Same-sex marriages can do harm
CommentsIn honor of the June weddings taking place all over California today because of the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re Marriage Cases (the lamest name for a court case I’ve ever heard of, by the way), I have a piece in today’s Los Angeles Daily News responding to the frequent claim that gay marriage won’t hurt straight marriage. Regular readers of the site will recognize some of the arguments, which I first explored here.
Update: A longer version of the “harm” piece is now up at the Web site of the Sun-Sentinel, the second largest newspaper in South Florida. Florida is likely to be the #2 marriage battleground this fall. GDM reader Mark Barton may or may not be pleased to see I mentioned him (not by name) in that version of the piece.
Excerpted from the piece:
DEFENDERS of the same-sex marriages set to start today in California have repeatedly claimed that the new definition of marriage will in no way hurt male-female marriages. Even the state Supreme Court decision paving the way for these June weddings declared its move would not deprive any male-female couple “of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes.”
But marriage is not just about rights and benefits. It is a social institution that existed long before the state of California. Extending the word “marriage” to couples that have never before been considered married will cause real and appreciable harm to male-female marriages, and to all people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman….
If people think that, on the whole, detaching monogamy from marriage and making it harder for parents to control their children’s education about homosexuality are not nearly as big of a problem as the self-esteem of same-sex couples who are told that their relationships with completely equal benefits are only domestic partnerships and not marriages, fine. Don’t support November’s California Marriage Protection Act.
But please stop saying same-sex marriage doesn’t hurt anybody.
I -know- you’re getting sick of hearing things like this, but…
“Extending the word “marriage” to couples that have never before been considered married will cause real and appreciable harm to male-female marriages, and to all people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman….”
Right. Because that logic works, right? After all, when African-Americans became legitimate citizens as apposed to property, it caused real and appreciable harm to everyone who was -already- a citizen; after all, citizenship was around -way- before African-Americans decided that they wanted to become citizens, too. Yes, I see how this logic works.
*cough*
Now I’ll quit being sarcastic.
Yes, it might -really- cause ‘real and appreciable’ harm to all people who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, in exception to all others. I can see that harm.
Unfortunately, whenever two sides clash, guess what? The losing side is -going- to be hurt. If the conservatives win, you don’t think real and appreciable harm will be done to thousands of gay and lesbian couples across not only California, but the entire nation?
As for detaching Monogamy, I can’t find a single -current- GLBT activist who puts their whole support behind supporting polyamorous marriage. Currently, the group primarily responsible for thinking “well, if gays can marry, polyamorous couples should be able to marry too” is, well, heterosexuals. Maybe give -them- a talking to? Currently, the GLBT lobby is perhaps the -least likely- organization in all of the USA to support polyamorous marriage.
And making it hard to control their children’s education on homosexuality?
The only thing children are going to be seeing when they look outside is what’s outside; that is to say, if they see a happy, loving lesbian couple living down the street, then that’s what they’ll see. If they see the most flamboyant gay men ever to live on planet earth, bringing home different men nearly every night, then that’s what they’ll see.
If the conservatives are right about homosexuals being unstable perverts who cannot fully mesh into civilized society, then their children don’t need to be explicitly taught that homosexuality is bad, right? They’ll just know.
On the other hand, if GLBT activists are right, and we are in fact humans on par with everyone else, then why should -anyone- respect conservatives’ desire to teach their children that we are abhorrent, abnormal sub-humans? Because their religion may dictate it?
Last I checked, religion was no free pass to baseless hate.
Same-sex marriage hurts ‘people’ (read: homophobic and/or socially/religious conservative people) the same way interracial marriage hurt ‘people’ (read: racist and/or socially/religious conservative people).
You know, one of us is going to be embarrassed in 44 years.
Cheers,
Andrea
Has it ever occurred to you that some gay men are promiscuous because they can’t get married, and that marriage will bring new standards and definition to their relationships?
Also, I tend to doubt your statistics.
As Andrea says above - the only people harmed by this are bigots. Marriage has evolved from a property/chattel arrangement to more of a romantic attachment. But even in America, the right to marry a person of one’s choosing has only existed since the Loving v. VA Supreme Court decision. Extending this right to gay couples has caused no appreciable harm to anyone.
Your column makes no sense. You speak of the “real and appreciable harm” that same-sex marriage is doing to opposite-sex marriage but then offer nothing by way of proof.
Marriages, in general, don’t work out. We all know the dismal stats on heterosexual marriage. Same-sex marriages so far fare better, but likely because so many of the couples who are marrying have had so many years to consider and work on their union before legally binding it. Many marriages break up because of infidelity, and that is exclusive to neither straight nor gay couples. Any attempt to infer otherwise is, at best, intellectually dishonest.
As for straight couples wanting the right to “introduce” their kids to the idea of same-sex relationships when they’re ready, fine. As a gay dad raising two young sons with my husband of 12 years, I’d like the iron-clad right to “introduce” my kids to the idea of opposite-sex relationships when I’m ready without any of the thousands of daily sexual inuendos, jokes, visual images, etc., that are present throughout our popular culture doing that for me. Why are you trying to apply some lame double standard to gay folk?
The ideological approach of your columns and web site have the distinct ring of an unemployed writer looking desperately for an offbeat schtick that will allow him to develop a fan base. If that’s the case, let me be among the many who might suggest, “Back to the drawing board.” This ain’t working.
Shorter David: When all other arguments have been shot down, think of the convenience of the poor people who cling to their hatred when all other arguments have been shot down.
David: ‘GDM reader Mark Barton may or may not be pleased to see I mentioned him (not by name) in that version of the piece.’
“Doesn’t disapprove” would have been closer, but it’ll do. I don’t think I need to modify the Shorter David version above though.
Now now, Todd; I’ll be the first to concede that some of Davids arguments are easy (sometimes too easy) to dismantle, from our liberal perspective. But his conservative perspective has its place, too, and ultimately, both of us rely on the simple nature of truth to determine who’s right. Sometimes it’s us, sometimes it’s them. This time, I certainly do think it’s us.
That said, insulting him personally is taking it a bit too far; he has every right to make his arguments, as we have every right to refute them with evidence.
He doesn’t accuse you of being a sucky father; don’t accuse him of being a sucky journalist. (Especially since the very nature of this article proves that he is, indeed, employed.)
Candidly,
Andrea
I agree that whichever side loses will suffer harm. The vast majority of people on the “marriage equality” say only their side will suffer harm if they lose.
I didn’t mention polyamory (although tomorrow night I’m going to a book reading by an LGBT activist with a book on open marriage).
It’s fine for you to like the idea of letting your children watch gay people from a very young age and make their own decisions about. I just want you to respect my decision to want to shield my young children from confusing messages about sexuality and the family that are very different from the ones I will tell them before they’re old enough to learn more complicated ideas.
I don’t support hate of LGBT people. But I absolutely support the right to hate whoever you want, and to teach it to your children. If you disagree, which apparently you do, how would you regulate an emotion? What punishment do you propose for people who hate too much? How is the government going to know who’s teaching their children hate and who isn’t? And what’s the punishment for that? Shall we take children away from their parents?
There’s the race analogy again. I’m going to write a new piece on that soon. The thing is, one really good reason to oppose same-sex marriage is that the people who support it agree with you that teaching your children that marriage is between a man and a woman and gay sex is wrong is as bigoted as teaching your children that black people are inferior and should be discriminated against and never a person to date or marry. If same-sex marriage passes, the whole society will have officially endorsed that position, and it will be increasingly more difficult to raise my family with my values and to behave in a way that is consistent with my beliefs. If LGBT people supported the right of people who disagree with their definition of marriage to continue to behave as if their own beliefs about marriage are correct, then it wouldn’t be nearly as big a deal for same-sex marriage to pass. But LGBT people are showing that they will treat people with beliefs like mine the same way they treat a vile racist bigot. So I simply have to fight them.
Thomas-
Your conjecture is possible but I doubt it. If you can show statistics that gay men in marriages in Massachusetts aren’t like the one in the New York Times Sunday that brags about his three-ways, I’m open to listening. But I’m pretty sure no such statistics exist.
Thank you for confirming that many of the people pushing for same-sex marriage believe people like me are bigots and you’re happy to harm us. That only makes me rededicate myself to stopping “marriage equality.”
Todd-
I gave several examples of ways same-sex marriage will do harm. I’m not surprised you don’t think they’re harmful - you’re one of the people doing the harm! We ask the victims whether they’re hurt by others, not the perpetrators.
Oh, there’s that weak argument again about the better successes of gay marriages that only been around a few years compared to the many failures of marriages that have been around for decades. I stopped responding to someone else’s post when he made that argument, and I’m going to do the same with you. I’ll be happy to respond to more serious argument should you decide to make them.
Well, one more thing. If you really mean it that you think gay couples are going to try to shield their children from learning about heterosexuality, please tell me so I can consider reversing my support for same-sex parenting.
David, in your Daily News piece, you present two specific arguments - one shady and one shoddy. In the shady argument, you make generalizations about an entire class of people, and then argue that all individuals in that class should be treated according to that generalization. Nice. When will you be advocating outlawing marriage for Hollywood celebrities? In the shoddy argument, you present a total non-sequitur. I’m boggled as to what marital status has to do with public displays of affection. So, if gay marriage is outlawed, then couples (who may be longtime domestic partners or simply on a first date) will no longer kiss in ballparks? The logic is a bit lacking, to say the least.
Tom-
Welcome to the blog! You may be interested that at Fannie’s blog I have been accused of lying about teaching gay history and politics at IGLE. I almost referred them to you as a former board member of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fanniesroom/2990289502849043014/?src=hsn
If Hollywood celebrities were not allowed to marry, and the experts said two-thirds of them were in consensually adulterous relationships, and there was a proposal to let them marry, I’d oppose that proposal. But none of that is true, so I have no problem with celebrities marrying.
Your second point is really, really good. I admit that “shoddy” is not an unreasonable description of my weak argumentation in the second half of my piece, which I’m not proud of but I was under deadline and did the best I can. I have given a full response to your point at my main blog. Thanks.
Andrea: I didn’t accuse David of being a “sucky journalist” in my earlier post; I don’t believe he is (a journalist, that is). I don’t find any of his posts particularly well written, carefully researched or sufficiently rigorous to withstand being easily taken apart. And running a blog that is seemingly not supported by ads or subscriptions doesn’t make him an “employed” journalist. More likely, a lonely guy with a computer.
David: I beg to differ; you gave no legitimate examples of how same-sex marriage cause harm to anyone. With regard to your comment, “If you really mean it that you think gay couples are going to try to shield their children from learning about heterosexuality, please tell me so I can consider reversing my support for same-sex parenting” … sigh. I didn’t say that. Feel free to re-read my original post. And if you didn’t catch the (quite obvious) sarcasm in what I did say, you’re not just a “sucky journalist,” as your friend, Andrea, wrote, but not too bright, either. By the way, I’m sure an anxious world awaits your decision on “reversing your support for same-sex parenting.” (Hint: That’s also sarcasm.)
My hubby and I celebrated 11 years of wedded bliss last week, along with the birthday of our oldest child. Both our kids are quite proud of their two dads. I sure hope Traditional Heterosexual Marriage survives the repeated injuries my family is heaping on that fine institution…
Todd it’s interesting. LGBT people get very upset when I say Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are not married even though it’s true they had a ceremony and the government (state at least) says they are married. But in opinion they are not. Similarly it is indisputable that I am a journalist. The San Francisco Chronicle doesn’t write op-ed pieces (as they are doing tomorrow) by amateurs. Yet you say I’m not actually a journalist. I honor your choosing to say that. How do you feel about my choosing to say that a man and a man by definition are not married?
Yes, Todd. I recognize that you don’t see the supposed harms I listed as actually harming anyone. Since you are one of the people doing the harm, you are hardly qualified to judge. Shall we ask the generals if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hurts gays and lesbians? As for my not being “too bright,” I’ll let the frequent posters at this blog decide that - or if you stay here for a week, then you tell me if I’m dumb or not. I promise not to cry.
David, sweetie, you couldn’t possibly upset me or any other LGBT person with half a brain. Just because you say Del and Phyllis or any other couple who have wed are not married doesn’t make it so. My husband and I had our nuptials in a very public ceremony, 200+ family and friends in attendance, an ordained minister presiding, etc., so just because the state of Florida (and you) choose not to recognize that is of very little consequence to me. Fact is, I’m married and have a husband, kids, a marriage certificate, and an exhausting wedding video to prove it.
When African Americans suffered under Jim Crow, they were no less human — just discriminated against by a tyrranical majority that refused to recognize their rights. Like the white segregationists of that era, you seem to be fighting humanity’s progress in nonsensical, pointless and inexplicable ways. If that’s how you choose to spend your time, more power to you. I’ve always subscribed to the philosophy that the best revenge is living well. And I’m certainly doing that.
Finally, the Chronicle, like virtually every other newspaper in America, runs commentary pieces by amateurs all the time (that’s why the Chronicle calls it “open forum,” dude). I spotted yours, and was amused to read your opening: “I argue against same-sex marriage in part because I think the gay and lesbian community barely understands marriage…” What a relief! The millions of gays and lesbians who “barely understand” marriage no doubt will be delighted to know that Benkof is on call to explain it to them.
I don’t know what happened to you in your dating life that has made you so obsessed about monogamy/sexual exclusivity, but I suspect it must have been terribly traumatic. Here’s to you devoting some much needed attention to that and knocking off this lame blogosphere effort to prove that gays and lesbians don’t deserve recognition or protection for the relationships to which millions of us are deeply committed.
Todd-
I completely respect your choice to claim that you’re married, even though technically in the state of Florida you are not. I would be appalled if someone tried to use the power of the government to limit your freedom to run your life, your job, and your business consistently with your belief that a man and a man actually can marry each other, no matter what the law says.
What I want to know is: if the Florida Supreme Court implements same-sex marriage, are you willing to openly advocate that people like me continue to have the right to run our lives, our jobs, and our businesses consistently with our beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman?
I have asked this question at least five times, and never gotten an answer - not even a lame answer. Why is it OK for you to express your beliefs without government interference, but wrong for me to do so? If your answer is “Because we’re right and you’re a bigot,” that’s hardly a cogent answer and only causes me to want to fight same-sex marriage harder than ever before.
Do any of the very smart commenters on this blog have an answer to that question you feel proud of?
David –
Though I can’t imagine why you would ask such a question, the answer, though it hardly needs to be stated, is that OF COURSE, I would advocate that people “like you” continue to have the right to run your life, hold your job and operate your business consistent with that belief (with the latter, though, you’d be governed by the same U.S. and Florida civil rights protections that govern any other business). If you were operating a church and your faith included a belief that marriage is only one man-one woman, you of course wouldn’t be required to hire someone who practiced a different faith.
This is a time honored legal approach that has been included in virtually every piece of civil rights legislation in the United States banning discrimination based on sexual orientation — the religious exemption clause. I’m surprised that you don’t seem to know about it.
And since when has it been universally OK for gays and lesbians to express their beliefs without government interference? Nearly half of the residents of the U.S. live in areas where it is perfectly OK to discriminate against people in jobs, housing, business, etc., simply and only for the status or perceived status of sexual orientation. That has proved, in practice, to be tantamount to the government protecting the rights of the majority to discriminate against GLBT individuals, resulting in losses of job, families ripped apart, drug and alcohol abuse and even suicide.
Your blog gives aid and comfort to people who feel that scenario is perfectly OK. As a gay guy, you really, truly ought to be ashamed.
Todd
Todd-
You must be new here, which is fine. But I’ve already dealt with much of what you’ve said. Your argument in the first paragraph is something I savaged early on:
http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2008/05/19/bad-faith-marriage-arguments/
And when I talk about having the right to run our business, raise our families, and do our jobs according to our own values, I mean the right for adoption agencies to give even a slight tie-breaker preference to families with both a mother and a father (illegal in Massachusetts) and the right for a teacher to tell her students that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, if that’s what she believes (which most marriage equality advocates have told me should lead to her being disciplined or even fired).
I don’t see how the lack of civil rights laws for gays (which I’m sympathetic to) means gays haven’t been able to do their jobs and run their businesses using their own beliefs about what marriage is. The only case I have ever heard of that even comes close is Robin Shahar, and that was terrible; Robin should never have been fired. Are you willing to condemn to fact that Boston Catholic Charities had to close down or use values relating to parenting the Vatican did not hold? Can you give another example of a gay person who was forced to espouse a definition of marriage he or she did not believe in?
Ah, but now you’re getting to the heart of the matter. What you want is not simply “the right to express your beliefs” and run your own affairs, but preferential treatment for straight people (also known as “the status quo,” in many circles). Having just gone through a lengthy adoption process, I’m intimately aware of its challenges and agree with Massachusetts that it’s patently unfair to treat some parents better than others. While we’re on the subject: Do you really want to argue to moral superiority of the relationship between the two straight folks who created the children that my husband and I have adopted? Tens of thousands of GLBT couples across the U.S. either foster parent or have adopted. Why should they not have access to exactly the same protections that opposite-sex parents do?
And since when have we, as a society, determined that it’s fine for a teacher to tell his/her students only what he/she “believes” is right? If I were a principal and learned that a teacher were espousing creationism only because he believed it was how the universe was created, I’d discipline him for asserting his own beliefs over what he’s been charged with teaching. Likewise, denying a legally married couple a “marital discount” offered to other legally married couples shopping at the same store is patently wrong, discriminatory and defies common sense. You either are legally married or you’re not. You seem to want a separate-but-equal setup that would only harm gays, while protecting a superior status for straight folk. What’s with that?
Your final question truly illustrates the idea of grasping at straws. We live in a heterosexual culture, dominated by millenia of hetero thought and traditions. The very idea of same-sex marriage is only a few years old. How, then, could there have been an example of a “gay person who was forced to espouse a definition of marriage he or she did not believe in”?
The truth is, allowing same-sex couples to marry has no effect on hetero marriages. Period. Why you persist in claiming some sort of nebulous harm is a mystery to me.
Todd S.-
I never argued the “moral superiority” of heterosexual parents. My argument is it is in the best interest of the child when all else is equal to have both a mother and a father. The only people who disagree with that common-sense statement are “marriage equality” fanatics who are offended at anything that smacks of inequality for same-sex couples. But some things just aren’t equal. A lesbian can be a great mother, but she is utterly unequal in being a father.
I urge you to keep saying as loud as possible that your support for “marriage equality” means business owners and teachers must espouse your brand-new definition of marriage instead of their timeless, G-d-given definition because I think the more people who hear it, the fewer people will support same-sex marriage.