The "Debate" On Gay Marriage, Part One

Senate Republicans are apparently in the midst of an aggressive push to figure out how they can properly word the proposed Constitutional Amendment to forbid gay marriage.  The hardest of the hardliners--Rick Santorum, et. al.--want to forbid civil unions, too.  That's the focus of the discussion, while a few Democrats yell from the sidelines that they think the decision should be left up to the States. 

Politics is a restrictive business.  Anyone relying upon keeping the public happy is restricted in what they can do.  There are certainly some things that it's impolitic to say if one--as an elected representative--hopes to remain in office.  So I understand why there aren't any Congressional voices shouting that we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow gay marriage. 

Neverthless, I wish someone would say that.  Or at least call a spade a spade--those who support the gay marriage amendment are bigots.  And I have no intention of mincing words here.  If you support the gay marriage amendment, you are a bigot.

Here are the publicly-offered arguments in favor of the gay marriage amendment:

1.  Gay marriage threatens the institution of traditional marriage.

2.  The public doesn't support gay marriage..

3.  Gay marriage is the start of a slippery-slope--allowing it will result in tolerance of adultery, polygamy, incest, and bestiality

4.  Gays are evil.

Let's take a look.

1  Gay marriage threatens the institution of traditional marriage.

By far, this is the most commonly cited claim.  Here's what our President had to say on this topic:


This is roughly the same thing you'll find if you peruse various pro-Amendment websites and take a look at the comments made by politicians who oppose gay marriage.

Let's not get into the question of the correctness of the above statement.  For what it's worth, I pretty much agree with what's said there--I suppose I'd like to see the word "religious" removed, but that's my own schtick.  For sake of argument, let's agree completely that traditional marriage is important, that it serves society, that it's good for children. 

Unfortunately, these proclamations utterly fail to demonstrate how gay marriage in any way has an impact on traditional marriage.  This isn't like some issues (abortion, for example) where I can at least follow the logic of those with whom I disagree.  There is no logic here.  There is no way to track the reasons that traditional marriage is weakened/harmed/affected by gay marriage.  Why?  Because there are no reasons.

No one has ever made the argument that specific marriages will be affected by gay marriage.  My marriage, and the marriage of everyone I know, will succeed or fail based upon the things that happen between the partners involved.   The decision of Adam and Steve down the street to tie the knot will not have an impact.  And not even the defenders of the Amendment have attempted to make this claim.

So it boils down to a more amorphous belief that the "foundations" of marriage will be shaken.  That the "institution" will be "weakened." 

How?  Even beyond the question of what in the hell this means, I still don't understand exactly how the institution will be weakened.   What is the process?

Higher divorce rates?  They're pretty damned high now and I don't see any attempt to make that a constitutional issue.  More adultery? Whose faithfulness is based on a vague notion of the societal value of marriage as opposed to a  commitment (or lack thereof) to one's spouse?  And besides, these are issues that work on a marriage-by-marriage basis as opposed to working on an institutional level.

Let's be clear here--I fully understand that I'm trying to dissect an argument that's never been made.  No one has ever made an attempt to coherently explain how traditional marriage--as an institution or as an individual event--is threatened by gay marriage.  They just say it.  They don't explain it.  They never will.  They cannot.  There is no logical connection to be made.

This is the best they've got, and they've got nothing.

2.  The public does not support gay marriage.

This is more or less true, though the poll numbers are very, very clear on this:  the number of people who oppose gay marriage is steadily weakening.  It is the way of the world (at least in the US) that young people will become more tolerant than the previous generation.  Racism and sexism are undeniably demonstrative of this--which isn't to suggest that those things don't still exist, only that they're considerably weaker.  When examining the trend lines in these polls, one gets the impression of a group of people, seeing the future, not liking it, and thus rather desperately attempting to stop it from happening by overreaching.

Furthermore, the poll numbers do not suggest that the American public supports a gay marriage amendment.  Opposing gay marriage and wanting the Constitution to ban it are different things.

Regardless, there's something more going on here.  The same politicians who are hiding behind these EXTREMELY soft measures of public opinion are the very same ones who regularly subvert or ignore public opinion by acting in the interest of corporations rather than the public, or who ignore the traditionally open rules of democracy by making law with covert legislative trickery (riders, and such) rather than keeping it all transparent.  Public opinion is a crutch when needed.  Usually, it's flouted.

What we need is for someone brave to stand up and say "I support gay marriage.  I know that many of you, including many of my constituents, do not.  But I support the rights of individuals to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.  And there's no reason to believe that gay marriage will hurt anyone.  If you don't support gay marriage, that is your prerogative.  I ask only that you give real consideration to the issue.  Much of the public was squeamish about ending slavery, about giving women the right to vote, about ending segregation, about interracial marriage.  But time has demonstrated that our nation has been strengthened by more tolerance and freedom.  Never weakened.  This is the latest test of that theory, nothing more.  I come down on the side of liberty.  I hope you're with me."

In other words, we need someone to lead.

Tomorrow:  Are gays evil?






10:06:28 AM     Comment? []