I am a traditionalist on the question of marriage, as regular readers know, but by now it is impossible for a Republican candidate for office to move me on the question of what he's going to do to protect traditional marriage. If the politician is a Southern Baptist pastor, I can believe that he really believes what he's saying (unlike George W. Bush, or almost any other major Republican politician who's not Sam Brownback). But I also think that if Republican voters believe the GOP has any intention or capability of stopping gay marriage, they're lying to themselves. The moment of truth came in 2005, when Congress considered the Federal Marriage Amendment, which the president nominally supported. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. The FMA failed in the House, and the Senate couldn't even muster the votes to allow a debate. The president, who had ridden to re-election in part on the support of social and religious conservatives in the states who'd come out to vote in state anti-gay marriage initiatives, barely lifted a finger to campaign for the FMA. Nowadays, whenever you hear a Republican politician endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, you can be sure you're in the presence either of cynicism or naivete.
The FMA is the only measure that would have prevented courts from imposing same-sex marriage. If it couldn't get through Congress under the political conditions in 2005, it's never going to get through Congress. This is an issue that cultural conservatives have lost. And if you look at the polls, majorities of younger voters back same-sex marriage. Like it or not, same-sex marriage is one day going to be the law of the land, either by judicial fiat or (much better) legislatively. I'm not saying that's what I want to see. I'm saying that's what we're all going to see.
You know, I agree with Huckabee and others that if the legal and cultural definition of marriage is taken to be fluid and entirely subjective, that there's no limit on how far we can take it. But let's get real here: gays and their pro-same-sex-marriage allies are only lagging indicators of a vast cultural shift that, yes, heterosexuals forced. In the 1960s and since, marriage as an institution was revolutionized. No longer did people think of it as having an essential sacred meaning. Rather, people came to think of it as a contractual agreement between willing parties. Once that happens, the game is over. I'm not saying that people think of marriage solely in contractual terms. But divorce law and practice today does reflect that fundamental redefinition of marriage. It seems to me that cultural conservatives concerned (rightly) with the loss of the traditional understanding of marriage, both in the culture and in the law, lost the battle 30 and 40 years ago. Opposition to gay marriage looks to many SSM proponents like irrational prejudice because so many Americans long ago conceded, whether they knew what they were doing or not, that marriage is essentially contractual, and has no organic connection to transcendental values -- at least none that should be reflected in the law.
To put it another way, if most heterosexuals considered traditional marriage to be sacred, there wouldn't be so much divorce, and there wouldn't be so much cohabitation. I think SSM proponents understand this intuitively, which is why the more fair-minded of them believe anti-SSM folks argue in bad faith. Mind you, the fact that the majority made a bad decision a generation ago is no reason to accept the further development of that decision's consequences without protest. But recognizing that the deconstruction of traditional marriage did not start with the gay rights movement is necessary if cultural conservatives are to realistically understand where we are in this culture, where we're likely to go, and what the prospects for cultural renewal along the lines we recognize really are (answer: dismal).
[Note to commenters: I will delete without warning or apology any comments on this thread that I deem to be personally insulting or an impediment to a civil, rational exchange on this topic. If you are too emotional about it one way or another to talk to people who disagree with you without name-calling and suchlike, then don't even join the conversation.]
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Thanks for the insights from a Hindu perspective, Nate. Just a couple of quibbles ...
"if you want people to think about marriage as something sacred, something spiritual, you have to really invest in the language, symbolism, meanings, values, etc."
Many of us have certainly already done that and continue to do so. (I was married in my Christian Church.) And for us, our quarrel IS with a Government that selectively only recognizes SOME faith-based marriages - a true ignoring of the "promise" of freedom of religion - and selectively grants the con-committant benefits, rights, privileges and obligations. It is this discrimination we decry.
I, too, abhor the term "partner" and for pretty much the same reasons you do because I AM legally married to my husband. When I cross the border into the U.S. (as I will be doing next week) I give up so many rights and freedoms that it scares me because we are left in legal limbo, at the mercy of the prejudices of whatever institutional representative we may have to confront (border agents, health-care givers, etc.).
"I still don't want to waste money on something that I am not even sure I want blessed by God"
I certainly don't consider our legal struggle to BE a "waste [of] money", and I sure as heck believe it to BE "blessed by God". More power to those who only want a civil marriage, but marriage it must be in order for the "promise" of equality before the law to be achieved.
"It's up to the spiritual institutions not to fight government, but to lay out the path that is still sacred."
My "spiritual institution" HAS laid out such a sacred path and we call it marriage. I disagree that spiritual institutions ought not "fight government", especially considering that SOME such spiritual institutions - even the (imo) hateful ones already have their rites acknowledged by the government. All the affirming spiritual institutions want is equal treatment, the freedom to practise their tenets and to have their resultant marriages recognized equally before the law as those of non-affirming faith institutions.
Blessings to you.
Con hate gays no less than Hitler hated the Jews, or southerns hated (still do) the blacks.
Some day they will be enlightened or not.
And what is this about 'sacred' marrage anyway?? I know more faithful homo couples than hetero couples! LOL
As a gay male I am pleased to report that I no longer care if coservativism ever really succeeds regarding banning same-sex marraige or enforcing all of its tenets on society as a whole. I write this only to encourage other gays to try to do the same. We know that we are far more than our sexual preference (which they can't seem to see past) and our love is much too important to waste time defending the right to express it the same way heterosexuals have always enjoyed...and not enjoyed. Traditional marraige can easily be stripped down to a legally binding contract with or without a religious ceremony to kick it off, and heterosexuals really have done a lousy job of making the whole enterprise particularly appealing to me at this point. Oh sure there are plenty of success stories, and I would never want to undermine that wonderful and inspiring truth of love found and successfully shared. But they really don't seem to take it all that seriously anyway, given the high divoce rate that is incessantley spewed every time this debate is debated. So let's leave traditional marraige to the one's who really want it and can't bring themselves to share it with us. They have their reasons, as we all do for everything. Instead let's take FULL advantage of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the fact that life insurance policies allow for anyone to be the beneficiary. Indeed, if you do find love in this insane little world of ours then see to it that your signifigant other is protected by your last will and testament instead of taking it for granted that your blood relatives will do right by them in your wake. That's all it takes. Why get hung up on semantics? You can channel all that emotional angst that you would otherwise invest in fighting for your right to marry into something far more useful. Traditional marraige--let them keep it!
Hi Jason,
It is at times very difficult to "take FULL advantage of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the fact that life insurance policies allow for anyone to be the beneficiary".
First of all, the "FULL advantage of civil unions" doesn't exist since it does not confer some 1,138 FEDERAL benefits on same-sex couples. Also, CUs vary from State to State, plus several States passed laws forbidding not just marriage but ANY institution that paralleled marriage or that would confer ANY of the benefits of marriage on same-sex couples. CUs and "domestic partnerships" are NOT transferable between States. Individual States are not required to recognize them, let alone recognize perfectly legal marriages performed in Massachusetts or any of the 7 countries that now allow gay couples to actually legally marry.
Life insurance policies likewise vary. I used to work for a company who's insurer allowed same-sex benefits - but the COMPANY wouldn't. Their exact response to my request was, (and I quote) "We on't HAVE to, and we don't WANT to so we're not GOING to!" (An aside, I subsequently challenged their 'decision' through a human rights tribunal and they were forced to change their policy - much too late to help me [I had since left the company] but at least the lgbt employees who came after me got the benefit.)
"see to it that your signifigant other is protected by your last will and testament instead of taking it for granted that your blood relatives will do right by them in your wake."
Wills can and ARE frequently challenged by seethingly vengeful "families". Having one is no guarantee. Of course, marriages and their legal consequences can also be challenged (especially since only Massachusetts allows them and they are not 'portable' except in New York State), but that will be rectified when the many unConstitutional laws that those several States passed get struck down.
So clearly that ISN'T "all it takes".
"Why get hung up on semantics?"
For the simple reason that 'separate but equal' is NEVER "equal". Marriage is marriage.
"Traditional marraige--let them keep it!"
I assure you that my same-sex marriage is anything but "traditional", as are a lot of heterosexual marriages these days. The State has NO right in the bedrooms of the nation. Conservatives should surely understand that by now.
I think I am a bit late to join this conversation, but I went to great expense to make sure my parter was covered under my will and listed as my primary beneficiary. We are considering civil union and/or marriage and I thought this would solve the issue of taxes on any insurance payment in the event of my death. Unfortunately that is not the case. As my legal husband he would have to pay taxes that a "wife" would not. This is completely unreasonable and I would like some federal changes made to protect our financial interests. As for the "marriage" label, well, I will have to disagree with my gay and lesbian friends. When I came out 10 years ago, I never thought about marriage. No one ever talked about it. It was just not an option and even now I see very little support by the lgbt groups. Give me the same rights and call it whatever you want. I just think we are so caught up in this marriage war that we forget about the many many battles that we have won along the way. When most of the gay community stops deeming a 2 month relationship as "long term" then I might begin to understand the marriage point. Until then, I'm content knowing that I can visit my partner in the hospital and that he will be taken care of when I pass. You can say that the straight world doesn't understand or accept these as simple liberties and wants nothing more then to keep us apart, but have you ever asked your straight friends how they felt, or do you, like them, let the media and radicals on both side tell you how the other is thinking. We will get there. So what if it doesnt happen overnight. It will happen eventually. We are first and foremost human beings and humans are creatures of habit. Strip away the titles and labels, us against them attitude and it might just happen sooner then later.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.