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]
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.
"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."
This must be the 50% that DON"T get divorced. Sacred...please...
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.
--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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.