Seven things I believe about marriage
Comments1. The “Salt Lake City Plan” is the best way out of the gay-marriage morass. It allows individuals to designate any one person with whom he or she has a mutual commitment to receive benefits. The pair could be a mother and an adult son, two straight male roommates, or lesbian lovers. Because lots of conservatives can support such a system, this plan could provide aid to same-sex and other non-married couples now, at federal, state and local levels. All it leaves out is the ego boost of same-sex couples being told they’re exactly equal - which is little sacrifice, because they’re not.
2. One of the reasons for man-woman marriage is that whenever possible children need both mothers and fathers. That doesn’t mean gays can’t be good parents; they can. A lesbian can be a terrific mother, for example, but she cannot be a good father. Laws restricting gays from adopting should be repealed, but so should laws preventing adoption agencies from taking into account whether a family has both a mother and a father.
3. One reason gay marriage is not a good idea is that gay people, by and large, do not understand marriage the same way straight people do. There is extreme tolerance of open relationships of various sorts, a kind of agreed-upon infidelity. I am not saying that all gay people cheat, or no straight people cheat. I am saying that most gay and lesbian people think “arrangements” can be completely compatible with marriage, and very few straight people agree with them. Thus, gay marriage will change the nature of marriage.
4. The gay community, which once addressed all kinds of issues affecting its members, has become a big PR campaign emphasizing issues, like marriage, that make us look good and seem “just like you.” But gays and lesbians aren’t “just like” straights in every way, and we have special needs that involve LGBT suffering that should be addressed by LGBT organizations and the government. These include lesbian alcoholism, syphilis among gay and bisexual men, and prison rape among gay and bisexual men and especially transgender women.
5. We need laws guaranteeing that despite whichever protections for gays and lesbians and institutions for same-sex partners exist, they do not trample on the rights of people to perform their jobs, run their businesses, and raise their children consistently with their beliefs about what marriage is and what the ideal way to raise a child is.
6. Democracy is central to our governmental system. Some people, like me, believe same-sex relations and gay marriage are immoral. Some of those, like me, have also identified cogent civic reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that inform their First Amendment expression and their vote. But nobody has to answer to anyone for why they support or oppose anything when it comes to their votes and First Amendment rights. It is not “imposing one’s religion” to support laws that are consistent with one’s values; that’s what both sides do.
7. Despite what they often say, gays and lesbians are not focused on benefits or rights, or else they would not have spent $40 million on a symbolic and semantic change in California which already granted all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. This battle is primarily about gay and lesbian self-esteem, which is understandably damaged because of many decades of straight hegemony. But no child should have to suffer, or traditionally religious person be forced to violate her conscience, in order to soothe a gay person’s feelings.
So you are against gay marriage, but since you believe a child should be raised by a mother and father are you also for banning gay adoption?
BTW my desire to be treated equally is not an ego-boost, it is a constitutional right.
I am glad your back, I think you are intelligent and have a lot to contribute, what saddens me is the name of the website is false, because true defense of marriage is about strengthening the institution and allowing gays to enter that contract.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Thanks for your kind words. If there were very few kids who needed adoption and very many mother-father families who wanted to adopt, I might be more sympathetic with a ban on same-sex (not gay) adoption. But the situation is the opposite, and there are lots of children looking for parents, and I think gays can be good parents, so I’m opposed to banning same-sex (or gay) adoption.
I am, however, opposed to non-discrimination laws in adoption, like the one in Massachusetts. Adoption agencies should be able to use the values of their owners or directors in deciding which families get preference (and I extend that to matching the race of the children to adoptive parents, or not, and to preferring mother-father families, or not).
You only have a constitutional right to be treated equally if you are, in fact, equal. I would argue (as I have done on this blog), that the main way in which same-sex couples are less equal is in their qualification (all else being, well, equal) to raise children. Please note that gay people themselves are already equal, and gay people can and do marry, and I just might do that some day.
Thanks for the dialogue!
To respond to your comments point by point:
1. Gay marriage is only unequal to straight marriage because of the discriminatory laws and homophobic attitudes promoted by things such as Prop. 8 and this website. The current lack of equality is no justification to continue to treat gays–or any oppressed group–as second-class citizens.
2. Unfortunately for you, science has firmly refuted this and has proven that there is NO advantage to a child who comes from a mother/father home versus same-sex parent households. Children of same-sex families do just as well (and even a bit better, in the case of lesbian parents). Simply parroting the lies, falsehoods, and half-truths of the anti-gay crowd does not make them true.
3. You offer no justification for this; I know as many happily monogamous gay couples as I do straight couples, and there are no statistics to back up your blind indictment of gay relationships. And even if there were, common sense and science demonstrate that the repression and feelings of inequity gays endure bring about such afflictions. Condemning gays for having issues in their relationships is like blaming someone for coughing when he has the flu. Any educated person realizes it is the flu virus, i.e. the root cause, not the individual that is to blame for his maladies.
4. This is simply irrelevant. Of course gays and lesbians have many issues that need to be addressed, as does any group that is the object of long-standing discrimination and hatred. But that is no reason to deny them rights or to cease fighting for equality. In fact, securing equal rights would help to erase many of the ills (such as alcoholism and the spread of STD’s) that are the symptoms of discrimination and a lack of social standing.
5. Such laws already exists to protect employer’s and business owners. Those who discriminate against gays deserve no special protection. Some extremist religious groups still have reservations about hiring black people or non-Christians and providing them with the same rights and benefits as others. Shall we make special laws “protecting” these groups as well? Certainly not…and this shows how ridiculous your point is. The only reason people talk about “protecting” anti-gay bigots is because homophobia is so firmly entrenched in our society that we make excuses for it and allow bigots to hide behind their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions.” Were the same arguments to be made in defense of racists or sexists they would never fly–nor should the argument for anti-gay employers or businesses.
6. Every one has a right to their beliefs and to vote their conscience; that does NOT mean, however, that the majority’s beliefs should be forced on every one. The first amendment was intended largely to protect us from such majority oppression. At one point the “majority” believed interracial marriage was immoral and that women should not vote, and yet the majority’s will was struck down by the courts. Was this suppression of the will of the majority? No. It was the protection of minorities’ and unfavored group’s rights from the prejudice of a bigoted society. The same is true with same-sex marriage: The fact that some, and even most, citizens consider homosexual unions to be “immoral” is no reason to deny gays their civil rights or to treat them differently under the law, period. The Supreme Courts of California, Connecticut, and Mass. have all agreed and have argued this point quite eloquently.
7. Again, science has proven that no child suffers as a result of gay relationships, gay parenting, or gay marriage. In fact, by providing gay couples with the same status as their homosexual counterparts one would be helping children of such couples by normalizing their family’s status in society’s eyes. Saying that you wish to deny gays the right to marry to protect children is nothing but sheer hypocrisy: If gays can adopt (and of course they should), they should also be allowed to marry so that children of committed gay couples do not face the discrimination and disrespect of a society that looks down on their parents’ relationship.
Welcome back, David. I am one of those fairly conservative people who favor plans such as the “Salt Lake City” plan. People should be able to designate anyone to receive benefits if they have no spouse. I’ve always thought that gay couples should have this benefit, and you wouldn’t have to say their relationship is somehow equal to marriage to provide them with it.
“gay people can and do marry, and I just might do that some day.”
Gay people cannot marry unless in Massachusetts or Connecticut. I can marry a woman, but this would be a complete lie to myself, to her, and to God. I am a man and I want the right to marry the man I love.
David,
There is a lot to deconstruct here. More than that, you have published - with an air of authority - many stereotypes and inaccuracies that need to be corrected or retracted, but let’s take this one step at a time. Do you mind taking the lead since this is your blog? Please tell us more about your personal perspective on point 6.
Are you gay? Yes, I take from the title of this blog. Yet you also believe that “same-sex relations and gay marriage are immoral.” Do you or have or have you had any sexual relations at all? Are they/were they “moral”? You plan on “marrying” a woman. Will that be a “moral” relationship even if you aren’t sexually attracted to her? If you had a daughter, how would you feel about her “marrying” a gay man?
Scott-
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. My reactions:
1. I believe same-sex relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because they do not provide the ideal home for the raising of a child. That’s what makes them unequal (I have religious beliefs about that too, but that’s the secular reason). I know you disagree, and I’ll respond to your other comments about that below.
2. The studies that have been done so far examine, for example, whether a lesbian can be a good mother. They have found that she can. There has never been a study, to my knowledge, about whether a lesbian can be as good a father as a man (gay or straight) can be. In fact, since most of these studies presume that there is nothing unique a father brings to his children, such a study would be confusing and irrelevant to the people doing these studies. I believe we learn how to be men, and how to be women, and how to relate to the same and the opposite sex, from our same-sex and opposite-sex parents. You may feel that gender doesn’t matter, but that is an ideological, not a scientific, opinion.
3. When I was active in the gay community, I learned after a while that most of my “happily partnered” gay male friends had arrangements that allowed them to be adulterous, whether it was three-ways, bathhouses, or sex on the road. Not all, but most. The science most definitely does back this up. For example, a study of “civil unioned” couples in Vermont showed that just over 50 percent of the males had agreements like the ones I have described. There are many, many other examples outside of Vermont, too, including a New York Times article described above in this blog (search category: monogamy). But anyway, my point has very little to do with the lack of fidelity in gay male relationships. It’s about the tolerance for such infidelity among both gay and lesbian observers. Most straight people feel mutual adultery is not consistent with marriage, and most LGBT people think it is. Don’t believe me? Ask them.
4. I never said lesbians should be denied marriage because they are disproportionately alcoholics, or gay men should be denied marriage because they are disproportionately raped in prison, which they are. That would be cruel - and silly. My point is the gay community barely lifts a finger for those issues while it spends tens of millions of dollars on the word “marriage” in California, which should values that are way out of whack.
5. I am unfamiliar with laws that would protect workers and employers from lawsuits for simply behaving in a manner consistent with their beliefs about what marriage is, and what the best arrangement for a family is. In fact, for more than a decade GLSEN has been promoting curricula that teach that marriage is a bond between any two people who love each other - and this is well before Goodridge. No lesbian ever got fired for teaching her version of marriage in the classroom. Yet I have learned that the consensus position in the gay community is that a teacher after gay marriage is implemented who tells her students that marriage is between a man and a woman should be disciplined or fired.
6. You write, “The fact that some, and even most, citizens consider homosexual unions to be ‘immoral’ is no reason to deny gays their civil rights or to treat them differently under the law, period.” Sure it is a reason. We live in a democracy, and when a court declares that there is a right to gay marriage, the people have a mechanism to overrule them. In California, it was a simple majority vote, and you lost. And of course the fact that we consider gay unions immoral is a good reason to deny gays marriage - it’s good a reason as our horoscope, the score of last night’s game, or something Jon Stewart said in his interview with Mike Huckabee. In a democracy everybody gets to choose his positions for any reason he wants. What else do you propose? People with traditional morality can’t vote but people with liberal ideas get to vote?
7. Unlike you (and like Sophie in Mamma Mia! and Barack Obama in Dreams from my Father) I believe that children, both girls and boys, need fathers. Maybe you don’t agree, but that’s an ideological, not a scientific opinion. Anyway, you didn’t address the bulk of #7, which is that gay marriage is about self-esteem, not benefits. Not that you have to. You’ve spoken eloquently.
QueerUnity-
I only mentioned that gay people can already marry to show that gays already have individual equality. The question is do same-sex couples have equality, and my argument is that they don’t and shouldn’t because they’re not the ideal arrangement for raising children.
Jonathan-
Thanks for your intelligent comments, which it sounds like you intend to be an extend conversation, which I welcome. You asked for more on point 6; I have published an opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News that expresses my viewpoint pretty well, although I’d be happy to discuss it further. It has unfortunately been taken down by the Merc; I’ll post it soon on the blog and we can discuss it there.
Yes, I am gay, yes I have had sexual relations, but I’ve been celibate for 7 years (as of this week, in fact). I am an Orthodox Jew, and I believe morality comes from God. So those sex acts I engaged in that are forbidden by Judaism (a longer conversation we can have if you want) were immoral. Please note that while I believe gay sex and same-sex marriage are immoral, I almost never say “Don’t have gay sex and don’t get married because it’s immoral.” I’m smart enough to know that that argument won’t get me very far. So my arguments generally focus on reasons that can be understood and responded to by anybody, whether or not they are Orthodox Jews.
I will decide whether and when to marry with the guidance of my rabbis. Given that she will know I’m gay (if she knows how to google, which I’m sure she will), she’ll be aware of what she’s getting into, and I see no reason it cannot be moral.
As for my daughter marrying a gay man, it depends on the daughter and it depends on the man.
I may stop by your Web site and comment over there too, if it’s OK by you.
Hi David, welcome back.
You say:
“A lesbian can be a terrific mother, for example, but she cannot be a good father.”
I’ve heard this argument before, but in my humble opinion it’s never been explained adequately. Maybe you can do better than others who’ve tried. First off, where is your scientific evidence demonstrating this? Specifically, I’m wondering what are the specific characteristics of “fatherhood” that a woman could not possibly perform? And, what are the specific characteristics of “motherhood” that a man could not perform?
Your claim seems to rest upon very rigid and inflexible notions of gender roles that, in my experience, do not exist. Rather, there is great overlap between male/female and scientists have as of yet been hardpressed to identify strictly male or strictly female characteristics. I am well aware that your religion teaches that men and women have certain roles, but I see those roles as creations of your religion, rather than as an accurate observation of reality.
Further, you state “that here has never been a study, to my knowledge, about whether a lesbian can be as good a father as a man (gay or straight) can be.”
So, in other words, we don’t have enough info on either side of the issue. I am willing to concede that we don’t know whether a woman could be “as good a father” as a man could be. Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, are you willing to concede that, given the lack of info, a woman could actually be “as good a father” as a man could be?
If not, why do you get to state your unsupported ideological conclusion as fact?