Hurrah for Gay Marriage

I've never understood the objection to gay marriage. We humans are pair-bonding creatures and we seem to feel safest when coupled. It's not true for everyone, of course, but most of us eventually want a partner to merge our books and lives with. Marriage provides certain extremely useful perks: a partner to be with you when you are ill, someone to share your poverty or wealth with, someone to share your celebrations and devastations, someone to raise children with. You'd think the right wing would be pleased that gay people share the same needs as other Americans.

In the past, gay people had to adopt their lovers to leave them their goodies. Or they had to go without a next-of-kin to depend on in hospital. All sorts of legal mumbo-jumbo was required because marriage was forbidden. And why? Because a bigoted old Bible seemed to imply that God made Adam and Eve -- not Adam and Steve -- as the anti-gay faction likes to say.

I've often found that gay people are better at marriage than straight people. They don't get all bent out of shape about sex for sex's sake. At least this is true for gay men. And they don't run to bust up a perfectly cozy union because one member of the couple -- or both -- has a fling. Some couples are faithful and some not. And they seem to practice this without the territoriality and hypocrisy of mixed-sex couples. Actually, they should be our role models in marriage. They take it far more seriously than straight people -- perhaps because it was forbidden for so long.

So hurrah for California and Massachusetts. Let's hope the anti-gay lunatic fringe eventually sees gay marriage as a blessing not a curse. It certainly promotes stability and family. And it's certainly good for kids.

But the truth is the anti-gays don't think rationally. They need their wedge issues to distract the populace from reality. Anti-gay rhetoric is a useful political smokescreen. It obscures the fact that the rich are getting richer and that nobody gives a hoot about the poor. Whenever people get exercised about sex -- suspect the truth: they want to pick your pocket.

Comments

[NetWeasel]

As soon as people started arguing about "the sanctity of Marriage," or "Holy Matrimony," that immediately brings up the issue of "Separation of Church and State."

Or as the purists would say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..­."

Holy Matrimony = an establishment of religion.

In my opinion, government should not be in the marriage business at all. If two people want to join their lives, liberties and property, and have it officially recognized by the State (to get all the governmental benefits thereof), they should be able to do so. Then get "married" elsewhere.

In short, from the Government's viewpoint, civil unions for all -- marriage is in the realm of the religious.

[JustMyWords]

Amen, brother!

[StephenDedalus82]

What anti-gay-marriage zealots refuse to understand is that they're being totally played on this issue. Those rich, powerful men who live in DC and rail against gay marriage don't give a crap about the sanctity of marriage (most of them are adulterers, if not closet cases themselves). They give a crap about getting elected. Gay marriage is something they found they could turn into a scary "us vs. them" issue that would drive the nuts out of their caves on election day. DC is one of the gayest cities in the nation. Not a single congressmen, with perhaps the exception of my two Senators (I'm from Oklahoma) doesn't work comfortably around and with gay people every single day. They probably know in their heart of hearts that there is simply no rational, legal, or moral reason to deny equal rights to gay couples. But they also know they won't get reelected by supporting it in their constituencies.

It's so sad to see so many people convinced of their righteousness when the entire issue is a cynical political game, and they are the unwitting pawns in it.

[Howiseeit]

Homosexuality for the sake of bonding to another human being would be perhaps a bit easier to understand if there were only six people left in the whole world; two women and four men, but by far that is not the case. Let’s be realistic; it is all about economics. Once you legalized same sex marriage then you have the same benefits as heterosexuals. Group insurance, inheritance, etc… If it is approved by the Federal Government they you will have Social Security for spouse, etc… On the other hand if you go thru all of the specifics and details of the relationships it doesn’t take long to realize that a homosexual physical relationship is about as natural as trying to blow your nose thru your ears. I am a man and admit that I have loved other men: My father, by brothers, my sons and a few good friends who I share views and values with. We have shared “celebrations and devastations” The one big difference is that it would be inconceivable for me to have them as sexual partners. So just like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as guess so is being weird. No offence meant to anyone, weirdness is about as common as the common flu; who needs it? --- I can ditch it and I can take it. Have fun with your comments, I will be reading them.

[antaeus]

Dude, really funny. This was the BEST chuckle of the day.

As a wise person once said, "Life is a banquet and some poor suckers are starving to death."

[CRGirl30]

As a hetero female, I also cannot conceive of my father, brother, or sons as sexual partners. If those are the potential partners you envision for yourself if you were to suddenly become gay - perhaps the weird comes from within . . . So, you're not gay. That doesn't mean that nobody else can be.

[Howiseeit]

Of course you can be a homosexual they are all around us, they always have and they always will. My point is that is weird. It cannot be a full relationship as it is with heterosexuals. Emotionally, yes to certain extent, physically that is a different story it will never work unless you improvise a lot. Yes you can raise children but no you cannot share the experience of creating them together. My point is since it is an incomplete relationship: Would it not be best to find a full relationship? Does that make too much sense?

[spikex]

You don't understand gays, because you are not gay. Congratulations, you can have a normal life. No one understands what makes a person gay, but most gay men find sex with women just as weird as you find the idea of having sex with a man. Many gays have spent decades trying to become "normal". . This has left a long line of unhappy marriages

So you fall in love and end up spending most of your life living with another man. Gay marriage really only becomes very important toward the end of life. Civil unions come with all the disadvantages of marriage but none of the advantages. Your partner of 30 years dies running up many debts because of health problems at the end. You are then liable for his debts, but you don't inherit his pension, or soc security. If you have bought a house together, you may have to pay estate taxes rightaway, unlike a normal marriage. You can have you whole world collapse around you as you deal with old age yourself.

Marriage laws have built in some mechanisms to prevent these disasters from happening to old couples. These mechanisms of the law are not available to gay couples and so they suffer more in old age (and they probably don't have kids to help out).

Gays have paid the same taxes and medicare and social security as any one else, they should get the same care from the law as anyone else.

[Dalicious]

You are SO wrong. Among the four men there would be fighting for the women, until only two men were left (unless one or more were too old to be contenders). It would be that simple.

[indypete]

Strangely enough, you're in total agreement with most of my gay friends... they can't imagine having women for sexual partners and wonder how I manage it. (Althoug with 3 divorces under my belt, I sometimes tell them they might have the right idea!)

[erikpritchard]

Being against the moral sanctioning, via law, of gay marriage is quite different than being an "anti-gay fringe lunatic." Your article is intentionally polarizing and harms the efforts of honest gay men and women to get along in our society.

I have gay friends and family that I love and respect as human beings, but I do not see them as having any special rights because of their sexual orientation. The nuclear family remains the building block of our culture and is a fundamental self-perpetuating unit. You don't have to be an expert in anthropology or sociology to realize that that which harms the traditional family may harm the culture. This is the basis for concern of those opposing gay marriage; the long-term survival and prosperity of our culture.

You even suggest that infidelity is no big deal. Perhaps in your world promiscuity is ok, but I would never give a friend such poor advice.

Stop writing things that hurt communication between honest people; you're not helping.

[ashenthorn]

"I have gay friends and family that I love and respect as human beings, but I do not see them as having any special rights because of their sexual orientation. "

The "special rights" are the rights bestowed upon married people that single people cannot access. When we stop bestowing these special rights, priveleges and advantages via the current system of government­-sancition­ed civil marriage, then gays might not want or need to get married.

"You don't have to be an expert in anthropology or sociology to realize that that which harms the traditional family may harm the culture. "

You fail to explain how the "traditional family" is harmed by gay civil marriage.

"This is the basis for concern of those opposing gay marriage; the long-term survival and prosperity of our culture. "

Are you saying that the current societal stigma against homesexuality is all that's holding back a massive tide of straight people turning gay and then ceasing to procreate?

[antaeus]

How can you use a computer when you seem to be having trouble telling the time of day?

The "nuclear family remains the building block of our culture": then why has it been in disarray for decades? The idea of the straw that broke the camel's back might have some kind of whimsical or psychological appeal, but it's ludicrous as an explanation in this situation. The nuclear family has shattered and fragmented because of industrialization and divorce. If anything, gays who actually want to marry are an attempt to fight against those forces, not aid them, and blaming long-term same-sex couples for social decline is ironic.

[Noracharles1995]

If you really love and respect your family and friends who are gay you wouldn't be seeing marriage as a special right, you'd see it as a HUMAN right. Sez this 40ish, straight mother of 2.

[Spazzers]

You seem to be mixing your arguments here. The long term survival and prosperity of any culture lies within it's children. That's the only part of your argument that actually makes sense.

Where you fail it when you tie the survival of our culture with the "traditional family." The reality of our society is that the traditional family is a myth. Ozzy and Harriet never existed outside of a television set.

Another reality is that a person does not have to be married to have children. A person doesn't even have to be straight to have children. Many gay couples have children by means of a surrogate. It doesn't even have to take any real high-tech equipment for gay people to have children, just a syringe.

In light of these realities it makes no difference at all whether traditional families are preserved. Children would, and are, still be born and society is preserved.

As far as promiscuity goes, I never believed humans to be monogamous. Our behaviors make that very apparent. If humans were meant to be monogamous, by nature, we would not cheat on each other. We would not divorce. There would be no porn on the internet or in stores. We wouldn't need it. We'd have our partners.

Your views only work in TV land.

[daffey]

With the exception of the little swipe about those who disagree with you being irrational, you actually answer your own question. Why do we care about this when the rich are getting richer? Well, it’s precisely because we are getting richer that we can care about this. I asked a dear friend from Nigeria once what his attitudes about homosexuality were (that was around 1993). I have never forgotten his answer: Don’t have an opinion. That’s something rich countries fight about. We are just worried about getting through the week.

The fact is, why is homosexuality a big deal? Because we are wealthy enough to make it a big deal. We poor hundreds of millions of dollars and countless thousands of hours into it while millions around the world die, starve, and suffer. The question is, why do people object? It should be, why do people feel the need to invest so much time and effort either way when there are so many who will never have the luxury of crying over so much spilled Champagne? You have once again reminded us that we are a Paris Hilton culture living in an apocalyptic world.

[antaeus]

Some of the most progressive societies on this issue are in Europe, not all citizens of which are living the bloated American life of wretched excess.

The problem with your formulation is that it suggests an enlightened understanding of human sexuality is part of a larger decadence. It's a simplistic and reductive take on the issue, since a society's attitudes towards sexuality have to do with al aspects of its culture, not just economics.

[JohnJames]

The example of classical Greece comes to mind. Anything but a decadent society and maybe the most brilliant and creative the world has ever seen and whether a person was attracted to members of the same sex or opposite sex was regarded as a natural aspect of human variation.

[Balancement]

Let us remember--those of you who shriek "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve"--if that *were* true then the Earth was populated, could only have been populated, through incest--the brothers and sisters who were children of Adam and Eve. What a charming "family value" that is!

[antaeus]

Do we imagine the screaming, hysterical whites who stood in front of Little Rock Central High 50 years ago thought of themselves as a "lunatic fringe"?

The march of history has proven that they were.

Which side of this new debate do you want to remembered as having been on?

[Artisbey]

No one really knows why a person prefers a gay lifestyle. Somehow, they just get sucked into it.

[zenlikejen]

Are you for real?

I can no more change my orientation than I can my skin color (other than tanning, of course...) - but clearly you are more evolved and were able to pick and choose what you were attracted to....at what age did that happen for you?

/sarcasm

[indypete]

WRONG WRONG WRONG! People don't prefer a "gay lifestyle" people are "gay" or "straight" and some are in between. Me, I'm straight, it's not a lifestyle choice, it's the way I am. If I were gay it would be the same thing. Who in their right mind could imagine taking by choice an identity that automatically makes one a second class citizen and a target for hate and venom? Brian Epstein (manager of the Beatles) killed himself over the neolithic attitude toward gays prevailing in the 60s. I don't think he said, "I'll go with this lifestyle, I just love misery and living on the fringes of society."

[JohnJames]

Thanks, indypete. Wish there were more straight men out there who are so reasonable and common sensical on this subject.

[Rothgar]

Here, Here. Let's apply a little plain logic. Why would anyone chose a "lifestyle" where: your parents disown you; employers can fire you; parts of society condemns you; you are likely to be shunned in church if you chose to attend; if you love someone who's family dislikes their orientation you can get frozen out of the life of the person you love.
I agree with two radio hosts (both gay) who've said that in their humble opinions preference is a spectrum from "not a straight bone in his body" to "completely turned off by the very idea of greek sex (that's me)".
Further a conversation I had with a right wing religious coworker, I get the feeling that those who are most concerned about gay rights are males who are closer to the middle of the spectrum than I. He made a comment I find very telling, "everyone has urges but one must resist these sinful attraction­s."
Really if this is true couldn't be that God created a diverse range of preferences amongst his people and we are flouting gods creative handiwork. Do we really want to preserve the prejudices of those who repressed from their own urges.

[ThisIsAllJustADream]

if God created the universe and Adam and Steve exist

then

God created Adam and Steve because Adam and Steve are part of the universe

otherwise, there's a paradox. someone explain this to me.

[antaeus]

Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously.

[indypete]

Yeah, but can He create a rock so heavy that He Himself can't lift it?

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Sure, If He wants to.

[jojameson]

It's time that anti-gays stop trying to push their religious beliefs on folks who just want to be left alone and enjoy the right to PURSUE HAPPINESS.

Gay people are not getting married for the purpose of trampling on the belief system of others - they simply want to have a happy life! How about loving one's neighbor as yourself and stop trying to come up with lame arguments as to why gay marriage will "destroy" society as we know it? I don't see Massachusetts imploding.

Face it, if a gay couple creates a healthy, loving family, that is much more beneficial to our society than heterosexual couples who have dysfunctional or abusive families and marriages that don't last.

[ashenthorn]

"Gay people are not getting married for the purpose of trampling on the belief system of others - they simply want to have a happy life!"

Ok now, what exactly does that mean? It means that gays want to take advantage of the multitude of societal advantages and incentives (mostly monetary) that straight married people enjoy - and it's only fair that they are allowed to do so as long as these advantages persist.

"Face it, if a gay couple creates a healthy, loving family, that is much more beneficial to our society than heterosexual couples who have dysfunctional or abusive families and marriages that don't last."

The reason that so many heterosexual marriages are dysfunctional or abusive or don't last is because of the overwhelming societial and economic pressure to marry. Because of the wedding industry, young women dream not of a marriage, but of a wedding and are made to feel inadequate if they don't achieve a great big one. People are even making marriage decisions based on economic factors like one partner's need for basic health insurance! The current system of government and employer-subsidized marriages rewards bad marriage decision making and getting married for all the wrong reasons.

[LittleLiberal]

As Chris Rock once said, he supported gay marriage because gay people should be able to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

[emmaco]

How is it possible to disagree and not be labelled as part of some right wing lunatic fringe in this forum? Is marriage a religious or a civil process or both? If so, one faction trying to impose its will on the other will inevitably create controversy. Using a mechanism that is unaccountable to the general populace to impose their will anger the other. IYou may remember the Bush/Gore vote controversy.

This issue is of far greater importance. Call if what you will, but a 4-3 override by appointed judges going against the will of the California electorate is not exactly a mandate in my book. You have about 10,000 years of tradition overthrown to boot by a sum total of one judge.

No father has ever looked into the hospital waiting room window and said, "Gee, I hope my child is gay". That's reality, not prejudice. There are genetic differences in families, ones where a child may be smarter or run faster than the majority of his peers. A son is a father's only path to immortality.

That being said, every child should be raised with love and provided the right to a quality life. Providing such a life does not require systemic equivalence.

Men's restrooms are generally smaller than women's, even in state facilities­..

[Liam617]

Whether or not marriage is a religion-based institution is a valid debate, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the state can prohibit certain individuals from receiving a state license absent a compelling state interest. The ruling does not require systemic equality, but it does eliminate systemic inequality.

[Morcat]

Even the California electorate doesn't have the right to enact laws that are unconstitutional. Our rule by majority is always based on the premise that the rights of minorities are equally protected. Polls show that the electorate is actually ready for at least civil unions.

[maribelle1963]

" A son is a father's only path to immortalit­y."

Oh. Dear. God. Talk about the worst reason-ever-to have children.

Interesting how the mother (without whom this fetus would STARVE AND DIE) is completely absent in your fantasy immortal world.

[zenlikejen]

LOL...I don't know how you can disagree and not garner a label of some sort - but I'll spare you the name calling and simply respond as best I can...

Is it civil or religious? For some it's both - for the rest it's one or the other. That's the beauty of this country. If we aren't going to extend the same benefits to everyone then it should just be a religious institution and get the states out of the marriage business so EVERYONE is on a level playing field.

As for the assumption that these judges trumped the "will of the people" - well....be­ing a member of this small minority, I'll never have the numbers on my side to get the votes in my favor...th­e "will of the people" will run over me every time - just as it did for blacks and every other minority out there who has had to fight for equality. If you are fine with the people deciding for ME - how loudly will you cry when the "people" suddenly turn on YOUR way of life? If you don't think it can happen - you haven't been paying attention.

I understood your comment on not wanting your child to turn out gay - I've whished the same thing for my own daughter, and no, I don't see it as prejudice.­..but I will say that I will support her no matter what - gay or straight. I do find your comment on "immortality" a bit

[indypete]

..."No father has ever looked into the hospital waiting room window and said, "Gee, I hope my child is gay". ..."

I don't suppose any gay father says that either.

[bruce9432]

Think of the possibilities regarding tax free wealth transfers. i.e. Mr. Jones has a house with a Prop 13 basis of $300,000 and a market value of $2 million. Mr. Smith has $2 million and a need for a house. With the new law they will be entitled to join their communities (marriage) with no tax event taking place, in about a year they can "divorce" and the property settlement is what the parties agree on vis a vis Mr. Jones takes the cash with no capital gain tax consequences and Mr. Smith settles for the house with the tax basis still at $300,000. Poor people need not apply.

[indypete]

And that would be different from Mr Jones and Ms Smith in what way?

[rachaelisacancer]

Wow!

Who would have thought there were so many bigots trolling HuffPo?

Great article, as always, Erica.

And hooray for equal rights!

[drivensnow2525]

......A reminder for the right wing anti-gay conservative fringe....­..the 4 California State Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of gay marriage..­...Yeppp..­...you guessed it....they are all REPUBLICANS. Maybe a little election mischief going on here to create another election time wedge issue.....­all REPUBLICANS.

[indypete]

Definitely some mischief going on here! The right wing never does anything without an agenda.

[rextrek]

Its disgusting that this even has to be an issue....i­n America, the 21st century...­.America = Equality..­.Nahh..not really....­its all a facade. They're just pretty words...Al­l words/meanings are subject to change...l­ike someone previously stated..th­e word VOTE- has changed many times in the last 2-300 yrs....at one time it was just for WHITE property owners, and then just for White men,and women...th­en for ALL citizens..­...it changed...­.why in America 2008 - people seem they have a RIGHT to Decide what RIGHTS others should have...is unbelievab­le..and Un-American. Why can't America be for ALL Americans.­..why should others be considered less,because of certain peoles views of thier "Imaginations Dogma"?? Its a disgrace..­..this has to even be an Issue....h­ow come all these anti-gay posters don't seem to give a shit about the WAR, $$3 Billion a week going down the proverbial toilet in Iraq? 47+ million Americans without health care,pover­ty,homeles­sness, homeless vets? The economy? Im sickened.