Because my post on Yishai Kabaker’s “Nutshell†Case for Gay Marriage attracted such a spirited debate, I asked him if I could post the entire essay he had submitted to the Stanford Review as that conservative paper had to cut it to meet their guidelines.
With his permission, in the interest of furthering the kind of discussion of gay marriagemissing from the debate on California’s Proposition 8, I am posting his untruncated piece below:
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the gay marriage debate is the deaf shouting past both sides without realizing the common goals they share. Tensions have been ratcheted up as gay rights groups and family values groups compete to out fund one another before the November election and the referendum on gay marriage. The proposed Constitutional amendment (Proposition 8 ) seeks to reinforce marriage as an institution between a man and a woman thereby reversing a May decision by the California Supreme Court that extended marriage to gay couples.
As a gay conservative I find myself caught between the two camps. I am strongly in favor of gay marriage yet I understand the concern of conservatives at the perceived attack on marriage.
The gay rights movement was born in the late 60’s early 70’s as a segment of the greater Civil Rights Movement. The early gay movement forged a unique culture emblemized by gay pride parades, drag queens, and the Sexual Revolution. Since the mainstream institutions were vehemently opposed to homosexuality, gays and lesbians felt little desire to conform or emulate those institutions. As mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, it diminished the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates. While major issues of homophobia and hatred still face the community mainstream American society is moving in the general direction of greater acceptance of homosexuality.
Gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomena and reflects a shift in the LGBT community away from Sexual Revolution towards greater American mainstream. One of the earliest and most prolific advocates is gay conservative, Andrew Sullivan. In a 1997 debate with David Frum, he summed up the desire for gay marriage by explaining “We do not want any change in the obligations that marriage entails. We want the same limits as now apply–but applied to people regardless of their sexual orientation.†In this sense the desire for gay marriage is not merely a fight for the legal and social benefits, but rather a desire for the serious commitments that marriage entails.
In my personal experience, growing up in Conservative Judaism, so much of the faith and religious ceremonies revolve around the family and the relationship between husband and wife. The acts of devotion, compromises of commitment, and even the challenges of marriage are to be revered as powerful accomplishments of humans as social beings. Too often marriage is unappreciated or abused for monetary benefits or convenience, and it pains me to see how casual marriage has become in our society. It is with this understanding that many gays, myself included, seek to be a part of this institution.
On the other hand, marriage is not a static custom and has changed drastically over the past thousand years. The Western conception of marriage was purged of polygamy, marriage as means of diplomacy, incest, underage marriage, and most recently immutable gender roles for husband and wife. The evolution of marriage continues today. Recent uproars surrounding unfaithful politicians from both sides of the isle reflect the greater concern of the American public towards fidelity. The concern with the loyalty of our politicians to their spouses was absent fifty or even thirty years ago, and I believe is a change for the good.
Opponents of gay marriage often lump homosexual unions with socially unacceptable acts like polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. What is missed in these comparisons is that those sexual acts are either inherently unequal and unfair as is the case with polygamy, or do not have the consent of both parties as in the case of bestiality and pedophilia.
Some approach from the biological perspective noting gay marriage does not naturally produce children. The first response is that technology is constantly advancing to allow both gay and sterile couples options in child-rearing previously unavailable. Secondly and more profoundly, marriage is not a biological institution; it’s a uniquely human social creation. If we were to follow biology strictly, polygamy would be ideal for breeding and none of the relationship aspects of marriage would be relevant.
I assume that much of hysteria surrounding the extension of marriage to homosexuals is based on fears of gay promiscuity. The bath house culture of the ‘80s and the bar/club culture today are not the greatest reflections of a community in need of marriage. This is not however, uniquely homosexual. The straight community has a wide spectrum of lifestyles from lifelong marriages to permanent bachelor and bachelorettes. The difference is that the promiscuous segment of the gay community receives much greater coverage. The gay marriage movement is not a desire to slap a marriage sticker on the bar scene and dilute the purpose of marriage, but rather to apply rules of marriage to ourselves and be recognized by society.
Badly written article. Poor logic, poorly argued.
If he’s “…strongly in favor of gay marriage yet [he] understand[s] the concern of conservatives at [sic] the perceived attack…”, how can he consider himself “…caught between the two camps…” he’s described?
“As mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, it diminished the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates.” There was never a ‘need’ for extreme advocates. Is he implying that extremists helped diminish this need? He’s stating that there is an inverse proportion of extremists to tolerance. I disagree. Anyone aware of Folsom Street Fair would disagree and I don’t live in Palo Alto.
And that’s only the beginning. Depressing.
I really enjoyed the article. I see it as a great article for people on the fence(leaning “yes) about the proposition.
I don’t know what Ignatius read. But, I see the same passage stating that as gay culture became more mainstream, the face of gay culture changed from crazy leather drag queens, etc to normal Americans that happen to be gay (ie: Ellen DeGeneres).
Outlicious, my general problem with the article is that it places the burden of society’s attitudes towards homosexuals solely upon society. Take these two sentences:
“Since the mainstream institutions were vehemently opposed to homosexuality, gays and lesbians felt little desire to conform or emulate those institutions. As mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, it diminished the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates.”
Do you notice a similarity? He’s stating that gays and lesbians didn’t want to take part in mainstream institutions such as marriage because of a perceived vehement opposition to homosexuality within those institutions (representing the larger society) and that the need for extremists diminished only when society grew more tolerant. I both factually and logically disagree. I’m not even sure he understands the differences between tolerance and acceptance, as he jumps from one to the other with only “…homophobia and hatred…” in between.
He implies later that a private commitment can only be valid if approved by the state. Once again, he’s relying on society to act in his best, private interest before he proves his self-interest is beneficial to the larger society from which he makes his demands, that the effect of his commitment is met when the cause is state approval. Whether he is committed to another has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the state and only until society is convinced that it benefits from a change in the institution of marriage will he have made his case. He hasn’t made his case.
“gay conservative, Andrew Sullivan” still makes me cringe for reasons I previously stated. (Pre-2/24/04 Sullivan was hardly further right than a moderate Democrat. Post-2/24/04 Sullivan has been a moonbat, and post-Palin Sullivan has been a truly ungracious, contemptible human being.)
Having said that 🙂 The unedited article is great! (Or it’s growing on me, or something.)
If only that were true. Or, to put it another way: WE must make it true.
I question that. Some straights are definitely promiscuous. But in my un-scientific estimate, both (a) the proportion of the community involved in promiscuity and (b) the intensity of the promiscuity would have to be higher for gay men. (And, lower for lesbians.)
One of my biggest arguments for gay marriage rights is this. If a person can be born hermaphrodite (meaning that they are born with, at least parts, of both sets of sex organs), isn’t it perfectly feasible that an individual might be born with a complete set of sex organs that do not match up to their psychological and emotional gender? And if that is the case, homosexuality would be, indeed, a harmless yet legitimate birth defect. That said, any discrimination would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, wherein, under title II it states that, “State and local governments [are required to] give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities” which would include the granting of a marriage license.
#5, to turn that on its ear,
If someone can be born with the wrong set of organs, does that mean you’d support abortion of gay babies on demand? I mean if the child had a ‘defect’ like downs syndrome, others have suggested it’s better to abort than raise such a child.
I disagree with your ‘disability’ premise on its face, just curious about this continuation of the line of thought.
Livewire, thank you for your comment. The last thing I want is that gay people would be considered a birth defect.
I don’t think that obtaining a marriage license from the State is worth that sacrifice.
You’re welcome Leah,
I may have strayed into Reducto ad absurdium, if I remember debate class correctly, but I just found that hiding behind the ADA was absurd on the face.
I’m left handed, should I be covered under the ADA because of historic opression and trying to function in a society build by the right handed for the rigth handed? *snort*
My whole problem with all this is that the Supreme Court of CA makes this a civil rights issue by drawing the comparison of sexual orientation with gender and race–immutable and natural. The following link makes some interesting points about this idea.
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
Of course, I’m a religious, heterosexual conservative and this agrees with my viewpoint…thanks.
@8 (Livewire)
Just on the side: If I remember Latin class correctly (and, this is just a figure of speech here, because I do remember it correctly) it is “Reductio ad absurdum”. I know this does not contribute to the actual debate, it’s just that it makes me iffy when people use big words and do not even know how to do so (I dare not ask if you know what it means). Go on