Call it Anything But ‘Marriage’.

California has always been a State with a strong Democratic, liberal bias, so I was surprised that Prop 8, the most recent effort to legalize same-sex marriage in California, was defeated.

I guess even liberal Californians have their limits.

The whole issue of Gay Marriage, i.e., same-sex marriage, has been a perplexing question for myself, as it has for many other people. My gut instinct is to say “no” to same-sex marriage, however, when pressed, I find it hard to define, and defend my position.

And I’m not comfortable with such an ambiguous position, so I figured that I needed to think-it-out a little more….

I’m not a religious person, so I cannot play the religion card; I can’t name any scriptures, or biblical laws, , etc, against same-sex marriage.

In my life experience, I have worked with, and for, people who were Gay, or Lesbian, and I can’t say that I hated any of them; there were a couple I disliked, but it wasn’t because of their lifestyle, it was because they were jerks. I’m easy-going, and I get along with almost everyone, and I like most people, and I’m just not a hating sort of person.

So I can’t claim simple hatred, or, any other such nonsense.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years, and it has never needed to be defined as such. It is more than just a word; it is a social institution, with all the attendant social identity. It has been the cornerstone of our civilization, and instrumental in the progress of civilization, as a whole. Marriage equates with children and family, which in turn creates a stable social environment, and a stable society, both of which are necessary ingredients for civilization to progress.

What kind of society, or world, would we have if it were not for traditional marriage ? Can you imagine ? The whole world would be different; we would probably still be living in tribes, in a dog-eat-dog existence, and anarchy would be as close as we would ever come to a government. I think we would be much worse off.

But, even so, if same-sex marriage became the law of the land, today, our world probably wouldn’t change very much. We certainly wouldn’t revert to anarchy, and chaos, because of it. The fact is, it wouldn’t make much difference, at all, good, or bad, except, perhaps, that same-sex couples would now have an easier existence when it came to legal matters of State.

So, why am I, even now, still uneasy about supporting same-sex marriage ?

Logically speaking, as far as I can tell, the main argument I hear in favor of same-sex marriage is that it is a matter of equal rights; Gay, or Lesbian, couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. And equal rights are a cornerstone of our Democracy. I understand that; and I do believe that everyone should have the same basic rights.

I thought that Gay, or Lesbian, couples do have the same basic rights as traditional married couples. California does allow Civil Unions that bestow all the legal rights of marriage. Domestic Partners are like any married couples, so what is the big deal ?

It didn’t make sense to me, so I did a little research, and I learned that Civil Unions really are not like regular, legal, marriages. There are still many loopholes, and domestic partners do have to jump through more hoops than opposite-sex married couples, when it comes to day-to-day life issues. Civil Unions have been around for awhile, and they don’t seem to cover all the bases, and that’s really not fair.

So, I can see where the movement to simply change the law to allow same-sex marriage is a seemingly reasonable, and simple way to clear the legal clutter, and endow same-sex couples with the same rights as existing opposite-sex married couples. It’s brilliant in its simplicity.

So…. why do I STILL have problems with same-sex marriage ?

I guess I just don’t think that a “same-sex” union, for want of a better word, and an “opposite-sex” union, are equal. People are equal, but social institutions, such as marriage, are not equal. ‘Marriage’ is the word, or the label, that we use to define a social institution which is a male-female union.

Equating “same-sex”, and “opposite-sex” unions is, really, like comparing apples and oranges. All the individuals involved in both unions are equal, the unions themselves should have equal rights, but, the unions, themselves, are not the same, and they are not equal.

In fact, the two types of unions have little in common. They are vastly different, not just in the obvious ways, but in their contribution to society, and to civilization, was a whole. Typically, same-sex unions will not have children, and their personal families will be limited to themselves. Their unions do not produce any fruit, and their values, and morals, are not passed-on through their families; almost every intangible aspect of their existence dies when they die.

Their world involves themselves, and they do not have the same stake in society and in civilization as an opposite-sex couple. Most opposite-sex unions/marriages create families that do not die, and that have some semblance of permanence, or continuity, that contributes to future generations. A same-sex union does not have an interest in continuing, and creating a better society for their future generations, because they don’t create future generations.

There is nothing stronger than an opposite-sex married couple birthing, and protecting, and raising their own children. There is hardly a union more motivated to succeed than a Father and Mother who have kids to feed and cloth and house and protect; it is what life is about, and, typically, a same-sex couple cannot know what that really means.

(Don’t worry, I understand that there are Gay and Lesbian couples who have children, but rare exceptions do not change reality. And I understand our society benefits from Gay and Lesbian individuals; that they also contribute to society, as a whole. To state otherwise, is nonsense.)

But still, I do think Gay, or Lesbian, couples should have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. But I have trouble understanding their approach, and their reasoning. I see a lot of militancy, and anger, and other emotions, expressed by supporters; street protests, horrible invectives; and horrible attacks on anyone who has an opposing opinion, such as the deplorable attack on Miss California when she expressed an opinion against same-sex marriage.

Incidents like these serve only to harm the credibility of the movement. Myself, I have to question whether the movement is really about obtaining equal rights, or is it really just about anger with the intent to destroy the institution of marriage.

It’s a fair question.

Assuming that there are extreme examples of foolishness on both sides of the issue that should be ignored, if proponents are sincere about the equal rights issue, and if that is the true objective, then they are doing themselves, and the movement, a disservice by ignoring that fact that they are not just trying to change a law, but they are really trying to change the institution of marriage. Marriage is the most important social institution we have, and they seem to ignore, or minimize, it’s importance, and are striving to redefine the institution of marriage, and it’s identity, and adapt, and appropriate it for their own purpose.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Proponents don’t seem to realize that they don’t need to destroy traditional marriage in order to gain equal rights.

Instead of trying to force society to redefine marriage to suit the Gay and Lesbian community, why not work to create new, lawfully defined, classes of marriage, and new synonyms for marriage that describe the type of marriage.

Traditionally, from what I’ve seen in my lifetime, the Gay and Lesbian community seems to want to identify themselves separately from the heterosexual population, anyway. They have invented and popularized words, and labels, i.e., ‘Gay’, and ‘Lesbian’, ‘Gay pride”, etc, that proudly identify themselves, and their lifestyles, and their sexual preferences, and distinguish themselves from the heterosexual population. This wasn’t hoisted on them, this was by their own choosing, and by their own hard work, and activism.

So, why not continue that tradition when it comes to ‘marriage’ ? There are already Gay, and Lesbian words, and heterosexual words, so why doesn’t the Gay and Lesbian community simply create and promote their own words for marriage, whatever they may be, instead of insisting on wanting the clearly heterosexual word, ‘marriage’ ? It would be so simple to change the existing law to include a variety of marriages.

By trying to appropriate the word ‘marriage’, and it’s inherent social identity, the Gay and Lesbian community is trying to appropriate a social institution that is clearly not theirs. They need to create their own social institution, rather than try to force the heterosexual community to change, and redefine their own identities, and lives, and traditions, to accommodate the Gay and Lesbian community.

I understand that the status quo is what always has to be challenged to make change, but, at what prices ? How helpful is it to the ‘cause’ if the outcome destroys the institution of marriage, and the identity of the existing heterosexual community ? It can only breed resentment, and anger, and more ballot propositions.

Wouldn’t it be better for everyone, and society as a whole, if we could pass a law with wide support that wouldn’t be challenged in the courts, only to reappear on another ballot initiative, in yet another court trial as is happening California ?

The impending court decision in California will not solve anything. Whether the court decides in favor, or against the plaintiffs, there will still be more battles, and more propositions on future ballots. And as long as the voting is as evenly split as it has been, the process will never end.

In my final, personal analysis, I would support a proposition that creates and defines new classes/types of legal couples/unions, one class of which would include the current, traditional definition of ‘marriage’ as being between a man and a woman. Then there could be another broad classification for same-sex couples, or it could be further defined into more specific classes, such as male-male, female-female, etc; whatever.

Anyway, that is just my opinion !

Spencer Holly, Angry Californian
www.angrycalifornian.com

====================================
OTHER RESOURCES

Groundbreaking Same-Sex Marriage Trial Starts in California