This Jonathan Rauch article in The Atlantic seems, to me, to put its finger on what’s wrong with the non-religious objections to same-sex marriage.
…Notice how the terms of the discussion have shifted. Now the anticipated problem is not sudden, catastrophic social harm but subtle, slow damage. Well, there might be subtle and slow social benefits, too. But more important, there would be one large and immediate benefit: the benefit for gay people of being able to get married. If we are going to exclude a segment of the population from arguably the most important of all civic institutions, we need to be certain that the group’s participation would cause severe disruptions. If we are going to put the burden on gay people to prove that same-sex marriage would never cause even any minor difficulty, then we are assuming that any cost to heterosexuals, however small, outweighs every benefit to homosexuals, however large. That gay people’s welfare counts should, of course, be obvious and inarguable; but to some it is not.
That is the central immorality of the anti-same-sex-marriage position: they’d rather smash gay families with a log than risk straight families getting a splinter. I’m not sure if it’s homophobia or just incredible selfishness, but in either case it’s pretty distasteful..
What do you think about the article’s overarching argument: that gay marriage should be left up to the states rather than the federal government? I’m not sure I buy it.
Hestia – I think that same-sex couples have a 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law, including marriage law. So I don’t think states should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage, any more than they have the right to refuse Jewish marriage. State’s rights, in this case, should be overruled by individual rights guaranteed all of us in the Constitution.
Until the Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a 14th amendment right to marry, however, my opinion means squat. :-)
On the ohter hand….
As a matter of strategy, I think that we might be better off if gay marriage exists for several years in a few states before being forced on the whole country. If gay marriage exists for a while, it’ll become much harder for the homophobes to attack gay marriage, because they will no longer be talking about a faceless, nameless horror; they’ll be talking about legally breaking up the marriages and families of real people. It’ll also become much harder for them to claim that gay marriage will cause the sky to fall, or bring about the end of straight marriage, or whatnot.
I really enjoyed the ever-devilish Alexander Cockburn’s take on the issue. How can you not love the guy?
I thought it was a pretty sad article in it’s primary argument – allowing states to decide on SSM.
There is so much wrong with it, it’s hard to know where to begin.
He seems to think that things would be better
if the Supremes hadn’t done Roe v. Wade and we would have abortion legal in some states and not others — well I was THERE before Roe v. Wade
and I can assure you that the knowledge that
abortion was legal 500 miles away was of no
comfort to the poor and the young who were
“in trouble” and sought illegal and back alley
abortions.
Things were fine for the middle class housewife
but otherwise it was terrible.
In fact, the “federalist” solution has NEVER worked
in any case where a minority was seeking equal rights.
The majority is never kindly disposed towards
human rights and it always required a judiciary to force the case – or, in the one counter example,
a civil war.
Worst opinion ever (tm Matt Groening)
Cockburn’s argument echoes the other arguments against other movements–oh, it’s not radical enough, not important enough, etc. The thing is, some people want to be able to marry each other, and I don’t see why it’s skin off of anyone’s ass whether they do or not.
If “radical gay activists” want to change society and marriage, great. But that doesn’t help the gay couple that wants to get married, have next-of-kin rights, custody rights, and all of the ensuing rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. The argument he brought up about heteosexual couples who live together and don’t get married benefits ignores one crucial thing–*they* have the option to get married and get those benefits if they choose. Gays *don’t*.
It’s all well and good to pooh-pooh the issue; but when you are denied access to your lover because she’s in the ICU and you aren’t considered legally “family” it’s a big deal. When your lover dies and you don’t have the right to inherit the home you both lived in because he’s not legally your spouse, it’s an issue. And unlike het couples who want to make a statement against marriage or who don’t want to marry, gays don’t have the luxury of choice. Hets can choose to get married and enjoy the benefits of marriage. Gays can’t. And that’s wrong.
You think marriage is an unequal institution, that it’s unfair for people who are married to have family benefits that unmarried couples don’t have, fine. Work to increase rights for all. I don’t see how it’s constructive to dismiss the wishes of gays who would like to marry, or to cast aspersions on their dedication to the cause for wanting to commit. Sadly, it’s the people who treat gay marriage as a zero-sum game who have fallen prey to a shrivelling imagination.
I didn’t mean I agreed with him. I just find him amusing. I think gay marriage is just fine. Whatever.
Pingback: Galois