On Gay Marriage, the Right Was Right (and Wrong)
Published: March 6, 2009
The religious right was right after all. Civil unions have weakened the institution of marriage. But gay people aren't to blame -- straight people are.
Here's the deal.
Gay marriage is banned in France. But about a decade ago, France's Socialist government created a compromise -- a civil solidarity pact, known by its French acronym PACS -- as a form of quasi-marriage for homosexual couples. Conservatives in France denounced the measure as a threat to traditional morality, just as conservatives in the U.S. have denounced gay marriage, civil unions, and similar arrangements here. Couples entering into PACS agreements can take advantage of various tax, inheritance, and similar benefits without getting wed. The bonds of PACS unions are also easier to sunder: Rather than having to go through a divorce, one or both partners can end the arrangement by submitting a written request in court. No alimony, no property claims -- no muss, no fuss.
But a funny thing happened since the law was passed. Large numbers of straight couples started opting for PACS, too. Drafters of the statute made its language gender-neutral, which meant it could apply to both straight and gay couples. Now more than nine in 10 PACS unions are formed by straights.
If France had opted to permit gay marriage rather than establish a poor man's version of it, then couples both gay and straight would have had a simple, binary choice: Get married -- with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails -- or don't. Now they have three options: Get married, don't get married, or take the quick and easy route between the two. More and more are choosing Door No. 3.
MARRIAGE IN France has been on the skids for years. The French marriage rate has fallen more than 30 percent in the past generation. Marriage has been declining in other European countries as well, but in France the slope has been steeper. By 2005, 59 percent of all first-born children in France were born out of wedlock. More and more French couples live in "free unions," or what Americans might think of as nonbinding common-law marriages. They simply shack up, often for life.
Now France's experience with PACS helps clarify a very muddled point in the debate over gay marriage here in America. Social conservatives commonly argue against gay marriage for a multiplicity of (often dubious) reasons, from the necessity to protect children to the importance of subsidizing procreation. But perhaps the most often cited reason is that gay unions threaten the "institution" of marriage.
How, precisely, they do so is not intuitively clear. No one seriously argues that a marriage between John and Steve somehow undermines the bonds of affection that keep Ted and Amy together. Nor is it clear how encouraging homosexuals, who sometimes are condemned for libertine promiscuity, to enter a contract requiring lifelong fidelity weakens the appeal of lifelong fidelity.
So opponents of gay marriage fall back on the idea that letting gay people marry somehow cheapens the currency -- as though a marriage between Ted and Amy weighs less in the cosmic scales because John and Steve have entered into a similar contract. That is akin to the argument that letting gay people open bank accounts weakens the institution of banking.
FRANCE'S EXPERIENCE teaches a different lesson. It is not gay marriage, but the attempt to deny gays the chance to participate in marriage, that has cheapened the currency and further imperiled the institution. By creating a second-class -- call it a "subprime" -- form of marriage, France gave both gays and straights a watered-down option that let people enjoy all the privileges with none of the obligations. By contrast, letting gay Frenchmen marry -- and thereby requiring them to uphold the high standards of the marriage tradition -- rather than weakening French marriage further, would have shored up the institution against its erosion among heterosexuals.
And that points to the real issue at the heart of the argument about marriage as an institution. To say that letting gay people marry cheapens the currency of marriage holds true only if gay people have less intrinsic worth than straight people -- just as the argument against interracial marriage, that it would lead to the "mongrelization of the human race," made sense only to those who saw blacks as less than human.
To let gay people enter into sacred matrimony, then, requires recognizing something sacred within them. It requires acknowledging their equality on a very high plane. How troubling that some people would rather create civil unions -- subprime marriages -- than take that step.
My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.
--Robert Nozick.
Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Ah yes, the best way to go about getting equal rights is to sit quietly at home hoping that the world will wake up one day. Rosa Parks was just an attention wh*re, right? I mean, it’s just a bus seat. That white man who wanted her to move might have been too weak with cancer to walk any farther back on the bus. Who was she to get in his way? The reality was black people had the advantage by not having to deal with deciding where to sit. Sitting in the front isn’t a “human right” after all.
I agree with what Kinky Freeman had to say about Gay Marriage. “I’m in favor of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.“
OrionCA - as a straight man, I find your comments to be disgustingly ignorant, bigoted, and illogical.
What exactly is it that straight couples are being “told to do” when a gay couple gets married? It has nothing to do with you and will not affect you or your marriage.
What benefits do a gay marriage offer society? Formation of a long-term loving family that might adopt the unwanted children of irresponsible heterosexuals. Yes, they are a family. Two straight male roomates are not. There is no long term commitment inherent in being someone’s roomate that lends itself to raising a child together. Encouraging people to remain in committed relationships will also mean less casual sex and less spread of STD’s. I’m sure with your stereotypical view of homosexuals you can at least get behind this logic… so to speak.
“your sexual prefernces have no bearing whatsoever on your personal value to society, and shouldn’t.“ I couldn’t agree more, and thus it follows that they also have no bearing on whether or not your marriage to a person you love is of value to society.
“Until we work the bugs out of cloning and ex-vitro genesis, the only way to perpetuate the species is through heterosexual sex. It’s of value to society to encourage not just procreation but the parents to stay together to rear the child”
Did you miss the part where there are nearly 7 billion people choking our planet? It is not of value to society to encourage exponential overpopulation, and to imply that any such encouragement is needed is ridiculous. Homosexuals are arguably more valuable to our society than mindless breeders are at this point. The second part, encouraging couples to stay together to rear a child, is an argument FOR homosexual marriage.
(Start Of Comment Above)
In all 50 states absolutely nothing prevents homosexuals from marching down the aisle, hand-in-hand, both wearing their mothers’ wedding dresses if they like. All they need do is find a willing preacher to hold the ceremony. Having the state recognize the marriage via a marriage license is another matter. Recongizing heterosexual marriages is a benefit to the State because it encourages the formation of families and the continuation of society. Two homosexuals getting married is nothing but an exercise in vanity so far as the rest of us are concerned. Granted, not all heterosexual marriages result in offspring but these ENCOURAGE the continuation of the species. Homosexual marriages offer nothing but a couple of lines in the local paper by the weddings editor.(End of the Above)
Gay people have families too, Sir. And marry be the men that skip down the aisle in the mother’s wedding dress (insolent homophobe) but until 2003, Sodomy Laws were still enforceable. This is not The World against the gays, this is about families and people, and be it so that Gay women and men may one day be able to marry anywhere, secure their property anyway the like, and not have backwoods bigots steal their children from them and label them monsters. Perhaps you should come out of the closet sir, for those of us on the outside, internalized homosexuality is not a problem we face. Save yourself. You ridiculous rhetoric spouting, illogical creature of propaganda.
(2)
So if there’s no point in issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, why bother? The legal benefits homosexuals seek to gain from marriage - medical rights and inheritance, mostly - are available thru contract law and, increasingly, civil-union law. The SOCIAL benefit homosexuals seek, to legitimize their lifestyle, is not helped by ramming homosexual marriage through the courts because this just annoys the heterosexual majority, who really, really, don’t like being told what to do by unelected judges whose opinion they never asked.(2)
There is a point, over 1,000 points Sir. All that should not have to come at an expense, when the “Heterosexual” Majority enjoys these attorney free. We are not “legitimizing” anything. Your disgruntled cry for help shouldn’t be an opinion forced onto our families, our lives, our jobs. And btw heterosexists, not all belief systems are like yours, some religious groups think homosexuals are perfectly normal. Perhaps your majority though is sound, in perfect tone with majority led lynch mobs, this is the more perfect union you have realized, pedant. Try for once to see a world where an opinion isn’t shoved down your throat, because we live everyday where your opinion is crushed down ours, where your opinion kills, murders, beats and chastises. Here is your union that you seek, you tyrant. Graves and propaganda, and regurgitated bile from right-winging dividers.
“Society does indeed benefit from having as many within that society feel like they are an important and valued part of that society.“
So my (male) roommate and I, not having sexual relations, are not valued by society? If you’re a world-famous artist living with your boyfriend (a world-famous author), neither of you is valued by society? Of what conceivable value is anal sex to society?
“Even straight people who don’t have kids, aid in “continuing society”. The fact that you think human beings need sanction of government in order to consider having sex is a little crazy, don’t you think?“
The government does not issue licenses to have sex. Next silly statement, please.
“Despite what you infer, gay people don’t just take up space that could be better used by someone who might consider maybe having a child. We exist in at all levels in society and we play key roles in upholding it. We are your friends and neighbors, your firefighters, your policemen, etc.“
What homosexuals do in your own bedroom has no relationship to your value in society. In fact it would be a little odd to consider your sexual relationship to be PART of your value to society - as a serving police officer, should you offer advice in personal lubrication to traffic violators? Get real - your sexual prefernces have no bearing whatsoever on your personal value to society, and shouldn’t. As an individual it’s your skills, insights, and abilities that define your valuable to society.
As a couple you’re no more valuable to society than two similar but heterosexual men who happpen to live under the same roof. “We can adopt!“ you say. So can Ted and Ed yet they don’t sleep in the same bed. “I have children from before I realized I was gay, and my partner and I raise them together!“ Ted and Ed, two heterosexual divorced men sharing the same house, can raise their children, too. Do they need a marriage certificate to do that? Does the fact they have girlfriends PREVENT them from doing that?
Until we work the bugs out of cloning and ex-vitro genesis, the only way to perpetuate the species is through heterosexual sex. It’s of value to society to encourage not just procreation but the parents to stay together to rear the child because two million years of evolutionary programming is a——kitty to overcome. Children reared by their natural parents on average grow up more mature, more stable, and become more productive members of society than those who don’t. The fact that we as a society stupidly don’t do enough to encourage successful heterosexual marriage doesn’t mean that as a society we should instead support homosexual marriage. As I mentioned in my earlier post, nothing prevents you from finding a willing preacher and talking your mothers into loaning you their wedding gowns and walk down the aisle together. There’s nothing in it for the rest of us to stamp USDA APPROVED on your rumps afterwards.
OrionCA, your post is pretty misanthropic, but I will take the time to answer it, nonetheless.
Society does indeed benefit from having as many within that society feel like they are an important and valued part of that society. Federal/state recognition of gay marriages allows the participants in them to realize the American Dream in alongside their heterosexual counterparts. The way it stands now, the law makes one group inherently less equal than another. Regardless of what that group is, doing so in any society is a detriment to that society.
Even straight people who don’t have kids, aid in “continuing society”. The fact that you think human beings need sanction of government in order to consider having sex is a little crazy, don’t you think? The continuation of the species doesn’t need any encouragement. Sex feels good; people do it an awful lot; babies happen on an increasingly common basis. There is no need to encourage straight people to have babies…they do it anyway. Heck, one fine, upstanding member of your utopian society just gave birth to eight kids, upping her total contribution to society (and, um, the species) to 14 children! I’d say she’s taking up the slack for at least 7 gay marriages, dontcha think?
Despite what you infer, gay people don’t just take up space that could be better used by someone who might consider maybe having a child. We exist in at all levels in society and we play key roles in upholding it. We are your friends and neighbors, your firefighters, your policemen, etc.
Why issue licenses to gay couples when gay couples can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more to secure the same rights straight people get for free? Ignoring the inherent inequality of the basis of your question: there are over 1,000 rights involved in that equation, and not all of them can be solved with a lawyer. For example, if your loved one were from England, you - as a presumable straight person - would be able to bring them into the country as a citizen so you could build a life with them. A gay person in the same situation cannot secure that right by any legal means. They must be forcibly separated from their loved one as visas expire and the financial infeasibility of commuting across the globe makes it that much tougher. That right is just ONE of over ONE THOUSAND that one group in society gets but another group does not. I read an article recently about a gay couple with a biological daughter (delivered by surrogate mother) who are treated as Palestinians in Israel whenever they fly anywhere. They must carry their daughter’s birth certificate and a briefcase of legal documents with them whenever they travel to avoid being denied boarding on planes. The sole reason for these disparities? One group’s sexual orientation vis-a-vis another. Our government does not have a compelling interest to deny rights based on sexual orientation. In fact, it hurts society because all of the extra energy that must be expended by gay couples to take even a marginal step closer to equality with straight couples could be better spent producing some good or service that makes our society stronger. It is a drain on society and society would benefit from doing away with that drain.
The great part for the “annoyed heterosexual majority” who “doesn’t like being told what to do by judges” or whatever, is that you guys benefit, whether you like it or not, from state recognition of gay relationships. If you are truly annoyed that other people are experiencing happiness, then maybe you need a long hard look inside. Seriously, measure your “annoyance” alongside the severe financial and psychological detriment of being treated as a second class citizen in this way and consider which one is more deserving of legal amelioration. There is a clear injustice here.
I wonder what your thoughts are on inter-racial marriages. The arguments you make against gay marriages are the same as those made against inter-racial relationships.
There’s been a lot of intentional misinformation out there about gay people, particularly from the right wing of the political spectrum, who use it cynically to win elections. I hope that you take the time to think about gay people as being just as human as straight people. We are no more saintly, nor more devilish; Neither more or less useful or important to society. We are the same.
Wow! What a comment ... shows how out of touch people are with society. The truth is that gays/lesbians are just as interested and capable of raising a family, and society has a lot to gain from that. And also, no there are not benefits available to us like this person says. Obviously, they wouldn’t know. As a professional in the financial advisory field (I’ve seen tax and legal aspects), I can assure you that gay families could gain greatly from the benefits afforded to other families. People should really educate themselves and open their minds and hearts.
The real problem with homosexual marriage is that there’s absolutely nothing in it for society to be worth recognizing.
In all 50 states absolutely nothing prevents homosexuals from marching down the aisle, hand-in-hand, both wearing their mothers’ wedding dresses if they like. All they need do is find a willing preacher to hold the ceremony. Having the state recognize the marriage via a marriage license is another matter. Recongizing heterosexual marriages is a benefit to the State because it encourages the formation of families and the continuation of society. Two homosexuals getting married is nothing but an exercise in vanity so far as the rest of us are concerned. Granted, not all heterosexual marriages result in offspring but these ENCOURAGE the continuation of the species. Homosexual marriages offer nothing but a couple of lines in the local paper by the weddings editor.
So if there’s no point in issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, why bother? The legal benefits homosexuals seek to gain from marriage - medical rights and inheritance, mostly - are available thru contract law and, increasingly, civil-union law. The SOCIAL benefit homosexuals seek, to legitimize their lifestyle, is not helped by ramming homosexual marriage through the courts because this just annoys the heterosexual majority, who really, really, don’t like being told what to do by unelected judges whose opinion they never asked.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement