Tag Archives: Homosexuality

Arguing Equality Chapter 7: Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage

Posted on by

This is a nine-part installment designed to help everyone understand marriage equality.  For some, it will be an education, for others, it will be helpful when discussing the subject.  I have included links to each chapter at the end, as well as information about the author.

CHAPTER 7: 

THE SANCTITY OF THE INSTITUTION

PROTECTING MARRIAGE

Inherently related yet subtly distinct from the slippery slope argument is the notion that same-sex unions would somehow undermine the institution of marriage. Proponents of this viewpoint can be expected to make the following empirical observations: Marriage is already in a weakened and precarious state; At present, over 50% of marriages end in divorce; An almost epidemic number of children are being born out of wedlock; Marriage is the “bedrock of ourculture”; It must be protected at any cost.

Gay marriage opponents go on to conclude their points with apocalyptic visions of the moral decay of our nation – legalizing gay marriage would threaten the sanctity of the institution upon which our very society rests. The editors of the Catholic magazine Commonweal, for instance, argued that: “[E]levating same-sex unions to the same moral and legal status as marriage will further throw into doubt marriage’s fundamental purposes and put at risk a social practice and moral ideal vital to all.”

[W]e are not predicting that there is going to be an erosion of marriage, but I think the melancholy point is this, that the notion of marriage may not be extended to take in, to accommodate the concern for gay marriage without setting off many other kinds of changes, and as a result of those changes, I think we would find that marriage would not have that special kind of significance that makes it an object right now of such craving.

A) Confronting the Stereotype

Unfortunately, a great deal of erroneous information has been disseminated in recent years involving stereotypical portrayals of gay people, the gay rights movement, and a so-called “homosexual agenda” to undermine American cultural standards. With respect to marriage specifically, these misconceptions often translate into a fear that once permitted to wed, gays and lesbians will make a mockery of the institution by treating the marital bond as less than sacrosanct, or, worse yet, will threaten the institution of marriage by deliberately sabotaging it from within.

Of course, these fears lie wholly unsupported in fact. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens who want to marry want to do so for much the same reasons heterosexuals do – ideas of mutual love, support, and commitment. Indeed, gay people would likely be the institution’s most “enthusiastic recruits,” seeking not to destroy the institution, but rather to take part in it, and thereby strengthen it.22 In the words of Rabbi Yoel H. Kahn: “I do not believe that encouraging commitment, stability, and openness undermines the institution of family — it enhances it.”

B) The Hypocrisy of the Argument

If conservatives are truly worried about the demise of marriage, why not target Las Vegas-style weddings, or no-fault divorce laws, or adultery? Why the fixation on the one group of people excluded from the institution, the one group of people who could not possibly be responsible for its decline? The answer is clear. As Stephen Chapman put it: “Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays.”

C) The Cross-Cultural Analogy

It seems strange, if not hypocritical, that the same people who proclaim the institution of marriage to be “the bedrock of our civilization” also argue that it is so fragile that allowing gays access to it will endanger it forever. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands, which have all legalized gay marriage and are hardly racked by moral decay, provide concrete evidence that this fear is grounded in neither fact nor reason.

D) Strengthening the Institution

In some ways, one might expect that gay marriages would not mirror their heterosexual counterparts, an inevitable byproduct of gender differences between same-sex and opposite-sex unions. While some have theorized that this alteration in traditional marital structures would destroy the institution, a better argument would be that it would actually strengthen the institution by pushing marriage in its evolution towards being a partnership of equals.

Professor Nan Hunter, for instance, theorizes that the traditional notion of marriage, with man as head of the household and wage-earner and woman as housekeeper and childrearer, would necessarily be challenged by examples of same-sex households where a woman is the wage-earner, a man is the housekeeper, or, ultimately, the partners share the roles.25 Recognition of same-sex marriages, she notes, “would radically strengthen and dramatically illuminate the claim that marriage partners are presumptively equal.” In this vein, Hunter and others theorize that heterosexual women could benefit from the legalization of gay marriage almost as much as gays and lesbians.

Lets put this all in perspective. What is this all really about?

E) A Note On Change

Finally, it would be wise to note that arguments which employ slippery slopes or refer to the “sanctity of the institution” are for the most part simply arguments of fear. People are always wary of change, and for many, gay marriage represents change of a particularly powerful kind. In this vein, as we explored with respect to slippery slope arguments, it might help to note that the institution of marriage has undergone tremendous transformations over the past few centuries; recognition of same-sex unions would not be the first, nor the most drastic, step in the evolution.

Here’s a brief history lesson: To begin with, African-American slaves at one time had no family rights and were not permitted to marry. As a nineteenth-century jurist put it, “whether [slaves] ‘take up’ with each other by express permission of their owners or from a mere impulse of nature, [their marriages] cannot in the contemplation of the law make any sort of difference.”

While African-Americans were later extended the right to marry, miscegenation laws remained on the books. Virginia’s antimiscegenation law, for instance, was first adopted in 1691 to prevent “abominable mixture and spurious issue,” and was not declared unconstitutional until 1967.

The institution of marriage has evolved in other ways as well. At one point, marriage was essentially a business deal which had little to do with love. Marriages cemented family ties, prevented feuding between rival clans or countries, and provided social status for men and economic support for women. Marriages were typically arranged, and bride-prices were bargained between the father of the bride and her future husband.

Vestiges of these business transaction functions of marriage remained a part of the marital institution until recent times, including those which treated women as the “property” of their husbands. In 1967, for instance, every state exempted from its criminal laws a rape by a husband of his wife – a woman was seen as the “property” of her husband and had a “duty” to provide him with sexual gratification. Ultimately, women succeeded in convincing legislators that the entitlements of marriage did not include a husband’s free reign over his wife’s body, and every state either curtailed or repealed its marital rape exemption by 1993.

Indeed, if one takes a broad look at the institution, very few aspects of marriage have stayed the same: Marriage is not “traditionally” monogamous (in the Old Testament, Jacob’s two wives and two concubines produced the head of the twelve tribes, and King Solomon is said to have had 10,000 wives); Does not “traditionally” involve a religious blessing (in early Christian unions, marriage was not yet a sacrament); and was not “traditionally” recognized by law (centuries of European “parole” marriages were conducted outside the law). As scholar E.J. Graff notes: “Each era’s marriage institutionalizes the sexual bond in a way that makes sense for that society, that economy, that class.… Marriage is – marriage has always been – variations on a theme.”

I talk, obviously as others do, to people in my district, and I have people tell me:.

  • “I am worried about losing my Medicare.”
  • “I am worried about losing my job.”
  • “I am worried about the lack of safety on the streets.”
  • “I am worried that there is not enough money now to continue with toxic waste cleanup.”

Never yet has someone come to me and said, “Congressman, I am terribly threatened. There are two women who are deeply in love a couple of miles away from me. And if you do not prevent them from formalizing their union, this will be terrible for me, and, in fact, will threaten my marriage.” I know of no heterosexual marriage, the form of marriage that we have that has sustained us, that is threatened by this.  – Congressman Barney Frank, during Congressional hearings on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

via Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Seth Persily is a member of the Georgia Bar and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, Mr. Persily served as Publisher of the Harvard Law Record and co-President of the Lambda Law Association. Mr. Persily obtained his undergraduate degree from Duke University, where he served as President of the Duke Gay, Bisexual & Lesbian Association. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. in Religion and a minor in Gay & Lesbian Studies.

Mr. Persily worked at the Atlanta law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan before opening his own practice, Persily & Associates, which concentrates on employment discrimination and real estate law. He serves on the Board of Directors for Georgia Equality as well as YouthPride.

Related articles

Arguing Equality Chapter 5: Gay Couples and Children

Posted on by

This is a nine-part installment designed to help everyone understand marriage equality.  For some, it will be an education, for others, it will be helpful when discussing the subject.  I have included links to each chapter at the end, as well as information about the author.

CHAPTER 5:

GAY MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION

BUT GAYS CANNOT REPRODUCE

What purpose does marriage serve? Why should the government sanction it? Gay marriage opponents often utilize questions such as these to probe the heart of the marital institution, analyzing its essential form and function to demonstrate that marriage is – and ought to be – an inherently heterosexual institution.

Marriage, as the argument goes, is an institution created and celebrated for one all-important purpose — to sustain a healthy environment for raising children. As James Q. Wilson, author of The Moral Sense, puts it: “A family is not an association of independent people; it is a human commitment designed to make possible the rearing of moral and healthy children. Governments care — or ought to care — about families for this reason, and scarcely for any other.”

If the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the question of same-sex marriage comes down to the biology of the sex organs. A man and a woman can have a child, but a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, cannot. Since same-sex couples cannot procreate, they cannot fulfill this basic function of marriage.

To put the argument simply, the purpose of marriage is to foster procreation. Gays cannot procreate. Therefore, gays cannot marry. This is not a matter of discrimination, it is simple human biology.

Below you will find the most popular ways of countering this supposition, and depending on your social and political outlook, you can choose ay one of them, or all. Click below to learn some of the basic arguments.

A) Gay People Do Have Children

The first flaw in this reasoning is that — contrary to popular opinion — gay people can, and do, raise children. Some gays and lesbians have children born from a prior heterosexual relationship, others adopt children, many go the route of artificial insemination or surrogate parenting. Indeed, what many refer to as the “gayby boom” is no small phenomenon — figures place the number of lesbian mothers in the United States at 1 to 5 million and the number of gay fathers at 1 to 3 million.

B) The Infertile Couple Analogy

There are far more sterile heterosexual unions in America than homosexual ones. The “anatomical possibility” crowd cannot have it both ways. If the possibility of children is what gives meaning to marriage, then a post-menopausal woman who applies for a marriage license should be turned away at the courthouse door. What’s more, she should be hooted at and condemned for stretching the meaning of marriage beyond its natural basis and so reducing the institution to frivolity. People at the Family Research Council or Concerned Women for America should point at her and say, “If she can marry, why not polygamy?” –Jonathan Rauch, For Better or Worse?

Procreativity speaking, there is no difference between a sterile heterosexual couple, a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children, and a homosexual couple. Thus as a matter of logical consistency, if the government is to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry because they cannot procreate, then it must necessarily deny post-menopausal women and impotent couples that right as well.

As Mark Strasser notes:

It is at best disingenuous to hold that an essential precondition of marriage is that the couple plans to have children, but that the state’s requiring only certain people to meet that condition is a mere theoretical imperfection. In any case, no responsible legal authority believes that the desire and willingness to have children is an essential precondition of marriage except in the context of attempting to show why there can be no homosexual marriages.

Indeed, any argument that justifies an impotent heterosexual marriage also justifies a homosexual one, and thus if sterile or elderly couples cannot be denied the right to marry on procreative possibility grounds, than neither can gays or lesbians.

The argument laid forth below is for the conservative-minded. Quit simply, marriage, gay or straight, is good for society, and should therefore be encouraged. Many straight and gay single individuals would question why couples receive any benefits at all versus married or coupled individuals.

C) Insurance and Companionship

Of course sterile heterosexual couples can get married, a fact not likely to change any time soon. And for good reason. Despite the rhetoric of gay marriage opponents, marriage is widely considered to be “the bedrock of our civilization” for reasons as important, if not more important, than the rearing of children.

Marriage as Social Insurance

One of the biggest problems any society faces is how to care for an individual when they can no longer care for themselves. If single, an individual with Alzheimer’s or cancer might be fortunate enough to rely on friends or family. But then, again, they might not, in which case they will fall under the responsibility of the state – often at substantial cost.

The benefit of a marital “partner,” for both the individual and society, is to help guarantee that one will not have to rely on the government during times of need. As Jonathan Rauch notes: “If marriage has any meaning at all, it is that when you collapse from a stroke, there will be at least one other person whose ‘job’ is to drop everything and come to your aid.

From a purely economic perspective, marriage serves as a form of social insurance. Its participants are provided with a reliable partner “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.” It is for this reason that elderly and sterile couples are permitted, indeed encouraged, to marry – not because they will bear children, but rather because marriage promotes individual and societal stability.

Marriage as Companionship

Of course marriage is more than just a machinization of social insurance; it is an expression of love. When men and women decide to wed, it is not usually because they are contemplating the insurance features of marriage, but rather because they are in love and want to make a binding commitment to be together for life.

From a religious perspective, this “companionship” function of marriage was present from the very first couple onward. Indeed, according to the Bible, God created a partner for Adam not for procreative purposes, but rather because: “God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone’ (Genesis 2:18).” Jeffrey John notes:

“Complementarity and companionship are at least as much a part of God’s plan in creation as childbirth. Indeed it is remarkable that in the Genesis account childbirth emerges only as an afterthought, and in the rather negative context of God’s punishment of Eve (3:16). It is highly significant that Jesus and Paul, while both referring to the creation story, never once mention procreation or physical sexual difference in their teaching about marriage. On the contrary, their stress is entirely on the quality of the relationship, and in particular that it should be a covenant of total sexual fidelity and indissoluble union.”

Marriage is not just about procreation and child-rearing. It is a system of insurance and a guarantee of stability, an expression of love and a promise of lifelong companionship. To argue that gays and lesbians should be denied the right to marry because they cannot produce children or have the “wrong sexual organs,” then, fails to take the entire picture into account.

Point/ Counterpoint

While most would no doubt agree that companionship is a noteworthy goal of marriage, many opponents would add that gender differentiation is a material component of that companionship. A man is meant to complete a woman, it is argued, and a woman to complete a man – a theory known among Christian scholars as “complementarity.”

However, lifelong gay and lesbian couples provide demonstrative evidence that one’s companion need not be someone of the opposite sex. Indeed, a vast array of sociological and psychological literature reveals that the bond between same-sex couples can be as emotional and powerful as that between opposite-sex couples. Psychologist C.A. Tripp, for instance, reports that:

[T]he settled qualities of the homosexual couple tend to be precisely those which characterize the stable heterosexual relationship. The similarities evidenced in daily life are especially noticeable. The way the partners interact as they engage in conversation, the way casual affection is expressed and minor irritations are dealt with, as well as how visitors are treated, or dinner is served, and myriad other details of everyday life are all more or less indistinguishable.

“The heterosexuality of marriage is civilly intrinsic only if it is understood to be inherently procreative. And that definition has long been abandoned in civil society. In contemporary America, marriage has become a way in which the state recognizes an emotional and economic commitment between two people to each other for life.” – Andrew Sullivan, The Politics of Homosexuality

via Gay Couples and Children.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Seth Persily is a member of the Georgia Bar and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, Mr. Persily served as Publisher of the Harvard Law Record and co-President of the Lambda Law Association. Mr. Persily obtained his undergraduate degree from Duke University, where he served as President of the Duke Gay, Bisexual & Lesbian Association. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. in Religion and a minor in Gay & Lesbian Studies.

Mr. Persily worked at the Atlanta law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan before opening his own practice, Persily & Associates, which concentrates on employment discrimination and real estate law. He serves on the Board of Directors for Georgia Equality as well as YouthPride.

Related articles

Arguing Equality Chapter 2: Marriage is a Civilizing Influence

Posted on by

This is a nine-part installment designed to help everyone understand marriage equality.  For some, it will be an education, for others, it will be helpful when discussing the subject.  I have included links to each chapter at the end, as well as information about the author.

CHAPTER 2:

MARRIAGE AS A “CIVILIZING INFLUENCE”

An argument which has gained considerable appeal in some communities rallies around the irony that the very same people who crucify gays as promiscuous in one breath often vilify gay marriage in the next. If promiscuity is anathema and gay marriage is immoral, then what alternatives do gay men and lesbians have? All too often, what appears to be the appealing alternative is to conceal one’s sexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex. Andrew Sullivan makes quick work of this option:

Presumably, it is against the interest of heterosexual families to force homosexuals into roles they are not equipped to play and may disastrously perform. This is not an abstract matter. It is quite common that homosexual fathers and mothers who are encouraged into heterosexual marriages subsequently find the charade and dishonesty too great to bear: spouses are betrayed, children are abandoned, families are broken, and lives are ruined.

A second choice for the gay individual, and that which is advocated by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations, is to live a life of celibacy. Of course, this alternative is largely unrealistic, highly arbitrary, and definitively inequitable. Under this schema the heterosexual is permitted, indeed encouraged, to lead a fruitful, healthy, loving life while the homosexual is expected to live a life of loneliness and isolation. As Bruce Bawer explains: “[G]ay Christians simply cannot conceive of a God who would bless them with the ability to love and yet demand that they spend their lives alone.”

The last viable option, then, is homosexual monogamy. To be sure, this is a sound choice for many, but lifelong commitment is no easy task – with all the social, religious, and government assistance that heterosexual couples receive, over half of all marriages still end in divorce. A monogamous gay couple, receiving none of this assistance, certainly faces an uphill battle.

And thus society, through its laws, pushes the gay individual away from monogamy towards solitary promiscuity or unstable roles in heterosexual family units. It is as if, as one author put it, “it is somehow in the interest of traditional families that gay men be encouraged to lead lonely, promiscuous lives rather than be permitted to marry each other.

Instead of placing obstacles in the path of gay couples, it seems that the smarter, more palatable alternative from a societal perspective would be to encourage monogamy and stability. As the editors of The Economist put it: “Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals — and society surely benefits when they have it.”

In a sentence: legalizing gay marriage is not only a matter of justice, it is smart common sense.

“How ironic that promiscuity and instability are stereotypes associated with a group in society that has been trying to gain recognition of their stable relationships. And, how ironic it is that a society that embraces these stereotypes will not offer the mechanism, marriage, by which same-sex partners could demonstrate their commitments to each other and to their relationship.” – Deborah Gray, “Marriage: Homosexual Couples Need Not Apply”

via Marriage is a Civilizing Influence.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Seth Persily is a member of the Georgia Bar and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, Mr. Persily served as Publisher of the Harvard Law Record and co-President of the Lambda Law Association. Mr. Persily obtained his undergraduate degree from Duke University, where he served as President of the Duke Gay, Bisexual & Lesbian Association. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. in Religion and a minor in Gay & Lesbian Studies.

Mr. Persily worked at the Atlanta law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan before opening his own practice, Persily & Associates, which concentrates on employment discrimination and real estate law. He serves on the Board of Directors for Georgia Equality as well as YouthPride.

Related articles

POTUS: Right Side of History

Posted on by

Scott –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:


http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

Thank you,

Barack

Related articles