Happy New Year everyone. I am working on the year in review post!
The logic of gay marriage
Arnold H. Loewy, Published: Dec 01, 2008 12:30 AM
LUBBOCK, TEXAS - The issue of gay marriage has come to the forefront. Our deep division on the issue can be seen by the narrow passage of California's anti-gay marriage proposal, followed by protests across the country. Courts seem continuously willing to invalidate limitations on gay marriage.
If we assume, as some contend, that the question is one for legislative, rather than judicial, resolution, how should we want our representatives to decide the question?
The easy and intuitive answer is to just say "no." Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the way it has always been and will always be. End of debate.
On reflection, I have serious doubt that this is the best answer, and here is why.
Assume that Charlie, who has always been attracted to men, is currently in love with George and would like to make that relationship permanent and solemnize it with a marriage. What do we want him to do?
Well, let us consider the possibilities.
Many would say: "Let him turn from his evil ways and fall in love with a woman and eventually marry her."
Let us assume that Charlie does that and dates various women and eventually falls in love with Megan. Now, assume that Megan is your daughter or sister (or for that matter, you). Would you want a closeted homosexual who really prefers men to women to marry Megan?
I suspect that most of you said "no." You would not want a gay, who is pretending to be straight, to marry anyone you cared about or certainly not yourself. And why not? Because you fear, probably correctly, that eventually he may be unhappy that he cannot have an affair with a man, and that unhappiness will spill over into the marriage.
So, with that option off of the table, what do we want him to do?
Well, perhaps he could just be celibate. So let's say that Charlie tries that course of action, what can we expect?
Regrettably, we can probably expect Charlie to be a less happy and less productive person than he would have been had he been sexually satisfied. At worst, we may even increase the chances that he will turn into a sexual predator. So compelled celibacy does not seem like a very promising alternative.
Well, perhaps we can say: "OK Charlie, have your homosexual flings if you must, but don't make your relationship permanent." But surely we don't want to encourage promiscuity. Such behavior would increase his risk of disease (and eventual dependence on society's resources to care for him).
So, if given Charlie's homosexual proclivities, we don't want him to be with a woman, we don't want him to be celibate and we don't want him to be promiscuous, that leaves a permanent relationship with George as his only alternative.
Then, if we actually do want Charlie to have a permanent relationship with George, what do we want their status to be called?
Conventional wisdom seems to be: Let's call it a "civil union." That way they can have many of the rights of married people: hospital visitation, insurance dependency, tax breaks and the like, but we don't have to think of them as married like us. And our own marriages won't be cheapened or demeaned by sharing that status with a gay couple.
As to cheapening or demeaning marriage, I simply don't believe that. My marriage to my precious wife will not be cheapened one whit if all of the homosexuals in the land who wished to marry were permitted to do so.
I fear that what really may be afoot is the perceived need for heterosexual superiority.
At one time in our nation's history, Christians were favored over non-Christians, men were favored over women, whites were favored over blacks and heterosexuals were favored over homosexuals. The first three categories are gone. Non-Christians, women and blacks are all entitled to be treated equally. So, the last bastion of superiority remaining is that we heterosexuals can marry the mates of our choice, but you homosexuals cannot.
The nation has been well-served by eliminating notions of inferiority based on religion, gender and race. It would be similarly well-served by eliminating notions of inferiority based on sexual preference.
(Arnold H. Loewy is the George Killam professor of criminal law at Texas Tech school of Law and Graham Kenan professor emeritus at the UNC School of Law.)
