Why Not Same-sex Marriage? (I of X)
Originally posted May 2004
Credits: Thanks to Bob, clear-sighted as always, as well as to George for kindness, and Ian for perspective.
- Also, if this subject interests you, I recommend my “Firestarter” titled Tolerance FAQ, take II.
I’ve been watching the joy and euphoria spreading through San Francisco and parts of the Bay Area as hundreds of loving, committed couples finally have their already-extant, long-standing relationships officially recognized. It’s rather wonderful to see love, kindness, and tolerance finally triumphing in our society, however temporarily.
Which leads quite naturally to the question: why are some people so horrified by what’s happening in San Francisco — and a tiny handful of other enclaves across the country? It’s not like it’s hurting them personally.
However, from what I’ve heard not only are many upset by the “incipient destruction of society,” but there’s also some truly sick vitriol being spewed against these marrying couples. And for what? Because they want to be recognized as married, productive members of society? I don’t get it.
Marriage is not my thing, but I don’t feel I have any right to say who may or may not engage in the institution. Why are there some people who apparently feel they are the Arbiters of Rightness? Where on Earth do they get this idea?
Putting it into perspective
Someone managed to put this attitude into perspective for me with the following example:
- Let’s say you have someone you respect and admire, who is your friend. You expect your friend to treat you differently than they treat others, because the relationship between you both is special — you are friends, you have a closer relationship than strangers passing on the street.
- Now let’s say you both know someone who is not a nice person. This person is a lying, deceitful, cheating, abusive, manipulative, vicious, unpleasant person, and you want absolutely nothing to do with them. They’re vile, and the absolute scum of the earth — and your friend treats this person exactly the same as she treats you: someone special, a true friend.
- Wouldn’t you feel that was just wrong?
I agreed — yes, I would find that deeply wrong, and I could now comprehend how someone who believed homosexuality was wrong might view the marriages in San Francisco. But, I added, at no point did I feel I had the right to legislate my friend’s choices in friends!
I might try to show my friend what a mistake it was to treat this vile person with such respect and kindness; I might let the friend know what nasty lies the bad person was telling about them behind their back, if that were actually happening. I might even choose not to associate with my friend any more — but I simply would not ever have the unmitigated arrogance to assume I had the right to decide for everyone just who might be treated with the respect due a real friend!
Ah, said my friend. That’s the difference between you and the folks who’re against gay marriage.
“Take sides”
So I guess this is one of the messages I came away with after the strange events of the past few months. Try to understand how those who are against gay marriage might feel; it’ll help you in trying to explain to them why they have nothing to fear. But don’t make the mistake of thinking you get to make life decisions for anyone but yourself.
Alternatively, don’t think silence protects you, regardless of where you stand on this issue. As Elie Wiesel astutely noted:
“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”
So I’m going to try to do my bit; I’m going to address some of the objections I’ve heard to legitimizing same-sex marriages, and follow up with a personal conclusion. I guess you could call this a pro-tolerance FAQ, of sorts, since I personally think marriage, as it is now socially constituted, is an out-of-date cultural relic which desperately needs re-creating into a better, more egalitarian, and more socially useful format.
I should note I intend to refer to this entire issue as ‘marriage,’ not just as same-sex marriage. We don’t talk about the issue of straight marriage, or patriarchal marriage, after all. Why should the gender of the participants make any difference?
Well put; thank you! ;)
To bring this a bit into the current debates, I find it rather sad that the Mormon church of all people put so much money into this attack. It really wasn’t all that long ago that the Mormons were hunted by the US Army and killed just for being Mormons. You’d think they’d have learned how important the protection of personal choice is.
Fortunately, there is a backlash brewing in the Mormon community, and not just from Mormons who feel same-sex marriage is ‘okay.’ There is a growing anger with the way the Elders managed the tithes in this case, as well as those Mormons who feel this was an inappropriate issue for the Church to get involved with. There are many who feel that this puts the Church’s tax-exempt status at risk… and wouldn’t you know it, that’s the very thing that many are going after. And frankly I can’t blame them, and I encourage them to do so. If they’re going to get involved in politics at a Federal level (crossing state boundaries) then the Federal government has the right to tax them. And those tithes, that 10% given to the Church, is a huge amount of income….
On a more practical note, much of the attacks on same-sex marriage are designed to involve the undecided listener. ‘It will destroy marriage/society/civilization!’ for example. The people who are dead-set against it already feel that it’s wrong, and won’t give any more detailed answer than ‘it’s wrong’ when questioned. They don’t need a more involved answer. They don’t want a more involved answer.
Logic will not move the die-hards who are against same-sex marriage. All that can be done with logic against them is to back them into a corner where they cannot talk their way out of it without looking like hypocrites and idiots. The ‘undecideds’ and the ones who are inwardly ambivalent about the subject, they’re the ones to whom rational argument might work. But as we’ve seen, they’re just as susceptible to emotional argument as well.
To me, using emotional arguments is ‘cheating’ in a way, but there’s no way around that. The opponents of same-sex marriage have already proven that they’re willing to commit to a ‘scorched mind’ strategy. Having the moral high ground doesn’t do much good when the ground has been scoured and salted. But maybe that’s just a touch of bitterness I have towards the Prop8 proponents.
Frankly, and finally, there’s really only one response to the person who says ‘I am friends with plenty of gay people, BUT….’ And that response is, ‘Then you’re not much of a friend if you don’t want to see them happy, are you?’