Gay Marriage: Defining The Debate
28 May 2009 | By LowellB in Gay Marriage, Law, Lowell, Politics, Proposition 8, TN BlogI know, that’s a fairly grandiose title for this post; the gay marriage debate is about many things. For one thing, gays want acceptance, and that basic human desire looms large in the discussion. So does the desire of traditional marriage proponents to uphold the ideal of a family that includes both a father and a mother.
All those important elements aside, I think the crux of the public debate in the coming years will be this question: In the context of marriage, is sexual preference the same as race? In other words, is opposition to gay marriage the same as opposition to interracial marriage?
Understanding the two principal competing answers to that question is crucial to understanding the nature of the national conversation that is under way right now.
Yes: Gay marriage proponents think the answer is clearly and unequivocally yes, and that anyone opposing same-sex marriage occupies the same moral ground as those who opposed interracial marriage decades ago. In this view, reserving marriage for a man and a woman, on the one hand; and civil unions for gay couples, on the other, is no different from the ”separate but equal” doctrine that once applied to public education.
As much as I disagree with it, this position is a principled one. I am not attacking it; I am trying to describe it.
No: Traditional marriage supporters like me think the answer to the question is no, because we are talking about the definition of an institution – marriage – as between a man and a woman. Interracial marriages are still between a man and a woman. Such marriages do not test the fundamental definition of the institution. In this view, reserving traditional marriage for male-female unions, and domestic partnerships for same-sex unions is not a “separate but equal” arrangement, it is “different but equal.”
The two views can collide in ugly ways, depending on who is making the argument. Those in the “separate but equal” camp too often want to cast their opponents as little better than Ku Klux Klan members, circa 1950. That is not an exaggeration. Consider Sean Penn’s comments on receiving the Academy Award as Best Actor for his portrayal of gay activist Harvey Milk:
I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage [Proposition 8] to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support.
In other words, those who voted for Prop 8 will, in time, be seen much like those who opposed civil rights for African- Americans: their grandchildren will be ashamed of them.
That is pretty strong stuff. It also grossly distorts the debate by seeking to marginalize those who take the “no” position on the “separate but equal” question. Suddenly their position is not principled, but simply bigoted and shameful.
What will happen over the next 5-10 years? I think we as a society (through our political-legal system) will eventually decide which view is correct. Make no mistake: That will be the battle, and the entire country the battleground.
This is an emotional and heart-breaking issue. Anyone who knows and cares about any gay people knows this. That’s why I really have no patience for the people on either side who can only see their opponents as moral poison. Maybe amid all the usual messy screaming and yelling that occurs when Americans tackle an issue like this, we can actually have a national conversation about what marriage means, and whether we should adhere to the traditional definition or change it.
Then maybe we can start talking about what it might actually mean to make such a change in definition, and whether it is really a good idea. More about that in future posts.
Posted in Gay Marriage, Law, Lowell, Politics, Proposition 8, TN Blog | 10 Comments » | 
| 
30 May 2009 | Daniel F. Vojir Said:
While I appreciate your consideration for both sides of the debate, I have to say that the viewpoint of marriage as an “institution” places it on a level that, quite frankly, has never existed. Marriage should be looked upon as sacred, but only by those two people committing to it. Too many people have tried to live up to that “sacred” status simply because of what everyone else thought about it. They’ve tried…and failed. And felt ashamed that it didn’t work out.
Traditional marriage supporters such as yourself blindly accept what your preachers have told you about marriage. I cringe every time I read or hear Rick Warren’s now ubiquitous statement: “marriage, the union of one man and one woman, has been around for the past five thousand years in every culture and every society.”
If I were on the same platform as Warren, I would simply say: “what a crock!” Then I would point out that of all 1300+ societies before ours, only about 200 defined marriage as one-man-one-woman. I’d also point to Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines…and the pluralistic marriages of Bedouin tribes like the Jews (before settling in Canaan). The union of one-man-one-woman is relatively new: born out of poverty and politics. Of course, it’s not as new as marrying for love. People have poor knowledge of history. One of man’s greatest shortcomings is his inability to look back to ancestors further than his great grandparents.
There is also the inability of today’s “believers” to think of marriage in evolutionary terms: marriage has not been stagnant for several hundred years much as people would like to think: “love and marriage…goes together like a horse and carriage.” Marriage is like any other social institution: it changes shape to fit the social norms (and not, as some think, the other way around). And unless we want to see a second Civil War, one side (your side)has to accept that change.
I would also like to compliment you on using the term “acceptance” instead of “tolerance.” The two are very different indeed. Tolerance can be looked upon as thinly veiled condissention. One of the most righteously arrogant phrases in the English language is: “It’s the Christian thing to do.” The Good Samaritan ACCEPTED the Jew, not content with merely TOLERATING him.
How sad it is that nudging our populace toward acceptance will take much, much longer than you described.
30 May 2009 | LowellB Said:
“[U]nless we want to see a second Civil War, one side (your side) has to accept that change.”
Daniel, that is quite a statement.
31 May 2009 | Jason Echols Said:
Dan’s apparently trying to give Orson Scott Card a run for his money:
“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”
31 May 2009 | Daniel F. Vojir Said:
Thank you. It was meant to be. However, I hope you do not think that I think for one moment that my “side” will instigate that war. Our country’s first Civil War was brought about because the South refused to change its own institution.
I grew up smothered by religion (Catholic), stood back from it and realized how hypocritical religious people were. Note that I am calling people hypocritical and not their religion. There is nothing inherently wrong in religion. They way people PRACTICE their religion, however, is a very different story.
I am currently writing a book entitled: “Sacred Cows Make The Best Hamburger – How to Become a Lion and Deal with the Christian Right.” After six years of research, my bibliography now has 110 titles. And throughout my research, I kept asking myself how I could be part of an organized religion with so much blood on its hands “For the Glory Of God.” And while I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with Mark Twain’s view that “Christians have proven to be the most efficient killing machines in history,” I am very afraid of our current Christofascists: Rick Warren, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Ken Copeland, etc. Christofascists? I’ve come to realize that there are basically two kinds: there are the Elmer Gantrys and.. the Elmer Fudds. Both are very dangerous but we must always remember: Fudd’s the one with the gun!
My own beliefs? I have faith in God and faith in humanity (something that many Christofascists will not allow since we’re supposed to be born with “Original sin” therefore man is sinful from Day One). After that, I have faith in Karen Armstrong, Bart Erhmann, John Boswell, Morton Smith, Charles Freeman and James Tabor. Oh, and I have faith in looking great in a pair of Speedos.
Thanks again for reading my comments.
01 June 2009 | Barry Deutsch Said:
With all due respect, the distinction you’re making is illogical. Any time we’re debating what the legal definition of marriage should be, we are by definition talking about the definition of marriage. This was just as true 60 years ago, when the subject was interracial marriage, as it is today, when the subject is same-sex marriage. In both cases, what was under debate was the current, legal definition of marriage.
03 June 2009 | David LeSueur Said:
For quite awhile I felt that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage and would have voted for it given the opprtunity. That is no longer the case. If there were an election in Colorado (where I live), I would now vote against gay marriage.
My change of heart was caused by the bullying and intolerance of some gay activists. They assume that the only possible reason for opposing gay marriage is hate. That is insulting to you, Lowell, to my wife and many of my friends who are against gay marriage for principled reasons. Am I being spiteful to now oppose gay marriage? Probably. But gay activists need to recognize that some of their aggressive tactics and hateful speech hurt their cause.
04 June 2009 | Jason Echols Said:
David, I would humbly suggest that admitting to having taken a position on an issue simply out of spite is also not particularly helpful to your cause.
In any case, frankly, I don’t believe you when you state that you previously were inclined to vote in favor of marriage equality.
24 May 2010 | Matthew Anderson Said:
Marriage is one of the most sacred ceremonies that we humans experience. Being married also gives us happines.’,”
25 July 2010 | Charlotte Hughes Said:
marriage is great specially if you have found a very special someone that is beautiful both on the inside and outside.-”,
18 October 2010 | Meddling in The Other Party’s Primary, Gays Think They Are God, Romney’s “Strategy,” and more… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder Said:
[...] marriage, I’ll simply add that the debate has become severely warped. I commented on that here and don’t have much more to say. At least not right [...]