Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

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.

Read the quote in context here.

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.