Gay Marriage

I was going to add my six penn'orth to Darian's posting on gay marriage, but I thought it would be unfair to monopolise his comments box. Interesting discussion he's set off there though - worth checking out.

In the meantime, I noted at the end of the week that San Francisco allowing gay marriages in contravention of state law. In fact, they've triggered a rush to the city by those wishing to get married.

I'm acutely aware of the significance of these events in an America where 'the defence of marriage' has become a rallying cry for the religious right, though I've always felt that the need for 'defence' is slightly misunderstood when all these people seem to be rushing to support it as a concept by subscribing themselves to it. Think about it - marriage is hardly under attack if even people who aren't allowed into it are fighting for the right to join the club. True, one very narrow definition of the thing might be challenged, but the basic idea, two people pledging themsleves to fidelity and love before man and (if you must) god, appears to be regarded by many as a significant goal. In this light, the ongoing effort to define marriage as being only between a man and woman look more and more like the bigotry they really are, rather than an attempt to maintain respect for the institution.

Let's also note that it's an institution which is doing a pretty good job of dissing itself. Divorce rates aren't exactly dropping, and faithfulness seems to be a somewhat flexible concept among many couples. You'd think the pro-marriage lobby would be happy to have the number of people in the smug club increased by any method available.

I'm not a fan, as you might have spotted.

One of the glib phrases I occasionally use to sum up my position on life is that I'm 'the foe of matrimony'. I don't use this phrase to condemn anyone who becomes connubially blissful, by the way. Just to note that it's not a state into which I can see myself entering. I used to say that the only thing marriage gave a couple was a piece of paper that made it more difficult to split up when they fell out of love with each other. In a lot of ways I still believe that - I'm not a believer in life-long love, but perhaps that's more because I've never had one than for any other reason. I'm certainly not averse to the idea of one coming along - it's just that past experience hasn't made me very optimistic.

But regardless of that, I'm pretty much anti the idea of gay marriage anyway. The idea of what is effectively apeing a heterosexual convention smacks me a bit too much of seeking approval and validation for something that requires neither.

I've joined a couple of couples I've known over the years in what I suppose we'd sensibly call commitment ceremonies, though 'ceremony' is perhaps too strong a word. This I like - standing up and declaring your commitment to one another. But I dislike the equivalent where doing so makes your relationship somehow more legitimate than those of people who haven't.

The only thing that I can see being advantageous to properly-recognised gay marriages would be if all of the rights and priviledges of straight marriage accompanied it. Next-of-kin status for same-sex partners is a huge issue, and one that I'd put far ahead of tax status and other financial recognitions. If I never have to hear about another partner excluded from critical decisions about their other half's life or death at the expense of a family who doesn't know them or rejected them years before I'll die a happier man.

But full-on marriage isn't for me, I don't think. And I don't think it would be even if I was straight but in every other regard still 'me'.

Best of luck to everyone who got married in san Francisco the last few days though. I hope you'll be very happy.

Posted on February 15, 2004 07:07 PM

Oh my god... no-one's commented. I had world war bloody three going on after I posted about this.

Anyway... I think you've summed up, much more eloquently, my reasoning behind being anti-marriage for gays.

Validation? We don't need no stinking validation!

Posted by darian on February 16, 2004 09:15 PM

It's not simply a question of valitation for validation itself. There's a lot of practical, legal issues that would be solved if gay people were allowed to marry.

Besides, the fact that gay people can't get married simply *because* they're gay is reason enough to try to change that.

Huh...I hope that made sense.

Posted by James Figueiredo on February 17, 2004 01:08 AM

And if you go to my blog I ask the question why "Marriage" for gay OR straight couples?
Why do we have to have a religious ceremony for legal rights?
Why isn't there an alternative to Marriage full stop?

Posted by Darian on February 17, 2004 04:19 PM

I almost noted that the alternative to James' view would be to do away with marriage for everyone in the religious sense.

It would make a change for straight people to have their rights curtailed to the level of ours for once.

Posted by Jon on February 17, 2004 04:42 PM

I'm not making a case for religious marriage (though I do feel that people who subscribe to any kind of faith should have the right to state their unions under that faith), for religion's sake.

The point is that marriage brings along a whole package of legal rights that other kinds of legally recognised unions don't.

But if the problem is the word "marriage, that's no problem at all.

Legislators can call it *whatever* they want, as long as it guarantees total and unrestricted equality of rights for straight and gay couples.

Posted by James Figueiredo on February 18, 2004 06:24 PM

Exactly BUT the term "marriage" is resolutely heterocentric with obvious religious connotations (whether you believe or not).

The fact that you have to get marrried to have those rights is absurd. Civil partnerships aren't close enough yet to cover the gaps.

And as for a right to a union under whatever religion you ascribe to I'm trying not to be billigerent and state that most religions don't tolerate homosexuality full stop, accept that when you practise your faith, don't ask your religion to change some of its fundamental rules. Find a better option.

Hell, don't subscribe to ANY religion, just follow your own faith.

Posted by Darian on February 20, 2004 02:17 PM

What do you think? (Comments must be approved before they will appear.)