The Supreme Court of New Jersey has just decided that gay couples are entitled to all the rights that heterosexual couples have… but do not have a claim to the institution of marriage. The legislature of that state now has 180 days in which to decide whether to change the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or whether to create another separate-but-equal institution to provide benefits and obligations.
Much of the argument against marriage equality is that man-woman marriage is the ideal grouping in which to raise children. While same-sex couples may raise perfectly fine kids, it just isn’t as good a model as opposite-sex couples and therefore the state has the right to reserve the privileges of ‘marriage’ to those groupings that best benefit society.
Perhaps the legislature of New Jersey will take the high road and opt for equality. Probably not. Having just finished Jim McGreevey’s autobiography, his observations about the ethical character of New Jersey politicians suggests that they will have no problem with treating their citizens as two different classes of people. I hope I’m wrong.
But assuming that New Jersey will create Civil Unions (or revise their Domestic Partnerships) to provide second class status for gay marriages, I think they should take the opportunity to look at other marriages that don’t meet the standard of “optimal”. Such marriages could include:
Divorced Marriages – All studies agree that divorce is horrible on children. And a huge percentage of sexual abuse of minors is by step-parents. Clearly this isn’t ideal.
Ex-Gay Marriages – The limited information available suggests that ex-gay marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages. This is devastating on the kids. Clearly this isn’t ideal.
Mixed Orientation Marriages – These are probably not much more successful than ex-gay marriages (though certainly more honest). And the dynamic between the parents is not a healthy model for children. Clearly this isn’t ideal.
Post-Menopausal Marriages – These marriages don’t result in children. And since the anti-gays will tell you that the primary purpose of marriage is children, then one that can’t result in children really only needs the benefits and obligations of marriage, not marriage itself. Clearly this isn’t ideal.
Perhaps you can think of a few more marriages that could be downgraded to Civil Unions. Feel free to use the criteria that anti-gay and ex-gay speakers use to argue against equality.
Of course I really don’t favor diminishing the relationships of any married couples. But perhaps if straight judges and politicians (and ex-gay ministers) viewed themselves the same way they view gay people, these arguments for legal discrimination and the opposition to equality would someday go away.
How about an a heterosexual couple where one spouse is infertile? And don’t forget those who are childless by choice.
But here’s an even more radical idea: If you have a child with someone out of wedlock, you are automatically married and cannot divorce until that or any other children living in the household reach the age of majority. That’ll truly preserve marriage. Let’s walk the talk….
If you read the summary of the ruling put out by the New Jersey Court, four justices agreed to the opinion that gay couples being unable to access the rights of marriage was bullshit. However they stopped short of legalizing gay marriage, and said that the legislature can title it whatever they want as long as it has all the bennies.
Three justices disagreed with that opinon. Was it because they bought the snake oil that all gays are slutty disease carrying pedophiles who can be cured by Jesus? Are they saying our families don’t matter? No. They thought that gay couples being unable to access the rights of marriage was bullshit and New Jersey should JUST LET THEM GET MARRIED ALREADY.
Recap: 4 justices for civil unions. 3 justices for equal marriage. And 0 justices for homophobia. Ouch. I can just feel Alan Chambers recoiling from here.
I think in the long run, we come up on top.
I think in the long run, we come up on top.
Maybe. But in the short-term a lot of state defense of marriage amendments are more certain of passage.
Personally, I think the CA legis. will send another SSM bill to AHnold, and this time, because he doesn’t have to worry about re-election any more, he will sign it.
That will be earth-shaking, and oh will you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin from the RR [as the promised 1st Coming of the End of Civilization ™fails to materialize].
If CA does this and Arnold signs it, it will take the wind out of the “activist judges” arguement.
One of the problems with states allowing marriages that are not recognized federally is that couples often will be stuck with many of the obligations of marriage and not get the proper federal benefits of marriage. While I agree it is a start and that Same Sex Marriage should be legal throughout this country, it may not be in every couple’s interest to get married even if their state allows it.
This came up last year with the changes to the Domestic Partnership Law in California. The changes essentially put a lot more obligations on the couples (like responsibility for Partner’s debts) without commensurate benefits (like getting Partner’s Social Security and pension). There were many couples who delisted themselves as Domestic Partners before the new law kicked in, because it made no sense (usually financially) to remain Domestic Partners.
I suspect that there have been problems for those married in Mass. due to conflict between the state and federal laws.
What we really need is a Constitutional Equal Rights Ammendment that bans discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. That isn’t likely anytime soon, so in the meantime we all just try to best we can with the laws we must navigate.
Phil, there’s a problem with your scheme. Straights can be horribly reckless with regards to reproduction, and it sometimes a man fathers children with more than one woman, and a woman have children who have different fathers. How would your plan work thing? Or can a man have more than one wife and a woman have more than one husband?
How about legalized incest between first cousins?
Arizona law:
And Illinois law:
Why, it’s almost as if the legislatures are trying to prevent them from having children! That can’t be!
But, wait–wasn’t keeping incest illegal one of the reasons gay marriage had to be kept illegal? Surely the next step will be people marrying their sisters, or their cows, or their neighbor! Horror of horrors!
Reb, I know. I was just pointing out that the argument of “marriage is for procreation” full of gaping holes on its best day.
Also, I imagine in any legislature, no matter where, you’d have a hard time getting men and women to whom this law might well apply to vote for it.
However, since these men and women who are “serial monogomists” would be subject to this “theoretical” law, bigamy and adultery laws could then be applied to the perpetrators, along with the appropriate civil and criminal penalties.
I imagine there’d be a stampede to liberalize marriage laws!
But Skemono, I’m confused.
Is Arizona actually trying to make sure some marriages don’t have children??!!??
But on the Protect Marriage Arizona website, they tell us (courtesy of AFA) that
Marriage is akin to a natural child protection agency.
I mean… marriage is all for the children, right?
But if one of the rules of marriage for some people is that they can’t have children, then … gasp … that would mean they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. Why, (shudder) they’d be hypocrites and liars. Surely that’s not what you’re saying!!
Or could it be that Arizona may be the first state to say “enough with your nosing in to other people’s business. Take your bigoted amendment and shove it”.
I believe research shows that white children, on the whole, have better grades, go to higher-ranked colleges, get better jobs, and earn more money than black children.
Clearly, the solution to this problem is to prohibit black couples from having children.
I believe research shows that white children, on the whole, have better grades, go to higher-ranked colleges, get better jobs, and earn more money than black children.
Clearly, the solution to this problem is to prohibit black couples from having children.
Now, now, now Watcher, you’re being totally racist there. Clearly it is not that White parents are better than Black, but rather that Black parents are more likely to be poor.
Clearly the answer is to bar poor people from having children. {end sarcasm}
Here’s the deal. The religious right doesn’t agree with much of anything except the perfect-looking family. The “ideal”. And, come on, let’s face it, if it takes a man and a woman to MAKE a child (and it really does) then it stands to reason that it would be absolutely best for the perfect man and the perfect woman to raise that oh-so-perfect child. And they base everything on that as if they themselves have not dealt with any of the “difficulties” (read that SIN) of humanity.
Sad.
I’m not here to argue sin. NOt really to argue anything at all. Just to state some stuff. 😉
Good parenting can be just as FLUID as sexuality in my opinion. I am not going to stand in judgement, save outright physical or emotional abuse of children. I’ve had SO MANY students who need desperately to be with better/decent parents and not once have I had a child in the care of gay parents. (i’m in texas, remember)
I do have one question, though. Are we/you guys saying that “civil unions” are not acceptable. You want it to be all or nothing as far as the marriage thing? The rights…yes….I believe it should be so. Gay married couples should not be discriminated against in any way and, in actuality, should be held accountable to the same standard as hetero married people. Is it a battle of semantics or a battle of “marriage” in general?
Sorry. I’m a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.
love to all,
pam/grace
Clearly any marriage where one spouse is of a different religion than the other is out. The children will be quite negatively impacted if they have to think at least one of their parents is going to hell.
Are we/you guys saying that “civil unions” are not acceptable.
Its not enough to be allowed to ride the bus. We don’t want to be told we have to sit in the back of the bus.
Those who value and respect the institution of marriage aren’t interested in marriage-lite.
I suspect that there’s going to be differences of opinion amongst us–look at some of the comments at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, for example. Just for me, the end goal is legalization of gay marriage, period. But I’m not so stubborn about that goal that I’ll refuse any intermediate steps like civil unions. We’ll get there one way or another.
I do have one question, though. Are we/you guys saying that “civil unions” are not acceptable. You want it to be all or nothing as far as the marriage thing? The rights…yes….I believe it should be so. Gay married couples should not be discriminated against in any way and, in actuality, should be held accountable to the same standard as hetero married people. Is it a battle of semantics or a battle of “marriage” in general?
If this helps gay couples protect their families and especially their children, then bring it on, but it remains second class status, and it should be obvious this is nothing more than a stop-gap measure until society finally gets over it and says “Ooh, yeah, separate but equal… not so good.”
Pam/Grace, we went through this in Connecticut last year, when there was a civil union bill before our legislature and the largest marriage equality group in the state (Love Makes a Family) initially opposed it, on the grounds that only marriage was the goal. There were huge discussions, community forums, etc. about this, and I thought there were good arguments on both sides, but ultimately I came to understand and endorse the “marriage only” position. One state to look at is Vermont, where they’ve had civil union for quite a while now, and there is no political will or movement toward anything more. Civil union really is “a special second class status just for gay people” and symbols, as we all know, have a real impact and meaning in our culture.
All that said, eventually LMF changed course and supported civil union, which we now have. As I understand it, a marriage bill will be introduced early next year, so we will not move into the same stasis as Vermont. So while I think civil union is a useful first step, to the extent it can stall out progress towards full marriage, it’s also far less than optimum.
Jane in CT
Even if the NJ leg does wussy out and opt for civil unions, it doesn’t mean people have to call them that. Just keep calling it marriage over and over, and after the current crop of bigots have finally died off (oh happy day), the law will be changed to reflect reality.
It is an interesting parallel to what happened here in Québec. Our Assemblée nationale unanimously voted to create civil unions in 2002 but in 2004, La Cour d’appel du Québec (our provincial supreme court on rights matters) said that CUs were NOT equal even if they confer the same rights.
I hope NJ takes the takes the same step we did and institute full equality.
I read somewhere that in 1970 70% of people polled thought premarital sex was wrong. I think that number is somwhere in the single digits now.
There has been quite a transformation of our culture for the last 40 years and heterosexuals have enjoyed the freedoms associated with that transformation. As someone posted above, reckless heterosexuals have pushed a number of problems onto the greater community during this period than any homosexual could have.
STD’s, out of wedlock births, sexual exploitation of children, increased crime rates, poverty all seem to be related (I am not asserting cause…but that statistic is not too far off) to this heteroseuxal shift to sexual freedom.
What if we returned to a modified “1950’s” format for the family? My modifications may not include gay marriage, but I won’t determine this, legislatures and judges will (I am no theocrat; pluralism protects us all).
By modified, I mean: recoupling sex with love and with commitment (for heterosexuals and homosexuals). Encouraging premarital counseling. Delaying sexual activity until marriage (this was hard for me in 1977). Maintain laws which protect sexual minorities. Encouraging divorce prevention counseling. All the while making sure that domestic violence, custody processes and actual divorces are available and fair (gains since 1950).
As you might guess, I am no fan of the sexual revolution. My perception is that it emphasizes the rights of adults over the rights of the next generation (regardless of sexual orientation).
Oops.
“All the while making sure that domestic violence, custody processes and actual divorces are available and fair (gains since 1950).”
Should read: All the while making sure that domestic violence protection, custody processes and actual divorces are available and fair (gains since 1950).
If Marriage is a religious institution, the State (government) should not be involved in it at all. I believe all states should repeal their marriage laws, leaving the institution of marriage as a religious question to be dealt with by various religions. Instead the states should promote Civil Unions as a legal relationship to recognize and encourage the development of loving families.
Okay. But marriage is not a religious institution–at least certainly not solely one. So what then?
Pam (Grace)
I know it can seem extreme and radical for gay people to demand the name “marriage”. After all, if the goal is protections and benefits, then it shouldn’t matter what it’s called.
But the issue really isn’t “protections and benefits”. The real issue is fair and equal treatment by one’s government. We (gay, straight, whatever) just want an equal standing, a level playing field.
And the problem with civil unions is that they are created SOLELY to segregate and exclude gay people from a government institution. They are designed for one purpose alone: to deny equality, to say “you aren’t good enough”.
Not all gay people agree on the solution. My best friend last night told me that he believes “marriage” is more religous than governmental and he’d prefer that the goverment only recognize civil unions for everyone. Then a church can decide whether to confer marriage on a couple. Since many churches do perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, that could work. But it does downgrade everone.
I prefer that marriage remain governmental but be open to gay or straight couples equally. Equality is the goal, in my mind. Not reducing everyone’s marriage.
I guess the best way to think about it, Pam, is this:
Suppose that you were to fall in love again. And suppose this man and you were to decide to marry. You told your kids and your family and your church and received the blessing of everyone. Then you went to get the marriage license only to be told, “Sorry, Pam, but you can’t be married. But you can have this other thing which is just like marriage, but you can’t call it marriage. Because the government doesn’t think you are as worthy of marriage as that couple over there.”
Sure, you’d have the benefits, and you could say “I’m married”, but for the rest of your life when you went to fill out applications, you’d be reminded that you aren’t as good. When you took his kids to school you’d have to explain to those there who might not understand what this other thing was. When you applied for insurance you wouldn’t be sure you’d get a family discount. And even though you might have all the rights, you’d be forever in a position of having to prove it. Having to show people the law.
It’s just better to be fair. And equal.
Sure some people have trouble with accepting gay couples as equal. But isn’t that the history of humanity? It’s a constant struggle to look at the world around you and say “that short woman, that Pakistani, that funny-looking guy, that Muslim, that under-educated poor lady, that gay couple, they are equal to me. And not only do they deserve services from the government, they deserve the same water fountain as me.”
Posted by: David Blakeslee at October 26, 2006 09:47 AM
David, you suggested we return to a modified “1950’s” format for the family which does not include gay marriage. Then you say “by modified, I mean: recoupling sex with love and with commitment (for heterosexuals and homosexuals). Encouraging premarital counseling. Delaying sexual activity until marriage”.
If you don’t want to include gays in marriage how do you expect to have them recouple sex with love and committment when you would exclude them from premarital counseling and the idea of delaying sexual activity until marriage?
The NY and WA courts were the ones that pushed the marriage ban argument down the slippery slope when they called opposite sex marriages ‘ideal’ for children.
That would have to entail ideal men and women, wouldn’t it?
The government can’t choose an ideal spouse for you and shouldn’t.
Indeed, the government makes no bans on individuals of disparate anything, not even social standing. Like a free person marrying someone incarcerated.
The institution itself isn’t ideal for some individuals, no matter how many times they try it with different people or don’t try it at all.
The issue is individuals having the choice to choose THEIR ideal spouse, whether they are gay or not. Intersexed or transexual.
The rules and standards of marriage have four basic principles.
And througout social evolution, the institution has been inclusive for all people.
But these current laws, and the lack of courage to enforce the Constitution’s protections and access have turned into this congealed soup, not because of reason and common decency, but of prejudice and impossible if not double standards solely against gay people.
Might as well ban the crippled or sick from marrying the healthy.
Wheelchair users from people with legs that work.
People with genetic disorders from people that don’t. The rich from marrying the poor and people without criminal records from marrying those that do.
The slippery slope is all about whose ideal is whose within the basic four rule framework?
“If you don’t want to include gays in marriage how do you expect to have them recouple sex with love and committment when you would exclude them from premarital counseling and the idea of delaying sexual activity until marriage?”
I think that I am arguing for the position I prefer…based upon my faith, my view of history and my view of the social science data. I do not claim infallibility or assert that my view should be unchallenged.
I think if gay marriage (or civil unions)ultimately wins out, efforts should be made to find ways to optimize those relationships: through monogomy, premarital counseling, and divorce prevention….
There may be some significant differences between heterosexual and same-sex marriage that should be explored if it turns out to be true. I have mentioned the impact of sexual fidelity on heterosexual marriage and divorce as a factor. You may think of others.
My faith guides my political views, but prevents me from imposing them. As marriage and sexual behavior has been converted into a right of adults to the minimization of the needs of children, I am quite concerned.
I think if gay marriage (or civil unions)ultimately wins out, efforts should be made to find ways to optimize those relationships: through monogomy, premarital counseling, and divorce prevention….
I think that is something we can all agree upon.
There may be some significant differences between heterosexual and same-sex marriage that should be explored if it turns out to be true.
I doubt there will be significant differences. We could all find anecdotal instances of differences (anti-gay activists will be glad to try and hunt some down for you). But I just don’t think gays are any more (or less) likely to betray vows than straights and I certainly wouldn’t propose policy based on that prejudice.
I too would like to see increased linkage between sex and commitment. But denying availability to the mechanics of commitment is more likely to hurt that linkage than help it.
We all know that certain impoverished inner-city ethic minority subgroups have overwhelming issues with promiscuity and commitment. And there are a lot of factors (primarily subcultural expectation, economic, and criminal) that play into that situation. But no one but an idiot (or a racist) would suggest that removing marriage as an option would be in either the benefit of these individuals or of society. Should individuals in that situation break the cycle and defy all the modeling they see around them and decide to commit to each other and to fidelity, we consider that a wonderful situation worthy of praise and respect. And rightly so.
A wise society encourages stability of its citizenry. A wise society would encourage its members, gay and straight, into relationships and rather than impede efforts to commit should champion them.
Posted by: David Blakeslee at October 26, 2006 04:33 PM
David I think you’re arguing for the position you prefer based mostly on anti-gay religious teachings and not so much the social science data.
One of the major mental health organizations (I forget which one) has come out in support of equal marriage for same sex couples. It seems as they see the social science data it supports making gays full partners in society. They recognize the harm stigmatization has done to gays and the need for society to positively support this group as it would any other. I wish you would recognize and oppose this stigmatization and the harm it causes instead of justifying it with religion.
Somewhat Related
A Republican politician living in Wisconsin explains why that state’s proposed anti-marriage amendment would be both bad policy and bad politics.
Timothy, as a bisexual with a lesbian, I’m in a “mixed-orientation” marriage, as are many other honest bisexual people.
I think NJ’s Supreme Court was passing the buck, plain and simple. Then again, we’ll probably be moving there once our lease is up.
Regan DuCasse wrote:
The NY and WA courts were the ones that pushed the marriage ban argument down the slippery slope when they called opposite sex marriages ‘ideal’ for children.
___________________________
I think the NY court actually told the gay couple that was petitioning them that they were better at monogamy than heterosexuals. Then they seemingly plucked a statement from a ruling in an Indiana court and said that heterosexals were so dang promiscuous that they needed marriage to settle them down. It was one of the funniest things I’ve ever read coming out of a court. They were telling the gay couple that they were too good for marriage.
Civil unions are nothing. If marriage is this big religious institution that the government has taken upon itself to foster; then why are not gay marriages allowed, since some religions marry their gay and lesbian members. Should not the government under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment acknowledge such a marriage? I still don’t see why no one hasn’t taken this view in a case in a court, state or otherwise.
…
Just read that the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) calls the NJ ruling a win….
“If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy. “This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other ‘unions’ makes marriage meaningless. It’s critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only.”
I wonder if they will tell that to the electorate. Likely several Republicans will now play the gay-hate card and play on the “fear of the gay agenda.” That card was already played last week here in Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth” congressional district.
In the one-minute radio ad paid for by Friends of Rep. John Hostettler, an announcer impersonating Clint Eastwood says a vote for challenger Brad Ellsworth would be a vote for California Democrat Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.
“Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank’s home,” the narrator says.
You may or may not know that Hostettler is the author of the “Defense of Marriage Act” which seeks to bar the federal courts from ruling on the Federal DOMA. The bill seeks to do what a constitutional amendment should do.
Well now Hostettler is playing upon that imagery [subscription link] after the New Jersey ruling in and advert for television.
A television ad paid for by Rep. John Hostettler’s re-election campaign argues “liberals in Washington” will champion same-sex marriage if they ascend to power in Congress as a result of next month’s election.
The ad features a picture of a gay marriage and pictures of Hostettler’s marriage to the former Elizabeth Hamman in 1983.
Here is a line-by-line analysis of Hostettler’s ad:
“Liberals in Washington want to force Massachusetts-style same-sex marriage on the people of Indiana.”
FACT-CHECK:
House Democrats have a 16-member leadership team that includes Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a minority whip, caucus chairman and vice chairman.
Of the 16 leadership Democrats, all but one opposed Hostettler’s Marriage Protection Act.
“To stop liberal federal judges from imposing same-sex marriage on Hoosiers, the House of Representatives passed Congressman Hostettler’s Marriage Protection Act with bipartisan support. Preserve the sanctity of marriage. Human Events said, ‘It is time to rebalance the constitutional machinery’ by making the Marriage Protection Act law. John Hostettler: Our values. Our congressman.”
FACT-CHECK:
The Marriage Protection Act passed the House on July 22, 2004, with 233 votes, 27 of which came from Democrats. Of the 194 votes in opposition, 17 were Republicans.
In July, the House voted 236-187 against a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Hostettler was among those who voted against the proposed amendment.
______________________________
And now Republicans around the country are coming up with the same hype as Hostettler. From the Boston Globe:
President Bush and Republican Party activists yesterday seized on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples as motivation for religious conservatives to vote for their candidates on Nov. 7 — and to back initiatives banning gay marriage, which are on ballots in eight states.
“Yesterday, in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Bush said while fund-raising. Republicans, he said, “believe values are important, and we believe marriage is a fundamental institution of civilization.”
In Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum , a conservative Republican, is struggling to keep his Senate seat, the Pennsylvania Family Institute mailed fliers to potential voters, warning that “homosexual legal activists in Pennsylvania and elsewhere will make good on their agenda to exploit rulings like New Jersey’s to force homosexual marriages or marriage benefits on our commonwealth.”
I hate backlash.
“But no one but an idiot (or a racist) would suggest that removing marriage as an option would be in either the benefit of these individuals or of society. Should individuals in that situation break the cycle and defy all the modeling they see around them and decide to commit to each other and to fidelity, we consider that a wonderful situation”
Absolutely agreed.
My cursory reading of popular gay publications over the years (and I mean “cursory”), is that there has long been a skepticism or outright cynicism expressed toward those within the gay community who would impede free sexual expression. They are marginalized in print as “moralizers.” It is my impression that there is a strong association for some in the gay community between the idea of monogomy and oppression.
It is confusing for me when this has been the public identity often embraced in gay publications. Again, I don’t think this just comes from my religious and conservative background. I believe Tammy Bruce has argued that as long as people like Jim McGreevy (a very poor example, but one she used) are the face of the gay community, people will continue to make the assumptions that gays have a different view of sexuality and sexual behavior than do heterosexuals.
Her advice was that conservative, monogomously devoted, mainstream gays and lesbians need to claim the gay rights movement from the sexual libertarians.
Tim, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and your referral in times past to promiscuity rates of gays and straights. I also am familiar with the concordance rate between heterosexual and homosexual males in the number of times they think about sex (hat tip to Throckmorton). For heterosexual males (MSW), the female demand for monogomy seems to be a controlling factor.
I am rambling a bit and may have stirred a hornets nest with these comments, but I think it is necessary to do so to get all ideas and perceptions on the table. I do so with good intent, but know that intentions are not everything and that I may have spoken offensively; please accept my apology in advance.
I am trying to highlight the role perception plays in this debate and that this perception, in part, is due to sexual libertines who have struggled from the beginning of the gay rights movement and remain strongly identified with it.
Randi,
“One of the major mental health organizations (I forget which one) has come out in support of equal marriage for same sex couples. It seems as they see the social science data it supports making gays full partners in society.”
I know the American Psychological Association, and the American Pediatric Association have decided to support same-sex marriage. I have taken issue with the studies that they used to come to that conclusion. I do this because I think the APA is rushing to judgement about this matter much as they did 30 years ago when they dismantled the pairing of sex with marriage and morals as oppressive and divorce being a necessary intervention for unhappiness.
At that time there were many positively constructed arguments for those decisions. The science was very poor. It turned out that the longitudinal studes on divorce, marriage and children out-of-wedlock all supported the traditional, moralistic value of marriage.
I believe the longitudinal studies have demonstrated that pursuasively. I think longitudinal studies on same sex coupling should demonstrate themselves before we change such a fundamental institution. I know of the studies used by the APA (psychology), some had not yet been published, some compared co-habiting lesbians with single mothers and I don’t think (I might be wrong) any were longitudinal.
These are my concerns. I certainly see things through my faith. But my faith requires that I submit to other truths as well as they are demonstrated. Skepticism, not cynicism, works for all of us to separate fact from fiction, political agendas from science.
David Blakeslee, I’m not be in a position to judge what studies were or weren’t done but I’m sure the American Pyscholigical Association would disagree with you that they’ve rushed to judgment. There’s a lot more of them believing they’ve taken the justified and correct position than there are of you thinking they’ve not.
You say that longitudnal studies should be done before gays are allowed to marry, what about child molesters, murderers, thieves, or even the previously divorced and interracial couples? Maybe we should do longitudnal studies based on race to see who’s fit to marry – seems to me minorities have a higher divorce rate and incidence of social dysfunction than white people. You don’t ask any other group of people in society to submit to long range studies to prove themselves before being allowed to marry, its bigoted to say only gays should be required to do so.
As to your concern about changing a “fundamental” institution, the sky hasn’t fallen in those jurisdictions that allow equal marriage for same sex couples. Allowing same sex couples to marry is precious little change to the institution. In equal marriage jurisdictions the vast majority of marriages continue to be opposite sex just as people have come to expect – marriage continues to be almost exactly as people like you want it to be. There has been no perceptible change in any of these societies unless you want to count the decreasing rates of heterosexuals cohabitating and in some cases increasing rates of heterosexual marriage – I’d think even you would consider that a good thing.
David, I should add that the APA doesn’t have a religious agenda to override their judgment on supporting equal marriage for same sex couples whereas NARTH, Exodus, and you do. Its difficult to imagine that your religious beliefs in eternal torture for gay sex don’t override all other considerations in your decision to oppose equal marriage for same sex couples.
David,
I saddens me to see you hold so desperately to an outdated (and probably never accurate) stereotype. You really should know better. We’ve discussed this before.
I know that there is only limited resourse material for one trying to understand gay culture from the outside. But honestly, judging the attitudes of the gay community from a gay magazine you may have read is like judging straight Americans by reading Cosmopolitan or the National Enquirer. It’s ridiculous.
Having said that, even if one could rely on gay rags as a good source your assumptions still would not be supported. It simply is not true that those who seek monogamy are called “moralizers”. A search on the Advocate’s website doesn’t have a single result for that word.
Or try a google search. “Moralizers” refers to anti-gay activists (usually politicians) that would try and illegalize or otherwise punish the occurance of sex between two people of the same gender regardless of the status of their relationship. And these moralizers quite often are on their third marriage.
Frankly, there’s nothing the gay community can do to “improve its image” among those who delight in seeing the negative. There are no gay “leaders” who champion promiscuity. NONE. But evidence has little impact on anti-gay spin doctors.
Tammy Bruce is a pleasant lady but she represents no one other than herself. And she’s welcome to her opinion, but she’s no more qualified to discuss who is or is not “the face” of the gay community than Alan Keyes is to discuss the face of the black community. She makes a living criticizing other women and gays – which is fine – but you shouldn’t take what she says too seriously.
McGreevey is not by any means “the face” of the gay community (he’s harshly criticized) and even if he were, he’s currently in a (presumably) monogamous long-term relationship. It was while he was “the face” of the closet that he was behaving badly, not now.
This is not a perception problem on the part of us. It is a promulgation of deceipt problem on the part of those who oppose our being allowed a level playing field. And I have no control over them.
But, David, you do have control over what you say and do. So I’m going to request that until you have something that supports your “perception”, that you quit saying it. Until you can name these “sexual libertines” that are so strongly representative of my community, please stop suggesting they represent me.
It isn’t true and it is offensive. And, more importantly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand: equal access to one’s government.
One thing I do find ironic. The gay community is perfectly capable of understanding that Fred Phelps does not represent Christiany. But why is it so difficult for those who have an ethic that calls upon us to love our neighbor have such difficulty in not seeing gay people by their worst example?
In the post you mention, “The limited information available suggests that ex-gay marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages.”
I’ve been in healing ministry for 16 years and do not know of this failed marriages. Please show me what you know.
16 years Jason? That seems like a lot of healing, maybe you’re not being healed and its time to accept who you are, recognize that its a hateful world that is in error (not you) and find happiness with your same sex attraction.
That’s neither appropriate nor correct. I asked a simple question. I’m hoping Timothy can answer it.
Tim,
Points taken, I’ll see if I can come up with articles recently and get more precision about the language they use (moralizers is the term that came to me, there may be another term that is more accurate).
I don’t view the Advocate or the Washington Blade as “gay rags.” The former’s very title implies they are speaking for the community (something I am sure we all take with a large grain of salt). I don’t view them as Cosmo or Men’s Health magazine. I view them like I would view Jet or Christianity Today. Magazines with a mission to serve a specific population which has personal and political goals.
I think you are trivializing them to minimize their power in my perceptions. I don’t think that is fair. I’ll continue to go elsewhere to broaden my perspectives (here and to the science).
So I think this comparison is poor. But I will try to collect some facts regarding the articles I have read to support my position and be back later; hopefully with some accurate references and more accurate phrases.
Do you really believe that the Advocate and the Washington Blade are like Cosmo?
David
“Gay rags” is slang for magazines/newspapers targeted to a gay audience. It’s not intended to diminish their worth.
The Washington Blade is a news source that also runs editorials. It’s probably comparable to a small town newspaper. Of course, as with all such sources, the editorials may or may not be reflective of a community.
Further, you could probably find some op ed piece that supports any stereotype you’d like to come up with. That’s the whole idea of op eds – to present alternative viewpoints. Nonetheless, I really doubt you’ll find many (or maybe even any) that criticize gays that are in monogamous relationships or that push for such. Sure there may be someone who says “I don’t want to adopt the heterosexist norms” or somesuch thing, but those voices are far in the minority.
The Advocate does not “speak for the community” and would probably laugh at you for suggesting they do. The magazine has been around since the days that mainstream press universally ignored all news that was of relevance to the gay community. It began in 1967 by a gay organization and probably thought of itself as activist news sheet. Currently it is a news and culture magazine comparable with People or maybe Newsweek-lite (neither of which is reflective of the “straight community”), but targeted at a gay audience. It has a smattering of news but it is far more about human interest stories (in my opinion). There’s politics, of course, but it’s a bit fluffy.
But again, there you’d have to go back quite a ways (maybe decades) before you found any substantive segment of the gay community that was opposed to monogamous relationships.
Of course there will be those who don’t want one for themself (as do some straights). And I don’t doubt that if you search you might find some pontificator that espouses that view. You’ll probably come up with someone who thinks that gays should have sex as often as possible with as many people as possible as some sort of political act. They may even be a “known” columnist.
After all, the gay community is as diverse as the straight community and there are a lot of viewpoints. And who “speaks for straight people”? Is it Maureen Dowd, Pat Buchanan, Al Frankin, or Bill O’Reilly?
The same is true of us. We don’t have some monolithic opinion by which any single person can claim to “speak for gays”. EVEN SO, I doubt you’ll have much luck in finding reputable sources that take the viewpoint that gays should not be monogamous and call those who are “moralizers” or anything similar.
but its a myth that gays are anti-monogamy. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is a deliberate misrepresentation that has been purposefully spread. Perhaps at some distant past – in the years after Stonewall – it had some basis in fact, but that day is long past.
David,
I do not believe that Jet speaks for African Americans per se, and I know for a fact that Christianity Today does not speak for Christians. CT, for example, is a publication addressing moderately conservative suburban U.S. evangelicals who wish to see other Christians — mainline, Anabaptist and Catholic — as well as the Bible and the world, through certain comforting ideological filters.
The Advocate is a Los Angeles-based magazine that weights its coverage heavily toward unusual headline-grabbers, such as former New Jersey Gov. McGreevey or supposedly gay-friendly heterosexual celebrities in Hollywood and New York. Like other mass media, it focuses on headline-grabbers, the people who are different or exceptional or scandalous, rather than ordinary people. I don’t see how the Advocate is any more representative of gays than Pat Robertson is of Christians. I would compare the Advocate to People, not Cosmo — Out is comparable to Cosmo or Details, and Genre and Instinct are comparable to Maxim.
There are media that accurately reflect gay families, such as Gay Parent, In the Family, and Pride Parenting, and numerous gay-friendly faith-related publications. But they are no more popular than the family and faith market niches are among heterosexuals.
The Blade, on the other hand, is politically and editorially contrarian, rooted in the contrarian upper-middle-class politics of the Beltway. Its news stories speak to the debates among gays of different ideological stripes on Capitol Hill, and its columnists (borrowed from other Window Media newspapers around the U.S.) reflect individual amateur viewpoints. The fact that conservative columnist Jeff Gannon says one thing in the Blade, while the more independent Jennifer Vanasco says another, and editor Kevin Naff says something else, doesn’t mean much except that same-sex-attracted persons disagree about a lot.
Yet except for the far-left fiftysomethings that formed Beyond Marriage, a scattering of libertine bar-hoppers, and a fringe of bugchasers, I’ve seen no philosophical opposition to monogamy and sexual responsibility.
Unfortunately, not all men (gay or straight, married or single) align their private parts with their moral aspirations.
Even the lefties at Beyond Marriage are not advocating against monogamy or sexual responsibility. They’re just doing the “all family structures deserve benefits” thing.
So what if a few gay activists don’t want to marry? There are plenty of heterosexuals who don’t respect monogamy and marriage, yet there is no chorus calling for the repeal of opposite sex marriage solely on their account.
This entire argument that because some gays don’t want marriage; ergo no gays should be able to wed is on its face, BOGUS!
Tim, Could you comment on the issue of Exgay marriages ending in divorce. Where did you get your information?
And to be clear, we are talking about men and women who are still considered exgay.
It seems that we are debating over a word: “marriage.” The fact is that I could go to my local MCC church tomorrow and be “married” but I would still legally be a stranger to my partner and a nanny to his kids. It seems to me that we should be fighting for “civil unions” but we should demand complete equality within said unions. I don’t care what they call it, if it is equal. If the reason I can’t attain rights of survivorship, joint tax returns, social security death benefits, end of life decision making, etc. is because of a simple word, then get rid of the word. If jane and John Doe go down to the local courthouse and have a civil ceremony, they have complete legal recognition, even if their pastor doesn’t consider them “married.” In my state, if Jane and John are living together for 7 years, they have complete legal recognition. I’ve been with Scott for 8 years. I’ll take that.
We have to stop arguing over the word and start arguing over what really matters; the benefits, the responsibilities, the protections. If someone in congress introduced a bill to provide civil unions to all gay couples which provided us with tax breaks, rights of survivorship, social security benefits, etc., what could be the argument? They claim only to want to protect marriage. If it isn’t called marriage, what can be their argument? I understand wanting marriage. I want it too. But if I can achieve equality, to hell with semantics. I did say “if.” I’m not naive, but I can dream.
On topic, couples of mixed orientation. My sister’s second husband was a gay man. Mistake from day one.
Ooops, sorry. I see Mixed Orientation was already mentioned. Worth repeating though.
Honestly, I think Mike is underestimating what the NJ Supreme court is saying and I think we can’t ignore the progress the decision represents. For only the second time in HISTORY a high court in the US has said that comitted gay relationships should be treated equally under the law with committed straight relationships.
Yes, 4 of the justices said that the word “marriage” doesn’t have to be used, but only so long as every benefit accorded to heterosexual couplex is given to us. ALL seven justices agreed with that.
I want to see the day when I can marry my boyfriend and have all the benefits of my brother and his girlfriend getting married. But I’m not going to condemn progress because it didn’t use a simple word.
Its easy to forget in a Post-Lawrence world that gays in this country had until recently been subject to arrest for private, consensual conduct. Things have changed, and are changing rapidly, but I’m not going to be upset at ANY forward progress even if its not the whole enchilada, at least we’re allowed to sit at the table (for a start).
With that said, I can’t say I’d be shocked if New Jersey’s legislature DID give us the rights AND the title of marriage. New Jersey voters aren’t so opposed to gay marriage rights they’re immovable, even according to a somewhat pessimistic Rasmussen poll 42% of New Jerseyians support gay equality rights. That’s a bit above the national average for marriage equality and a definite sign of progress. An interesting note btw, at the time of the Goodrich decison Massachusetts voters were about 40% in favor of gay marriage… now rasmussen has them at 51%. Politicians in New Jersey might very well note that.
The court in NJ has ruled, now its time for us as individuals to make the case that we ARE indeed full citizens and that as such we want and DESERVE full title, and to recognize that it’ll be even sweeter a victory because the legislature is not legally obligated to give it to us.
Kendall, just to be clear, I haven’t said a thing about the New Jersey court ruling. Were you contrasting your views with Timothy’s?
whoops, I apologize Mike. Yes, I was indeed referring to Timothy, not you. I think I got his post mixed up with one of yours and I didn’t double check, I’m sorry about the confusion.
Gary and I got married. We exchanged rings and vows, we had a minister offer words of guidance, support and prayer. We took communion. We kissed. We cut the cake and celebrated with our friends. We stayed together “til death”. Shortly before his death, Gary and I had a second ceremony to re-affirm the promises we had made years before. At the cemetary, I have the plot next to Gary’s.
How any of that could be seen as a “threat” to the institution of marriage is beyond me. With the (straight) divorce rate nearly 2/3 here in Southern California, it seems to me that heterosexuals are doing a fantastic job of ruining the “institution” all by themselves…