Marriage Wars: The Real Fight is Over Moral Superiority

Have you seen the "Gathering Storm" ad? It is the latest from the anti-gay marriage machine. Set against a gray, lightening-pocked, ominous background, it begins with the words: "There's a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong and I am afraid." It continues with one person after another (actors, all) declaring that same-sex marriage advocates are a threat. "Those advocates want to change the way I live," says one.

The ad touched off a televised maelstrom, with pairs of pundits yelling at and over each other with arguments that go round and round and never seem to come to any sensible resolution. The key question that befuddles gays who want to marry, and straights who have no problem with that, is this: How can one person's marriage threaten another person's? How is that even possible or plausible?

As Mike Barnicle asked when he was guest hosting Hardball, "I still don't get it. How, you know, if the couple upstairs, Ray and Tommy - what do they have to do with my life downstairs?"

The predictable arguments are trotted out: God doesn't want it. Marriage is for procreation. It is the foundation of civilization. By now, all of these are high hanging curve balls for the batters on the other team who have been swinging away at these pitches for so long. (See, for example, this parody of the "Gathering Storm" ad, and this blog.)

Even if granted, though, none of the anti arguments answer that puzzling question - what does one person's marriage have to do with another person's? Just how, exactly, are gay marriage advocates going to "change the way [opponents] live?"

They aren't. But they are a threat nonetheless. If advocates were to succeed in achieving complete cultural and legal acceptance - maybe even celebration - of same-sex marriage, something truly significant would be lost by the other side. It is not something that those opponents can see or feel or hold in their hands, but they cling to it nonetheless. It is their view of the world.

Both sides have a worldview and wish fervently for theirs to prevail. Among some of those who oppose same-sex marriage, marriage really does have a sacred place. In their minds, it truly is the bedrock of civilization (anthropologists be damned!). Getting married is, to them personally, a transformative experience. It doesn't just make them more mature or more adult or just different from those who are not married - it makes them better.

That, I think, is the real reason why some (though not all) of the opponents of same-sex marriage are so vehement. It is why they feel so threatened. To open the door of marriage to gays is to let them in on the one resource that opponents are most reluctant to share (especially with gays) - their own sense of moral superiority.

The dark and scary motif of the gathering-storm ad aptly expresses a genuine sense of foreboding. Even though the arguments in the ad may be bogus, the fear is real. [Continue reading here, at the "Living Single" blog at Psychology Today]

Comments

[vpickett59]

Thank you for a very well written article which brings up the point I knew was out there - moral superiority on the part of people believing in woman-man unions exclusively.

Of course the bible-thumpers are going to drag out and bring up the point that 'it's in the BIBLE', we MUST follow God's rules. But with the time that has passed since then... dontcha think that God has lightened up???

Thanks for the article Bella, I look forward to reading more of your work.

[jobecky20]

I've always suspected that at the root of the opposition to gay marriage lies misogyny. Since then, I've read about others who strongly believe the same issue is at play. For example (from http://gay-religion.blogspot.com/2009/01/gay-rights-activists-must-address.html):

"Part of the resistance to gay equal rights is ultimately about the beginning of the end of patriarchy. The connections between misogyny and heterosexism are astounding. The classic defense against gay bashing is, "He made a pass at me." Can you imagine if we locked up every man who ever made a pass at a woman? But if you treat another man as a woman, well, we take a baseball bat to your head.

A very common thing in the ancient world when one army conquered another was raping and pillaging. But the raping was of another man—one of the most degrading things you could do to a man was treat him like a woman.

In the Leviticus passage [thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind], the sin seems to be for the man to allow himself to be treated as a woman. There seems to be evidence that the insertive partner did not receive the same punishment."

[spiritkub]

Of course I've seen "The Gathering Storm" ad. The same frightened, ignorant people tried to pedal the same worn out wares in California. The trouble is, frightened ignorant people all over the state bought it. When asked, these are the same people who can't give an intelligent answer why Obama is a socialist or a facist or whatever ist he is...they just know he is one...Well, they haven't a clue how two gay people married to each other affect the marriage of a man and a woman...it just DOES...OK!?!?!? The truth is that my marriage to my same sex partner doesn't affect anyone but us. Hate and stupidity don't need a reason. What we must do is continue to fight stupidity...don't back down, don't quiet down, don't let your spirit get down...and for heaven's sake...get OUT of the closet. Give the rest of the world a reason not to be stupid and hateful

[NYClover]

Among some of those who oppose same-sex marriage, marriage really does have a sacred place. In their minds, it truly is the bedrock of civilization (anthropologists be damned!). Getting married is, to them personally, a transformative experience.

This must be the 50% that DON"T get divorced. Sacred...please...

[snesich]

Brilliant and well said! When you really drill down and ask opponents of gay marriage exactly how and why their own marriages will be "threatened", they can't really tell you.

What they're terrified of is the idea that "those people and what they do" are somehow now thought of as "equal or just as good" as me and "my normal people."

I've told gay marriage opponents a thousand times, civil and legal marriage is completely different from the "marriages" recognized by a particular religion. Religions can continue to discriminate (or not) in who they choose to marry or not marry. It's their business. They discriminate already. For instance, I as a non-Mormon couldn't be married within the Mormon Church. And that's fine. They have the right, like any religion, to choose among those they deem worthy of their rituals.

But no church or religion has the right to tell the state---which we're all a part of---which consenting adults can choose to marry and which cannot. Marriage, as recognized by the state, and which has numerous legal ramifications, belongs to all adult citizens.

It's really pretty simple.

[All4ME]

Listening to yet another debate about this on Maine Public Radio --http://www.mpbn.net/OnDemand/AudioOnDemand/SpeakingInMaine/tabid/294/ctl/ViewItem/mid/1863/ItemId/10140/Default.aspx

--and it is annoying how illogical the arguments are.
The pro-same-s­ex-marriag­e speaker relies on anecdotes of how "happy" same-sex families are, and how "very sad" partners are when their rights are denied. The "ums" in the pauses don't add to her presentation, sorry!

The anti-same-­sex-marria­ge people rely on the wildly flawed argument about marriage as "an institution for procreation". If that's the case, gentlemen, then you need to be equally vocal about insisting on --

No Marriage For:
infertile people
the elderly
couples who remain childless intentionally

Voiding the Marriage Contract of:
people getting vasectomies/tubal ligations

And same-sex couples raising biological or adopted children, or who intend to bear or adopt children, should be granted marriage licenses, without question.

Otherwise your argument against same-sex marriage falls apart completely, gentlemen!

(btw, I am heterosexual and a parent, but frankly, I just ha te illogical arguments, especially on a subject so important to so many people wishing to honor their commitment honestly and openly)

[M1]

Excellent Post. Moral Superiority has been the bedrock for some very sadistic and evil crimes against humanity.

[bkbzipper]

I am fearful of radical organized religion. What happened to separation of church and state? What ever happened to freedom of religion? There are all kinds of religions in the US, even those who don't believe Jesus is the Saviour... and we freely allow them to practice their religions, its what America is all about. And by the way there are Christian churches that accept gays. Marriage equality is simply a way to be recognized, in matters of health--who will sit by a hospital bed and be able to make decisions in the event their loved ones can't, in the case of children--to make sure their partner can be recognized as the other parent, and other legal rights like estate taxes, taxes and more. Why should that only be allowed to straights?

[OceanSize]

If these anti-equality types were really concerned about the children, why don't they direct the same amount of fervor towards divorce? Why aren't they trying to ban divorce? Seems to me that divorce is much more potentially damaging to a child's well-being than being raised in a loving same-sex household. Since they aren't taking aim at divorce, then I guess the only logical conclusion is that they just hate gays.

It is so obvious what is going on when looked at from an evolutionary perspective. Homosexuality is evolution's response to overpopulation. As long as we species continues to thrive, as long as mortality rates decrease and lifespans increase, any genes/traits that are not conducive to rapid, voluminous reproduction have an easier time spreading throughout the gene pool. Back when our species was struggling to survive, homosexual traits were quickly eliminated. It is yet one more brilliant example of nature's ability to balance itself. The homosexual population will continue to grow unless and until we experience some sort of global calamity that threatens are very ability to survive. Or learn some sort of responsibility over how many children we feel we have a right to bring into the world.

[Eyeheartfreedumb]

In a country where church and state are supposed to be separate, laws should not be made based solely on religious beliefs. Sure, many of our laws are based in a morality code that religion informs, but murder isn't against the law just because God told Moses "thou shalt not kill." Murder is illegal because it deprives people of the basic human right to self determination.
I live in Iowa and I can't believe the discussion going on here. Our Governor confered with the State Attourney General who said a Constitutional Amendment would be unconstitutional, and yet people are up in arms, wanting the very unconstitutional amendment that our state's upmost law authority said would be against the law. It's rediculous. Seriously. After going through this when black people and white people wanted to marry, I can't believe we are going through this again. I cry for America in all its idiocracy.

[Romulus]

The fundamental error that same-sex marriage advocates make is to assume that marriage is a basic right. If that were so, then pretty much all of their arguments would be valid. But, notwithstanding what CJ Burger wrote in 1967, marriage is NOT a basic right. His claim was that marriage is a requirement for procreation (which IS a basic right) and it should have been obvious even back then that this is not so. Today, some 50% of births are outside of marriage. Marriage REALLY is a socially accepted relationship that society feels is in ITS best interest, not necessarily the interest of the individual. Accordingly, society rewards those types of relationships with benefits which also are NOT basic rights.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Please explain how procreation is a basic right under the US constitution. We don't care about the Romulan Bill of Rights.

[OceanSize]

I hope your argument is not that married couples have a responsibility to procreate. If so, then you are saying we should annul the marriages of heterosexual childless couples as well, regardless of whether their lack of children is intentional or due to biological reasons. If its about procreation and not about love, then it shouldn't matter if the couple loves each other very much, because by your logic, if they can't have kids then they have no reason to be married. By your logic they should be allowed to co-habitate & love each other, but not be married. Good luck trying to get that duck to fly.

And if you're saying that a stable home for a child can only be provided by one man and one woman, then why aren't you taking aim at divorce as well? If we're going to ban same-sex marriage on the argument that it cannot provide a stable home because it is not one man and one woman, then we must of course ban divorce as well.

It is so obvious: homosexuality is evolution's response to overpopulation. I am all for individual liberty, so if you think it is your inalienable right to squeeze out as many pups as you can, that is just fine with me. But you better hope you're OK with having a homosexual child, because the more you have, the greater the odds that one of them will be.

[Paulied]

What is important is what earl Warren wrote in 1967 in the majority (unanimous) opinion of the United States Supreme Court on Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man..." The majority opinion of the SCOTUS is - for all intents and purposes - the law of the land here. So, as you point out, our arguments are indeed valid.

[FlexSF]

You are partially correct. The anti-gay marriage forces are flamboyantly guarding a tree, that represents their ideal of marriage, within the forest of marriage that represents many different meanings of marriage. But they've also assumed control over the whole forest, for power and politics, and need to be relinquished of this burden.

Everyday that we celebrate gay marriage flies in the face of their decades old religion. It is a reflection of the wholesale rejection of their beliefs in a way that is natural to everyone but themselves. With legalization of gay marriage, their puny, shallow religion will crumble, and wouldn't be able to raise more than $10 on a Sunday morning, because their religion won't have any legal teeth.

I'm looking forward to the death of this pathetic cult. Everyday that it lives is a reflection of the stone age that we live in. Lets make marriage equality happen, and become the worlds first, truly enlightened society!

[Ali A. Rizvi - Huffpost Blogger]

There is no good secular argument against same-sex marriage, and non-secular arguments have no place in a country founded on the basis of separating religion and state.

[Romulus]

What you really mean, whether your realize it or not, is that you refuse to recognize any secular argument as valid. There are plenty of good secular arguments against same-sex marriage which have been repeated over and over again. You, or others like you, just dismiss them as being either irrelevant or homophobic and then say "See? There are no good secular arguments against same-sex marriage."

[Eyeheartfreedumb]

No it seems obvious that he's saying the government shouldn't pass laws if religion is the basis for that law. In a country where church and state are supposed to be separate, laws should not be made based solely on religious beliefs. Sure, many of our laws are based in a morality code that religion informs, but murder isn't against the law just because God told Moses "thou shalt not kill." Murder is illegal because it deprives people of the basic human right to self determination.
I live in Iowa and I can't believe the discussion going on here. Our Governor confered with the State Attourney General who said a Constitutional Amendment would be unconstitutional, and yet people are up in arms, wanting the very unconstitutional amendment that our state's upmost law authority said would be against the law. It's rediculous. Seriously. After going through this when black people and white people wanted to marry, I can't believe we are going through this again. I cry for America in all its idiocracy.

[charlot]

"There are plenty of good secular arguments against same-sex marriage which have been repeated over and over again."

Really? That's interesting, because I, a gay man who is very much looking forward to marrying my partner of 11 years when it becomes legal in NY (or going elsewhere and then having it recognized here), have read volumes on the topic, and I have not seen a "good secular argument" (or ANY secular argument) against it yet. Please enlighten me with a few, or even with one (please don't mention procreation, because then you'd have to argue against straight people marrying if they can't or don't want to reproduce).

Go ahead. I'll wait...

[coffeee]

@Romulus
"There are plenty of good secular arguments against same-sex marriage which have been repeated over and over again."

orly? care to provide an example?

[mommadona]

It's all about control.

In REALITY - the GOVERNMENT'S only role in all this is the RECOGNITION of the marriage.

The CHURCH/COV­EN/religio­us entity is the one deciding IF the two will be recognized as soul mates.

It's a SPIRITUAL agreement between two souls.
The WORLDLY recognition of it seems to be the rub to these folks. And, their 'weapon of choice' against free will.

The concept if MARRIAGE is based on PROPERTY RIGHTS of the MALE over the FEMALE/CONTRACTS to reflect such-set down into black and white by a very enabling, male-oriented monotheistic ORGANIZED religion in cahoots with Monarchies, and that's about it.

[isadora]

As it (can) exist now it's a partnership. Remember Gloria Steinem? She surprised many when she married (at 66!) saying that she'd been working for decades to make marriage more equal and now wnated to be married. She said that the statement there were making together was "We love and want to be responsible for each other." At its best that's what it is. A percentage of the population now wants to oppose marriage and reaches and reaches to condem something that can be the optimum way to live. I'm a proponent (you may have guessed) and want marraige to be encouraged and celebrated. Happy wedded bliss to those who seek it. I'm married by the way.