I think I’ve been mostly silent on the subject of gay marriage. Why? Because I largely agree with Michael McDonald: it’s about as pressing as “are we eating too much garlic as a nation.” However, since it will soon be shoved down our collective throats (and make no mistake, it will be…sorry gay marriage supporters, but at least 40% think it should be illegal, and legitimizing it by legal recognition is, in fact, shoving it down their throats), I’ve decided to give my full opinion on the matter.
On a personal stance: I don’t really care one way or another. It doesn’t pick my pocket nor break my nose. I think it should be a matter for the states to decide on a state by state basis. Below, I will support why I believe this.
Every state has their own definition of who should get married. This includes ages. In some states, you can marry your cousin, and in others, not. So forth so forth. Of course, once upon a time, there were some states that prevented interracial marriage. This went to the Supreme Court, and it was overturned. As such, states were denied the right to limit marriage based on race. I’m married to an Asian (I’m white, by the way), but I think that decision was wrong. I think it should have been overturned by the long and ponderous process of social acceptance. That’s hard to say out loud, but it is what I actually believe. See the following important continuation as to why I believe that communities should be allowed to set who may or may not be married.
A daughter of an unwed mother grows up. She hunts down her biological father when she is eighteen. Upon meeting, the two fall in love and want to get married. Should they be allowed to? The answer most will give is “ewwwwwwwwwwww, no.” Why not? They are consenting adults. By the way I have structured the argument, there was no child molestation (etc) to cause objection. You might respond “Well, they would have birth defects.” So what? Shall we sterilize those who have sickle cell or “little people?” Are they not assured to give offspring that have birth defects/medical conditions/etc? The real reason is because it’s “yucky.” 95% of the population would agree with you. As such, fathers cannot marry their daughters. So, 20 years ago or so, I’d say at least 80% of the populace would say that gays should not be allowed to marry. Now, more people say they should. As such, they should be allowed to marry in those communities that confer such acceptance.
And here again, this proves my point about the slow process of acceptance. Over time, more and more communities accept it until, at some point, the Supreme Court has to step in and say that it has such overwhelming approval in the vast majority of states that all states must recognize it.
So why don’t we skip the middleman and just force it down the throats of everyone? I’m just not for that. I think the backlash of force outweighs the mere 10 years of further social conditioning to achieve acceptance. That’s just my personal stance on that. As Terry Pratchett once said, “Have you ever noticed that people are always wanting to drag people kicking and screaming? Why has no one ever tried taking someone’s hand and gently leading them?” (Paraphrased from memory)
One question I do have is “Why is this suddenly an issue?” Homosexuality has existed for AT LEAST fifteen years or so. At the very least. So, why now? I have two theories. The first is one that supporters generally give me about secular contract law, etc (how romantic). The second is that it has been manufactured and promoted for political reasons.
The first one I heard as I once was in a conversation about this and pointed out that, “No one can stop you from being married in the truest sense of the word,” (ie, you can devote yourself to each other and call each other your spouse and no one can stop you). This was in response to people saying that people should not be allowed to marry those they love and spend the rest of their lives together (etc). That is when the argument about contract law and inheritance came about. Of course, you can always write a Will or Living Will to give all the rights that they are asking for. A little extra paperwork, perhaps. Now, as far as price breaks for family admission to Disney World and such…I have no response to that. If, however, the real issue is that you cannot ensure the legal continuity via Wills and the like of community property, then I say the real issue is the over-encroachment of government into our private affairs.
So, why now? I personally believe this is a trumped-up political-crusade meant to distinguish the “cool” from the “non-cool.” Let one “cool” person come out saying they support “traditional marriage,” and see what happens to them. They are ostracized immediately. It’s the new Scarlet Letter. Conformity through shame. So if you want to belong with the cool kids, you best think just like the cool kids. As I said, why now? I suppose you could say that this is the first time in history when gays had enough acceptance that they could BEGIN to demand marriage. Of course, you’d be wrong. In ancient Greece and Rome and Japan, homosexuality was perfectly accepted. No one cared, but they did not have gay marriage. This is just a puzzler to me, and the only thing I could come up with was that this is all a trendy-political fad. I really hope it is not because I have some bad news for gays if it is…
Marriage is not all it’s cracked up to be. Nothing’s free. The first thing you’re going to notice is that ONE of the partners will start asking, “Um, so why aren’t we married yet?” Trust me, that gets old. You will also find that you can’t just “break up.” Divorce is a long, evil process. It is not fast. It is not, get you stuff and go. It’s months or years in court, fights, lawyers, court costs, etc. Also, marriage is a completely different mindset. It is different that just living together. I think there may be a bit of buyer’s remorse after twenty years or so, but that’s just speculation. I am guessing that there will be almost V-day celebrations when the Feds force national acceptance of gay marriage. But I just have a sense that it’s more about the demand for the thing more than the thing itself.
All that being said, if it were on the ballot in my state, I’d probably vote for it. I cannot come up with a reason why two consenting adults cannot join in a marriage legally (in the eyes of God is a different matter, but I’ll leave that up to God to judge and decide on the other side…He’s a bit wiser than me).
I will say that gays could have an almost overnight success if they just change from calling it “marriage” to “civil union” as they would pick up and addition 10% to 15% support giving them a super-majority. That was argued against. Again, I think part of it is the desire to force something down someone’s throat (power trip). However, I had it put to me that it’s akin to the old “separate but equal” basically turns into “separate but not equal” in practice. That’s fair enough, but then you sue after being denied equal rights under the law, and you’ve backdoored into gay marriage. By that time, people would have gotten used to the idea, and the vast majority of people just flat wouldn’t care anymore.
That is my long and complete (if summarized) stance on gay marriage.
Long Live the Constitution!