What's the fuss?

[mbarker]

I don't understand why people object to two people deciding to get married.

Oh, yes, I recognize that these are two men or two women, instead of the heterosexual marriages of yore. So what?

Someone is going to say "civil union." Can you say separate, but not equal? We've tried various ways of discriminating in the past, and it never works out very well. Matter of fact, if you try to establish "separate but equal" facilities on most any other basis, people will just laugh at you as they drag your sorry butt into court. But apparently for same-sex couples, we're going to try separate but equal out one more time?

Or maybe someone wants to talk about challenging the sanctity of marriage? Nice words. But let's think about it. We've got two people here who want to participate in marriage. Sounds to me like they are confirming the sanctity of marriage. In fact, forcing people to relationships outside the rituals and sanctions of marriage seems like it breaks the sanctity of marriage. Not allowing people to take part in something doesn't seem like a very good way to support it?

Let's face it, marriage consists of at least three layers. One is the relationship and agreements between two people. And frankly, none of us can stop that. Any two people, same sex or different sex, can decide to establish a relationship. And can make commitments to that relationship, to that other person.

The second layer is the social one. This is the one where we as a society take notice of what two people are doing. This is the one that I think most people are talking about when they trot out the sanctity of marriage argument, because they think somehow that all the social recognition should be for one and only one type of relationship. Of course, that's not true. We've already gone from parental or clan decided marriages to the pair of lovers style. And there doesn't really seem to be any reason why society shouldn't recognize that two men, two women, or a cross-gender pair can fall in love.

What about the third one? Oh that's the civil contract. It really seems to be the simplest, since we allow contracts for almost anything and everything. Admittedly, we like to use standardized ones for standardized kinds of interactions, but I don't think the marriage contract would require much if any change.

So if we admit that any two people have the right to develop a relationship, and to celebrate it with our society, and even to register it with the mechanisms of government -- what's the fuss?

Don't tell me you're worried about two men or two women being forced into marriage by pregnancy?

Children, divorce, all the other fun and games that often goes with marriage? Of course, I'm sure that just because two people share a gender doesn't mean they can't get into fights and struggle with their relationship just as much as a cross-gender pair. But does the fact that they may have to work to make their marriage good make them any different? And does it give us the right to keep them from trying it out?

Nope. I just don't understand it. Let's admit that any two people can get married, clean up the laws and wording, and move on. Figuring out how to help people build healthy marriages that last, and that support both parties and the children in being the best people they can be -- now that's a challenge. And it won't happen if you just bar some couples from trying. It'll only happen when we work together to make every marriage a success, no matter what ages, colors, religions, or sexes are involved.

Let no man put asunder... it has a ring to it, doesn't it?

Comments

[jinkang.livejournal.com]

?

Just curios what prompted this. :)

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Mostly, I had read some news reports suggesting that they are arguing this again in some parts of the US, particularly Maine. And a friend asked what my opinion was. Having written it down, I decided to post it.

[saruby.livejournal.com]

As someone who is greatly affected by this issue, I really appreciate your stand. It has always seemed strange to me that no one talks about the Britney Spears or Jon and Kates of the world as challenging the sanctity of marriage. And yet my partner and I have been together nearly 28 years and have a 13 year old son. Not married because we cannot be. So we have gone through the laborious process of using other legal means to try to protect our child and each other. Not perfect, in fact far from the normal protections that any married couple automatically has. And you know, we really are very much like our neighbors, all heterosexual couples. We shovel snow, mow the lawn, take our kid to school, go to the block party every summer. Pretty much like any other middle-class American family.

So, thank you. It always makes me feel hopeful when gay marriage is supported by straight people.

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

You're quite welcome. There are times when we all need to think through where we stand, and then publicly say this is where I stand. Seems as if this is the right time for this one, at least for me.