New York Gay Marriage: How It'll Strengthen Heterosexual Marriages

As outrageous as it may sound, heterosexual families will become stronger and stronger as more states follow the New York gay marriage attempt, Iowa's gay marriage ruling and the Vermont gay marriage veto override. Gay marriage will reduce the number of divorces caused by fraudulent marriages, ensure that more orphaned children grow up in stable homes, raise the standard of living for children with gay parents, make neighborhoods safer for families, and boost the economies of struggling communities.

It's not the license to marry that will create these benefits; it's the massive shift in attitude that'll result from it. The more gays are accepted as equal citizens, the more stable heterosexual marriage will become. Why? Because there are an untold number of "traditional" marriages that break up because one of the spouses comes out.

Homophobia drives fearful gay men and women into fraudulent marriages. The pressure to conform, the weight of discrimination, the potential loss of cherished dreams (serving in the military, worshiping in church, getting job promotions, raising kids) propels many into marriages they otherwise wouldn't commit to. Like my friend Cooper.

Cooper is 64 and recently divorced. He was married for 38 years before he came out. He left behind him a woman whose life was shattered by a truth that tunneled its way out of the mounds of shame, hostility and hatred that society heaped on it. The woman is 62. What is she supposed to with her life now that he's found his?

Homophobia has a way of wounding gay and straight alike. It creates two classes of victims: People who are forced to lie and the people they lie to. As homophobia decreases, so will the pressure for gays and lesbians to enter into fig leaf marriages. Which in turn, prevents children from being hurt by divorce and helps heterosexuals, like Cooper's wife, create authentic, stable marriages.

Homophobia punishes heterosexuals, too. For every gay man and woman that gets punished by the legal system there are straight mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who suffer with them.

According to my calculations (see box below), 57.6 million people are either directly or indirectly affected by homophobia. Since demographers believe there are only about 6.4 million self-identified gay people,* that means 89% of the people affected by discrimination against gays are heterosexual.

No matter how they feel about homosexuality, no parent wants to see their children hurt, no brother wants to see his sister in danger, no uncle wants to see his nephew suffer. One of the intangible costs of homophobia is the excruciating emotional pain felt by everyone related to the gay family member. Lessen homophobia, as gay marriage will, and you lessen the strain on millions of families.

Estimated Numbers:
6.4 million gays and lesbians
6.4 million siblings of gays and lesbians (assuming each gay person has one sibling)
12.8 million parents of gays and lesbians (assuming each parent is alive)
25.6 million grandparents (assuming two sets of living grandparents)
6.4 million uncles and aunts (assuming one per gay person)

Total: 57.6 million

How Gay Marriage Helps Your Neighborhood
Ferndale, Michigan's downtown, was once lined with abandoned buildings. After years of courting gays to live and start businesses there, it had a vacancy rate of less than 3 percent (before the recession hit).

Ferndale followed the theories in the bestselling book, The Rise of the Creative Class. Civic leaders across the country pay over $10,000 to hear the author, urban planner Richard Florida, talk about the best way to revitalize their communities. His thesis: If cities want to jump-start their economies they must attract the dominant economic group in America -- people who think for a living (doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and computer programmers). Dubbing them the "Creative Class," Florida points out they're the most dominant economic group, making up nearly 30% of the workforce.

Florida produced a number of indexes measuring characteristics of successful cities. There's a High-Tech Index (ranking cities by the size of their software, electronics and engineering sectors) and an Innovation Index (ranking cities by the number of patents per capita).

But one of Florida's most talked-about rankings is the Gay Index. He told Salon.com: "Gays are the canaries of the creative economy. Where gays are will be a community that...

Click here to read Part 2*. Includes:

- How "gay meccas" are economic engines for straight counties
- How demographers calculate the number of gay people in the U.S.
- Which Medical Associations are for gay adoptions
- How gay marriage improves the lives of straight children

Also

For an explosively emotional website that helps conservative parents accept their gay children, go to familyacceptance.com.

Comments

[yuenzzzz]

Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage

[AnotherTry]

Plucky must be noticing that he stands alone on this issue. What a welcomed change that is from just a few years ago when a comment section on this issue would be dominated by ignorant haters. Now it seems plucky represents a dying breed. I take great comfort in that.

My personal take on him is that he must be a sad and lonely person whose only pleasure is working to deny happiness to others. We shouldn't be upset with him. we should pity him.

[Pucky]

Don't feel too comfortable.

What you should be nervous about is the kind of polarization we have where people come to a site like this and expect (and pretty much demand) that it be an echo chamber.

People for the most part don't want to think. They don't want to hear their opinions challenged. I take great pains to not use profanity or to heavily insult people because I realize that it is not effective (as well as a not very nice thing to do). So far, they haven't kicked me off, but I hope you folks understand that quite a few of my posts (which are replies to comments that you make) don't get posted. So you don't get to see my response.

That should make all of you uncomfortable. HP is better than most, but by and large, you all want to pat yourselves on the back and think that everyone else here thinks like you. They do not. The moderators of this site make sure of that.

I take no particular pleasure in denying happiness to others. I do take a great pleasure in putting a mirror up in front of people and making them challenge their own assumptions.

[AnotherTry]

It's not our fault you're late to the party.

[YoMama]

Wonderful article. It sounds as if one implication of Dr. Florida's research is that social liberals strengthen their local economies more than social conservatives, since we know that gays live where they feel welcome, and since the article states that they live where members of the economically strengthening "creative" class live. I don't mean spuriously to conflate social liberalism with the "creative class," and in turn with professionals that "think" for a living, but the article does indeed seem to equate the three if one assumes that gays live among social liberals. By further implication, doctors, lawyers, programmers and other "thinkers" who contribute most to the economy are gay-friendly as a group.

[Mark Russell]

Ok - here's what I don't get: why Pucky, or anyone for that matter, would spend any amount of time at a liberal blogging site arguing against gay marriage.

For one thing, we have heard ALL the arguments before and second, most of us here probably support gay marriage and are disinclined to change our views. (I guess this brings up a larger point about the purpose of blog/chat sites in the first place - we seem to be preaching to the choir).

My point is this - does Pucky simply enjoy the discourse? Maybe he does. But it is not irrational to assume that he has a special disdain for this particular issue (and for gay people, in particlar?) Now, I'll freely admit I'm speculating. But I don't go to the Christian blogs to argue against the existence of god. I am an atheist, but doing so would seem....well, mean or at the least kinda childish.

[Pucky]

I am here because it amuses me.

I hope I don't seem mean. That is not my wish. I just think that most of you readers just listen to people who hold similar opinions, and rarely if ever here a cogent argument on the other side of the political spectrum.

[david43a]

Oh no Pucky! dont go! Your input is needed because of the points you made and others also! If we did not know the arguments of the other side, we would be handicapped when they were made in other forums....and I hold no grudge at your amusement...after all, life can be short and is often just brutal....what ever brings you joy, as long as the flailing of your arms break no noses, is fine by me. And, even though i understand the importance of the argument in favor of gay marriage, and believe it is a CIVIL rights issue and support those civil rights, personally I think marriage is a fine institution, if you feel the need to be institutionalized, I suggest you go for it!
The reason I believe that way is because it is a CIVIL issue...I do not appreciate the government getting involved in my personal relationships. And that is what the legal definition of marriage is... A civil contract that is binding in a court of law.
And therefore should be available to all otherwise (age etc.) entitled citizens.
Not a church wedding mind you, that has no LEGAL weight. Unless of course, you recieve a license!

[david43a]

In fact, now that I think about it (thank you pucky for the civil discourse) The disconnect becomes obvious.
Given that the LEGAL rights and responsabilities of "marriage"
completely depend on the state issuing a license, and not on if one church or another states that you are married (ask the polygamists about that!)
The word "marriage" is irrelevent. Three priests, 2 rabbi's and a mullah
can state that you are "married" but without the license (or the equivelent in cases of "common law" unions) The state does not recognize
the union. Try to collect alimony in such a case!
So, while there are some who would say that this is an issue of semantics
(why dont gays just call it a domestic partnership etc.) in fact they are right! However they are really making the argument that what they call "marriage" should be called a "civil union"! As it is the civil authorities that will enforce the rights and responsabilities, not the church, of the "marriage"
When you remove the religious angle from the disscussion, the logic for banning gay "marriage" really does not exist. hmmmm....I feel a flaw in this reasoning exists...I cant pin it down at the moment...
I welcome disscusion, if you can remove your religous convictions from the
reply and use rational logic that is!

[Pucky]

If gays were to only try to get civil unions passed, with distinctly different wording than "marriage", it would probably fly through most states with little difficulty. Most people are for treating gays with dignity and respect, and want to treat others as equals.

What people don't want is the "degrading" their own view of marriage, by letting "just anybody" get married. (Even if any dumb bastard coupla hetra-sexxuals can do it.)

To them, marriage is sacred, even if our society treats it poorly.

This is a matter of fighting for one's culture. (Much like Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree).

People will fight tooth and nail to protect what they hold dear, and to many people, their concept of marriage is way high on the list.

[david43a]

good points, however, I do not propose to degrade your view of marriage, just as I do not propose to tell someone they can not marry some one of different color, age, income bracket, religious beliefs or their ability or desire to have children. However, there are a significant amount of folks who think that inter racial marriage does just that! We do not let them set the rules but we do not make them marry someone they dont want to!
Believe marriage is what you choose to believe it is. In the eyes of the law, it is a civil affair.

[david43a]

Also, you can be married and/or divorced by a civil officer, (justice of the peace etc.)
without ever setting foot in a church...so, perhaps you believe marriage is more than
a legally binding agreement, the state does not. There are no special marriage rights for those
who profess their belief in a god, just as there are no special marriage rights for those who dont.

[obtusegoose]

Terrific article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

@ Pucky -- I'd like you to explain how you came to the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral, without using the bible as a reference.

Common sense would tell you that people do not choose their sexuality. When was the last time you heard someone say, "This weekend I slept with a man and woman. After reviewing the pros and cons of each experience, I've made a rational decision to be straight." My brother and sisters didn't choose their sexuality, and neither did you. So if your sexual preference isn't something you choose, how can it be immoral? There is nothing immoral about two consenting adults wanting to make a lifelong commitment to each other. The key word is "consenting". Religious people conveniently overlook that word when they try to group homosexuals with murderers, pedophiles and those into bestiality. Fortunately, most people have realized how disingenuous it is when making such a comparison. Just like most people now know that being gay isn't a "lifestyle choice" nor is it immoral.

[Pucky]

The bible does tell us that homosexual sex (as opposed to homosexual orientation) is wrong.

But I would claim that my church is the moral authority. The bible itself is a supporting bit of documentation. (Word of God and all that.....)

I agree with you that people don't choose their sexual orientation. Did I say something to make you think otherwise?

Love is always a good thing. Improper use of your sexuality is always a bad thing.

You don't choose your orientation. You choose who you sleep with. For that, you are responsible (or in this case, irresponsible).

[CJ1]

Lol! "You don't choose your orientation, but you choose who to sleep with..." That is a generous "consolation"! My orientation isn't a sin, but if I live and express my orientation or who I am, well, therein lies the rub, eh? I guess gay people, in your mind, were born to bear a heavy cross, and must never seek to make another person happy, never love another person according to their orientation, because that's not wrong in itself and in its origin but is wrong in its...expression? Wow, that is some stunning logic. Still sounds like you equate homsexuality to murder...a murderer may be born a murderer but is not bad unless he acts on it? Funny, but I believe the Bible says its wrong to harbor sin in your heart, so if you think acting on being gay is a sin, you can't have it both ways; you are saying its a sin to harbor feeelings, but yet it is not a choice...my head hurts from the very ill-logic--lol!

[obtusegoose]

I enjoy reading all of your posts, as people gradually chip away at your position :o)

You did prove my point. You determined that homosexuality is immoral from being taught that by your church. Had you never been indoctrinated with their belief system, you may have grown up with a different outlook. I find it interesting that people willingly let an outside source determine their entire way of thinking. I suppose if your church tells you that eating seafood is an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12), you would believe that too? Why aren't you stoning people that are adulterers? I'm pretty sure that is in the bible too. Who gets to determine which passages are valid and which aren't? I find the entire thing very arbitrary.

Most religious people that say homosexuality is immoral, also believe it is a choice. You are the rare exception. Although your solution is hardly amicable: you can be homosexual... just don't ever have sex. Yeah, I think those people are called priests. That's not working out very well from what I've heard.

[david43a]

Ah, but Pucky, your church is not my moral authority...again, you seem to indicate you have super citizen status because of your beliefs. Tell me you dont think that non-christians are less, in the eyes of the constitution, than you? If not, then we are equal in the eyes of the law. Neither one has to bend on his spiritual beliefs, however, if we are to make decisions on the direction of the country we must have a common reference point....I suggest the dec. of independence and the constitution as I do NOT believe either the Bible or your church is the final word on ANY matter, moral or otherwise.

[Pucky]

I understand that you don't accept my church as your moral authority.

And no, I don't think that non-Christians are any less in the eyes of our constitution.

So where do we go from there?

We go to the democratic process where we each try to persuade others to vote our way. But if we have a different framework for how we make our decisions, we are likely to talk past each other.

That is something I understand, but I don't think many people do.

I really don't expect to convince a lot of people. People believe and think whatever it is they want, and then they construct arguments in their head to support those beliefs. Very few people actually think.

[david43a]

Pucky, You are using your reliance on your faith to assert there is more to marriage than what has been suggested.­..however, not every citizen adheres to your faith. Do you propose that you have "super citizen" status due to you christian beliefs?
Try to marry or divorce....you will find that it is indeed a "civil" issue...If only your church tells you that..."you are divorced" or "you are married" without the marriage licence or court
approved divorce decree you will find that the civil authorities will not abide by your church's
stating so. Without the civil "paperwork" your divorce or marriage will NOT be recognized
by the state.

[Pucky]

No, I claim no "super citizen" status. Why do you ask?

I made no claim that marriage wasn't also a "civil" issue. Why do you bring up the point that it is?

What was the purpose of your post?

[david43a]

In the eyes of the law, it is ONLY a civil matter! I do not have to go to church to be married,
A marriage in a church without a civil license has no legal standing, ipso facto, a civil matter, in the eyes of the law.

[eljefejeff]

I agree with all your arguments, however, the math may be a little faulty. There could be overlap. For example, I could have a gay uncle and a gay sister but I would only count as one person affected, not two. I would rethink some of your assumptions. However, the fact remains that many of us are affected. I do have one close gay relative and I would like to see her have equal rights.

[csavage]

Marriage, in any form, should not be addressed at all by our government-it is a religious institution. All unions, if they exist as a legal partnership, should be regulated just as is, a domestic partnership. The "institution" of marriage is not hindered by homosexuality, nor would making homosexual marriage legal help it. Marriage is doomed by human's not mating for life, humans are not naturally monogamous. At best, humans are serially monogamous and this argument is best evidenced by 85% of all divorces are a result of infidelity. Gays, at the most generous estimate, comprise 10% of the population(this is based on Kinsey's estimate of 10% of men having had a homosexual experience). So, a pairing up of 10% of the population will not have a significant impact on all the purely heterosexual philandering going on out there. Let's not even mention that only 49% of heterosexual couples are marrying at all, at present...

[Pucky]

You have inadvertently expressed why people are so against gay marriage.

Because you believe that it should be a private matter (primarily religion based). That means it will be taken out of the public realm and given no special consideration.

This is why people are fighting so hard against it. They want traditional marriage to be part of their social norm. Not something private. Not something hidden. But something that is put in place above other relations and given special consideration.

The pro-gay marriage agenda talks out of both sides of its mouth. One one hand, you will read posts here that say that gay marriage will have no effect on the institution of marriage, or even more bizarrely, will "strengthen" marriage.

On the other hand, you have people like this who didn't get the memo that they were supposed to keep quiet about the real agenda of removing marriage from the public scene.

Which is it? Will gay marriage have no effect, or will it destroy marriage by no longer giving it the respect and special legal status that it now deserves?

[Incumbent]

Pucky man, you are all OVER the place. From your comments on this page alone it's painfully obvious that you're more concerned with criticizing the way people present their arguments than than you are with considering and responding to the points they make. Except when you're taking the actual points they make and not-too-skillfully twisting them so that they perversely support your own belief. Scary stuff you're up to!

[NowWhatFolks]

@Pucky

You do realize that marriage has been around far longer than yours or most other religions, right? Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, they all incorporated marriage into their teachings, but none of them INVENTED it.

You can disagree with homosexuality on a moral basis (rightly or wrongly), but to equate marriage to any kind of higher status other than a legal binding relationship is simply incorrect, at best, and horribly narrow-minded, at worst. It's not moral relativism or lack of any social order. It is fact.

[Pucky]

Yes, marriage is probably older than any organized religion.

So what follows from that?

You fail to make any logical point.

Why do you think that marriage is no more than a legally binding relationship? You do nothing to support this conclusion.

[CJ1]

His point was to dispute your implied "fact" that religion originally had anything to do with religion. It did not. When right-wingers are intentionally obtuse (did some lead right-winger send out a memo to y'all telling you to say "what's your point" when a point is well-made?), it shows they have no answer. Not a very clever tactic at all.

[CJ1]

Oops--I meant "Marriage had anything to do with religion..."

[ReesieKitty]

The idea of 'natural law' or individual religions being able to dictate who can get legally married in this country is shameful. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then join a church that does not allow same sex marriages. That is the RELIGIOUS definition of marriage for you. But LEGAL marriage is a transfer of property, taxation, legal rights, etc. nothing at all to do with morality or right or wrong or so-called 'natural law' . If you deny same-sex couples the right to wed because of their sex, you are a bigot, no matter how you try to cover it up.

As for those who extrapolate to 'soon people will be marrying iguanas' or whatever- that sort of extreme exaggeration just shows that you have no real proof of a downside to gay marriage- economic or otherwise. All you can do is make crazy predictions to try and scare people.

Married people are healthier. Married people tend to be more motivated in their careers and more economically stable. Married people are more likely to buy homes, start families. All these things apply no matter what the sex of the couple. Aren't those things good for the economy or the community? Americans deserve the same legal rights, period. Regardless of sexual orientation.

[Pucky]

The iguanas thing is a straw man argument.

Who is actually proposing that people will marry animals?

[llisa]

MANY people who respond negatively to gay marriage say that the next step will be animal--human marriage. You surely must have read some of those comments.

[CJ1]

Well-spoken. Silly it had to be explained, but it does, over and over...

[BeninOakland]

This is not about what the american people may think about gay people, marriage, or any of it. This is about how MY GOVERNMENT treats me and my partner. It is legally enjoined to treat me as an equal citizen, not as a special case because someone doesn’t like the fact that I am gay, or think their god doesn’t like it.

This argument about loss of sovereignty-- the will of the people, the so-called damage to heteros-- is nonsense. rather, I have finally been granted the sovereignty which is due to me by my birth, both as a human being and as an american citizen. The only soveriegnty anyone else has lost is the the myth of heterosexual superiority, the reality of heterosexual privilege, and the service this reality and this prvilege pay to heterosexual hegemony. And the only people that have lost THAT are the people who believe that the myth is true, and that they are entitled to those privileges to begin with.

From the CT Supremes:
Gay persons have been subjected to a long history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that continues to manifest itself in society. Attraction to persons of the same sex—bears no logical relationship to their ability to perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as productive citizens. Nonetheless, we conclude that, laws singling them out for disparate treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice and stereotyping.

[llisa]

Exactly. Equality for all people.

[david43a]

I believe it may come down to this.
I hold the constitution above the Christian Bible, the Muslims Koran and the Jews Torah.
As to the personal beliefs of a citizen, it matters not if you are informed by these or any other text.
You could divine the creators rules from the reading of entrails for all that I care. Your views, where ever the come from, are just as valid as any other citizens. My point is, as we are all not Christians, or the sub group that holds that the Bible is the unerring "word of God" we must find a framework that we can ALL
agree on...when debating the civil future of this country.
By using the declaration of independence and constitution as that framework, we are each allowed an equal say, regardless of the origin of that view, in the debate. While at the same time ensuring that we each are allowed to believe without compromising our rights to believe in the God(s) of our understanding.

[BeninOakland]

I am an american citizen, a tax payer, a law abiding and productive member of the ocmmunity, well thought of by family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors. Any man and woman, no matter how many times married, no matter if they killed their last spouse, no matter how ill advised it would for them to marry, let alone reproduce, can get married as often and as badly as they are legally able to do, and pop out children for no other reason than that they can. They don’t even need to be a taxpayer, or law abiding, or well thought of. They don't need to like children, be prepared for children. Every week, we read about some father killing his children. Yet he can get married next week to any woman who will have him. And one for sure will.
Yet my friends andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years, are legal strangers to each other.
Any man and woman who wish to get married have more rights, benefits, and responsibilties than I my friends do… which brings us to the real crux of the issue.

This is not about what the american people may think about gay people, marriage, or any of it. This is about how MY GOVERNMENT treats me and my partner. It is legally enjoined to treat me as an equal citizen, not as a special case because someone doesn’t like that I am gay, or think their god doesn’t like it.End part 2

[Pucky]

Your argument has a big non sequitur.

You suggest (plausibly) that two heterosexual people can do any stupid thing they want, and still get married and have children.

But gay people can't.

If we made a rule that some heterosexual people were too dumb or wicked or foolish to get married and/or have children, would it lessen your objection to our forbidding gay people to marry?

No? I didn't think so.

So it is not really relevant, is it.

(Don't people take classes in logic any more?)

[llisa]

Talk about illogical, Pucky, you are being quite illogical.

This writer is saying that ANY two heterosexual people can marry no matter how ill-advised the union may be--and reap the benefits. But NO homosexual couple can marry no matter how devoted, law-abiding, intelligent, etc.

THAT is what is illogical.

[CJ1]

Uhhh, you are the non sequiter producer here, Pucky. He said nothing about forbidding any heterosexual marriage, yet you suggest it in order to make (another of your favorite new, poorly used vocab words) something even beyond a strawman argument by inventive degrees! Any high school debate team could teach you a few things about your use of these words, and destroy your "logical fallacies," so stop insulting us. A lot of us know what those words mean....but maybe you do not.