With legal same-sex marriages now being performed up and down the Golden State today, conservative opponents of such unions are scrambling to re-frame their opposition in a way that doesn’t make them sound like, well, party-pooping nasties.
This fall, an initiative on the California ballot will seek to undo what has already been done, and declare that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. The task for the right-wing is tough, and Maggie Gallagher takes it on in today’s National Review, trying to make the case that the fight over gay marriage isn’t really about, uh marriage. You see, conservatives know that the more the public sees of elderly women tying the knot, or of two handsome grooms exchanging vows, the greater the reluctance on the part of California voters to “rain on the love parade.” Someone who votes “Yes” on the November initiative will be voting to invalidate same-sex marriages that have already taken place — which is, in effect, the same thing as walking up to Phyllis and Del and saying, “I don’t accept that you can pledge your love to each other in the same way that a man and a woman can.”
A certain percentage of the California public will vote against same-sex marriage no matter what, but that percentage is far from a majority. Perhaps only a third of Californians have strong religious objections to same-sex unions. Another third of Californians are enthusiastic about the idea of gays and lesbians getting married, believing that the sex of a couple has no real bearing on the real issue, which is one of love and commitment. And a middle third is ambivalent. That middle third is, perhaps, caught between a vague discomfort with the idea of “calling it marriage” and a strong desire not to be judgmental. That middle third strongly supports civil unions and domestic partnerships; that middle third, at the same time, clings to some old-fashioned ideas about the privileged position heterosexual love ought to occupy. Whoever wins the hearts and minds of that middle third wins the ballot initiative.
For those of us who support these unions, it is absolutely vital that we personalize this battle. Each and every voter who goes into a booth in November needs to understand that they are taking part in a referendum on the rights of other human beings to pursue happiness. They need to be viscerally aware that a “Yes” vote on this initiative is, in effect, a deliberate and conscious choice to invalidate the joyous marriages that have already taken place. If we can make this case, then I suspect that most of the middle third will say something like “You know, in my gut I still am uncomfortable with same-sex marriages. But these folks seem so happy, and I’m just not willing to stop anyone from a shot at a lifetime of joy together.” That’s the reasoning we want to foster. And I’m willing to bet that when forced to make a decision, 51% of California voters are unwilling to break the hearts and shatter the dreams of so many of their neighbors — and family members.
I don’t think marriage should be entered into lightly or inadvisedly, as the BCP says. But the more same-sex couples wed, the better. It’s easy to oppose gay marriage when it’s an unreal abstraction — it’s harder to undo what has already been done. Most voters don’t want to be the “bad guy”, even when they remain troubled to one degree or another by homosexuality. So the more happy, smiling faces we can put out there, the more examples of gay and lesbian couples embracing domestic bliss and fidelity we can sear into the consciousness of Californians, the more reluctant many of those voters will be to undo what has already been so joyously done.
It’s a battle for hearts and minds, baby, and with civility and grace towards those on the other side, I’m ready to fight it.
We’re gonna win, 51-49. Bank it.
We’re gonna win, 51-49.
Well, I might as well throw my monopoly money into the prognostication hat…
I suspect there will be a clearer majority than that*. What I can’t decide is who will win. On the one hand, the religious right’s continuing hysterics regarding gay marriage’s influence on society, no matter how flatly contradicted by Massachusetts, will only serve to drive more people away and move those groups closer to the ash pit of history where they belong. On the other hand, this is a recent enough issue that even blatant lies might actually work in the short term.
Of course, either way, the assholes eventually lose. You take what you can get, I suppose.
*That said, I live in Texas, where I’d be amazed to see a state-sanctioned gay marriage in my lifetime. What do I know about you loony Californians?
Hugo,
I would agree with you that many people are made uncomfortable by the idea of same-sex marriages(myself being one). Yet I am NOT willing to keep people from happiness. If this is what makes them happy who are we to say that they can’t be happy.
Also I think you may be throwing the word “Conservative” around a little to much. You’re making it sound like all Conservatives are against gay marriage.
Not like I can vote anyway.
Fair enough, cousin, fair enough. You’re absolute right not all conservatives oppose gay marriage; may it be so with many who are old enough to vote.
It should be an exciting vote and will likely drive a good turnout. Nothing wrong with a good turnout.
I watched Oprah today and I have a prognostication . . . Polygamy is the next frontier. I think that in 10-15 years group marriage will be the next big thing and legal. The evo-bio crowd already touts the fact that humans are not “meant to be monogamous.” We already live in a culture where “serial monogamy” is normative. How long can it be till plural marriage is made official?
What’s your Vegas line on that, Hugo?
The state will be out of the marriage business first, Dave, before we cross the bridge.
I watched Oprah today and I have a prognostication . . . Polygamy is the next frontier.
I’ve wondered that too, but I think humans are a little too jealous for that to ever work long-term. I know couples who tried the open marriage thing because of all those “we’re not meant to be monogamous” ideas only to realize after a while that it was making them really miserable, especially if the spouse ended up falling for one of his open partners (and hopefully, in a group marriage, true love would be the motivation, not kinky group sex). People might insist we’re not built for monogamy, but we’re also driven to couple up (regardless of what gender our partner is). Serial monogomany is still one partner at a time, even if it’s not a life-long pairing.
Quite honestly, it takes so much energy and effort to sustain ONE partnership, I can’t imagine successfully making it work with multiple partners at the same time.
I think that we should separate the issues related to Gay/Lesbian Marriage from other issues besides Opposite Gender Marriage. One ends up easily in totally irrelevant and condescending/inflammatory comparisons such as comparing Gay/Lesbian marriage to bestiality.
To say that Gays and Lesbians can’t marry same gendered partners - is simply denying them “equal rights” and “fair rights”. You may be uncomfortable with such rights. I may be uncomfortable when a man of my age (57) marries a much, much, much younger woman, but I’d find it crazy to outlaw marriages that stipulated that the age difference couldn’t be more than “x” years.
Polyamory - from Wikipedia: Polyamory (from Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [literally “love”]) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved - seems a much more “reasonable” alternative for some people (not myself) than “Polygamy” - where one person has more than one partner one is married to - often connoted as Men with multiple wives (only).
With Polyamory - one may have a married partner or not - that’s not the defining characteristic.
Polygamy - would have numerous - potential legal difficulties - related to decisions making, inheritance, support obligations etc. that No State or Country would generally want to have to deal with.
We should though - stay functioning upon Gay and Lesbian Marriage - as the current, relevant issue. To try to “talk of the future” - as you (Davey) are doing - takes away from the justifiable joy and celebration that many have a first (or second) chance at now in California.
My partner (Female Bisexual) - found it strange - when her ex-partner (Female) called her to tell her of the California State Supreme decision - allowing Gay/Lesbian Marriages. I’d already called B - myself - so she already knew of it - but it makes sense to me.
Thanks!
One ends up easily in totally irrelevant and condescending/inflammatory comparisons such as comparing Gay/Lesbian marriage to bestiality.
The irrelevance is often the point, though. By dragging the conversation away from any realistic sphere, gay marriage opponents handily avoid dealing with arguments they tend to lose. It’s also much easier to work people into a moral panic by conflating homosexuality with more…exotic sexual urges.
Geo + Craig-
What I am pointing out is that society and marriage are EVOLVING. Gay/lesbian marriage is evidence of that. Less than 50 years ago “miscegenation” was a huge issue. Today, I walk down the street and mixed race couples, married and otherwise, are all over the place. There has recently been a big push for gay marriage and I think that there will soon be a liberalization of marriage to include more than 2 parties. (A+B+C+D!!!) Hugo says to bank a 51-49 victory in November. I’m making my own bold prediction: Marriage won’t stop evolving after this. Inheritance might be difficult, but with all the divorce happening, it’s already difficult.
Poly relationships already exist, but they are not formalized under the laws yet. I know that a poly relationship would not be for me, but it does actually seem closer to a “traditional” family situation that gay/lesbian marriage. Basically, a lesbian or gay marriage can’t produce offspring without medical intervention/surrogacy while a mixed gender poly marriage can. There is actually an organicism of procreation in the poly marriage that the gay/lesbian marriage is lacking.
As for the bestiality point. Well, if people honestly can’t tell animals from humans, they probably don’t have the native intelligence necessary for independent living and should probably reside in a group home situation.
I strive to be truthful in my prognostications. I separate what I WANT to happen from what I think is actually going to happen.
Prognostications:
Gay/Lesbian marriage will become legal in most states.
Poly marriage will become legal is some states.
Age of consent will be lowered. There will be more marriages with large age gaps.
Some conservative groups will succeed in getting “deluxe” marriage laws passed in some conservative states.
As for November, the ballot initiative will likely hinge on how church attending minority voters view the issue.
As soon as somebody comes up with a way of dealing with the legal headaches. Of which poly marriages create many. Whether or not polygyny (not polyamory) is closer to ‘traditional’ marriage has nothing to do with marriage as a civil institution. Right now our laws are set up for two-person marriage. It’s a lot easier to ignore the gender of those persons than it is to change to >2. (And davev, procreation isn’t the defining characteristic of marriage anymore.)
Mythago-
Prenup?????
I’ve never been able to get why people think this would be so hard. Contract law has long been able handle very complex partnerships in the business realm.