A Post by Maynard
The political debate rumbles on, and we’ve heard the principle arguments repeated endlessly: On one hand, the right of gays to seek the same legal protections available to straights, and on the other hand, the mainstream desire to preserve an ancient and fundamental institution. Perhaps there’s a more appropriate way to look at this. Seems to me there’s an element of narcissism on both sides of the standard argument: On one hand, MY rights; on the other hand, MY tradition. But maybe it’s not about YOU. Marriage may make us happy (or miserable, as the case may be), but its primary purpose is to create a stable environment into which children will be born and nurtured through adolescence. Certainly both our statistics and common sense tell us that children do vastly better if they grow up with loving parents, a mother and a father. For this reason, I’d rather view the battle for marriage as a children’s rights issue, rather than a ME ME MINE issue.
Looked at from this perspective, the problem with gay marriage isn’t that it’s objectively any worse than (and it may actually be better than) the broken homes and single parents and all the other indications that modern marriage is a ruined institution. The problem with gay marriage is fundamentally symbolic: It’s the societal acknowledgement of how far marriage has fallen. If not for the specter of gay marriage, we could continue to pretend that we’re still functional. We could pay our hypocritical respects to our ideal, even if that ideal no longer translates into any semblance of reality.
If you get past the politics and the rants, you’ll hear many conservative Christians acknowledge as much. They understand that winning the battle against gay marriage doesn’t mean a thing unless marriage itself once again becomes respected and meaningful.
Just as the 2nd Amendment wasn’t adopted to protect your right to hunt, so the institution of marriage wasn’t created to deliver spousal health insurance and inheritance. Don’t let the politics distract you from the big picture. This battle is in one place but the war is elsewhere.
In ancient times before Abraham, pagans sacrificed their children to idols. This is a matter of historical record. Then, as our tradition would have it, God gave us the example of Abraham and Isaac to declare an end to ritual human slaughter. In our modern, enlightened era, it seems we’ve created a new form of child sacrifice. Children have become disposable. Most of us know this is our fundamental problem. Some say that the government must step in and pick up the slack with day care and the like. Others argue that the parental commitment must be enforced. The liberal/conservative divide forms roughly along these lines. This is where the war is.
Bottom line: If we’ve lost marriage, then it really doesn’t matter what becomes of gay marriage. Think about this before you jump back into the culture war.
Related Link:
Tammy’s column from 2004 on the issue: Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights
I agree, to a point Tammy – but the Marriage-is-for-children argument is basically the same argument used by the radical religious right. What about all those couples who are either infertile, or who choose not to have kids? Should THEY be able to marry? The argument is advanced that these types of couples are rare, but so are gay couples with respect to the general population, so I don’t see the point of that argument.
You also don’t speak about the thousands of gay couples who do have kids – these families would benefit greatly if they were provided the rights afforded to others through marriage. If this is really about protecting children, then support gay marriage.
[This post, as indicated in a couple of spots, was written by Tammy Blog contributor Maynard. Tammy’s position on this issue can be read in the Related Link article.–ed.]
I am less worried about the question of gay/lesbian marriage itself than I am about the way some of its more enthusiastic proponents are trying to bring it into being. Some gay/lesbian activists have developed an unhealthy appetite for coercion by using the Constitutionally questionable means of an overreaching judiciary.
There is no the “right to get married” anywhere in the Constitution (as opposed to the right to vote, etc.) And such a “right” seems contrived as well – something along the lines of the right to be 6 foot tall or the right to have a novel that I wrote on the bestseller list. States have long regulated marriage (such as setting age requirements, limiting someone to one spouse), so limiting it to one man and one woman does not seem Constitutionally out of bounds. States that want to allow gay/lesbian marriage should be able to do so, but why should a judge be allowed to override the will of the people on this issue, particularly when there is no Constitutional authority to do so?
Thus, I am just not in sufficient sympathy with the premise of this post. We have bigger Constitutional fish to fry – namely, an imperial judiciary seemingly hell-bent (no pun intended) on setting aside the Constitution in favor of the one-size-fits-all excuse of “fairness”.
Many good points. My head spins on this one. I like your bottom line.
Hey Maynard,
I would like to weigh in on this from a perspective not really touched upon. Having been raised a fundamental Christian, and now a member of a less strict Methodist Church; I have heard all points of view. My family just refuses to hear any arguments for, and their church is the same. Methodists are split, ordaining homosexuals, but not marrying them (yet). Now to my solution…yes, a solution to the problem:
This is a States rights issue, and the Federal Government is far overstepping by getting involved. If a State allows Gay Marriage, then, all States would have to recognize that marriage, courtesy of the 14th amendment. But, courtesy of the 1st amendment, no church can be forced to marry a gay couple. That is where the fear lies in the Christian community.
(Sheesh, I am ranting and losing the thread here, sorry)
Basically, the federal government has a responsibility to defend local churches from being forced to marry a couple that does not believe in the same ideas as the church. So many small congregations could be bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits as the more radical gays attempt to force the issue into each and every pew.
I imagine that mainstream gays would simply marry their partners and go on with their lives as many do right now, but with the well deserved rights reserved for married couples. I could insert some tongue in cheek references to the marriage tax and alimony payments, but the rights I refer to are some of the more basic things such as visitation in the hospital and the insurance mentioned by Maynard.
One question though…if the right thing happens, and gays are allowed to marry, will they finally shut up and take their sexuality back into the bedroom where it belongs? I know swingers who do not advertise, I know dominants who do not walk the streets in leather; I don’t want the gays relegated to the bedrooms, just their chosen sexual tastes, and if marriage will bring that about, great!
By your very post you answered your own question. When you used the term: “spector of gay marriage” you inadvertantly made my point. It is why, folks like me, who support civil unions for gays, yet oppose marriage for gays draw the line. We do not believe that marriage is faltering, in fact, we believe that marriage is the foundation of family. It is a fundamental belief, principled and faith driven. I have been married for almost 17 years, my parents for almost 55 years now. We revere it and treasure it. We celebrate it and embrace it for all that is has to offer and all that it has to provide a basis for our society.
If anyone has devalued the meaning, it is the kooks on the left, the MSM and Hollywood insisting that we need to now accept the fact that we were wrong and bigoted; that marriage is a right under the Constitution.
While I do not believe that the Constitution should be molded to fit our every National panic attack, I do understand the drive to have it ammended. We feel we are under attack.
You see what I believe and in my heart so deeply am passionate about, is my marriage, my family. When the word is tossed around, not by those in the Heartland, but by those who think they know more than I or know better than I, I become defensive.
I wonder if this issue is a microcosm not of marriage, but of the very attacks we feel as Americans on a day to day basis. You remember us? Those very folks that believe this nation to be built on morals, principles and beliefs.
Once that is brought back, and this Nation regenerizes herself..gay marriage may very well be celebrated and embraced. I do not pretend to know if it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Love is love. Commitment is laudable. But does one have to make a political point on what I hold so dear? Civil unions, I support 100%; but it is at marriage I must say no. Marriage is not a spectacle. I would hope whether you are gay or straight one would believe that to be true.
Great topic, hard, but not one we cannot be luke warm over much longer. The pot is boiling out here in the Heartland, it truly is. If you ask most of those that think like I; frankly we have had enough of others trying to redefine who we are. I suppose marriage is our last line of defense.
“If not for the specter of gay marriage, we could continue to pretend that we’re still functional. We could pay our hypocritical respects to our ideal, even if that ideal no longer translates into any semblance of reality.
If you get past the politics and the rants, you’ll hear many conservative Christians acknowledge as much. They understand that winning the battle against gay marriage doesn’t mean a thing unless marriage itself once again becomes respected and meaningful.”
Maynard, maybe you need to get out more. I am a Christian and know lots of others and can’t think of one who would agree with your statement. But then again, I don’t associate with Christian activists. Maybe they would agree.
A person is no better in marriage than they are as a person. It’s not the Divine Institution of marriage that’s the problem… it’s that so many losers marry other losers thinking that marriage is some panacea that will make it all better.
There are more successful, honorable marriages out there than you think. Media portrayls of all types always focus on the degenerate side of things…. you know, the sunny side of life is “boring” and doesn’t make for good tv these days.
I am a supporter of a legal relationship for same-sex couples that includes all the legal rights now included for real marriage; just don’t call it marriage, because it isn’t. Real marriage is about much more than simply bonding a couple. It is about legitimizing offspring and about blending families and continuing bloodlines and continuing family names and traditions. I think fundamentally, though, marriage is about the basic building block of every society in the world: the male-female polarity. This way, legal gay relationship doesn’t even have to exactly follow the rules and regulations of traditional marriage; it might be made more “gay friendly”, if that is appropriate. I fully support the gay community to create their own relationship institutions that suit their own needs.
If you breed and have made a legal contract for it, you get a tax break. If you assume care for a child, you get a tax break. It’s always about money, isn’t it? Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt? Why the hell shouldn’t they if they are upright, responsible people but the bottom line is still the dollar. Only one (1) of the union gets a tax break for it. Always the dollar. Should a gay couple get custody of a neglectful relative’s child? Why shouldn’t they if they are responsible adults? Always the dollar because only one is going to get the tax write-off. It is the polarity that produces the triad, the fundamental structure of the universe, and as such, marriage is for the biological opposites. Once the triad manifests in birth, it becomes the fundamental responsibility of any adult in the presence of that child to be nurturing and protective. That’s where we must then toss out race, religion, politics and sexual preference as having any bearing on the well being of any child. God knows little children don’t make such distinctions and we need to heed them in that respect, we really do.
This matter brings to mind my upbringing in a rural, isolated area, and to thoughts of Ted and Bill and Mary and Bertha. Ted and Bill were bachelor friends who pooled resources and lived togather and the same with Mary and Bertha. They were good neighbors you could count on and trust, friendly, clean living, never causing any problems for anyone. Up until just very recently the thought of sexual preference on these good people never entered my mind, and I deeply resent the intrusion. I really do.
Regarding Stonemason’s statement: “One question though…if the right thing happens, and gays are allowed to marry, will they finally shut up and take their sexuality back into the bedroom where it belongs?”
— I’m not sure what you mean by take their sexuality back into the bedroom? Does this mean gay people shouldn’t be allowed to hold hands or kiss in public as straight people do? (regardless of your feelings concerning public displays of affection). I’m also not sure I understand what you mean by “advertise”? I don’t know any gay couples having sex out in full view of everyone!
Re: Robert108’s statement: “Real marriage is about much more than simply bonding a couple. It is about legitimizing offspring and about blending families and continuing bloodlines and continuing family names and traditions.”
— I have to disagree with you on this Robert. There are real and important differences between gay and straight couples, but those things you list above aren’t among them. Gay couples also have children, and they, by their being together, also blend families and sometimes continue bloodlines as well. You really can’t use those arguments to draw a line of distinction between the two.
For the record, being in a gay relationship is about more than just sex – it is about romance, and caring for each other, and intimacy, like most other relationships are. I think its easy sometimes to just relegate it to the realm of sex and leave it there, but I think its important to realize it is about much more than that.
Why should the government endorse anyone’s love? Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place? Because it is in the best interest of society that children be raised by their parents. It is in the best interest of society that a couple be committed to each other so as not to produce children all over the place with different lovers where the children produced are much less likely to get the financial and emotional support they need (don’t get me started on welfare!). The government doesn’t care about the love between you and your friends, between you and your siblings, or any other kind of love, just the one that will most likely produce children. The government wants people to have children (we don’t want negative population growth), to stay together to care for them, and for children to be raised in financially secure, loving, and supportive environments. Social welfare and child welfare are the bottom line. And so the govt encourages and supports the institution of marriage as a bedrock of society, a respected tradition, – a role model for relationships that produce children.
Basically this is done with the financial incentive of joint tax returns, social security benefit sharing, and child tax credits. And that’s basically it. The government does not control how insurance companies, your boss, or hospitals handle non-traditional relationship matters. Many companies offer same-sex benefits. If the issue is over these benefits, activists should target those industries, not marriage.
Gay activists argue that childless married couples shouldn’t receive govt benefits then. Well this is simply a practical matter. Younger couples may eventually have children, something the govt. still wants to encourage. As far as couples who cannot conceive, like older folks, well, as long as these married couples fit the mold of a traditional child-bearing couple (i.e., male & female) they are role models, and therefore it is appropriate that the government endorse their marriage.
Basically what gay marriage activists want are the financial perks afforded married couples. They say they pay into the system and therefore should be entitled to them. Well, single people pay into the system and do not enjoy these perks either.
Having said all this, I do believe though that if a gay legally committed couple have children, and they both legally commit to the children, then they should indeed be entitled to the same govt incentives married couples enjoy. Afterall, it is for the children.
I would submit that the argument is wrong.
As stated by Mwalimu Daudi
The “legal” institution of marriage can be considered an encroachment of the state into religion. Our religious background suggests/requires we marry. The state does not suggest or require this.
When people wanted to get “married,” but either did not want their religious sect involved, or could not decide upon multiple sects, they turned to the state. The state is always willing to accumulate power. Thus the state got into the business of marriage.
I would suggest that no government be allowed to issue “marriage” licenses or conduct “marriages.” “Marriage” should be a religious act between the married partners. If Religion “A” does not allow a certain type of partnership, it should not be forced to validate that type of partnership. If Religion “B” does allow it, then those that follow Religion “B” should be allowed to partake of it.
Whether “married” or not, any couple should be allowed to apply for (and get) what is the equivalent of the current “civil union.” Thus, if two men, two women, or a man and woman wanted to get the tax/health/other benefits of such a union, they would be allowed to. This would separate the notion of marriage and union into religious marriage and the state recognition of a legal union.
Finally, a couple could be Married without the state-sponsored union (this might help the polygamous Mormons), non-married with a state-sponsored union (this might be for atheists or folks with no religioun or multiple religions), Married with the state-sponsored union (Religious folk who want the benefits), or not married with no state-sponsored union (commonly referred to as “shacking up”).
It is false to assert that real marriage is about financial incentive. Heterosexuals marry for many reasons, most of which have to do with a sense of responsibility to the continuance of human society. Some of the reasons are about personal pleasure and fulfillment, as well. I know no heterosexual couple who had children in order to collect the tax break. That is why homosexual relationship, no matter how good it is, and how many children are adopted, is not marriage. I favor the creation of a committed relationship by homosexuals, for homosexuals.
Trinity:
“It is a fundamental belief, principled and faith driven. I have been married for almost 17 years, my parents for almost 55 years now. We revere it and treasure it. We celebrate it and embrace it for all that is has to offer and all that it has to provide a basis for our society.â€
Tink:
“There are more successful, honorable marriages out there than you think. Media portrayls of all types always focus on the degenerate side of things…. you know, the sunny side of life is “boring” and doesn’t make for good tv these days.â€
Dead on folks. We have not “lost†marriage.
Marriage was often not that long-term in the past. The majority of people married 2,3,4 times due to death. Life spans were a lot shorter in many instances. After a spouse died, people often remarried very quickly. I just mean that marriage for life until fairly recent times meant something a lot different.
As to children, kids were needed to help the family unit survive – literally. Today, education is key and is quite an expensive and lengthy process with kids really contributing very little to the overall welfare of the familial unit. Many children today can be an economic burden a lot of families simply cannot afford so numbers are, or at least should be, limited.
I just think that when we talk about the declining state of marriage as compared to yesteryear, we should take a honest look at the realities then and now.
Good points Maynard.
One thing that is also ignored about the institution of marriage is its roll in the relationship of the couple. I believe that the institution in its complete original form helped to balance differences in the nature of men verses women in the area of our sexuality. The nature of men to persue and the desire of large numbers verses the nature of women to want exclusivity, and to focus their love on a single mate. The need in men to have other men respect their wife, and the mother of their children (which tends to suffer in increasing larger proportions, the more of his pears know his wife biblicaly).
Some of these things are probably not issues in same sex relationships. I doubt many people want to see gay people denied basic rights to decency such as the right to have a loved one at your side in intencive care or inheritance rights.
But I hope we can solve these problems without distorting this institution to the point we no longer have it around in a form where it has some hope of helping straight couples live together in happy fulfilled partnerships.
Ahwatukeejohn (may I call you “AJ”?):
Gay commitment and monogamy is maintained the same way it is with straight couples: through dogged determination. :))) The real difference is that gays do it without legal, social, religious, political, and often even family, acceptance.
Also, no matter how wise, and/or enlightened a girlfriend is, she’s probably not going to be okay with her partner sleeping around. Unfaithfulness is unfaithfulness and a slut is a slut. When it comes to cheating: proceed at your own risk.
Have a happy day.
My feeling is that this belongs to the states. It would be nice to have some sort of equal recognition for gays and lesbians in a close, monogamous relationship. It doesn’t have to be called marriage. I personally, don’t feel that I should ask that the religious institutions should preside over a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. Instead call it civil union, and allow the gays to finally suffer through what millions of straights have throughout the centuries. Still, it’s up to the states to decide.
The American taxpayer shouldn’t have to deal with flipping the bill on our federal government arguing over this when we have far more pressing concerns to deal with in this country, like protecting it.
RE: Posted by: goesh at June 23, 2006 05:51 AM
No, No, No…I have no problem with the hand holding, or small public displays, but when is the last time a hetero group held a march to signify their heterosexuality? All that separates gay couples from straight couples is the actual act, other then that we love the same, share the same, and hurt the same…so yes…it is about sexuality and when hundreds of people march simply to advertise their sexuality, they are asking to be singled out.
Rather, live life, hold hands, and love each other…just stop screaming about it.
That’s all I meant…don’t claim equality then ask for extraquality. Don’t tell me you’re the same as me then ask for special treatment based on your chosen sexual preferences. (Uh-oh…I said chosen.)
VICKI
I was not refering to a person’s activity during a relationship (in the comment) about other men having respect for a man’s wife) but their pasts.
Also, I believe if you asked a large group of women, how many partners would you like to have (sexually) the most common answer would be 1. I know that among men the most common answer would be closer to ALL OF THEM (if we followed our nature without restraint).
That difference (chacter flaw in men) is one of the things I believe marrage is ment to control.
Okay, AJ, I think I understand what you’re saying. I’ll only add that I don’t think marriage usually fixes the kind of stuff you’re talking about. Some people just need to do some work on themselves. Also, monogamy is not for everyone. Take care.
Stonemason: “This is a States rights issue, and the Federal Government is far overstepping by getting involved. If a State allows Gay Marriage, then, all States would have to recognize that marriage, courtesy of the 14th amendment.”
I’m not sure where the 14th Amendment comes into that: 14th Amendment Equal Protection arguments could be made to impose gay marriage ON the states at the federal level, but recognition of one state’s marriages by another has to do with arguments not about the 14th Amendment, but about the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
First, historically there has always been a recognized “public policy exception” to Full Faith and Credit; second, Congress is expressly authorized to regulate the effects of Full Faith and Credit, which it purported to do in passing DOMA. The argument then becomes, I suppose, the interaction of both those things with Equal Protection (and at the state level, with analogous provisions of state constitutions as well, as happened in Massachusetts).
Goesh: “If you breed and have made a legal contract for it, you get a tax break.”
Actually, there are probably at least as many circumstances in which marriage can result in tax detriments as advantages. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase, “marriage penalty”?
For the record, I strongly support gay marriage, but I just as strongly believe this is best decided 1) at the state level and 2) through the legislative process rather than being imposed by courts. That makes for the strongest consensus, the greatest legitimacy, and for decisions the “losing” side of a particular debate can probably still live with (at least until the question gets revisited).
All the “rights and privileges” of marriage can be secured with a signed contract and a durable power of attorney. That is not a real issue. If you want to look at why there might have been a decline in the state of traditional marriage, it has been under attack from militant feminism for about 40 years, and from the welfare system(substituting for fathers) for longer than that. I think traditional marriage is doing quite well, under the circumstances. Better not to mess with it.
“All the “rights and privileges” of marriage can be secured with a signed contract and a durable power of attorney.”
I’m afraid that’s simply incorrect. While those things can be very useful, and state law obviously varies widely, the main difference is that they’re not always going to be able to bind third parties in every situation where a marriage would.
And then there’s the issue of probate: obviously a will is enough to avoid an unmarried couple’s problems with intestate succesion, but know anything about spousal elective shares? And what about pretermitted children? And/or pretermitted spouses? I’m not even a probate attorney (though I’ve drafted legislation in the field), so I’m sure there are plenty more issues I don’t even know about.
Dave J: IMO, it is up to the homosexual community to create a relationship form that suits their needs. I do know that almost no heterosexual couples are concerned with “rights and privileges” when they want to get married. They seem to regard marriage as a responsibility, not a right. I think there is a real difference between real marriage and any solemnized homosexual relationship, as would be expected. I fully support the creation of that relationship; just don’t call it marriage, out of respect, if for no other reason. There is a reason that marriage is so desirable, and it has little to do with rights and privileges. Traditional marriage is the end result of thousands of years of evolution, and many have sacrificed to make it what it is today. Heterosexuals generally marry for the greater good of society and furtherance of the next generation.
If I’m repeating myself on the issue of gay marriage, I apologize ahead of time. 🙂
I support gay marriage for one reason. I think homosexuals should have the same access to be nagged by their signficiant others as straights do.
Seriously, I think gay marriage is a state’s rights issue and I don’t think the federal government has any business getting involved. When you consider the number of Congress critters who have been divorced, caught cheating on their spouses, not yet caught cheating on their spouses, or have frosty relationships with their spouses, I really don’t think these folks are qualified to define marriage. Not that the state governments are any better, but at least we have stronger Constitutional grounding to send such issues to the states.
On the social side of it, I don’t see how gay marriage cheapens or weakens straight marriage. But I do see where gay couples are being denied access to services granted to common law marriages between straights.
Having said that, the gay rights “leadership” is completely mucking up the works on this issue by not spearheading a greater effort to get straights on their side on this issue. As long as they go to the courts to get what they cannot persuade people to vote for or at the very least consider, they will be seen as wanting “special rights” over straights.
To the religious element of it, I’m a newly reminted Lutheran, for lack of a better term, so my understanding of the Bible is admittedly spotty. The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination and a sin against God. The New Testament teaches love for those who stray, however. In situations like this, I’ve decided not to get my hands dirty trying to figure out what God wants to do. I’ll leave that headache for God to resolve. In the meantime, I can only show love for all God’s people, even if their lifestyle doesn’t coincide with mine. You can’t go wrong with love, folks. 🙂
Well, enough ranting from me. Let the throwing of the rotten tomatoes in my direction begin! LOL
This whole gay marriage issue has me saying “talk to the hand.” For years all I heard was how we gays cannot share various benefits (namely social security) and how that was just so oppressive.
GWB comes along and offers to privatize social security (allowing gays to leave their SS to whomever they chose) and gays categorically reject it. It was at that point that I knew gay marriage was ONLY about politics and NOT what was best for gay and lesbians.
Our cause has been hijacked by leftwing fruit cakes who are bedfellows of leftists and it is sickening.
I nominate Tammy as the new gay spokesperson. We can lock Rosie O up at Git’mo…a few hours of her insane chatter with that fingernails on the chalkboard’ voice and those terrorists won’t be able to spill the beans fast enough!