Gay Marriage
November 18, 2008 11 Comments
I’ve been thinking a lot over the last couple of days about Prop 8, gay marriage and what the recent wave of anti-gay marriage legislation says about the country. Most of my thoughts remain unformed, so please be patient with some of my conclusions.
Yesterday I heard Michael Steele, who is currently running for the chairmanship of the RNC, say that Prop 8 was proof that AMerica is still a ‘center-right’ country. Generally I agree with him on the center-right description, but I don’t know if I’m convinced that Prop 8 should be used as evidence.
I am not ashamed to admit that I see-saw frequently on gay marriage. Some days I feel very libertarian and just think we should live and let live. Other days I feel like a stuffy old guard conservative and think we should defend the walls built around our cultural norms as vigorously as possible. I suspect there are many, many Americans like myself that are similarly conflicted.
Just before the election an acquaintance of mine who happens to be gay sent out an email pleading with the recipients to vote against John McCain because “…he wants to deny me my human rights.” I am not a constitutional lawyer but I think I understand the legal system and our basic governmental structure enough to say emphatically that marriage, whether it be gay or straight, is not a human right. I’m not even convinced it should be a civil right with near-universal access like voting or freedom of the press. At best we should call it a legal right and from that perspective it seems to fit better under business law than anything else. Afterall, it’s primarily just a contractual agreement between individuals.
I know that the passing of Prop 8 broke the hearts of most gays and many of their supporters. From the articles and responses I have read so far, it seems that a lot of gays are taking this setback as a sign they must redouble their efforts. In light of that, I find myself mentally revisiting that debate as well. I ask myself what I believe at this moment and time and my convictions are clear. As a mature personal choice, I see nothing inherently wrong with same-sex relationships. It is not my place to judge the ‘heavenly’ ramifications and if a person’s sexuality conflicts with their faith, that is for them to sort out. Homosexuality does not conflict with my own values, so I choose to try and be tolerant. As for gay marriage as a legal construct, I’m opposed to it. It’s not so much that I am against the notion, I just think history is proving that government must get out of the marriage business, even if encouraging the formation families should remain one if its major goals. I like the idea of civil unions for both gay and straight couples as a way of providing equality.
In spite of my leaning towards some type of equality of partnerships, I remain very nervous about the long term ramifications. I think about the differences between liberal progressivism and conservative progressivism. I think about the tendency of liberals to act first and think later. I think about other decisions that seemed like a good idea…like social security or tarrifs…that were passed with the best of intentions but now look rash in hindsight. I worry that 20, 30, 50 years from now we will look back on the gay marriage movement and talk about how it was the start of a bad trend in American culture. How would widespread gay mariage affect us in the long term? That is a question I don’t think has been adequately answered. Yes, there is a growing body of research, but as Benjamin Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” While I remain cautiously optimistic about the future of this debate, I would also caution its participants to be cautious in their language, their goals and their assesment of the future.
Seems ironic that the homosexual movement that preaches diversity and tolerance has now become increasingly disorderly and aggressive, even intolerant, of supporters of traditional marriage by vandalizing property and staging protests at and inside churches. There have been threats of church burnings,there have been threats of violence, even murder against Christians. There has been vandalism already of a number of churches. Seems to me that tolerance here is being defined as agree with us or else. How do you expect others to tolerate when you are being intolerant to achieve it?
Mike,
So, what do you see as the long term ramifications that give you so much pause? Are they more or less significant then the long term ramifications of the U.S. being a country where 50% of first marriages end in divorce?
To me, and my liberal leanings, the civil legal side of the marriage coin should be open and accessible to all. You love who you love, and I know gay and lesbian couples who have been together for 3 or 4 decades. Yet they can not do the most basic estate or end of life planning because when their partner falls ill for that final time, they have no legal standing to be in the hospital room or to ride the ambulance or to make the funeral arrangements. These are the kind of things my friends talk about when they place their marriages in the context of civil or human rights. Afterall, not that long ago interracial marriage was banned in this country, for no better reasons (and many of the same ones) then we use now in this debate.
The bottom line – I have those legal rights with my wife because we’re heterosexual. We have opposing genitalia, so we get to hold each others hands when our time comes to die. Gays and lesbians do not because they have the same genitalia? How is that compassionate, how is that free, how is that in keeping with the best traditions of America, instead of her worst blackest fears?
Phillip,
My fears primarily revolve around the children of these unions. I guess I haven’t been completely convinced on the nature vs. nurture thing. My gut tells me that two loving parents is ALWAYS better than one…but I’m not qualified to predict what issues may face these children down the road and I don’t think there are enough kids out there yet that have been raised in these environments to make accurate assesments.
I guess a part of me also wonders if widespread gay marriage would eventually mean that a high % of adopted children go to gay parents and one wonders about the ramifications of that.
As I said, I’m mostly inclined to believe gay marriage is okay…but I want to be sure. I would also like to see the definition of civil union expanded beyond just couples….but that’s a whole other post.
For most of my life, I was raised by a mother and a father. They got married because my mother got pregnant with me, and though I didn’t always know it, their marriage was strained.
My father is a selfish man with “values” that cause pain and frustration to everyone around him without him seeing it. As a direct result of his influences on my life and the lives of my siblings, we all have major issues we’re working through. I haven’t spoken to my father in a year and a half and I’m a better person for it.
I believe with my whole heart that my life would’ve been better had I been raised by a single mother. Yes, times would’ve been difficult and the situation would’ve come with its own set of trials, but, overall, I think my life–and that of my siblings–would be healthier emotionally and mentally.
Being raised by two loving parents isn’t always best. I believe my father loved me, but because of the person he was, it was not a healthy environment for my brothers, sister, and I growing up.
I know that whole rant is not really in line with making a point about gay marriage, but I did want to share.
Personally, I don’t see how there could be “long-term consequences” for gay marriage. They’re going to love each other whether we recognize it or not. By recognizing it, we allow their union the same legal rights given to heterosexuals who marry.
Going back to my parents for a moment, I don’t think it’s fair that two people who married because one of them was pregnant have more of a right to be married than two people who really love each other, regardless of their genders.
Aren’t these the same points that were discussed when inter-racial marriages was an issue?
Mike,
Thanks for your honest thoughts. As someone who is both gay and a conservative, what I can say about gay marriage is that the rights we are talking about are what heterosexual married couples get automatically, like hospital visits. Recently, my partner had to be rushed to the hospital and he had to have his gallbladder removed. Now, this being the Twin Cities in Minnesota which is a generally tolerant place, there wasn’t much a problem with me visiting him. (that and we went to a lawyer to make sure we had things like visitation rights.) But in other places, I might not be able to since I am not his legal partner. I wrote a blog post about this that states it better:
http://neomugwump.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-same-sex-marriage-matters-to-me.html
Again, thanks for sharing.
Dennis,
I have absolutely no problems with civil unions as an equitable solution with the full rights of heterosexual marriage. My main problem with gay marriage is that I think it signals a government endorsement and frankly I don’t want Uncle Sam passing judgement on any relationships.
I guess where I’m at today is that rather than see the country move towards gay marriage I’d rather see it move towards civil unions for all couples.
P.S. I love the work you’re doing over at Neomugwump and The Square Deal. Keep it up!
Hi Mike,
Just chiming in with agreement re: universal civil unions. Let religions decide what they want to consider holy or not, but have the state simply note the union of two people, whatever their genders, and leave it at that.
I will point out, gently, that being accepting of homosexuals while being “concerned” for the children (re: nature vs. nurture) is still withholding a bit of acceptance of homosexuals. I was raised old-school enough that I have to question my thinking on the issue as well, and I’m not throwing stones. Just sayin’. . .
~ John
“I think about the tendency of liberals to act first and think later.”
The problem is that conservatives tend to have the reputation for thinking forever and never acting.
The solution is usually somewhere in the middle. As a 90% Libertarian, I simply want all of us to have the same rights. None of us should be “more equal”. My point, I guess, is that if you feel that the govt. should have nothing to do with the sanctioning any marriage (and, for the record, I agree), then you and other conservatives (like me) need to work toward that goal. Otherwise, we’re being hypocrites. The problem is that we rarely do and the reason is, because the way the system is set up, it works in our favor… or is at least neutral to us. We should be better people than that. It’s a good time to think of the Golden Rule.
As for kids, I see no problem with gay couples with families. You can’t catch gay. You either are or you’re not. What kids need are supportive parents who love them. In the end, that is all that matters.
-Turkish Prawn
When I see someone denied a marriage license for suspicion of homosexual activity, then I will believe that some form of discrimination exists.
It’s not about gay marriage; it’s about same-sex marriage.
Gay people can marry all they want (except marrying immigrants for pay for purposes of citizenship– but maybe that’s a form of discrimination…).
Eh? You lost me, PT.
So you favor legalizing “civil unions” for gays but not marriage, although marriage is a “legal” union and not a human right. Excuse me?
In certain progressive, European countries, couples wishing for a form of marriage beyond a civil union go through a separate religious ceremony. I think the problem many Americans have with the idea of gay marriage is that they can’t move beyond seeing marriage as a religious union. Legally, it’s not. It’s a civil union.
I also find myself smiling at this statement: “I think about the tendency of liberals to act first and think later.” I think about the growing tendency among “conservative” observers to attribute all sorts of beliefs/tendencies/whatever to “liberals” that are simply insults with little relation to reality. You are aware, of course, that most university professors consider themselves liberals? They actually “think” a lot.
By the way, I’m not a “liberal.” But having spent most of my life abroad, I tend to get riled when I see it treated like a dirty word.