The Ick Factor
I can't remember where I saw it, but not too long ago I read that the center of most people's objections to gay marriage can be summed up by the "ick factor." Most people in the reasonable middle of American life have come to the conclusion that gay people should not be hassled, and we'll make use of their talents in interior decorating and fashion, but that otherwise we'd really rather not be confronted by the icky reality of guys... kissing. And other things. While most people would never go out of their way to oppress the lavender minority, they still feel in their hearts what Sam Kinnison said:
How can a man look at another man's hairy ass, and feel love?
And this is where gay marriage comes in. This is the gay populace intruding the ickiness into respectable, normative straight institutions. And most people just don't like the idea. They're not likely to crusade on the issue unless it's crammed down their throats. (Which is what the amendment campaign would do. It would force people to choose sides. And by and large, we'd really be better off avoiding that.)
Left alone, consensus would probably drift towards greater acceptance of gays, and their inclusion in institutions like marriage. Americans don't, as a matter of course, like excluding anyone from anything - at least theoretically. And that bedrock presumption is what MLK played on in the sixties, shaming respectable white americans into believing, and acting on what was right.
I am personally affected by the ick factor when it comes to gay marriage. I don't feel that it's a good thing, and that the institution of marriage as currently defined supports many good things in our soceity. I fear that changing the definition will have some deleterious effects. Of course, this does not mean that I think that gays should be discriminated against in hiring, housing, or through outdated laws like Texas' sodomy statute. (Which also, IIRC, applied to heteros as well in some regards.) Those who argue that the sad state of hetero marriage is an argument in favor of gay marriage are getting it wrong. If it's in bad shape, it needs to be strengthened, not diluted.
My considered opinion is that I would like this issue to go away. We're not to the point (on either side) where we're ready to be discussing it reasonably, and now we are perilously close to permanently polarizing the debate, as happened to the much more serious issue of abortion when Roe v. Wade was handed down.
on
| § 16
§ 16 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Re: your next-to-last
Re: your next-to-last paragraph, what about deeper issues like power of attorney?
Also, what do you think about civil unions.
But that's putting the bad before the good. I disagree with you on the "ick" factor (that is, "ick" isn't a particularly strong defense on policy points to me), but I respect your saying it, as well as the clarity of your analysis.
The problem is that the issue is NOT going to go away, especially since some enterprising souls on the Right have decided to go nuclear and take it to the Federal Constitution.
("Oh, there you go, blaming the right again!" Yes, there I go. This is a perfect case for states-rights conservatives, yet they can't get around the "ick and sin" stuff.)
"How can a man look at
"How can a man look at another man's hairy ass, and feel love?"
Does it count if I'm looking at myself in a mirror?
Narcissism does not count.
Narcissism does not count.
What about Power of Attorney?
Ick is not a strong policy argument, which is why I earlier said that I was waffling worthy of the Johno himself. I feel the ick, and can justify it on religious grounds (to my satisfaction, at least) but can't justify it in terms of my conceptions of how liberty in a republic should work.
Civil Unions are just stealth gay marriage, but I can cope with that. Fine! Let civil unions be legal. But I knew it wouldn't stop there.
Yes, the right did go nucular. But they was provoked. If the gay lobby or whatever had stopped at civil unions, they probably could have gotten that, and solidified that accomplishment. Instead, they rushed forward to the gay marriage thing, which then frightened all those already bothered by the civil union thingy.
I will buy your states' rights argument for gay marriage if you will accept it for abortion.
It's a deal. Neither issue is
It's a deal. Neither issue is the rightful province of the Federal government.
And who, exactly, provoked the right into going nuclear, and how? The "gay lobby, or whatever?" Who are those?
On the matter of power of
On the matter of power of attorney: what I mean is, at this point one of the heartstring issues surrounding gay marriage is the matter of granting one's partner power of attorney. That's not the ONLY issue, but it's a good one for teasing out the complexities. Say Adam is dying of cancer, and his longtime partner Steve acts as his support. He keeps Adam company, handles business matters, arranges for the funeral, deals with doctors, medications, the insurance company, etc. He bears a great emotional and personal burden. Adam and Steve have a document which grants Steve the power of attorney over Adam's affairs.
Then, let's say the long-estranged family enters the picture. In most places, the wishes of the family-- regardless of whether Adam/Steve agree with them-- take precedence over any arrangement the two may have made, and many times documents like Adam and Steve have are considered invalid. Consequence: Steve is kicked to the curb with no thanks and no recourse, gets none of the estate, and is left with no access to the legacy of the person who shared his life.
All of which would have been moot had the state they lived in recognized the right of gay couples to exercise power of attorney on behalf of each other.
By the way, on the matter of abortion, the question is regrettably moot. Although I am personally pro-choice with deep reservations, I realize that Roe vs. Wade is a troubled decision that raises many vexed issued. Also, whether or not I think abortion is a federal matter, it is. Gay marriage isn't quite to that point yet, and I pray that somehow that train never makes it to the station.
I see no reason on any
I see no reason on any grounds to deny a power of attorney. If a sane, coherent person offers it, it should not be overturned by the courts no matter who it is given to.
I didn't mean any particular group, which is why I phrased it as I did. But the recent court rulings, following many others, caused the supporters of a marriage amendment to feel that there was no other way to fight for what they believe in. And they're right - if, no matter how many battles they win in legislatures, through propositions or any other tool of democracy, they will be overruled by the courts then they really have no other recourse.
Sam Kinnison has it wrong.
Sam Kinnison has it wrong. (and I believe he was a minister of sorts) Gay men wax their asses. It's true. I lived in the SF Gay district for 4.5 years and I saw a lot of buns in chaps. If only I could see more of that on the east coast, I'd probably want to stay here.
Civil Unions are just stealth
Civil Unions are just stealth gay marriage, but I can cope with that. Fine! Let civil unions be legal.
The problem there is that the SC outright said in Brown that "separate but equal" is inherently un-equal, and I can't think of a good argument why it should be true for race but not for sexual orientation.
Anyway, I can't take Bush seriously on all his "protecting the sanctity of marriage" talk if he really thinks that banning gay marriage is really what the issue is. Is he about to pursue a ban no-fault divorce? Ban Britney Spears quickie marriages? Any of that?
No -- this is all about cutting of gays and lesbians at the knees before they continue on their current course of uppity-ness.
Skin color is not an option -
Skin color is not an option - and segregating people on the basis of rce, or indeed sexual orientation is and would be wrong. However, marriage is not a mandatory thing. And it consists of a man and a woman. Redefining that institution changes it, irrevocably. Civil unions would give gay couples all most of the advantages in law of a marriage. And there are plenty of churches that would solemnify that union. But that doesn't make it marriage. And forcing that change down the throats of everyone who opposes it isn't right.
Before I pile on, let's say
Before I pile on, let's say that I define a marriage as consisting of two people.
Why do you believe your definition should supercede mine?
Name specific people whose throats are being crammed.
Well, because my definition
Well, because my definition is thousands of years older, for starters. And it's being crammed down the throats of everyone who opposes it - a large fraction of the American population.
I probably did not phrase my last comment as well as I should have. If we all had a big vote, and gay marriage won, fine - but when this great change in how we order our society is engineered by fiat, by a small group of judges; well, people get frustrated. And there is little doubt that any such proposition would be soundly defeated, now and for the foreseeable future. We do not need to institute gay marriage to liberate the homosexuals - God forbid! They are already free.
Marriage is not like segregation. It is an institution that does not bear any resemblance to slavery, or to any other of the verging on hysterical analogies) that some have made. So long as we are not oppressing homosexuals (and by watching network tv, I see that we are not) we as a society have no obligation to change what marriage is to suit a tiny fraction of the population that has no compelling need for it - especially if we allow civil unions that give most of the benefits in law that a marriage does.
The thing that irks me in general is this whole concept of "redefining" something. Come up with a new word, don't ruin mine. Marriage means the union of a man and a woman. Ross you - or any other group of people - can't just randomly redefine words to suit your purposes. Language shouldn't be subject to politically correct changes by the soi disant enlightened.
Skin color is not an option .
Skin color is not an option . . .
JFTR, I don't accept the implied contrast here.
I can accept your arguments as honestly held, but I think the appeals to majoritarianism on this issue are so much hand-waving. Not everything that the majority wants is the right thing -- I don't believe that my fellow citizens should only be permitted to exercise their rights, any rights, at the indulgence of 50%+1 -- and sometimes the frustration and whatnot that occur when a court decides that "equal protection" actually means "equal protection" occurs because the frustrated are on the wrong damned side.
It seems to me that you're engaging in some . . . what's the gerund form here? Tautologizing? "What's marriage?" The union of a man and a woman. "But only men and women are legally allowed to marry." That's because that's what marriage is.
Quite aside from the fact that there's a perfectly common usage of "marriage" to describe other (usu. metaphorical) unions, we redefine words and things all the time. Prior to 1865, we had a definition of "citizen" that failed to include blacks or Indians. During that time period, it would have been preposterous to suggest that those people had rights -- after all, they weren't even citizens!
My marriage is strong enough to survive letting gay people join the club, and I bet yours is, too.
It really isn't
It really isn't majoritarianism that I'm pushing here. As I've said, I'm conflicted on this issue. I have nothing against the gay community per se, except that I wish that they would leave well enough alone. I think that the real analogy for this issue is not color, but creed. They are, in a sense, proselytizing. They want all the straight people do adopt their view of marriage, and I resist that. I don't want to be converted. I don't think that gay marriage will lead to more people becoming gay, or anything like that. My opposition is more visceral than anything else. My libertarian leaning political mental furniture inclines me to live and let live, but the pushiness of the process gets my back up.
And as I mentioned when talking about the marriage amendment, I think that moving in this direction will polarize the debate in a very bad way, and the responsibility for that does not lay solely with the right.
This isn't a battle that I'd
This isn't a battle that I'd really want to fight, either. Be aware, Steve, that your guy is going to use this issue exactly _as_ a polarizing device, in order to increase voter turnout. Do I believe that Bush cares one way or the other about gay marriage? Nope. I think he'a live and let live kinda guy. But he sees a path to renewed power, here. And he's going to take it. Or more precisely, Rove will create this polarization.
Civil unions seem like a good step to me too -- getting the legal issues out of the way is very important. Two little old ladies who've been living together for forty years ought to have _rights_ with respect to each other. I think we agree there.
The problem is that in the real world, civil unions barely exist. Maybe a little horse-trading is called for...we can reserve the word "marriage" for the fundamentalist crowd, and just make damn sure that the legal framework is equitable.
Later on, ten or fifteen years from now, when prejudices will be well on their way to dying out, we'll fix it properly. I can live with that.
I think there are very few gay people out there who really _want_ to be "married", and call it that publicly. It's all about live and let live.
"Look over there!" politics at its finest...
"I wish that they would leave
"I wish that they would leave well enough alone"
" They want all the straight people do adopt their view of marriage"
How does allowing gay couples to marry constitute adopting their view of marriage. I assume you got married under the auspices of the Orthodox Church, if I know you. That's a specific set of rites, beliefs, and assumptions that are particular to you, and that give your marriage meaning to you.
How do gay couples marrying affect that? I know for a FACT that your marriage is far stronger than that.
Your wish that they would leave well enough alone is valid on a personal level, but fallacious on a policy level. For my part, I wish the social conservatives would leave well enough alone on the issue. Talk about pushy... we noted yesterday they've gone nucular.
Although you don't see what the big deal is, apparently it's a big deal to them. C.V. the labor movement 100 years ago, (yes,) civil rights, or the ERA. People rolled their eyes at those movements too.
What I'm hearing from you is that you don't like it, and therefore don't want to hear it. I'm glad you understand that that's not the way it works, but please try to take that to heart.
When I was born in Virginia,
When I was born in Virginia, it was against state law for persons of different "race" to marry. In the most wonderfully named case to ever hit the Supremes, Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation law was overturned. Virginia's focus returned to discrimination in education and the world continued to turn. 34 odd years later, I'll most Virginians wouldn't believe me if I told them of this law. My guess is the same will apply 34 years after whatever passes for "gay marriage." It'll be a big ho hum.