In Defense of Gay Marriage

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (9)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  While I support equal rights for gays, and favor civil unions, I am reluctant to support the proposal that would allow gay marriage.  My reasons are complex, but in one aspect, I fear the government’s interference in reliqious matters.  This would clearly breach the prohibition cited in the constitution barring the government from legislating church practices.  Perhaps the European—or more specifically, the German model of marriage—should be adopted in this
  country. 

  Posted by Schniggelfritz on Feb 8, 2004 at 11:29 PM

  I overlooked clarfification of what I meant by the European or German model on marriage.  At one time, the German government recognized only civil marriages as valid.  It was left to the couple’s discretion or choice to marry in the church also.  This distinction came about in the late 19th century under von Bismarck, and is the only vestige of the so-called Kulturkampf remaining.

  Posted by Schniggelfritz on Feb 8, 2004 at 11:33 PM

  This “argument” truly exemplifies our youth as a nation.  Students will undoubtedly study this time period in awe that this was an issue.  It will parallel the oppression of all “groups of people.”
  It is a good thing the fanatics use “the sanctity of marriage” argument, with our impressive divorce rates among heterosexuals?
  “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
                    -Anais Nin

  Posted by michael mallozzi on Feb 9, 2004 at 2:46 AM

  Let’s say, Bob, that instead of a “failure to grasp the significance of the struggle for same-sex marriage,” we have a different point a view on the subject and how that struggle should be waged.

  In my reading of it, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruling recognizes that the “civil union” contract (such as now practiced in Vermont) does not provide same-sex couples with the same rights and protections as the marriage contract; therefore either legalize same-sex marriage or legislate complete equality through civil union. The ruling challenges the Massachusetts legislature to provide what you call “the equality imperative for same-sex couples before civil law.”

  The ruling is only a victory if it can be built upon to reach real equality. It’s only a victory until rendered moot by an action of the Massachusetts legislature or the passage of that congressional amendment the threat of which will come to a crescendo if Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage.
  My concern is that by trying to appropriate the term (as apart from the substance) of “marriage,” gays are challenging the status quo with the wrong strategy. The term “marriage” is freighted with so much core-value, family-value, biblical, religious baggage that it will put the battle at such a high emotional pitch that only the loudest, shrillest voices will be able to be heard.

  You’re correct when you say the battle is now, so let me modify my comments about the timing of the fight. In saying that the “timing couldn’t be worse” I was thinking of the disposition of the current administration and Congress. But let’s focus on the next presidential term. Let’s take the battle forward into a new Democratic administration:

  Between now and the Dems’ convention in July the time is right for some deal-making. It’s time to put the clout of gay votes behind the candidate who will fully commit to “the equality imperative for same-sex couples before civil law” with a specific proposal for specific remedial action to achieve equality. The time to make that deal is now. After the nomination we’ll have less deal-making strength because any Democratic candidate can assume that voters concerned about gay rights will definitely NOT vote for George Bush.

  The goal we must struggle for is equality in substance. By calling that substance “marriage,” by trying to appropriate that heterosexual terminology for the legal status we seek, we are damaging, perhaps damning our chances of success.

  Posted by Jim Rinnert on Feb 9, 2004 at 7:58 PM

  Jim- Fair debate and great response. Just as an FYI-
  http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/7913036.htm?template=contentModules/ /printstory.jsp

  This will be a wedge issue and polling data suggests Republican gain at this point. I actually favor civil unions ASAP and possibly marriage later. Humor, facts and honesty always carry the day.

  Ty

  Posted by Ty on Feb 10, 2004 at 3:37 AM

  On NPR today, a man said equal marrage rights will never work because the public will always vote against them 2 to 1.  Does that make it right?? In 1865 what if the USA would have taken a vote on if black people should have equal rights.  I bet the majority of people would have said no but would that have made it right? Its crazy that this has even become an issue. As long as they’re not hurting anybody…stay the hell out of their busness.

  Posted by Preston Jones on Feb 11, 2004 at 7:17 PM

  It is too bad that childless pet owners do not have a plethora of groups designed to represent them and their interests. Many of these people love their pets as if they were their children, call them their children, even imagine that they are their children. If organizations to represent these nontraditional parents existed, a court could be persuaded to rule that, for the purpose of interpreting legislation, and in the interest of providing equal protection under the law, these nontraditional children (currently referred to as “pets”) must be recognized as children. These nontraditional parents could then list their nontraditional children (i.e. pets) as tax deductions, get the “per child tax credit” for each of these nontraditional children, force communities to provide schools that suit the special of these nontraditional children, be protected under fair housing legislation as a nontraditional family (no more ads saying “no pets”), and they could rest assured that if they should perish, their nontraditional children would receive social security to provide for them until they could provide for themselves. Childless Pet Owners Unite! The Time Is Now! (don’t some gardeners think of their plants as their children as well?)

  Posted by hargis on Feb 12, 2004 at 7:39 PM

  It amuses me that the first argument people use against gay marriage is the tired one, “What about people that want to marry their dogs? Shouldn’t they have the right to do so?”. At least ‘hargis’ has put a bit of a spin on that age old argument. Now the argument is “What about those people that want to claim their dog as a dependent?”.

  As one of those newly married in San Francisco’s historic act of civil disobedience (as the press is calling it), I find those types of arguments interesting. If dog owners wish to claim their dogs as dependents, they should gather together and make their case. They should do just as the GLBT community has done, the African-American community has done, and almost all other civil rights groups: they should organize and fight for their rights.

  I know the intent of those arguments are for us to immediately see that ‘step 1’ (giving gays the right to marry) leads directly to ‘step 2’ (people can marry their dogs). I hope that the general population isn’t convinced by such silliness.

  Posted by Michael on Feb 16, 2004 at 7:44 PM

  As an American citizen, I will faithfully stand behind my President and my government in times of war or civil unrest. This does not, however, mean that I automatically agree with any or all of their personal or political stances. I am firmly in favor of every individual’s right to make decisions for themselves. This includes gay marriage rights. I don’t believe anyone, political or otherwise has the right to tell anyone that they can’t marry who they want. I’m disappointed in my President and those fellow Americans who feel otherwise.

  Posted by Charlotte on Feb 27, 2004 at 5:53 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Bob Schwartz

• In Defense of Gay Marriage