The Debate Over Gay Marriage Isn't What You Think

2/8/2012

“’Live Free or Die’ isn’t just the official motto for a great state. As the 62nd Republican National Committee Chairman, I think it’s a mantra our party should live by.” So begins Kel Mehlman’s call for the GOP not to “strip citizens of their right to marry,” speaking of HB 437, which would repeal the recent extension of marriage to homosexual unions in New Hampshire. It is a noble sentiment to wish greater freedom for all citizens, and I whole-heartedly back that sentiment – but at the same time, to frame the debate over gay marriage as freedom versus non-freedom is to grossly misunderstand what the debate is even about, and to miss exactly why it is that so many people are against gay marriage.

The first great misunderstanding is that anyone is “prevented” from marrying. Setting the definition of marriage as heterosexual in nature in no way prevents gay men from marrying women (gay or straight) or lesbians from marrying men (gay or straight). The law is no respecter of persons; it doesn’t single out any group.

The second great misunderstanding is that the law prevents homosexuals from marrying those they love. In fact – in a sense – it is homosexuals who prevent themselves from loving who they can marry. Don’t misunderstand; I’m not suggesting it is their fault, but in the same way it is not the fault of the state that some people are unlucky enough to find they love someone who is unmarriageable. At the time of this writing, I am single and not currently in love with anyone. I can’t marry the one I love, either. Is this the fault of the state for not allowing me to be married as an individual?

The third great misunderstanding is that anything is being prevented at all. The debate isn’t over whether homosexuals should be allowed to date, kiss, share finances, live together, or throw “wedding” parties; the debate over marriage is whether the people of the community (via the state) should recognize these unions as marriage. The choice is not between “freedom to marry” and “restricted freedom to marry;” the choice is between “freedom to not recognize” and “forced recognition.” I believe that homosexuals should be free to marry, but I also believe that the people should be free not to recognize “marriages” that do not conform to the very concept of what marriage is all about.

If the debate were only about money – that is, tax filing status and insurance coverage – homosexuals would be happy with civil unions, but some of them insist on redefining marriage itself, not just at the state level, but throughout society. We have already seen this happen in other states and in other countries. Ultimately, the debate is over free speech.

To call marriages and homosexual unions by the same name is confusing. Granted, they are similar in some respects, and I personally believe that good may come of both – but that doesn’t make them the same thing. I would even go so far as to describe both as loving relationships, but I won’t call any homosexual union a marriage. The two things are far too different. That said, I don’t believe in regulating speech; I don’t wish to make others use my terminology under penalty of law. In the same way, I would appreciate it if others’ terminology wasn’t forced on me. If we aren’t able to use separate words for them at the state level and in the legal code, which is one venue through which we as a community communicate, how can we ever have a functional society? If you think the wrangling in court over the meaning of words in contracts is bad now, it will be worse if we have to remember that marriage will have a different meaning in the law than in common usage. The next step is likely to be regulation of our speech. I have already seen it suggested that calling the marriages of gays “gay marriage” is akin to saying gays having lunch or parking cars are having “gay lunch” or “gay parking.” It’s time to repeal gay marriage now before this problem gets any worse.

Redefining words can have long-reaching and unforeseen consequences:

Should multi-billion dollar corporations be recognized by the state as churches so they can receive tax-exempt status? Should corporations be recognized as people for other purposes?

Should couples that wish it be able to enter “marriage” contracts with expiration dates? If they go in expecting it to fail, is it really a marriage?

Should unions of three or more be considered marriages? What of “armies of one”?

Should we call parent-child unions, sibling unions, and friendships all marriages? What of someone who wishes to “marry” a pet? A car? A house? A fence? A passing comet? The Declaration of Independence?

We already have states that fly the confederate flag while claiming it has nothing to do with endorsing slavery. Should states be able to endorse slavery by redefining the word to be synonymous with patriotism?

Should drug dealers be recognized by the state as produce vendors so they can operate legally and perhaps even benefit indirectly from farm subsidies?

Should car manufacturers be able to get gas-guzzlers and hybrids alike defined by the state simply as “cars” so that there may be no distinction made between them in regulations meant to promote higher gas mileage?

Should rolling and walking be called by the same name so as not to humiliate wheelchair-bound individuals? How would one of these individuals explain over the phone why they can’t use the stairs to someone who has never met them?

If you like cheeseburgers, but can’t stand eating hamburgers without the cheese, how are you to explain this to the cook if a minority group has dictated that all burgers are burgers?

The difference between traditional marriage and gay marriage is like the difference between dill relish and sweet relish: almost opposites. Yes, one can still use suffixes like “traditional” and “gay” to separate them, or by paying more attention to the context, but how long will it be before we are told we can’t do that either? If those pushing for gay marriage had any respect for the distinction, they wouldn’t try changing the definition of marriage in the first place. This is why creating a new word to replace traditional marriage while ceding the word marriage to homosexuals will not work as a lasting compromise. Once words lose their agreed upon meaning, society ceases to function.

Perhaps in the end it is still worth it. Perhaps in the end it is best to keep the extended definition of marriage. I may not have convinced all of you, but can you all at least understand why some of us would find redefining words annoying?

I would like to suggest a compromise. If we were to call traditional marriages “marriages,” gay marriages by some other term, and both of them fell under the same category of institutions known by some other term (perhaps unions?), would this be acceptable to 95% of the American population?

tiradefaction link

2/27/2012 08:09:57 am

"The first great misunderstanding is that anyone is “prevented” from marrying. Setting the definition of marriage as heterosexual in nature in no way prevents gay men from marrying women (gay or straight) or lesbians from marrying men (gay or straight). The law is no respecter of persons; it doesn’t single out any group."

Erm..., couldn't that argument (which was in fact made) be used against the idea of anti (marital) miscegenation laws? After all, a black man was free to marry a black woman, and vice versa. A restriction is a prevention. And in this case, a pretty silly one at that.

"That said, I don’t believe in regulating speech; I don’t wish to make others use my terminology under penalty of law. In the same way, I would appreciate it if others’ terminology wasn’t forced on me."

But, what if I don't want your terminology forced upon me? Say I want to go back to the true traditional form of marriage, that is, one man and many women?

"This is why creating a new word to replace traditional marriage while ceding the word marriage to homosexuals will not work as a lasting compromise. Once words lose their agreed upon meaning, society ceases to function."

...seriously? Is this a rendition of "gay marriage will lead to societal collapse" memes? I hope I'm simply misunderstanding there.

"I may not have convinced all of you, but can you all at least understand why some of us would find redefining words annoying?"

Not really no, and I say that with as much respect as possible. But that might be because I'm likely from a different demograph (20-29) and don't share your religious beliefs (I am a non theist). My generation, and the one coming up behind me, are far more supportive of gay marriage (and other LGBT rights in general) than the older generations above me. This was probably how it was like for the older folks against "race mixing" and the younger folks who supported the abolishment of legal obstacles towards that. They too were probably annoyed by the redefinition of marriage from a man and a woman of same race to a man and a woman regardless of race. Society progresses, can't say it bothers me much.

tiradefaction link

2/27/2012 08:16:01 am

Whoops, forgot a few parts!

"What of someone who wishes to “marry” a pet? A car? A house? A fence? A passing comet? The Declaration of Independence?"

Uhm, this was indeed, the same argument people made against allowing martial miscegenation. That they'd be "marrying animals". Pets, cars, fences, passing comments, and the declaration of independence can not consent (in fact, most of them aren't even alive) and enter into a contract. That argument is simply bogus.

"Should unions of three or more be considered marriages?"

Sure, I honestly have zero problem with polyamorous (as long as it's based purely on consent) individuals and if they want the ability for the state to recognize their own form of marriage, I'm all for it. The only problem I can see is that it offends some people's religious sensibilities, but to that I say "tough, get over it". Oh, that, and complex tax returns. That might be a bitch to handle....

tiradefaction link

2/27/2012 08:16:08 am

daniel noe link

2/28/2012 10:45:06 am

The best compromise might be to get government out of the marriage business entirely. I wouldn't mind.

As for miscegenation, all those would be valid arguments for people to make if the society truly thought of marriage as something race-dependent. Even if this were true though, the definition has since changed and there is no need to change it again. Think of it this way: it might have been wrong for the US to have invaded Mexico and taken almost a third of her land away, but that was almost two hundred years ago and it would be just as wrong for Mexico to try to take it back now. It is even more wrong for an unrelated country, like Burkina Faso, to decide to invade the US. In the same way, just because the marriage definition changed once, doesn't make it right to change again.

For the record, I think anti-miscegenation laws are silly and outrageously abhorrent.

As for whether expanding marriage will allow even further expansion in the future, certainly you must be able to see that there is a balance between highly restrictive definitions of marriage and highly loose definitions. I suspect that we merely find the balance in slightly different spots on the spectrum. While you find your elders to be too restrictive, you may find the next generation to be too loose.

As for societal collapse, I didn't mean to suggest that gay marriage alone would lead to such a thing. I suppose I should have been more clear. It's just that it is a (very small) step in that direction. In the end, it might still be worth changing the definition to accomodate homosexuals, but at the same time it should be clear why this is going to irk some people.

In the end, I recognize that there exists "something" that is heterosexual, monogamous, and assumed permanent until proven otherwise, that needs a name - even if you don't recognize its existence. I only hope that whatever name it is given will not be stolen by the radicals on the fringe of the movement to be used for themselves.

tiradefaction link

3/1/2012 10:40:16 am

"As for miscegenation, all those would be valid arguments for people to make if the society truly thought of marriage as something race-dependent."

Uhm, I think you missed the point there. Our society *did* at one point truly think of marriage as something race-dependent. We changed it to accommodate social views fluctuating to include mix raced couples, and voila, it didn't lead to "people marrying animals" like the critics of lifting such laws proclaimed it would. My point is it makes a poor argument to claim this will lead to some slippery slope where "Man shalt marry beasts", or trees or whatever, because that's the same *exact* argument the made in the past, and well, it didn't happen.

"Think of it this way: it might have been wrong for the US to have invaded Mexico and taken almost a third of her land away, but that was almost two hundred years ago and it would be just as wrong for Mexico to try to take it back now. It is even more wrong for an unrelated country, like Burkina Faso, to decide to invade the US."

Wow, really? Did you seriously just compare allowing homosexuals to marry within their same sex to a military invasion? I get the point you're trying to make, but that's just an *awful* analogy dude. Just wanted to point that out before I continue.

To seriously address your point though, I think we're talking past each other. The point you're (seemingly) trying to make is "Not all change is good", and that'd be a worthwhile response, if my point were "All change is good". But it isn't. My point is "this change is good" (or at least acceptable). You've not made any good points as to why it should continue to be disallowed, and that homosexuals should be denied this equal right compared to heterosexuals.

Let's run down your objections.

~You seem to subscribe to the idea that homosexuals already have the "same right" to marry, because they can already marry opposite sex individuals. I believe I already pointed out the fallacy in such a claim, as this is akin to suggesting that non white individuals (and for that matter, white individuals) did not have their rights restricted by limiting marriage to same race couples.

~You believe that changing the definition of marriage would lead to nasty unintended results. I say this fear is unfounded. You seem to be unaware that the definition of "marriage" has greatly fluctuated with history. Society has changed that definition many many...many times. Not just with the obvious example of including mixed race couples, but many times within the framework of monogamous marriage, which aren't even close to the "original" concept of marriage. That too, is a reworked invention.

"In the same way, just because the marriage definition changed once, doesn't make it right to change again."

It's changed waaaaay more than once. You're going to have to make a substantive case why this time, society can't (or rather shouldn't) change it again to include a new group.

"For the record, I think anti-miscegenation laws are silly and outrageously abhorrent." And you know what? I find the idea that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples EXTREMELY silly, and dare I say, even a bit abhorrent.

"While you find your elders to be too restrictive, you may find the next generation to be too loose."

Of course, today's (social) liberal is (possibly) tomorrow's (social) conservative. That being said, I think I've demonstrated more flexibility on the issue that even most of my generational peers. I've already stated I am totally ok with expanding marriage to include (consensual) polyamorous marriages. And I'm certainly open to the idea of other arrangements of 'marriage' being explored.

"It's just that it is a (very small) step in that direction."

Not anymore than any other time we have changed the definition of 'marriage'. But I'll make you a deal. In 30 years, (probably) once gay marriage becomes the law of the land throughout the west (and probably more), if society completely collapses because of a result, I'll literally eat one of my kidney's. I won't hold my breathe though.

"In the end, it might still be worth changing the definition to accomodate homosexuals, but at the same time it should be clear why this is going to irk some people."

Oh I know why it irks some people, but that's hardly a reason to not go forward with it. Everyone's gonna get pissed at something.

"In the end, I recognize that there exists "something" that is heterosexual, monogamous, and assumed permanent until proven otherwise, that needs a name - even if you don't recognize its existence. "

Believe what you want. If you want to believe an particularly recent cultural (re)invention is immutable and "sacred", by all means, go for it. But don't expect us to respect that belief to the point of being enshrined into our laws.

"I only hope that whatever name it is given will not be stolen by the radicals on the fringe of the movement to be used for themselves."

Haha! If this wer

tiradefaction link

3/1/2012 10:42:46 am

(Weird, seems I hit the character limit on your blog, here's the rest of the post)

Haha! If this were 1990, you may have something for the idea that "gay marriage" is a radical concept. But in 2012? Not so much. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/california-gay-marriage-poll_n_1310918.html

Also, to address your compromise point about getting "government" out of "marriage". Sure, I'm all for that (assuming same sex couples get the very same rights enshrined within "civil union" as the heterosexual couples get). Do I think it'd really be that different from the situation we have now? No. State recognized gay marriage isn't really any different. Congregations that don't want to preform those services do not have to, and people would still call these state sanctioned union's "marriages". The anti gay crowd would still more than likely lambast the ability for same sex couples to have these equivalent rights, and even if they didn't, they'd move onto other LGBT hot button hot button issues, such as anti discrimination laws at the workplace, school bullying issues, etc., etc.

daniel noe link

3/18/2012 07:07:41 am

Those are all valid points, but I just want to be clear about one thing. I sense that there exists something that deserves its own name, having absolutely nothing to do with the way the surrounding culture concieves or whether the words they use are recent or ancient. Many people call this thing marriage. Why create a new name?

If it is the only way to get past this distraction of an issue so we can move society forward and tackle more important issues (like the economy), I'll surrender and simply create a brand-new word to describe what I used to call marriage, but I'd still like to understand why. What makes this so important to you that we have to change?

tiradefaction link

3/23/2012 08:37:28 pm

"I sense that there exists something that deserves its own name, having absolutely nothing to do with the way the surrounding culture concieves or whether the words they use are recent or ancient."

So wait, you "sense" there is something that's immutable and "sacred" that has nothing to do with "culture", despite the fact that "marriage" is in itself a cultural invention...? You're not making any sense now. That's the equivalent of me saying I "sense" there's an endangered 600 pound gorilla species that lives in a vacant lot near me that's invisible, and no one can build there because it'd disturb their habitat.

"Why create a new name?"

Who's asking you to?

"What makes this so important to you that we have to change?"

Can't I ask you the same thing in reverse? Why is it so important to keep it hetero exclusive? I'll leave you with a quote from Republican Clint Eastwood

"I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Diana

3/29/2012 05:02:15 am

I think you're missing a very very critical part of the argument, which is that there is not a uniform consensus on what marriage is. In my community "marriage" means the coming together of two people in a romantic commitment to love and cherish each other indefinitely. Under this definition it makes no sense that a gay couple can't get married, because they are certainly just as capable of loving commitment as a straight couple. This idea of marriage is already so entrenched in the way my local, liberal, San Franciscan community thinks, that I have a really hard time convincing my friends and family that an alternative definition even exists. To us this definition does not seem new or radical in any way. It's just how we were always taught to think of marriage. I wonder if that's similarly difficult for your community to imagine. Also, I'm wondering if you could maybe speak a little more about how you and your community define marriage and why. You illude to this in your blog post but don't really illuminate it. Perhaps you can help me explain it better. I am, like you, on a crusade to see the other side, and perhaps convince a few other people to see it to,

personal statement tips link

9/13/2012 03:33:49 pm

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared. Thanks for sharing.

Comments are closed.

The Debate Over Gay Marriage Isn't What You Think

Author

Archives

Categories