Given the recent discussion on this blog (notably in the comment thread to my post on Joy Behar) about whether monogamy is essential to marriage, let me draw your attention to a post Glenn Reynolds linked today on a site that is hardly at the vanguard of the marriage movement.  Among her “Secrets to a Long Happy Marriage,” Wendy Atterberry includes some tips on “keeping faithful.”  Yes, she acknowledges that people may stray, but leads off her list with this point:  ”Be aware of the dangers and recognise the urge for what it is: a temporary itch, not to be scratched.”  (Emphasis added.)

She thus acknowledges that fidelity is key to a happy marriage.  And that once that fidelity is compromised, it takes a lot of work to restore trust, requiring both husband and wife to “work through the problem together, with professional help if” necessary.

In case you miss my point, let me repeat, fidelity is essential to marriage and gay people are capable of monogamy.

It’s just too bad the leaders of gay organizations refuse to say as much.

For well over a year now, I have stopped paying attention to the left-wing blogs which distort my views and seek to cast me as something I am not.  It’s just not worth my time to attempt to engage with people more interested in belittling conservatives than in understanding–and countering–our arguments.

When, however, a blogger, well, in this case, a blogress whom I generally respect gets my views wrong, I do take notice.  Last night, just before bed, I chanced on an incoming link from the normally sensible and sharp, Cynthia Yockey (AKA a Conservative Lesbian).  In her broadside attacking me for my alleged views on gay marriage, she misrepresents my recent critique of Joy Behar:

His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.

I did not side with Joy Behar.  I believe gay people are capable of monogamy.  In my post, I faulted gay leaders for their silence in the wake of Miss Behar’s recent comments on gays and monogamy.  I did so to show my skepticism of their “understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.”  I did not challenge the fitness of same-sex couples to fulfill the obligations of matrimony. (more…)

One of the main reasons I find it difficult to embrace the gay marriage, er, marriage equality movement, is that its proponents seem more interested in the abstract notion of “equality” than in the real institution of marriage. Its advocates are less interested in promoting marriage than in winning, to borrow an expression from my friend Dale Carpenter, a “trophy in the cultural wars.“

We see this again this week when none of the national gay organizations took issue with those in the media who contend that gay people are incapable of meeting one of the primary obligations of matrimony:  monogamy.  Last Tuesday, January 26, on The View, Joy Behar said that gays, “don’t take monogamy and infidelity the same way that the straight community does.”  Two days later in the New York Times, Scott James reported approvingly on the number of gay couples trying “to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony.”  Many are omitting monogamy:

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area.  The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Now, I don’t know what percentage of those couples consider themselves married.  And to be sure, while it wouldn’t be my choice to be part of an open relationship, I do believe individuals should be free to design their relationships as they see fit.  Open relationships may well be fulfilling to the individuals involved, but they’re not marriages.

Given that marriage is based on sexual exclusivity, to call a nonmonogamous union “marriage” is indeed to subvert the meaning of the institution.

By refusing to criticize those who see gay people as incapable of monogamy, gay organizations lend credence to social conservative arguments that gay marriage advocates seek to subvert the institution they’re ostensibly trying to promote.  I could find nothing denouncing Ms. Behar on the web-sites of the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights or even Freedom (sic) to Marry.  Even my various google searches turned up no commentary from the head of these organizations taking Ms. Behar to task for her prejudice against gay people.  I could find none addressing the New York Times article.

As can be expected, it was only on blogs where gay people defended the ability of their fellows to meet the same conditions of marriage expected of our straight peers. The folks at Queerty responded that conversations about gay monogamy are best left in hands other than The View gals. Over at Good As You, Jeremy Hooper was astounded that Behar “could have such an uninformed opinion about gay relationships as a whole“: (more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!!

Maybe I shouldn’t read Instapundit on days when I oversleep.   While I was eating my breakfast, I kept chancing upon posts which inspired me to pen three of my own (including this one).

This morning, Glenn linked an article that addresses an issue that has long fascinated me, particularly as it relates to the ancient Greeks, but also because it deals with the complexity of human sexuality.  The article considers the homosexual practices of ethnic Pushtuns in Afghanistan:

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns — though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually — yet they completely reject the label of “homosexual.”

Sounds a lot like the ancient Greeks where older men often took a younger man (really a teen) as a lover and sought to educate him while enjoying the pleasures of his body.

But, can we call them “gay”?

It is only recently in human history that we have considered the notion of sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic, with most people physically attracted to members of the opposite sex, a certain percentage (which may well vary across history and culture) are physically and emotionally drawn exclusively to their own sex.  To be sure, in the Symposium, Aristophanes was did articulate a view of human sexuality similar to the current notion.  But, his ideas didn’t gain much currency until recently.  In many cultures, when men had sex with other men, this recreation was just an extracurricular past time.  It did not define their sexual identity.

The Greeks of mythology and history, Achilles and Alexander, respectively, held up as gay exemplars, were anything but.  While each had a male lover*, neither steered clearer of the “fairer sex.”   (more…)

To understand the decline in quality of the debate on gay marriage from its early potential to its current name-calling, you can start by reading two pieces by Andrew Sullivan 19 years apart.  In the first, “Here Comes the Groom,” he outlines a solid argument on the merits of extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples.  In the second, “My Big Fat Straight (sic) Wedding,” he rhapsodizes about how wonderful state recognition of gay marriage makes him feel.  With said recognition, his “wedding”* “shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls.”

That later form of “argument” is currently on display in a San Francisco court room where lawyers are making a 1970s case for gay marriage, it’s all about feelings, nothing more than feelings.  These lawyers have, in the words of my friend Charles Winecoff, turned gay marriage advocates’ “fetish for state-sanctioned self-esteem into a federal case.“

In the trial, Perry v. v. Schwarzenegger, a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank, seek to overturn California’s Proposition 8.  And in so doing, Charles reports, they’re trying to make federal law out of a saccharine ’70s song:

[Attorney Ted Olson] Olson opened the show by declaring that “domestic partnership has nothing to do with love” – essentially admitting that the two couples are seeking legal recognition of their feelings. Then the complainants took to the stand to deliver a string of what even theLos Angeles Times called “emotional accounts,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-celebrities no longer need Oprah (or Jerry Springer) to validate their existence.

First, Jeffrey Zarrillo testified that ”the word marriage” would give him the ability “to partake in family gatherings, friends and work functions as a married individual standing beside my parents and my brother and his wife.  The pride that one feels when that happens.”  Does he mean that, like Michelle Obama and her country, he never before felt pride being with his partner?  In their nine years as a couple, did they never attend any of those events together?

If “the word” means so much, why not just call yourself married? (more…)

Sometimes the best questions our readers ask are the most basic ones. In response to my post calling “abstinence only” sex education anachronistic, DRH asked, “Now for a real tough question. How should sex ed. handle gay & lesbian students?“

It is a great question.  And the answer is not as simple as partisans on either side of the debate would like.  It’s why I’m willing to cut Kevin Jennings a little slack on the Brewster incident.  If he had shown some remorse in the years since the incident (before his appointment to the Department of Education), we would know he appreciated the complexity of the situation.

That leads to the question, how should a teacher handle a gay student, particularly when said student is a minor who approaches him (the teacher) in confidence, fearful his parents will find out?

Should he teach him about safe sex?  Tell him that his feelings don’t render him a pariah or deviant, but instead are, while perhaps an aberration or anomaly, in the great scheme of things, natural?  Should he discourage that boy from having sex until he finds someone with whom he can share something more than just physical stimulation and release?  Or at least teach him about the emptiness and remorse that often follow casual sex and the potential that our sexuality offers for emotional intimacy?

As to the first two questions above, the answer is clearly, “yes.”  As to the second two, the answer is not so clear.  That education seems to better belong with the child’s family and place of worship.  But, what if that place of worship teaches them that homosexuality is not just an aberration, but an abomination?  Should it be the public school’s job to contradict that teaching? (more…)

While I think some of the coverage on conservative blogs about the latest Kevin Jennings hullabaloo (James Taranto might call it a kerfuffle) a bit overheated, I have not yet found any cause to rescind my earlier call for his resignation.  Simply put, he is not the kind of man who should be supervising a program for elementary and secondary schools in the federal Department of Education.

That said, while I think it’s highly relevant to study the content of the books he recommended for middle and high school students, I don’t know how relevant it is to bring up the “youth conference” his organization GLSEN sponsored at Tuft’s University in March 2000 where facilitators* taught the finer points of “fisting” and asked rather inappropriate questions of young teens. It appears that GLSEN did a better job policing its workshops since then.***  More recent conferences apparently have not included such seminars.  (At least I have seen no evidence that they have.)

Let us hope that they fired the individuals responsible for said workshops and the person who, by including them in the conference, deemed them appropriate for adolescents.*** Anyone who thinks it appropriate to teach such things to teens shouldn’t be allowed to teach teens (or facilitate workshops for them).  Such seminars have nothing to do with teaching adolescents responsible sexual behavior nor do they help them develop an adult attitude toward sexuality.

But, the “curriculum” there does seem to be part of a pattern for Mr. Jennings, wishing to impart to adolescents an attitude toward sexuality where indulgence is the operative idea and intimacy and affection are reduced to occasional (and perhaps welcome) side effects.  And the rules of safe sex are the only limits.

As I’ve said previously and it bears repetition, we can’t make a final judgment on the nature of the books on the GLSEN list without putting the sexually explicit passages in context.  That said, books with such descriptions are not appropriate for young teens (up to age 15 or 16) and should only be recommended to older ones after first consulting their parents.

What I find troubling in this whole story is something I have encountered all too often in my own experience coming out and living as a gay man, that our (gay) culture reduces our sexuality to its mere sexual expression.  Not just that, those who put themselves in positions of guidance to gay adolescents very often just mimic the culture; they don’t try to improve it by encouraging their charges to tether sexual expression to emotional connection or even to make them aware of the importance of that connection.   (more…)

Generally, if I post on a matter where I indicate that I share even the slightest bit of common ground with social conservatives, critics will come in as if out of the woodwork, making allegations about my views both at odds with my actual opinions and even (on occasion) at odds with things I actually said in the very post to which they attach their comments. And  so it was, when, in the past ninety-six hours, I posted on Adam Lambert and the latest Kevin Jennings “scandal.”

As to the former, first let me say that I’ve never heard him sing or seen him perform (save for a brief clip of his sexual simulation at the American Music Awards); I offer no commentary about his vocal talents.  Simply put, I don’t have a problem with ABC canceling his appearance on their network because they fear a repeat of his performance at those awards nor do I think it appropriate for a gay organization to take ABC to task for its actions.

And while I share the concerns expressed by some conservative bloggers about the content of the books on the list GLSEN, Jennings’ organization, provided for adolescents on its website, don’t let that concern mean I share those bloggers’ views on every issue involving gays (and sex).  I know that some of them, for example, support “abstinence only” sex education, a idea I believe to be counterproductive and outdated, particularly given a culture saturated by sex.

Now, I do have problem with sex education curricula which discourage teen abstinence and encourage them to be sexually active.

That said, whether we like it or not, teens are going to be having sex.  They need to know about contraception and STDs.  They also need to know that sex can be infinitely more rewarding when part of an intimate and loving relationship.   There are benefits to abstinence–and not just form from the point of view of preventing pregnancy and STDs.  Those should also be taught.

If, however, kids are only taught about abstinence, they likely won’t learn about the risks which inhere in sex.  In this culture saturated by sex, with pressure from their peers, with their own human desires, they’re going to act out their urges.  So, let them know the risks, but also let them know that they don’t need to have sex to prove themselves. (more…)

I know that I’m not just whistling in the wind with this post, but whistling in a typhoon.

First of all, I believe Tiger Woods behaved badly in cheating on his wife.  He betrayed his marriage vows and hurt someone to whom he had pledged fidelity.  And while, by dint of his athletic success and graceful manner, he has become a public figure, he has not been entrusted with any public responsibility.

What he has done is a matter for him to work out with his wife.  She has every right to be angry and to excoriate him for his errors.  But, we should not add to her pain by prying into their private life.  Let’s just leave them alone to work this thing out on their own and with those counselors they choose to consult at this difficult time.

As I research the idea of male aggression for the chapter in my dissertation on why men need the goddess Athena, I encounter reams of evidence, from the social as well as the natural sciences, which provide substance to my “gut” suspicion of the term, “marriage equality.”

In their 1989 book, Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, Anne Moir and David Jessel write:

A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious.

Such a remark, uttered today would evoke very different reactions.

But, these differences are real and they go to the very heart of the debate about marriage:

The appreciation, for instance, that sex has different origins, motives and significance in the context of the male and female brains, that marriage is profoundly unnatural to the biology of the male, might make us better and more considerate husbands and wives.

Sex differences are not then a social construct and men and women see marriage in profoundly different terms, at least until their mutual sexual attraction brings them together in a committed relationship.  

We know how real those differences are from even such a zealous advocate of gay marriage as Andrew Sullivan.  He understands how hard monogamy is for men and offers excuses today for men’s failure to realize that ideal, a failure he refused to countenance when he was writing/debating gay marriage in the 1990s.

Does acknowledgement of these differences mean that gay people should abandon the struggle for state recognition of same-sex marriage?  For now, I’ll say, “not necessarily.”  It does mean, particularly given the results in Maine this past week, that we need change the way we approach the debate.

It’s been well over a year since I ended a vow of celibacy I undertook just over three years ago.  I wanted to see what it was like not to have sex for a period of time.  Fortunately, I was single (as I am now), so didn’t have to disappoint a boyfriend.  :-)

One thing which struck me when I talked about my decision with my gay male peers was how, while some commended my choice, most criticized it.  I certainly understand the drive which underlies their criticism (now perhaps better than I did back then).  And while I appreciate their standpoint, one thing which troubled me about many of these conversations was how all too many of my gay peers (and it oftentimes seems men in general) have limited the conversations on sexual restrictions to playing safe.

As if there should be no further limitations.

That idea struck me again when I read about how twenty-one years ago, Kevin Jennings handled his meeting with “Brewster.”  He wanted to make sure the teen used condoms for intercourse.  That’s a good thing, a very good thing, to tell sexually active individuals.  But, it’s not all we should be saying.  It seems most of us are like Jennings.  We don’t want to discourage any sexual expression, provided, of course, it’s “safe.” (more…)

I may or may not blog again on the case of Kevin Jennings.  I do have another post in my mind, but it’s basically just an expansion on a point I made in my last post on the topic.

I hope the readers who brought up the issue of “gray areas” in this case appreciate that I did indeed acknowledge those areas (perhaps implicitly) in the very post to which they attached their comments.  For I grant that, in this case, there are indeed gray areas (on the part of Jennings but not “Brewster’s” lavatory lover).  But, there aren’t always gray areas.

But, it seems sometimes that all too many of our fellow gays (and a large number of straights, particularly men) have decided to replace the Manichean division of sexual expression (“good” when inside marital bonds, otherwise, “bad”) with the notion (to borrow a line from the movie Saved!) that “it’s all a gray area.”  No, it’s not.

It is wrong for a man (or woman) to have sexual relations with a minor.  It is wrong for a married man or woman to cheat on his spouse.  It is wrong to promise fidelity to your boyfriend (or girlfriend) while carrying on with someone else.  And there are other things, many involving coercion, which are clearly wrong.

That said, the older I get, the more I realize how amazingly complicated our sexual expression is (and the more, many more, gray areas I find).  I still remain convinced that the highest form of sexual expression is between the two partners in a committed monogamous union.  But, not all of us are so fortunate to find ourselves in such a state, hence the gray areas.

That said, I fear that all too many in the gay community echo that silly notion from Saved! that it’s all a gray area.   (more…)

As those who read this blog know all too well, I find it difficult to take seriously many advocates of gay marriage because they make the case for marriage as a right without defending it as a social institution.

No wonder many opponents of gay marriage believe state recognition of gay marriage would put us on a slippery slope to state recognition of polygamous and polyandrous (one woman to multiple men) unions.  We might feel we’re on less of a slippery slope if gay marriage advocates both defended marriage as a lifelong sexually exclusive partnership between two individuals and criticized those offering alternate definitions of the institution.

They could do just that, if, as blogging law professor William Jacobson, they faulted Newsweek for its fawning article on polyamourous couples.

Read his post to see just how he mocks Newsweek.  When I read it, I wondered (and not for the first time) how reluctant the leading gay marriage advocates have been to promote the social benefits of marriage and to defend one of the ancient institution’s essential aspects–sexual exclusivity.

Maybe if they did that, gay marriage opponents would find it far more difficult to raise the slippery slope argument.

I had an interesting conversation with a hard-working volunteer at the close of Outfest about loneliness in the gay community–and how our sexual ethic often exacerbates the isolation that many of us feel from time to time.  Too many of us, alas, particularly in the town where I live, see sex not as a means of human connection, but as a means of personal pleasure (& release).

When you’re young and it’s easy to hook up, you often don’t realize how lonely you are when you’re not getting any.  (You know that option is always available.) Regular sexual contact almost allows you to bypass those fleeting moments of loneliness.  But, as you get older, the ruse (of using sex to cover up our desire for connection) doesn’t work as well as it once did.

With that notion in mind, I offered that if gay people talked more about the potential of sexual contact as an opportunity to connect with our fellows, we might lessen the loneliness, so ubiquitous in our community–as it is in society at large.  This wise volunteer wondered if state recognition of gay marriage might help foster that understanding.

And I replied that it would if we talked about gay marriage as Jonathan Rauch does in his book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.  If we saw it as a sacred institution rather than a right, we might understand why marriage has survived for so long.

That is why, I believe, we need have this conversation about the meaning of gay marriage.  Not only will it show our straight peers that we’re serious about the institution (making it easier for them to support it at the ballot box), but it will also help improve our own lives.

When we recognize that in channeling our sexual desires into an enduring, intimate relationship, we see that many in such relationships have found the happiness that all too often eludes us, that their loneliness is lessened.  So, if we try each time to see that potential in the objects of our desire, we humanize those individuals and create opportunities for deeper affection and understanding.

Several years ago, when I was running with a recently boyfriended fellow member of the DC Front Runners, our heads turned for a better view of a rather fetching fellow who crossed our path.

“Hey,” I said to my running partner, “What are you doing?   You’ve got a boyfriend!”

“My hubby,” he replied, “doesn’t care where I get my appetite so long as I eat at home.”

And like us gay guys, straight men also check out the objects of their attraction (in their case members of the opposite sex) even when happily married.  (I’ve seen my straight married friends check out women at my gym.)  We’re men.  It happens.  We’re drawn to physically attractive people.  And so long as acknowledging that attraction doesn’t prevent those partnered among us from being faithful to their spouses, well, then so what?

And such was my response when I heard tell that the Presidents of the United States and France were caught ogling a rather fetching female.  I mean, what’s the fuss?  Neither called this attractive young woman his soul-mate or arranged clever means to pay for her “services.”  She just crossed their path and they, well, they just enjoyed the view (as would I suspect countless other men similarly “inclined”*).  (Okay, okay, if they did go out and pay for such a view, they would not be so innocent.)

Any anyway, Michelle watched the video and lo and behold found that the President

. . . wasn’t even paying attention to the young girl in the wine-colored dress. Obama was helping another young woman down the stairs and glancing down to grab her hand.

So, there’s really not any there there.  But, if there were, all it would be would be evidence that Barack Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy are just red-blooded heterosexual males.  Ain’t nothing wrong with that.

* (more…)

On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.

The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach?  Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.

Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear.  If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through?  Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear?  And  say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?

It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.

Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official.  Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst.  So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.“

But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?

UPDATE:  Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own.  He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.”  Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows.   Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“: (more…)

On Saturday night over dinner, a friendly acquaintance and I had a wide-ranging discussion about a number of topics, including gender difference, sexual ethics and marital fidelity.

For both of us (I learned in the course of the evening that he was gay), monogamy is non-negotiable in a relationship.  When I mentioned that I knew several gay men in open relationships, he asked me if I thought their relationships were fulfilling.

I commented that such friends seem happy, that it wasn’t for me to judge.  He pressed me on the point and I really couldn’t answer, having never probed those guys about their relationships’ well-being.  A small “l” libertarian, valuing freedom and recognizing human difference, I thought they could be.  But, another part of me, knowing human nature, wondered if that were so.

And then, as is my wont, when I’m not certain about my answer, I rambled a bit, illustrating my point, but each illustration seemed to pull me further from the more “libertarian” answer I had offered to such questions in recent years:  an open relationship is not the choice I would make, but who am I to say that such an arrangement wouldn’t work for others.

In an open relationship, at a difficult time when you’d want to stray, you might more readily seek satisfaction with someone else rather than face those difficulties.  A partner in a monogamous union would likely still be attracted to other guys, but in rejecting their advances would be affirming his feelings for his partner, a sign of how much he valued their bond.

Such were my thoughts and the more I articulated them, the more I realized how monogamy fosters intimacy, helps deepen the connection.  Later, as I considered our conversation (especially as I watched Spanglish), I wondered if perhaps I had shifted my once firmly-held belief that monogamy was essential to a fulfilling relationship so as not to appear out of sync with the reigning ethos of gay world.

Ever a libertarian, I still believe people must be allowed the choice to remain faithful.  But, I wonder if, in making that choice, they deprive themselves of the full benefits of their relationship.

In a comment to my post on the absence of a serious debate on marriage in the campaign against Proposition 8, a reader asked, “to hear your reasons why you support same sex marriage or don’t, and your reasons why you support Prop. 8 or don’t.“

While I have some concerns with the campaign against the initiative and have some sympathy for the arguments of some of its proponents, I plan on voting “No” on 8 next Tuesday.

I want to see the state Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage overturned. At the same time, I don’t want the traditional definition of marriage enshrined in the state Constitution. But, the only way to overturn that decision is to amend the constitution.  We can’t achieve one without the other.

Hence, my lukewarm opposition.  The constitution will remain free of the offending clause.  A bad decision will stand.

Simply put, I don’t believe it’s the province of the judiciary to decide the qualifications for marriage in a particular state.  That responsibility belongs to the legislature and, here, in the Golden State given our liberal initiative policies, to the people.

In 2000, the people voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Proposition 22).  Fewer than five years later, the California legislature voted to recognize gay marriage.  Instead of defying the people they served, our legislators should have referred the matter back to them, asking citizens to repeal 22.

Had the citizens done so, then the legislature could have taken up the issue.

In some ways, I see Proposition 8 as our chance to weigh in on 22.   I vote “No” on 8, as I would have voted “Yes” to repeal 22.

So, if we do defeat 8, then the people will indeed have voted for gay marriage.  It would not have just been the court mandating social change.

(more…)

Every now and again you chance on an article on a cultural trend which draws some larger meaning out of it. A few days ago, a reader e-mailed an article from Out magazine asking whether Manhunt, a web-site to facilitate sex hookups for gay men, has destroyed gay culture.

We are all aware (that is, we gay men) how numerous websites like Manhust (and internet chat rooms) have made it easier for gay men to meet for sex — and sometimes hopefully more. Instead of just describing this phenomenon, writer Michael Joseph Gross tries to understand its social, cultural and personal significance as this paragraph near the beginning of the article makes clear:

Manhunt would be your perfect weapon, a heat-seeking missile for the weaknesses that have plagued us for decades. Perry Halkitis, a New York University associate dean and professor of applied psychology, says, “Manhunt is a symptom. It does well because we don’t know how to relate to each other and we don’t know how to take care of ourselves.” Dan Savage, author of the sex column “Savage Love” and editor of Seattle’s The Stranger newspaper, says, “Manhunt is a tool. Big, bad Manhunt doesn’t make guys drag themselves to the webcam and take all those pictures of their dicks.”

Halkitis and Savage are onto something.  It is a symptom of the difficulty we have relating to each other, an attempt to connect while avoiding the challenging and often messy means of building deeper, lasting and more sustaining relationships.

While understanding the phenomenon, Gross also offers some criticism of what it can do to us:

Too many of us, too much of the time, are cruising online because it’s easier and feels safer than mustering the courage, patience, discipline, and imagination required to help ourselves and each other become the men that, in our strongest moments, we want to be.

Well said, very well said.  It is easier, but it doesn’t necessarily provide what we really want.  It provides only a moment’s release, opening a window perhaps to a real connection, but one which we, all too many of us at least, close all too readily.

This is one article where you really have to read the whole thing to see where the author is going, to discover his attempt to understand the social, cultural and even personal implications of the phenomenon of internet hooking up.

Perhaps we could use the comments section here to get a serious conversation going about sites such as Manhunt and those implications mentioned above.

Related:  Gay Men, Vulnerability, Relationship

Among the many troubling things the non-monogamous “married” man Eric Erbelding said to the New York Times was his repetition of the refrain we hear all too often, particularly from gay men, that “Men are pigs.“

Granted, given our natural inclination to (for lack of better term) to “spread our seed,” we men do seem to find it more difficult to control our sexual inclination. But, control it we can. The pig of this metaphor cannot.

Yes, monogamy is a greater challenge for men than it is for women. There just seems to be something in the makeup of our gender which we see readily when comparing gay men to lesbians, the former more eager to hook up, the latter to nest. I guess one reason I relate well to lesbians is that I just don’t get those who want a sexual encounter to end with the orgasm. But, many men do.

The point is that we men do have this instinct, but we also have the ability to control it, to see the body with whom we seek pleasure as human being with whom we can relate on more than just a physical level.

Marriage has long existed as an institution which channels our sexual instinct into a fulfilling emotional relationships. The fact that so many married men have remained faithful to their wives proves that men, unlike that metaphorical pig, can indeed be tamed and can commit to a monogamous relationship.

Indeed, many men elect monogamy even without the benefit of matrimony.

The expression, “men are pigs,” becomes an excuse to prevent men from the challenging and often embarrassing work of intimacy. That intimacy, getting to know each other often, as Rabbi Meier observed, causes us to reveal our weaknesses and vulnerabilities to our partner. And some men want to use our gender to dodge these challenges and avoid this exposure. And as an excuse for our sexual exploits.

If that’s how some men want to exercise their natural instinct, that’s their choice. But, recall that marriage is an institution which, for as long as we have recorded knowledge of it, has served to tame that instinct.

If men are pigs, we are not worthy of marriage. But, I’m not one who subscribes to that narrow notion of our gender. To be sure, we do have piggish qualities, but we also have more noble ones. And marriage helps bring the latter out. At least it should.

Related: Gay Men, Vulnerability & Relationship