and more like an “adult truckstop” as time goes by. If “straights” ran the place, the city would have run them off of main street a long time ago.
But eventually, cooler heads will prevail and the gays in the area will chase them out.
Propriety is propriety. I do not believe that you will be lost in a changing landscape.
We all grow and mature. Wisdom comes from age and experience. I fervently believe that in the end, goodness will prevail.
Comment by heliotrope — July 1, 2008 @ 11:10 pm - July 1, 2008
good grief, is the only thing you can blab about is the is the inequality of the social stucture in america, whilst famine, poverty and unjustice inflict itself upon a good part of the rest of the world.
Comment by markie — July 1, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - July 1, 2008
The US Census Bureau uses 5% of the total population for the number of gays in the country for planning purposes. In all countries where same sex marriage is legal, after the initial backlog is taken care of, same sex marriages are less than 5% of the population of gays. While for some unknown reason, there are more male gays than lesbians by about a 2 to 1 ratio, the number of same sex marriages ends up roughly in a 2 to 1 ratio favoring the lesbians.
There is an old story about a famous food company that was test marketing dog food. They hired the best package designers. They hired the best dog nutritionists. They hired the best advertising agency to promote it. The product flopped. The dogs wouldn’t eat it.
While same sex marriage might be wanted by some, preliminary data indicates that like most marriages, it is favored by women. It is 5% of 5% that appears to want and partake of this new, wonderful institution.
I don’t think that the dogs really like it.
Comment by HollywoodBill — July 1, 2008 @ 11:30 pm - July 1, 2008
Gay marriage represents significant social change in it’s own right, but that it is even a realistic possibility is the result of other changes in societal attitudes towards marriage — increasingly liberal attitudes toward marriage, and not for the better.
We see the result of these changing attitudes in Europe where the same attitudes are more advanced.
But Europe is dying. Europeans are not even replacing themselves; the only population growth is coming through immigration. It is estimated that in a few decades, the majority of Europe will be Muslim. European culture is already giving way to Islamic culture in many respects, this will only accelerate as the Muslim population grows.
Is gay marriage to blame for the death of Europe? Of course not, but rather it is a symptom of it. The more people lose sight of what marriage is about in the first place, the more accepting they are of gay marriage.
First in Europe, and now in America an increasing number of people are separating the institution of marriage from procreation. Why should they think of marriage in terms of children? People don’t need children to take care of them anymore — they have the state for that! But of course the state needs children to take care of adults whether the adults recognize it or not.
What same sex marriage advocates like Sullivan and Rauch and people in these comments advocate is exacerbating this problem. “Marriage has changed,” they say. It should be about “love” and “taking care of one another” they say — that’s precisely the way they have come to feel about marriage in Europe.
But since when is the death of an entire civilization “social progress”?
Comment by American Elephant — July 2, 2008 @ 3:54 am - July 2, 2008
#4: You’re right, markie. It’s inconscionable that we can engage in a discussion about the historic inacceptance of gays in the U.S. with what’s going on in the rest of the world. How selfish and infair of us to even momentarily forget about all those unenfranchised people living over there in other places where hunger and cruel untolerance are a daily part of their existence. We should consider ourselves lucky that as Americans we will never face the kind of oppressive hippophobia that is a way of life over there in…umm…Sumeria and Mesopotamia and those other desert-ish, jungly places. As long as there is even one mouth that has not been fed in the world, every American has the moral obligation to feel as inhappy and misnourished as those hungry black kids they show on late night TV.
Comment by Sean A — July 2, 2008 @ 5:01 am - July 2, 2008
Yes, by all means, we should instead be talking about cutting back on energy use, cutting back on consumption, buying locally, blocking the south american free trade agreement, nixing the north american free trade agreement, and all the other liberal policies that increase world famine, poverty, and injustice.
Comment by American Elephant — July 2, 2008 @ 5:16 am - July 2, 2008
Is unjustice anything like injustice?
Comment by DoDoGuRu — July 2, 2008 @ 5:48 am - July 2, 2008
You, sir, are my hero.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — July 2, 2008 @ 5:52 am - July 2, 2008
good grief, we must confront famine, poverty and unjustice which we inflict upon a good part of the rest of the world by electing Obama so he can go to the ends of the earth and have a dialog with the starving pygmies whilst solving the inequality of the social stucture in america at the same time. Obamarama, Obamamessiah, Obamanation, Obamayourmama!
Comment by heliotrope — July 2, 2008 @ 9:50 am - July 2, 2008
For the record: I think gay marriage is a reflection of significant social changes that have already taken place - namely, increased acceptance of gays in Western societies. I lay emphasis on “reflection”. The social changes have already happened; gay marriage merely follows logically, thus expressing or codifying them in some sense.
I also think gay marriage reflects major changes that have already taken place in the institution of marriage: namely, no-fault divorce, which changed the definition of marriage, making it less religious and less about procreation, and more about 2 people caring for each other.
While gay marriage obviously is *a* change to the definition of marriage, and I would not claim otherwise, I argue with the superlatives applied, like “fundamental” change, “huge” change, or even “significant” change. It is none of those things, because, again, the significant changes - which are real - have *already* taken place.
Gay marriage is a minor change to the definition of marriage that impacts (positively) a minority of approximately 5% the population. It is not the end of the world. It is not the end of Western society. It is not the end of marriage. And it is a relatively small change to the legal structure of marriage. (Polygamy, which gay marriage neither hinders nor helps, would be the big change there.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 11:05 am - July 2, 2008
(Clarification: not that no-fault divorce caused people to care about each other more - Quite the opposite - but no-fault divorce shifted the emphasis in society’s definition of marriage to the question of *whether* the 2 people do care about each other, and away from the question of whether they should stay together for the kids, which of them is the adulterer, etc. That was/is a huge change to marriage.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 11:17 am - July 2, 2008
I never claimed it was the end of the world, I claimed it was the end of a civilization. You ought to read Londonistan by Melanie Griffiths. I wonder what you call it when a society isn’t replacing itself and is instead rapidly being replaced by a population that rejects that society’s values and culture? Positive social change?
And I disagree that the social changes have already happened in America. I think the reason most Americans still oppose gay marriage, and they do, is because that culture war is still raging in America, and so far, the side that separates marriage from procreation hasn’t won. When gay marriage is accepted, that is when they will have won. And it won’t be a positive development for society.
It is when society accepts the idea that the purpose of marriage has to do with the whims of adults, and not with reproduction, family and the best interests of children and society that gay marriage becomes acceptable.
And lets do away with this ridiculous idea that marriage has anything to do with taking care of one another while we’re at it. If that were the case, there would be no divorce. If that were the case, we wouldnt be subsidizing marriage, after all two people are supposedly agreeing to take care of one another so society doesnt have to. And yet here we are still paying them. And who takes care of the survivor when one dies? Society. So please explain to me where the savings is when we pay you to take care of one another and then we pay to take care of the survivor? And for the 400th time, why is it that no legislature in the country has said that the purpose of marriage is for people to take care of one another? Because its a lie that proponents of gay marriage have pulled completely out of their asses.
But back on topic, it is no coincidence that as these attitudes are changing in America, reproduction rates are falling, just as they have already done in Europe.
Should we celebrate the acceptance of gay marriage as a result of detrimental changes in attitudes towards marriage? Much like celebrating that there is finally an open deck chair on the Titanic if you ask me.
I have a better idea. How about we value the nuclear family again and reassert that it is indeed the ideal instead of trying to falsely pretend that it is no better than any other number of choices.
Comment by American Elephant — July 2, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - July 2, 2008
Was my comment directed to you, AE? I wasn’t aware of that. I hadn’t even read your comments yet (and still haven’t, beyond the above lead - I am at a conference, only checking in a couple minutes per day).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 9:19 pm - July 2, 2008
what an odd coincidence.
Comment by American Elephant — July 3, 2008 @ 2:58 am - July 3, 2008
Yes. I was just responding to GPW’s use of my name. And to unspecified people I’ve heard over the years saying that gay marriage is the end of civilization, the family, etc. It isn’t.
It may be a return to medieval (pre-13th century) Western practice where gay couples could be joined in fraternal unions that resembled marriage in much of their symbolism and intent (Boswell). Which practice, BTW, is why I don’t care if we end up calling gay marriage “civil unions” or having it separate from straight marriage. If heterosexuals need to feel that their unions are somehow different and extra special (even though some gay unions raise kids) - fine, “whatev”. I just think Western civilization should go back to having *some* institutional path/ideal in place for gay couples. No path / gay promiscuity has been a disaster.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 3, 2008 @ 9:41 am - July 3, 2008
I just think Western civilization should go back to having *some* institutional path/ideal in place for gay couples. No path / gay promiscuity has been a disaster.
That, I think, we can agree upon.
Problem is, though, ideals don’t come from law; they come from culture, and right now, gay culture encourages and supports promiscuity, sexual irresponsibility, and non-commitment. Furthermore, despite the attempt by some gays to argue that the “new” generation” is more responsible, that is belied by the evidence.
The number of young homosexual men being newly diagnosed with HIV infection is rising by 12 percent a year, with the steepest upward trend in young black men, according to a new report.
The double-digit increase in young gay men is about 10 times higher than in the homosexual community overall, where the number of new infections is going up about 1.5 percent a year.
Until that ideal is changed, putting an institution in place is meaningless; as we’ve seen, having gay marriage does nothing to stop gay promiscuity, and in fact, produces the spectacle of “married” gays arguing that their promiscuity is somehow justified because “men are pigs”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - July 3, 2008
ILC,
The same attitudinal changes towards marriage and the nuclear family that you herald because they mean approval of gay marriage are the very same attitudinal changes that have already taken hold in Europe, where Europeans aren’t even replacing themselves.
Europe is dying. That is a fact. Native Europeans grow less in number every year while Muslims who reject eurpean culture and values will be the majority within a few decades. Piglet is banned from libraries, divorce law already accomodates polygamy — european culture is already giving way to muslim culture, and it will only accelerate as the muslim population continues to grow.
Is all this happening because europe embraces gay marriage? No. But Europe embraces gay marriage because they have abandoned important values about marriage and family.
It is no coincidence that the more America follows the same change in attitudes about marriage and family, the more our marriage rates also decline, the more our birth rates decline, and the more acceptance gay marriage gains.
They are all part and parcel of the same shifts in attitude about marriage and family. Marriage matters.
NDT is absolutely right, ideals don’t come from law, rather law reflects ideals. But it can also encourage and support ideals. Unfortunately, what we have is a society that is forgetting why the ideals exist in the first place, and gay marriage is the beneficiary. The overall effect, however, is detrimental to society.
Its not that heterosexuals need to think that their relationships are better, its that society as a whole needs to remember that they are better. What America needs, if it does not want to decline and disappear right along with Europe, is to reverse these attitudinal changes, not to exacerbate them.
Could gay marriage be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem? I wish it could, but I dont see how it is even remotely possible when what is needed are more conservative values about marriage and family, and what gays offer instead are values about marriage that are even farther to the left than where we already are.
Comment by American Elephant — July 4, 2008 @ 9:43 am - July 4, 2008
Is all this happening because europe embraces gay marriage? No. But Europe embraces gay marriage because they have abandoned important values about marriage and family.
AmericanElephant, maybe so. What’s interesting is that the Netherlands has one of the higher birth rates in Europe, while Italy, who doesn’t appear to be heading towards same sex marriage soon (as far as I know) has one of the lowest rates in Europe. Further, Italy appears to be holding more onto the traditional roles in marriage more so than the other European nations, and people are still getting married. They’re just having a lot less children now. And despite more and more states either having civil unions or same sex marriage, the birth rate is still pretty healthy here.
We do agree that this is a problem in Europe. The low birthrate and the increase of intolerant Muslims are two issues to be very concerned about. So something should be done to solve these problems. I just don’t see how banning or preventing same sex marriage will accomplish this. Of course, if the European native population continues to decrease and Muslim immigrants and their descendants increase, then same sex marriage in Europe will undoubtedly end.
as we’ve seen, having gay marriage does nothing to stop gay promiscuity,
Once again, NDT, you keep repeating this false claim. The fact is we do not know for sure if same sex marriage will decrease gay promiscuity or not.
and in fact, produces the spectacle of “married” gays arguing that their promiscuity is somehow justified because “men are pigs”.
Here we go with the “proof” by example bit. We see the spectacle of so many heterosexual marriages, but no one here is calling an end to marriage. Yes, there are certainly examples of same sex marriages only lasting as long as two of Britney Spears’ marriages or four of Zsa Zsa Gabor’s marriages (or should I put the scare quotes in and write “marriages”?). It’s just not a justification of barring same sex marriage.
Comment by Pat — July 4, 2008 @ 3:17 pm - July 4, 2008
the birtrate in the Netherlands is 1.73, 1.74 in the UK, Germany 1.37, 1.33 in Italy. All well below replacement which is 2.1.
I never suggested banning gay marriage was the answer, I am saying that increasingly liberal attitudes is the reason for both. gay marriage may not be legal in Italy, but Italy nonetheless has been getting more liberal in their attitudes about marriage.
And the birthrate here is not healthy, it is declinng, it is still above replacement, but not by much and going down.
Comment by American Elephant — July 4, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - July 4, 2008
should be pretty easy to figure out. gay marriage and civil unions have been the case in MA and other places for some time now, and even longer in europe. is promiscuity decreasing or increasing? are std rates decreasing or increasing?
Comment by American Elephant — July 4, 2008 @ 9:16 pm - July 4, 2008
the birtrate in the Netherlands is 1.73, 1.74 in the UK, Germany 1.37, 1.33 in Italy. All well below replacement which is 2.1.
True, they are all clearly well below the replacement level. But as I stated, it is much worse in Italy. If these rates continue, Italy’s decline will spiral down more rapidly and have less of a chance to resolve the issue, than say the Netherlands and UK.
I never suggested banning gay marriage was the answer, I am saying that increasingly liberal attitudes is the reason for both.
It’s hard to say if that is really correct or not. All I can say is a lot of the progressive changes we’ve had improved society, while some have not, and made things worse. So, the question is where does same sex marriage fall here? It seems to me that the declining birth rates are due more to the change from a rural and agricultural society to a more urban and industrial society. This is even happening in developing countries, although the birthrates are still well above the replacement level for now.
should be pretty easy to figure out. gay marriage and civil unions have been the case in MA and other places for some time now, and even longer in europe. is promiscuity decreasing or increasing? are std rates decreasing or increasing?
“Some time now” in this country is really not that long, even in Massachusetts. It will take a couple of generations, at the very least, to see what impact this will have. Almost all of the gay population grew up in a time when having same sex marriage was not even considered a possibility. Further, a majority grew up in environments hostile to homosexuality, be it at school, the playground, peers, and even in their own homes by their own parents. Once gay children and teens have an environment similar enough to their straight peers, with the same goals and expectations, then let’s see what impact it will have in decreasing promiscuity.
As for Europe, it seems like a different ball game there. There seems to be a more accepting attitude of nonmonogamous marriages there, so that it was no problem when some of the leaders, who were married, were open about having mistresses (which was not true with even Bill Clinton). So since there isn’t the best monogamy model in Europe, it wouldn’t surprise me that gay promiscuity would not lessen there. This may be contributing to the problems in Europe now. This has to be worked on for the whole of society in Europe, not just the gay community there.
And the birthrate here is not healthy, it is declinng, it is still above replacement, but not by much and going down.
As long as the birthrate stabilizes, we’ll be okay. Of course, if the trend continues, then we certainly will have a problem as Europe does.
Comment by Pat — July 5, 2008 @ 11:12 am - July 5, 2008