As promised/threatened, I’m digging into the archives. I originally posted this about 4 years ago, not surprisingly in the run-up to a general election. The mood seemed a bit more fired up then than it does now, but my opinion on this topic remains the same.
Like the ironically same-named Clinton-era initiative, and President Bush’s recent and loud gyrations on ”Healthy Marriages” (brace yourself - it’s Heritage Foundation, so the political aroma is pretty strong), I’m all for marriage as a integral part of our society. I haven’t scrutinized President Bush’s plan in detail, but it seems that much of what I’ve seen really doesn’t apply to me. My one comment: what he considers a defense of marriage comes across to me as little more than an entrenchment of the status quo and a shut-out of a significant portion of the population for no better reason than that they practice fully adult love in a manner that they (Bush et al) don’t happen to agree with. And don’t “Read yer bible, son” me. Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy say a lot of things that we have no problem dismissing these days. Case in point: the apocryphal Letter to Dr. Laura.
I think what got me started on this was an article that Tony put up a while back to add to the general fun of the debate. At the risk, of appearing to pick on Tony, I’m going to have to take issue with his article. I like what I’ve read of Tony’s stuff. He has a lively take on things and it makes for a good read. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I think there’s enough commonality there that we could sit down over beers and come away from the experience none the worse for it. He did hit a small nerve with his article for a few reasons, though, which I’ll get into. Again, to re-iterate, I’m not picking on Tony specifically; he outlines a position I’ve heard to varying degrees in a number of places, though.
I think it’s safe to start from a fundamental difference of opinion that Tony and I appear to have. For lack of a better word, he appears to be no fan of the institution of marriage, while I on the other hand, am. Now where it gets fun, I think, is when folks who are pushing for a “traditional” definition of marriage to be codified into the constitution hear me say that and then turn around and say, How can that be? You think that gays should be allowed to marry!
Oh yes, with one small caveat: if that is their choice. The option should be there for them. That’s what I believe.
The assumption underlying the outcry against allowing gays to marry is that they will somehow destroy the institution of marriage; that “letting them in” somehow diminishes the relationship that I have with my wife. On that point, I disagree. If anything, I could see a potential benefit to opening the gate as a way of goading the status quo and fostering a new examination of marriage as an institution.
Is marriage a picnic? Dopey even to ask the question, no, of course not, not always. Does a 50% divorce rate suggest that we shuck the whole thing? A debatable assertion, maybe, but given how little effort the typical couple puts toward tending to their marriage, it’s actually surprising that the number is that low. Do I think that allowing gays to marry will have some profound impact on the institution of marriage? Possibly, yes, but that in and of itself is no reason to throw up the barricades. It’s here where I can see Tony and me coming toward each other when he makes the statement that there’s the opportunity for defining a new paradigm for relationships. Marriage, as an “institution,” has been around for a long while and has weathered many fashions and crises. Like all social institutions, though, the odd bit of revolution usually ends up making it stronger. If nothing else, it makes us question our assumptions, and generally, I regard that as a good thing.
It’s an intriguing idea, that gay and lesbian relationships could present a different way of thinking about marriage, offering some new ideas and, shock of shocks, models for dealing with our mates. When I see the froth that folks get into trying to “beat back the heathen hordes,” I have to admit wondering if the institution is really all it’s cracked up to be. Sort of an echo of that old Groucho Marx joke about not wanting to belong to any club that would have me as a member, only it’s not wanting to be part of an institution that engages in such ugly behaviour in the name of self-preservation. The question becomes what exactly is it preserving? And why? Of course, for me these are rhetorical questions. Just because I don’t agree with what a bunch of closed-off zealots are trying to do “in the name of marriage,” that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop being married myself. In much the same way that I’ve asked how allowing gays to marry in any way affects my relationship with my wife, the same could be asked of the actions of these folks. I’m sure they believe in what they’re doing, but I’ve yet to hear any real reason that sways me.
I realize that there are significant portions of the African-American population who shy away from the comparison, if not oppose it outright, but I think there are some striking parallels between the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s and the struggles that gays are engaged in to be allowed to marry. And like those times, there’s a choice for those of us in the majority. The status quo, and its defence, depend on the exclusion of a group of people who are responsible members of our community, or at least no less responsible than sizeable portions of our community who are married, and pose no threat to us, except that they point up a difference in an area of our lives that frankly makes a lot of people uncomfortable. For me, this is a matter of principle and doing what’s right. President Bush thinks letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage and with it the fabric of society. I say it won’t. What’s needed is a bit of faith.
