Defense of Marriage
Bridget Crawford of Feminist Law Professors, commenting on the California Supreme Court's decision validating same-sex marriage, refers to an anti-gay-marriage argument that, while I'd never heard it before, doesn't actually surprise me. Despite it's deep cynicism.
...notably, the court rejected the new old saw that same-sex couples don’t need marriage because they are so much more stable than different-sex couples because they can only become parents through deliberate choice and not accident.
Got that? Sanctity-of-heterosexuality *advocates* were claiming same-sex couples don't *need* marriage, you see, because they're not shallow, hormone-driven, breeder fuckups the way heterosexuals are. Sanctity-of-marriage advocates are saying they believe marriage has nothing to do with loving, cherishing, honoring, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, or any of that Hallmark card bullshit. No, the folks who want to *keep* gay and lesbian people from getting married believe (and, incidentally, I think they *really do believe it!*) that marriage is the equivalent of 41 feet of logging chain that you wrap around heterosexuals so they can't run off after accidentally getting each other pregnant.
*If* that were true it would certainly explain the 1,700-odd Federal laws, rules, findings, tax codes, and policies that benefit only currently or previously married heterosexuals: under the "holy matrimony" crowd's view, marriage is such a hellish nightmare it's not enough to threaten them, or legally encumber them, you also have to bribe them. And remember these are marriage *supporters!*
I happen to think it's *not* true, of course, because otherwise the vast, vast majority of heterosexuals wouldn't seem eager to find someone to marry, seem happy when they get married, seem glad to stay married, and even seem eager to give it another try if a previous marriage fails. Similarly same sex couples wouldn't be interested in, let alone agitating for, the right to get married.
But then *most* people don't go around making the claim that marriage isn't a benefit, or a joy, or fulfillment, but that "same-sex couples don’t need marriage because they are so much more stable than different-sex couples because they can only become parents through deliberate choice and not accident."
Look. There's no question that the hard-core opponents of same-sex marriage are just plain biased against gay people. But it's pretty clear they're biased against straight people too. And, protestations to the contrary, they view marriage itself as something like colostomy bags -- necessary, yes, but otherwise absolutely undesirable, limiting, and even disgusting.
Me? I *like* being married. I totally get that other people aren't interested, and I *really* don't think everybody should do it or that anyone should ever be pressured into it. But! I think any autonomous, competent adults who love each other and are willing to commit to each other ought to be able to get married without legal prejudice. And I think so because marriage the way most people look at it is about love, commitment, community, family, support, and tradition.
That the "traditional values" folks so *expressly don't* believe that explains a lot. But it doesn't explain why *anybody* should give them a minute of their time.
Everything I've read about this decision so far is really impressive - of course I'm thrilled about the outcome, but the legal justifications kick ass, too.
One of the really cool aspects of the ruling is that California is not required to allow gays to marry - it could also comply by letting *no one* marry with the state's blessing. In other words, the state would oversee secular civil unions for everyone, no matter the partners' gender. Religious communities would then have authority over "marriage." This has worked out well for the Europeans and for years I've wished we'd emulate their model. I think it could defuse the hysteria here, too.
Of course, the wingnuts don't *want* to defuse the issue, they want to wield it like a club against the Democrats. I'm sure we'll hear a lot about this in October. But to heck with them - I'm still tickled pink by the ruling.
[That's an excellent point, Sungold. Coming from a very conservative religious tradition on my father's side I was raised to be a bit wary of how getting tied in too close to government can influence religion more than religion can influence government. So I think it would actually best for all sides to leave the legal distinctions up to the government and any religious ones up to, well, religion. Thanks. --fl]
That's only a win if you buy into the ahistorical lie that "marriage" belongs to religion -- a notion that only benefits the religious political conservatives.
The only marriage that's appropriate to my religion is a civil or contractual one. The lack of contractual marriage as a recognised entity is something I'd love to see addressed, but the way to get there is not to stick fingers in ears and pretend that "marriage" is a religious word (thereby privileging those faiths for which it is relevant even more than they already are).
[I think it's not so much about buying into the link as recogizing that enough people have bought into it that, whatever the history, it's politically useful to speak of unlinking again. Still, it's a good reminder to check our assumptions. Thanks, Dw3t. --fl]