Who Do You Love?
3/7/04 (#21)
Some people get energized by political debate, elated at an opportunity to dispense reasoned opinions and practiced rhetoric despite knowing that there is no real hope of swaying the listener/opponent. The fun seems to be in the preaching, not in the converting.
On the other hand, you have me: politics make me queasy. I lack the ability to stockpile selected figures for future volleys, to recall like a chess master the proper retort to particular verbal advances, and to dismiss the knotted feeling I get when someone is disguising a personal belief as a political tenet. I embrace the fact that two logical people can have divergent opinions and can agree to disagree, but I am repelled when disagreement is not an option. At that point, semantics are forged with improbable malleability; careful and conniving orchestrations are presented as serendipitous happenstance; and competition rises to a level that would be completely unseemly in a game in which sportsmanship was the expectation.
But clearly there is no expectation of sportsmanship in the latest wedge issue to be exploited by the politicos and the press, the subject of same-gender weddings. Many have taken it upon themselves to campaign for the illegitimacy of such unions, empowered by figures that indicate a majority of Americans support them in opposing any "definition" of marriage that does not involve a man and a woman. I am taking this opportunity to differ with those campaigners.
"We must protect the sanctity of marriage" is a common refrain, usually a sound byte played over a video of the most flamboyant gay couple available in the news room archival footage. Let's look at the sanctimoniousness of some facets of the institution they are defending:
- Britney Spears was able to get married, and get it annulled, in one whirlwind 55 hour weekend. Hers made press, but Las Vegas dangles marriage as a part of its tourism. I do not mean to imply that a wedding should be dismissed as a farce simply because an Elvis impersonator performed the rite; only that in Las Vegas, marriage is a business, not a sacrament.
- "My big, fat obnoxious fiance", "So you want to Marry a millionaire", "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "The Bachelor", "Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica", "The Littlest Groom"---it is fortunate that these programs all involved a man and a woman. Otherwise, it might have reflected poorly on the institution.
- 24% of marriages in the US end in divorce1
Of course, I have chosen the most preposterous of examples. Just as the opponents of same-gender marriages choose the most preposterous examples to make their points. It doesn't help the marriage-ban proponents to depict two intelligent, articulate, loving people who differ from their own supporters in sexual orientation only. Much better to paint with the easy, broad brushstrokes so that the electorate who aren't really paying attention will catch the highlights and think, "I have never liked the Village People, so I don't support this."
What stands out to me in this debate is how thinly disguised its prejudicial intents seem to be. I've heard opponents claim that their opposition is "not anti-gay, but pro-marriage," a comment so lacking in merit that I can't imagine someone could say that with a straight face. (Imagine 100 years ago: "Honestly, Susan B. Anthony, we aren't anti-women, we're just pro-status-quo, so we'd prefer you didn't vote.") It is shameful that politicians might bandy the idea of a Constitutional Amendment, and ironic considering the Constitution has historically been a document that ensures rights and liberties rather than restricting them.
Short tangent: Years ago a friend taught me an invaluable lesson regarding the identification of misogyny: You can test whether a statement is misogynistic by replacing all references to "women" with "blacks". If the new sentence seems to lack political correctness, the former did as well. When we apply that theorem to this scenario, we're left with "I have nothing against blacks, I just don't think they should be allowed to get married." In what way is that not discrimination?
The President recently insisted, "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."2 From its religious roots? In the news coverage that I have seen, none of the couples have indicated a desire for a blessing from a church. (Better a blessing from the IRS.) My closest lesbian friends all own homes, pay taxes, many raise children, several belong to churches. Yet adding "married" to their resume will "weaken the good influence of society"? I fail to understand what damage is done by two women getting married.
Real story: I am jubilant to report that my good friends Favor and Nora were married this week here in Portland. (Yet my own marriage was not weakened at all. Go figure.) Favor and Nora love each other, care about each other, and they are loved and admired by their friends. I cannot fathom how a marriage license joining these two great people indicates a precipitous fall for the institution into which they were recently admitted. To me, as a married person, I'd much rather count Favor and Nora in my married ranks than Britney and her bimbob.
Another real story: My friends Lisa and Elinor were married in Hawaii several years ago. Fabulous people, and fantastic parents to a 7 year old son and a 4 year old daughter. As a new parent myself, I am acutely attuned to parental techniques, and before their family moved south, I took every opportunity to learn from them. They communicate so well with their children---they encourage, they explain, and more than anything, they love their kids like all parents should but many parents don't. And they make sure their children know that they are loved.
We recently learned that their son is getting teased at school because his family is "different". He is in the second grade, a difficult time for most kids as they discover what it means to be an individual. Kids of that age can be merciless, and this boy is learning that firsthand. Just as children of racists learn to be racists themselves, children of homophobes learn to be homophobes themselves. They don't understand it, they don't base it on experience, they simply learn it in the same way they learn that 3 comes after 2 and the sky is blue. At that age, anything "different" can be perceived as wrong, and on a daily basis he and his classmates absorb from the media, from the politicians, in some cases from their own parents that same-gender marriages are wrong. The President says it's wrong, the senators say it's wrong, the priests say it's wrong.
What exactly is "wrong" with it? Why should someone be allowed to participate in every aspect of society except marriage? I really have not heard a convincing argument for banning same-gender marriages that did not come down to discrimination, a desire for "the haves" to keep something from "the have-nots".
So what's wrong with it? Nothing. Being suitable for marriage is measured by your willingness to exert energy to make another happy; It's more than an algebraic equation of X and Y chromosomes.
Congratulations to my recently (and not so recently) wedded friends, the vanguard of a logical momentum. I'm proud to have you in my life.
- http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html
(It should be noted that there is a common misconception, one that I thought to be true, that indicated 50% of marriages in end in divorce. That figure is incorrect, the result of a bad equation. While it appears to be correctly reported that in a given year, there are 50 divorces for every 100 marriages (thus the percentage is found), that calculation does not take into account marriages that existed before that specific year. I have chosen to reference Christianity Today's figure, but it was confirmed at several sources on the web. - http://www.fresnobee.com/local/politics/v-textonly/story/8190364p-9040644c.html
©2004 wpreagan
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment