|
||
Why Other People's Marriages Are Our Business
Every time a staunch defender of marriage against gays screws up his own marriage, the same script plays out: liberals and young people rush to point out the hypocrisy of heterosexuals preaching the sanctity of something they clearly don't hold sacred. True to form, in the wake of news that Sen. John Ensign and Gov. Mark Sanford had affairs despite holy rhetoric about straight family values, Paul Begala said that other people's marital foibles are "none of my business" and Meghan McCain said that as long as people are themselves, she doesn't care who they sleep with.
It seems like a fair position. Cheating values crusaders--who support restricting marriage rights to their own kind under the assumption that gay unions are inferior to their own--are indeed models of hypocrisy. And their own failings strongly undercut their rationales for legally privileging their relationships above those of gays.
But there's something sloppy about using these occasions to forward the "everyone's marital business is only their own" thinking. And gay people should recognize this first and foremost, if only because being denied the right to marry forces us to question--in ways that straights often don't--what marriage is about in the first place.
I first pondered this question on the evening of a friend's wedding when she told me what her marriage meant to her. "It's a way of enlisting my friends, family and community," she told me, "in supporting what will surely be a difficult set of commitments over time." Suddenly I realized the purpose of all the ritual and ceremony, the reason for the gifts and tears and witnesses: marriage is not just a private bond, but a public identity, whose meaning is shaped by the assumptions and practices of all those who claim and recognize its status. Being married helps us keep our commitments to our spouses and our communities by creating a shared identity with very public expectations. It doesn't always work. But every day thousands of people choose to embrace this identity because of the support it helps afford them. This is why gays need access to the very same institution of marriage--not civil unions--that straights enjoy: so they can join not just each other, but the wider community of committed people whose marriage is recognized, understood and championed by people across the world. And this is why separate is inherently unequal.
Some dismiss these ideas as lofty rhetoric either because marriage so often falls short of expectations or because their own beliefs are even loftier: they insist they don't need others' approval, and that marriage is only important because it grants legal benefits. "We don't need the state or anyone else," they say, "to affirm how much we love each other, or to help us keep our vows." At best, this has always seemed an adolescent view of marriage. Anyone who has ever had a wedding, who has mentioned her husband or wife in passing, or who has dreamed of one day getting married, knows this isn't true. And anyone who thinks clearly about the intersection of psychology and public policy should too. There is something about knowing that your community--and even the laws of the body politic--recognize and affirm commitments you've made, that can help you stand by them. It's a bit of Freudian internalization, in which the pesky knowledge that something's been publicly uttered somehow makes it both more true and more serious. It then becomes tougher to shirk off. It's the reason that we should care when someone tramples their public vows, including public figures like Ensign and Sanford. We should all raise an eyebrow. It's what Jonathan Rauch calls "stigma as social policy."
Many gay rights advocates share a progressive belief (also shared by libertarians) in the sanctity of privacy. They base their defense of gay equality on the right to be left alone, something I think is partly rooted in a time when they felt this was all they needed to avoid the prying eye--and worse--of society and the criminal justice system. Once upon a time, this was all they could hope for: on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, we are reminded that homosexual intimacy was long criminalized and the most basic privacy rights were routinely invaded by police raids and upheld by laws meant to dehumanize gay people and denigrate their deepest emotions. Professing a gay marriage for all the world to see was an idea that still lay over a distant horizon.
Marriage equality is a different battle. While I understand the wish to be just left alone, it's a disingenuous argument to seek public recognition of our love on the grounds that it's nobody's business but our own. If legal benefits were all that mattered, gays and lesbians would be satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships.
For the historical record, the left has a proud tradition of viewing individual identity as bound up with the community and the state. It's one reason we should not shy away from acknowledging that the fight for civil marriage equality is, as the right often worries, a fight for social equality. It's not a simple case of seeking approval, but a mature recognition that people need one another, that what our community, our society, and even our government thinks does matter to both our behavior and to our sense of dignity.
Proponents of full equality for gay and lesbian couples should not be arguing that marriage is a purely private matter, unconnected to the public culture we are seeking to join. This line of thinking is both misleading and damaging to the core assumptions underlying our battle: that the recognition of our common humanity is a fundamental requirement of a just society.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree that what we do influences others. It is probably the best argument for gay marriage, as it likely to show gays and lesbians a clear path to more stable, longer lasting relationships - just as it has done for heterosexuals for centuries.
Marriage provides the framework those long lasting bonds; both legal and emotional. Ask any married person.... signing that liscence and taking a vow in front of friends and family REALLY changes things.
In many ways the path through life is set for most heterosexuals: you grow up, go to school, join the workforce, get married, have a family, work hard, retire and grow old together.
For gays, this path is broken. We grow up, go to school, join the work force...then what?
Our relationships, even long lasting ones, are never strengthened in the same way that a marriage is. There is uncertainty with regards to both property and the power within the relationship.
For example, my partner and i have been together nearly 20 years but our home is technically owned soley by him - even though i have helped pay for improvements and maintainance all these years. If he decided to kick me out...what rights would i have?
Gays want something more than just dating and going steady. Marriage equality would benefit both the gay community and the nation as a whole, by holding up a better model and framework for gays to aspire to.
You can talk about Gov. Mark Sanford, but it was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA while he was doing Monica Lewinsky. Talk about hypocrisy!
Very nice article. I had not considered the social pressures and expectations placed on us married people, just the legal rights and responsibilities. Married people are expected to behave, to be responsible, to look after the welfare of their spouse, to avoid romantic overtones with other people. The wedding ring is an external symbol of your status as a committed person, and people treat you differently once they know you are married. Gay couples deserve that same status, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it, if they so choose. Our society will be better as a result.
My comment was directed at you to answer your question.
The "you" that you rfer to was more a generic you than you in particular. I will have more to say about this whole issue if i have time to write today.
Meanwhile, what say YOU?
To continue on: The subtext lies at the heart of nearly every argument made against ending this idiotic prejudice and including gay people as fully functioning, accepted, and yes NORMAL members of society. you see it so often in the postings here, whether they are truly merely idiotic-- well if a man can marry a man, why can't i marry a goat-- to the ones that almost seem like they might be legitimate... but they're not.
Let's pick on a few. Sonofliberty-- well, son of some people's liberty-- essentially makes the argument that if everyone were gay, the human race would end. well, first of course, everyone ISN'T gay. And everyone isn't going to be. In fact, we suffer from overpopulation, thanks to heterosexuals irresponsible, unconscious and irrepressible reproduction. The argument is absurd on its face.
But what is the subtext? Gay people are so selfish, so hedonistic, so unconcerned, that they would allow, nay encourage, the human race to die out to fulfill their nasty pleasures and get their way. that many gay people have children and/or want children, and frequently adopt the unwanted, cast-off products of irresponsinble heterosexual reproduction, that being gay does not prevent reproduction or love of humankind, is irrelevant. I can promise you, if humanity were truly threatened with extinciton, I would find it in my heart to reproduce, though I wouldn't enjoy it.
2 cents-
the argument you reference above is a a cover for a more reptilian impulse- that if articulated would go something like this- "if gay marriage was legal, nothing would stop me from marrying another dude, so I better oppose gay marriage rather than dealing with my own confused sexuality"
If CU's and marriage are equal in all rights and responsibilities, why a separate institution?
If, by posing the question, you agree that every argument against samesex unions-- the end of the human race per sonofliberty, every child needs a mother and father per johnbdonovan, the end of religious freedom,polygamy-marrying-goats-pedophilia-procreation per pat robertson and on and on...
if you agree that these arguments are entirely without merit, which they are, why do you need a separate institution to cover gay people?
The answer lies in its subtext. the opposition to marriage equality and so on have nothing to do with their alleged subjects. It is always about how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people.
The subtext is that gay people aren’t human. We hate families, we hate religion. We'll do anything to work our perverted way on them. This is the stock and trade of bigotry: make the target impossible to relate to by destroying the most basic connections between members of the in-group and out-group. It is the fundamental mechanism all haters use to divide and isolate for persecution those they despise.
You SAY they are fine with DP, but marriage belongs to hets. If we are allowed to marry, then by definition, we are “normal”. DP recognizes that we have claim on society, but it doesn’t normalize us. It still sets us, our families, and lives apart, as another species.
Is this comment directed at me or Dr. Frank?
I decided that this comment must be directed at me because you said "if by posting the question". I posted a question, not a statement (either direct or indirect).as to my own beliefs.
"You SAY they are fine with DP, but marriage belongs to hets." I said no such thing. I asked a question.
I've asked this question once before of gays and lesbians here on HuffPo but only had three responses so I'll ask it again.
If SS Civil Unions or SS Domestic Partnerships had every right and privilege that hetero marriages have, would you gay and lesbians accept that?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Separate is never really equal. Marriage and civil unions are not the same thing. Pretending civil unions are good enough doesn't make it so.
I would. I would also call my civil union a marriage and no one could stop me from doing that either. Its just a word and no one controls my language or my thought. If everyone who got that civil union or domestic partnership called it marriage, it would become more and more accepted over time, to the point where the laws are changed for the government to call it marriage.
Progress is slow, but progress always occurs. Things change incrementally, but they certainly do change, and usually in the progressive way. Just look at the statistics of how people under 30 support gay marriage vs. those over 60. It is only a matter of time and the conservatives can feel free to fight against the rain all they want, because I am confident that we will get there, even if it does take longer than most of us would like.
But I also don't think that has ever been proposed. Even in the states that had civil unions, the laws were not as comprehensive as marriage. The problem is that the marriage laws are so dense and numerous, that it would be very difficult to condense all of that into a civil union law that encompasses all of the rights and priviliges granted by marriage.
HuffPost's Pick
As a straight, married and a US Citizen I find any attempt to DENY other people the same rights and privileges in action or name by the state is a threat to my marriage. In a democracy, we are all responsible for the rights of us all, and when the state can decide who can and can't get a state issued licence based on gender, we ALL suffer.
We ALL suffer is right. I haven't been able to work since 2004 due to the mess that regularly happens when long-term relationships end without a legal framework to protect BOTH parties. Gee, could it be that SOME gays are as selfish and vengeful as our straight counterparts? (duh)
I've relied on welfare since 2006 - quite a chunk of change for 3 years. Now I am on SSI for disability, which is good for me (more money given), but bad for tax-payers (who will foot the bill, and will continue to pay for ALL repercussions of discrimination).
1983-2004 = Contributing member for society (very active in music education, church, school, volunteer, and a tax-payer)
2006-present - Unable to be active in society; 100% dependent on your tax dollars.
YOU DO THE MATH, AMERICA.
Some countries require a ciivil ceremony. A religious ceremony is optional but additional. Isn't that a reasonable solution instead of struggling to change laws? Taken from:
http://marriage.about.com/od/royalty/a/rainierkelly_2.htm
Recall that Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco had two weddings: one was a civil wedding, and the other a religious ceremony.
April 18, 1956 was the civil ceremony in the palace's baroque throne room. They exchanged their vows in French. There were only 80 guests at the civil ceremony. They held a reception for the citizens of Monaco after the ceremony so that each one could shake hands with the new princess.
April 19, 1956, at 9:30 a.m., 600 guests at the St. Nicholas Cathedral witnessed the religious wedding ceremony at a high mass that was celebrated by the Bishop of Monaco. It was called "the wedding of the century" by the press. It is estimated that 30 million people watched the wedding on television.
Other countries also require a civil union for all.
.
It is actually simply a matter of equal rights under the law. To deny homosexual couples the right to marry denies them their rights under the law. It has nothing to do with anything else. You are either equal or you are not.
It's not that simple. It's more an INTEPRETATION of law than the law itself. Different Courts have interpreted the law in different ways. If the law were so clear-cut, we wouldn't need Justices to interpret it.
I disagree- by that logic, if slavery were so wrong, the justices never would have voted against dred scott.
What do you think happens when we find a species that is faltering? As humans, we try to do our best to help it survive.
Sometimes we must change our ways or leave an area untouched so that species can, over time, get it's act together and come back.
What if that species is Homo Sapien?
What happens when we, as a species, decides to act in a different way?
What if we say to hetero couples that we are going to decide that they are NOT privelaged because they are raising a family?
What if, at the same time the birth rate of fellow humans is lower than the Replacement Fertility Rate of 2.1?
What do you think would happen to many countries that are suddenly realizing that amidst all the talk of "rights" no one is really marrying and conceiving and raising children? What happens to a country when this happens?
The country dies.
And this is what is happening in Europe right now.
Here in The United States, because of our great rate of immigration (because immigrants have a high birth rate) we have until 2050.
What's happening here?
Just another extinction, if we are not careful...
Ho hum right?
Until you realize it's US.
Wake up and smell the coffee please...
Ah, a pseudo-scientific justification for homophobia. How is granting civil liberties going to stop heterosexuals from procreating or do anything to slow population growth? The world isn't underpopulated, nor in danger of becoming so anytime soon.
Sonof"liberty":
Your entire argument is based on faulty logic (as per usual). In order for your (typical) doom and gloom scenario, something that is IMPOSSIBLE must occur: Humans will stop having babies. You really bad anti-logic posits that if two people of the same gender WHO ARE ALREADY IN A MARRIAGE, JUST ONE THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE IN WHICH THEY LIVE are granted access to a CIVIL marriage license then what? all humans stop getting married? all humans stop getting married? all straights will bail on marriage and start what? marrying people of the same gender?
Why is it that you fail to see your anti-logic? You start with the fact that you loathe gay people (for what EVER reason) and then you back into your position (ALL PUNS INTENDED). You have no logic, no legal reasoning so therefore you scream the sky is falling.
It is AMAZING to me that you folks STILL trot this nonsense out. While I understand (well not really but "understand" perhaps) that this kind of the--end-is-near "idea" was "plausible" when marriage was unavailable to your gay FELLOW AMERICANS but now as it has, your faux, anti-intellectual oh-gays-are-so-icky "argument" just falls apart.
And yet here you are; revealing yourself to be empty of logic, empathy, love, compassion or humanity.
Nope - you just find YOUR FELLOW GAY AMERICANS icky. ICKY ICKY ICKY.
Best response I have ever seen to one of his comments. Bravo!
You gay activists are all alike...
You are always right and never wrong...
If you are so smart then fix the world...
At any rate..I wouldn't be so darn sure about how bright you are, you know nothing about demographics.
Maybe it's time to join the ranks and just ignore you...
Yes, that's what I think I will do...
May God have mercy on you.
So your argument is that straight people only procreate because we don't let gay people marry each other, and the world is so underpopulated as it is, we're definitely gonna go extinct because all the straight people are so butthurt that they aren't privileged due to "raising a family" (which, it should be noted, many gay couples ARE doing and many straight couples are NOT doing).
This is entirely too silly to attempt a logical deconstruction line by line, so I'll just go with my first thought on the matter. If only we had gay marriage when your parents were deciding whether the government had adequately privileged them to justify procreation for the good of the (overpopulated) human race... maybe they woulda done what you claim everyone will do, and then you wouldn't be here trolling with your homophobic, pseudo-science bullcrap.
Or are you just afraid that if you can legally marry another man, you might discover you want to?
Uh, Heterosexually-Identified men will CONTINUE to marry women, and yes some of them WILL CONTINUE to secretly seek sex with men while married. SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL.
I seriously doubt Heterosexuals will stop "plooking" each other no matter what (a nod to Frank Zappa).
"It's a way of enlisting my friends, family and community," she told me, "in supporting what will surely be a difficult set of commitments over time."
It sounds like this girl doesn't have a personal circle that truly supports her happiness. It also sounds like she's unsure of the commitment that she's making. I've been with my (male) partner for almost five years. We have no plans to marry for several reasons. 1) we aren't religious people, so there is no need to proclaim ourselves one in the eyes of god. 2) we have no desire to combine our finances. 3) we see no reason to invite the government into our relationship.
But, the most important reason is that we're already committed to each other now. Being Mr. and Mrs. will do nothing to make us more committed. Our families are supportive of our decision because it makes us happy. When you get right down to it, either you're able to honor your vows or you're not, and the community has nothing to do with it.
Zombie fairy, you and I think alike.
"We have no plans to marry for several reasons. 1) we aren't religious people, so there is no need to proclaim ourselves one in the eyes of god. 2) we have no desire to combine our finances. 3) we see no reason to invite the government into our relationship"
These are ALL reasons why my male partner and I have chosen not to marry. Not to mention the fact that it costs over $100 in my state just to get a marriage license. What exactly is that money paying for? Why should I have to pay just to continue to live with the man who has already spent 5+ years by my side?
And then if you want some religious official to conduct the actual 'ceremony,' I'm guessing they don't do that for free.
And this point:
"But, the most important reason is that we're already committed to each other now. Being Mr. and Mrs. will do nothing to make us more committed. Our families are supportive of our decision because it makes us happy. When you get right down to it, either you're able to honor your vows or you're not, and the community has nothing to do with it."
It kinda blows the author's "all mature individuals will eventually see why inviting society into the bedroom is in their best interest" theory to pieces.
Bravo.
Excellent post! I've been in a committed hetero relationship for the past five years, and we've decided not to bother marrying for the exact same reasons as you.
I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't believe the gay marriage issue affects me or my marriage to my wife. If two men, or two women want to get married, that is their business, not mine. I have enough to deal with than to worry about what strangers are doing.
i am buddhists, my husband is buddhist, we dont beleib ein god, yet we are allow the marry. its just hohophopia. they are afraid that their spouses or cildren will leave them to adopt a gay lifstyle...
things could be worse. you could have no spouse, no children...it happens. take your blessings while they are here...its easier to love someone if you dont judge them
I agree that marriage is our business and let me explain why. Marriage is a lawfully ordained union and
affects the public sphere of life. With traffic laws, we are all accountable to each other because if one of us decides to drive on the wrong side of the rode we are all in trouble. The same can be said of marriage laws. Yes, a marriage is most of all between a husband, wife, and God but at many wedding there are many family and friends present. I would argue that being “lawfully wedded” means that we are accountable to them and society as a whole. If we get married and don’t stay on our side of the rode (i.e. follow our vows) then more accidents (i.e. failed marriages) are bound to happen. Thoughts…
He Said She Said blog
http://HSSSblog.com
There are many different types of vows and views on what makes a successful relationship.I would agree that obviously if you don't follow your vows then you are on the path towards a failed marriage.
However, I don't see how that affects me. The survival or failure of your marriage will not have any effect on my relationship or marriage. You could try to make the argument that marriage failures would affect society, but then why not outlaw divorce if in fact "lawfully wedded" means you are accountable to your family and society as a whole. Being accountable only means anything if there are consequences for failing to live up to requirements.
I also have to disagree when you say that marriage is between a husband, wife, and God. Your marriage may be between you, your wife, and God, but that doesn't mean everyone's is. Even if you think that God is present in all marriages, the athiest couple will disagree that God is involved in their marriage. I think this is a big part of the issue in general is the inability to separate civil marriage from religious marriage. Just because a person thinks marriage is a religious ceremony, does not mean that all of the people entering marriage view it as such, and therefore the government should not view it as a religious union, but rather a civil one.
What we do influences others. What others do influences us. Prior the the sexual revolution in the 60s, very few men and women lived together unless they were married. Those that did, kept it quiet. As more and more men and women "revolted" against this, it influenced others to do the same. So 40 years on, it's quite "normal" for unmarried couples to live together and procreate.
Is that right or wrong? Not the point. The point is that what we do influences other; what they do influences us.
When I fail to follow traffic laws I've commited to, it physically endangers other people with my vehicle. When I get married and then divorced, who was physically endangered? And what do broken vows have to do with same-sex marriage?
Dr. Frank expresses in the rhetorical thrust of his statement ,that gay people need to adopt a monolithic political position on Marriage. This flies in the face of the diversity and heterogeneity of our community. Or is he asking us to adopt a more 'respectable bourgeois heterosexual' stance? We can, and do, express ourselves on many issues with many different voices and opinions: that is what constitutes the vitality of civil society! Dr. Frank shows, quite pointedly, that he still carries the Patriarchal baggage, that has existed in the healing professions, for generations in this country! The characterizations of an argument being an 'adolescent view of marriage', and to even mention the intellectual dead letter,Freud, is evidence of said baggage. We are the children of The Enlightenment, and we all are its present day inheritors and enactors, if we choose to be. It is a continuing project, not something that has been accomplished. And diversity of opinion expressed in an active civic life is its sine qua non. The issue of full gay civil rights is moving forward with a healthy diversity of argument, opinion and disagreement. Thank you ,Dr. Frank, for your thoughtful and well argued contribution to the continuing debate.
Here's what don't quite understand. The reference to Gay Marriage. Huh? What is that exactly? Think about it for a minute. G A Y marriage...as if it something different that just MARRIAGE.
I think this is an issue related more to gender discrimination. The (evil) right wingers have taken control of the debate (in rhetoric, and that's clearly changing! Hurray!) by framing this issue as a uniquely gay one. It isn't. Any two men or two women should have the right to marry without regard to their sexuality. Since when is sexuality and procreation a requirement for marriage? Swearing to be faithful and love one another are important symbolic words. That does not equate to a requirement to bear offspring in a marriage, or practice a certain kind of lovemaking, at certain intervals, etc. etc.
Since humas developed as bi sexual creatures millions of years ago. Love. passion, and committment are add-ons. Marriage is procreation. Actually that is why concepts like fornication and adultery were created to decribe the intent of marryng without the intent to accept procreate. Marriage is about humant biology regulated. There are all types of loving and committed relationships, and they are all (or at least can be beautiful), that does not make then marriages. Marriage is what it is. You can't fight mother nature.
Marriage is important because (when it works as intended)
it allows us to identify the parties who gave us
the sexually transmitted syndrome we call 'life'.
Marriage is not mother nature. Sex is mother nature. The simple fact that the human race could procreate without marriage kills your argument. Humans were procreating long before the concept of marriage was created and they would continue to procreate were marriage to blink out of existence tomorrow. If marriage is biology, then take a man and woman, raise them from birth in an environment with no religion and no discussion of marriage. The two will discover sex, but I highly doubt they will discover marriage. Marriage is sociology, not biology.
Also, the fact that the definition of marriage has changed over the millenia alters your argument. Not all marriages have been for procreation. Many have been for consolidation of power or wealth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
