Positive Liberty

One year after same-sex civil marriage came to Massachusetts, Andrew Sullivan is celebrating:

The next generation will grow up - gay and straight - fully aware of the existence of marriage as an option for gay couples, even if that option is in another state or another country. That will deeply and subtly change social expectations for gay men and women; it will alter sex and dating; it will counter some of the homophobia and low self-esteem that strangles some gay youth. It will tell the next generation of homosexuals: you have a future. That future is one of love and commitment and social integration. It is not assured. But it is conceivable.

So seize the moment. One thing that amazes me about some gay people at this time is a recourse to fear, a sense that somehow we are doomed, that the religious right will crush us, that we have asked too much and will face the consequences. This is far too negative. Any look at the broader perspective has to concede that the reason homophobia is resurgent in some quarters right now is that we have come so far so fast. The religious right is frightened by our success, not gloating over our failure. The key thing now is to keep our nerve, to celebrate our relationships, to consolidate our gains in one state, Massachusetts, and patiently work, state by state, for equality to prevail.

So yes, let’s raise a glass. I’m tempted to note that my own legal marriage, celebrated in Canada, is now almost two years old. Young and healthy, Scott and I look forward to telling the grandkids about the times we’re living in right now: Not only were we there, not only did we see it happen, but we made it happen. We even have pictures to prove it.

But I’ve also spent a lot of time lately discussing with opponents of same-sex marriage. I think it is a good idea to listen to our opponents’ fears and to treat them with respect. This is not not because their fears are always legitimate, but because even if they are not, we will do well to understand their position. We may even learn something substantive about marriage, family life, and children. After all, these folks have been at it for a lot longer than we have.

One thread has been particularly instructive. Based on this and on several other discussions, it seems one of the first things that we advocates of same-sex marriage should learn is that many of our opponents do not find our demands to be sincere. When they look the argument for same-sex marriage, they don’t see an argument. They see a front for something else.

They believe that heterosexual marriage really is under threat, and that we really are attacking it. They find that those who agitate for same-sex marriage are either 1) secretly out to destroy heterosexual marriage or 2) dupes of those who are. And these people mean it, in case you haven’t noticed. They’re serious, and we’d best start taking them seriously too. As one anti-SSM commenter wrote,

to make the field level for gay people, we have to lower the standards for everyone — is that it?

Now of course there is a certain homophobia here. To my mind there is no reason why homosexual and heterosexual relationships placed in the same institution will drag only the heterosexual ones down. Given how many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, one would think that the greater problem lies with how successful marriages must share the same institution with so many failed ones.

It’s easy to point out that straights have botched the institution of marriage completely unaided, and that whatever harm has been done cannot possibly be ascribed to us. We might even recall the words of one man, never married, who advised some caution about attending to the mote in a neighbor’s eye. And, spitefully, we might note that most straight people aren’t even waiting until marriage to have sex anymore–tradition be damned. (And why should they? To wait for the blessing of God may be noble and principled, but to wait for the blessing of a bureaucrat is both unsexy and un-American.)

But all the same, for some reason the blame has come to us, and we who support same-sex marriage need to do a better job of answering the fears of the straight community. The above-quoted comment touched off the following response from another reader:

Believe it or not… people all over the country are protecting the foundational & beleaguered institution of marriage against would be imitators…

Before SSM proponents can convince people that their agenda is worthwhile they need to persuade people that protecting traditional marriage is unnecessary.

Now, this presents many difficulties, not the least of which is that we cannot prove a negative. What puts us in this unfortunate position at all, though, is that so many have been sold on the idea that same-sex marriage can only advance as traditional marriage retreats. This was Maggie Gallagher’s warning from a year ago, on the eve of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

Cultures, communities, religions, sects and societies that lose the marriage idea die out. They are replaced by cultures, communities, sects and societies that prioritize, celebrate and embrace the idea of bringing men and women together to make the future happen. That’s what marriage means.

The problem here is that same-sex marriage isn’t really in competition with opposite-sex marriage, except perhaps for the tiny minority of bisexuals. If you are straight and oppose same-sex marriage, ask yourself: Would you really be tempted to partner with a member of the same sex–but only if you could marry him? Would you personally be less inclined to marry a woman–merely because men can marry one another? Would you be so put off that you’d forsake procreation with your wife? And this just because you once had to stand behind a homosexual at city hall?

Now, I am well aware that there may be unintended, unknown consequences to same-sex marriage, and that proceeding too quickly may do a harm that we cannot see. This is exactly why the United States has a federal system, which makes certain that unintended consequences usually arrive slowly and with plenty of time for correction. Our federal system means that we can forthrightly go about challenging those things that seem wrong to us–with far less fear that we ourselves will commit a disastrous mistake. If this means waiting longer for justice, then fine. It’s the price we pay for avoiding a great many unseen evils, and it means that the fear of unintended consequences should not stop anyone from working peacefully toward their own idea of justice.

Lest there be any further fears, our message to straights should be that by sheer numbers, opposite-sex marriage will always be dominant. And that’s perfectly fine with those of us on the same-sex side. We like marriage so much that we’ve imported it to places where it had never been found before. In doing so, we have seen marriage revitalize and transform the gay community.

Even where legal marriage doesn’t yet exist, more and more of us are performing rites to affirm our commitment. It’s given us a way to declare ourselves to friends, family, and the members of our faith communities. Even without the rubber stamp of the state, the movement for same-sex marriage has brought greater understanding and affirmation for same-sex relationships. The dignity of standing before others and declaring a lifelong love turns out to be important after all. More than anything else, the transformation that marriage has wrought upon gays and lesbians should be a sign of the institution’s latent strength, not its present-day difficulties.

In other words: Relax. It’s been a heck of a year, just not in the way you expected.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS