Almost ten years ago, I started this blog, with this very topic on my mind. When I named my blog, it was because more than any other modern issue, I was of two minds on the topic of gay marriage, and I hoped someday to be able to articulate my views on it without sounding like some of the horrible people with whom I find myself lumped together.
Not that I ever had doubts about my opinion of gay marriage;
I explicitly think it’s a bad thing. But
I think much of the rhetoric discussing the policy is ridiculous. I was always
of two minds as to whether I should
discuss it. I’m opposed to a lot of
things for moral reasons, but I don’t think my opposition offends people
because I generally keep my opposition confined to my behavior and home. I really do think it’s immoral that you drink
alcohol, or that you co-habit before you are married, or that you steal copyrighted
material. But does that make you
mad? I think it’s immoral that you have
tattoos. You know what, I think it’s
immoral that you drink coffee! Does that
offend you? Probably not, because I don’t
try to stop you, nor do I heap public admonition on you for doing it.
Marriage does not ratify a relationship between two people. It establishes a family, something that society is based on.
I’ve always felt an instinct towards peace, so I usually avoid talking
about things that I know will create conflict, unless it’s something that needs
to be addressed. Mine is an attitude of
polite social disengagement. I’d rather
err on the side of civility; if we’re still talking, there’s at least the
chance we can understand each other.
I have tried to never (and am not now trying to) trying to disparage
the instincts, the urges, the desires of any person to feel, do, love, or act
however they want. I take very seriously
the scriptural admonition to love my neighbor; what better way can I evince
that love than by allowing my neighbor to seek his or her happiness in this
world? In not judging them? So I have great emotional difficulty in
taking a public stand in opposition to behavior that my neighbors claim brings
them joy.
So I am no more opposed to homosexuality than I am to the
above listed activities. I think they
all, collectively, fail to comply with what I believe are the standards we
should strive to live up to as people, as a culture, as children of God. All of us fail to do that in some way, I
think our collective imperfection unites us more than it should divide us.
So why would I speak out against gay marriage?
Because legally defining the romantic relationship that
exists between two homosexuals as legally the same as a relationship between
two heterosexuals will harm families.
Really.
Yes, I have seen the heartfelt and sublime pictures that
demand an answer as to HOW gay
marriage could possibly harm my family.
If you think I’m a bigot and an idiot for holding the opinion, then it
really doesn’t matter to you why I feel the way I do, or how I feel it
endangers families. That’s fine, I hope
you can politely ignore what you feel is my bigoted idiocy, and we can still be
friends.
But if you want to know how, please read on.
For what it’s worth, I cannot possibly address all the
things other people have said about gay marriage. I’m sticking to the one thing I think about
it, OK?
It revolves around what marriage means to the State, and why it
deserves protection/advantage.
Ultimately, the State (Capital
“S” State,
the government, the system) protects and induces behavior that is advantageous
to the State through instituting procedures that promote those behaviors. Like giving tax breaks on mortgage interest
theoretically serves to promote property ownership. With marriage, I think it's important to
ponder *what* behavior is being protected or induced with the promotion of
marriage?
I think that proponents of gay marriage see “marriage”
itself as something beautiful and romantic. It speaks to their perspective on the
relationship being a fulfillment of the parties being married. This doesn’t surprise me, I think this is how
most of Western Culture has come to view marriage. So proponents see broadening marriage’s
definition to include their relationship as being a simple matter of equality
and fairness. And though that might be
romantic, I also think it is profoundly rooted in the interests of self, rather
than in the interests of others.
Historically, marriage was not about the fulfillment of the parties being married; it was
about society, reliability, about the children that the marriage would foster,
and ensuring those children would be raised in a stable environment. Yes, I
know, historically marriage was also about property, about the subjugation of
women, about commerce, too. I’m glad
those things have diminished.
And yes, I also know that there are other things that have
damaged the concept of family. I get the
horrific irony that so many conservative politicians oppose same-sex marriage,
but are themselves serial philanderers. I
am heart-broken at how flimsy marriage has become, how optional. It is one of the a la carte options in the
changing demographics of “Who are you today?” surveys. I think making gay marriage legal will serve
to make marriage itself even flimsier.
I think a further diminution of the concept (that marriage
is about stability for children rather than about what the marrying parties
want) really does weaken families. I
think it weakens families in the exact same way that the rise of no-fault
divorce has weakened them in the last half-century. I am incredulous that
proponents of gay marriage are so smugly dismissive of that concern. They cannot possibly know how such a change
will affect the societal template of what it means to be married, to be a
family, to be parents.
Marriage does not ratify a relationship between two
people. It establishes a family,
something that society is based on.
I’m not opposed to gay marriage because I hate gay people or
because I want them to be miserable. I
am opposed to it because in my lexicon, it is not marriage. My instinct
for civility and my desire for everyone to be free to find joy urges me to let
people do what they will. But my
certainty that this change in the law would harm families overrides that
instinct.
I suppose it is a certainty of the human condition that no one
considers himself a bigot. To the extent
that a man is bigoted (from the
perspective of others), he surely see himself as misunderstood and (more to the
point) correct.
I will be voting “No” on question 6, and this is why.
