In an article titled "The non-fanatic case against gay marriage" (
link), Geov Parrish says: "...as gay unions, in whatever form, draw closer to being a legal and cultural reality, a more nuanced, moderate opposition is gathering force. Secular opponents have raised questions that advocates must answer."
The Ivory Madonna applauds Mr. Parrish for attempting to discuss marriage for gays on a secular and non-fanatic basis. He says, "For better or worse, proponents of gay marriage need to understand and be able to respond to those concerns," and he deserves an answer.
So the Ivory Madonna, in the spirit of secular non-fanaticism, will now go through Mr. Parrish's article and address the points he raises.
First, Mr. Parrish wisely discounts the "slippery slope" argument that marriage for gays will inevitably lead to polygamy, bestiality, and marriages between people and household appliances. Like most "slippery slope" and "domino theory" arguments, this one is absurd.
However, says Mr. Parrish:
...the underlying point is worth examining. What does it mean if marriage is taken out of the church, taken out of its traditional limits, and derives its legal basis instead solely from contract law? It has implications for alimony and custody of children in divorces; for the finances and real property of common-law marriage; for the tax code; and much more. All must fundamentally change if the logic of gay marriage is followed. Imagine, for example, common property statutes -- or child custody -- if a half dozen pairs of people have various interlocking relationships.
Ahem. Marriage has been "out of the church" since the first Justice of the Peace married the first couple in a civil ceremony...at least a few centuries. Marriage has been a matter of "contract law" longer than the United States has been a country -- for as long as civil marriage laws have existed, in fact. At a guess, at least since Ancient Rome.
As for the specter of the legal chaos that would result from "a half dozen people [with] various interlocking relationships"...Mr. Parrish, have you looked at the current state of marriage and parenthood in the United States? Are you aware of how many children have multiple sets of parents, step-parents, custodial parents, birth parents, and ex-parents? Heterosexual marriage and divorce has already created the situation you seem to dread. It's hard to see how throwing a few homosexual marriages and divorces into the mix could "fundamentally change" the system of serial monogamy that now exists.
So...point number one is that marriage for gays will produce a situation almost exactly the same as what now exists. Sorry, Mr. Parrish, that's just not a very scary possibility.
Second, there's the "Promoting homosexuality" argument:
The most obvious objection, and hardly limited to avowed homophobes. The concern is simply that with the rearrangement of so much law to accommodate it, and stamp of “normality” attached, more and more people will try gay sex, or (gasp!) “become” gay. Reasons why this is seen as a bad thing, without considering any biblical sanctions, range from the traditional (yuck!) to issues of procreating for the species and public health with unsafe sex and multiple partners.
Let's see...allowing gay people to marry would produce
more unprotected sex and multiple partners than exist now? Er...exactly
how is that going to happen? Does marriage make heterosexual people engage in more unsafe sex and multiple partners?
As if heterosexuals don't engage in unsafe sex with multiple partners. Mr. Parrish, have you been to any high schools or colleges recently?
And are you aware that our world is seriously overpopulated? That today, with all the "permissiveness" and toleration for gays, there are
more people alive than at any time in history? Believe me, "procreating for the species" is not a problem.
And, of course, there's the traditional "yuck" factor. Hate to tell you, Mr. Parrish, but a lot of people think that what heterosexuals do in bed is "yucky." If the "yuck" factor were a legitimate reason for legislation, then brussels sprouts would be illegal.
The Ivory Madonna can't quite take seriously the claim that once people try gay sex, they will instantly convert to homosexuality. Huh? The Ivory Madonna can tell you, it's not like nicotine or heroin. One sample does not get you "hooked for life." Science tells us, in unequivocal terms, that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth or very early infancy. One doesn't suddenly "convert" to homosexuality the way one suddenly converts to born-again Christianism.
And besides -- if we're postulating a world in which there is little social stigma to being gay...in which gays are seen as "normal" or "just like straights" -- then where's the harm if people
do "decide to turn gay"?
Third, Mr. Parrish raises what he calls Undermining "family values":
Conservatives worry about the social impacts of removing the norms that have traditionally accompanied marriage, particularly gender and monogamy. If marriage is seen as simply a legal contract, such vows might be easier to dishonor, or ultimately break, than when it is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime union under God. Society has already been moving in this direction for decades, with rising divorce rates and the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America. Gay marriage, opponents fret, is more dirt on marriage’s coffin.
Again, Mr. Parrish seems to be under the delusion that we live in the 1950s. No, because the real 1950s weren't such great shakes...rather, let's say that Mr. Parrish seems to be under the delusion that we all live in the world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "The Donna Reed Show."
Someone is going to have to explain slowly, in very small words, exactly how the bonds of marriage could possibly be
easier to "dishonor, or ultimately break" than they are now. Let's try a thought experiment. If gays really are 10% of the population (a generous estimate), and if
every gay couple in the nation got married tomorrow, and if
every one of those couples got divorced right away...then the divorce rate would go up by a maximum of 10%.
Mr. Parrish, this particular horse escaped from this particular barn a couple decades ago.
If conservatives were truly worried about "the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America," then they would be working to prohibit divorce and make adultery illegal. Mr. Parrish, the sad fact is that keeping gay couples from marrying has no effect on heterosexual divorce rates. (As a matter of fact, divorce rates have risen during all the time that gay marriage has been illegal. Obviously, not allowing gay marriage makes more heterosexuals divorce. The sensible thing would be to try legalizing gay marriage and see what happens.)
And what's with this "dirt on the coffin" analogy? Is Mr. Parrish suggesting that it makes any sense to say, "Out of respect for the deceased, we cannot allow you to throw dirt on the coffin?" Mr. Parrish, have you ever been to a graveside funeral service? Throwing a handful of dirt on the coffin is the traditional thing to do. I thought conservatives loved "traditional" ways?
Mr. Parrish's last argument goes like this:
Finally, opposition to gay marriage also comes from more radical gays who worry about the opposite influence, and reject what they consider a fundamentally straight institution. While a more popular criticism a decade ago, it’s still out there: why should people who’ve spent a lifetime rebelling against society’s sexual norms suddenly aspire to embracing its most fundamental institution?
To which the Ivory Madonna can only whip her head around with a bemused expression and cry out, "What?!"
Mr. Parrish, no one is suggesting that marriage should be
compulsory for gays (or straights). Any radical gays who want to reject marriage as a straight insitution, are perfectly free to do so.
One might just as well propose that, since some people don't care for peach ice cream, then peach ice cream should be illegal.
...Oh. In the final analysis, that's what all Mr. Parrish's secular, non-fanatic arguments boil down to: Gays should not be allowed to marry, because some people don't like the idea. Call it waht you want, it still boils down to the "yuck" factor.
Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Parrish. The Ivory Madonna doesn't much care for the idea of other people having sex at all. It's one big "yuck" factor for her. Therefore, let her propose a Constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage for those who have sex...straight sex, gay sex, any kind of sex. Yuck!
...unless it involves the Ivory Madonna herself. Of course.
M.
The Ivory Madonna's story is told in
Dance for the Ivory Madonna by Don Sakers.
