On Thursday I departed from my usual subject (environmental policy, politics, situations, devastations) to write a short piece about a new book on the history of marriage, with a link to an interview with the author. The book is Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, written by Stephanie Coontz. Because the words "gay marriage" were mentioned in the review and the subject was briefly (and quite sanely) discussed in the interview, the comment thread to this post became a rambling, what shall I call it...discussion? no, not exactly. ...argument? almost, but not quite. exchange of opinions? I guess that's what it was.
Therefore I depart from my usual topic once again to express some thoughts that have resulted from this thread. My first thought is a question: what IS it about the words "gay marriage" that get people's pulses racing, minds in a turmoil, fear and loathing frothing from their keyboards?
The first opinion expressed was that "The institution of marriage was created so that people could be joined to create life, have children. This is simply not possible with a man and a man, or a woman and a woman." I intend to read Coontz' book at the first opportunity, at which time I will have more understanding of just when, how and why marriage became an "institution." Because it is possible, is it not, for people to create life without the benefit of this institution? As far as I can tell, it happens with some frequency. And, if this were the standard for allowing people to marry, a fertility test would need to be added to the blood tests done pre-nuptually, in order to determine if the couple would be able to fulfill the "purpose" of their union. Older couples past childbearing age would be banned from this institution, as they would clearly be getting married for wrong reasons, such as love, companionship, financial support, someone to go on AARP sponsored trips with.
Secondly, it doesn't really take a "man" and a "woman" to create life. Rather, it takes the joining of spermatozoon and ovum in a hospitable environment. Lesbians are having babies all over the place, I can promise you that. Lesbians and gay men are adopting and/or fostering children. Having the civil (I couldn't care less about the religious) institution of marriage in place to help them legally and financially care for these children during their union, and in case of the dissolution of that union, would be a great help to society as a whole. Single people, some of whom are gay or lesbian, without the benefits of the institution of marriage, are adopting children created by a male/female coupling and then unloved, unwanted, uncared-for by that couple. I have an adopted nephew who was the product of a heroin addict and her male partner. This child has had an extremely difficult time thus far in his unaskedfor and seriously damaged young existence. It is the having of children I would like to see become overseen and licensed. It is entirely too easy to create life, entirely too difficult for many to nurture and raise it, once created. An "Are You Really Ready to Have a Baby? Test" would be a great help to this world. IMO. My opinion, and opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.
The next comment inciting me to write this post is this one: "I'm not comparing being gay to being a pedophile, but...What about the Joe Bob's (sic) out there who say, well, if it's alright to marry a guy, why can't that guy be 14?" Later the same writer states: "My argument is not insulting, nor is it bigotry. It's true." She goes on to give us another scenario: "Joe Bob is in love with Sally Sue, his sister, they are in LOVE! They are both consenting adults. Do we allow that?... I am not saying being gay is the same as being the same as an incestuous freak, what I am saying is WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? If it's okay for two men to marry....then why not cousins, brother and sister, father and daughter? If they are consenting adults that is."
The thing about opinions is that they are never "true." Opinions are statements of belief, not fact. And the above comments are certainly, though the writer fails to see it, simply insulting, bigoted statements of beliefs instilled from childhood by society. They absolutely equate homosexuality with sexual perversion (eg: "incestuous freak") Forms of perversions, I hasten to state, that occur in the heterosexual world. It was not a female teacher having sex with an underaged girl student that made the headlines some years back, it was a female teacher having sex - and creating life, in fact - with an underaged boy. Now that she's out of jail, I believe she has married that now-of-age boy. It isn't same-sex incest that creates inbred societies, it is male/female incest that Erskine Caldwell wrote about in Tobacco Road.
So, since incest and pedophelia exist in heterosexual society, why is it that we are not licensing marriage for people with these sexual choices? Clearly it is because they are perversions of what is considered the normal sexual range. Homosexuality is no longer classified as an illness, a perversion, an abnormal practice. To compare it with sexual abnormalities or perversions is, without a doubt, both an insult and a very real form of bigotry. Another statement from the comment thread: "I have many friends who happen to be gay. I like them, love them, and I think truely (sic) if someone were to actually find love in this godforsaken place, bully for them." This statement brings me back to the fifties and sixties, both of which I am old enough to remember, when a similar statement was in vogue. Only the subjects of the bigotry at that time were African Americans. "I'm not bigoted, I have lots of black friends. I just wouldn't want my sister/daughter to marry one." This feeling, I'm quite sure, still persists. But it is now legal for your sister to marry one, no matter what you opine.
The title of this particular commenter's own journal is "Piss Off Liberals." If that is her intention, she must currently feel hugely satisfied. I am officially quite pissed off.
