Maryland Ballot Question 6

I hope everybody votes today!

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.