I pulled up the New York Times homepage and noticed an article entitled, "Amid Acceptance of Gays, a Split on Marriage Issue." Hmm. What does the dek say?
Judging from interviews with people in the swing suburbs of Philadelphia, many voters sharply differ on gay marriage but share a high degree of tolerance toward gay people.
Woh. How can you be tolerant of a gay lifestyle but be opposed to the concept of gay marriage? That doesn't make much sense to me. I made my way into the article to see what's really going on. Right away I come upon the following quote that shed a little bit of light:
As Ms. Hall, 55, listened, her eyes widened. "I just don't agree," she said. "You marry to procreate. You can't procreate if you marry someone from the same sex. As a Catholic, I feel very strongly about this. My religion doesn't permit me to agree with that kind of lifestyle."
But she made it clear that beyond the question of marriage, she would not want to interfere with private behavior. "If you choose to be with a female partner," she told her friend, "I wouldn't tell you what to do."
Okay, I get it. You are viewing marriage as a religious bond between two people and therefore there is no room for gay marriages. This statement is quasi-logical. The problem is that this woman claims that homosexuality is fine so long as she can't see it. Maybe the phrase "private behavior" was a creation of the author, but the quote suggests that Ms. Hall is not okay with this idea.
It seems to me that many people are becoming less homophobic, but there is still not a general acceptance for gay people unless they are amusing, hair stylists, or helping to refurnish your apartment on a cable television show. I am happy that there is progress being made in the minds of Americans, but I am frustrated by this assumed tolerance. This last quote really illustrates the point:
"I'm not against anybody living that way," said Mr. McConaghy, a Roman Catholic. "It's just the way I was brought up. Gay marriage is taking it way too far."
The bottomline is that you cannot be "okay" with gay relationships if you are against gay marriage. In fact, relationships should be more egregious if you believe the purpose of marriage is for procreation. I would be much happier if the quotes went like this, "I am homophobic to the point where it is socially acceptable."
For a moment, let's assume that you are comfortable accepting this opinion. At this point you must consider the state of marriage in this country. Aside from the majority of marriages ending in divorce, it has become less a of a religious institution for many people. It allows you a number of political and social rights that single people are not privy to (hospital visits, tax breaks, etc.). At the very least dissentors of gay marriage should be willing to accept a gay union of some kind in order to create a nation that is truly for us all.
A discussion for another time might be the concern over the government regulating a religious institution. Isn't one of our founding principles the seperation of church and state? Sometimes the backwards logic our government and people drive me to the brink of insanity. If I didn't drown myself in movies, popular culture and the few tolerable people on this planet then I would probably be crying a lot more often.
Also: Aaron linked to this OP-ED piece in Saturday's Times. It is an excellent piece. Here's what Aaron thought about it.
11/24/03 5:47 PM
good call matty... what argument do these people have against gay marriage... "It's just not the way I was brought up" or "my religion doesn't agree with it"... as far as I know one religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, but one religion does seem to dominate the govt
11/25/03 2:28 PM
nice post matty. i'd like to think we're making progress, but the slow rate of increasing acceptance and existing level of narrow-mindedness is so frustrating.
i'd like to add that laws used to prohibit white men from marrying black women (and vice versa). hopefully the walls prohibiting gay marriage will be knocked down as these obscene laws were.
11/27/03 10:30 PM
i think the bigger problems is people who throw out quotes like "my religion doesn't permit me to agree with that kind of lifestyle." if people feel conflicted between what their religion says and how they truly feel on a certain topic, a real evaluation of why they believe what they do should be undertaken. unquestioned authority, be it religious (a god of some sort) or governmental (mr. bush, i'm looking in your direction), leads to personal laziness and social irresponsibility.
12/02/03 4:57 PM
I'll start off by saying I support gay marriage. However, a friend of mine who is gay does not. He doesn't think there's any point in trying to turn a ceremony intended for heterosexuals into something for homosexuals. He's of the school of thought that believes they should develop their own ceremony that could include a legal contract, but that is for the gay community. I'd never thought about it like that before and it makes sense. just thought i'd share.
02/24/04 1:09 PM
I am an intelligent, well-read and informed liberal democrat since my adolescence. Yet, I am strangely uncomfortable with the idea of same sex "marriage". I am perfectly comfortable with homosexuals and homosexuality (I happen to believe that it is biology's answer to population control)I am a Methodist but do not follow my religion blindly. Gays should be able to have commitment ceremonies and any legal arrangement they want.But as much as it horrifies me to be on the side of the right,I do believe that marriage should be saved for heterosexual people. I cannot be the only one out there-it's about kids- (for me, OK to having gay couples adopt unwanted or foster kids, but not have their own) to purposely bring a child into the world without a parent of one sex, is unfair and wrong.I also believe that gay marriage will ultimately lead to a society that doesn't see the need for marriage at all( which Sweden and Denmark as already seen as a result)