I have two sisters who are gay. One of them vocally opposes SSM. She says the old joke goes: “When gay marriage is legal, what do the gay women call after the wedding? The U-Haul to get their stuff back to their own place!” Her point is (I think) that lesbian relationships tend not to last.
I think it’s a stupid view. Sure gay relationships break up a lot. Hello!?!? So do straight relationships. Not to mention that my other gay sister has been with the same partner for more than 25 years (though she jokes that they are just together now because both of them are “too lazy to pack up their shit and get out” )
Her partner’s daughter has three children. My sister considers herself as much their grandmother as her partner is. They’ve bought a house together.
SSM is not yet legal in their home-state of MD, and if it were, I don’t know if they’d actually ‘do’ the ceremony, etc. I guess they might because it confers certain legal rights that they are not at the moment set up for (for instance, being considered one another’s ‘next of kin’).
I just think that, given the stats on survival of hetero relationships and all other factors present in her life, it’s strange that my one sister is opposed to SSM. I mean, it’s not like anyone is trying to force her to get married.
So, do you know anyone who is gay who is also opposed to SSM?
My husband has a friend who is gay and opposed to SSM. He mentioned it in passing one day, but I didn’t get a chance to delve into what, exactly, his opposition is. It may have something to do with the fact that he’s in Australia and I think that domestic partnerships are recognized legally more than they are here in the U.S. Plus, there are a lot of benefits that we get in the U.S. that are often based on marriage that are irrelevant in Australia (for instance, health insurance). His reasoning may very well be based on something completely different, though. Next time we’re having a beer with him (and his partner of over a decade), I’ll ask him!
I used to know a couple of women who were (are?) in a relationship for maybe ten or fifteen years. One of them was not only opposed to gay marriage, but to homosexuality altogether. It’s against her (Catholic) religion. She claims to be a heterosexual, but has only had a crush on one man her entire life, and he was celibate. (For religious reasons.)
An while she’s been in a serious relationship for as long as she has been, she’s constantly falling in love with other women.
I knew a lesbian who was opposed to it, mainly because she was quite wealthy. Her feeling was that if SSM existed, her partner would pressure her into doing it, putting her wealth at risk of division should they split.
I dunno what happened with that, we have SSM now here in Ontario, but I lost touch with her long ago.
‘Issues’ doesn’t even begin to address HER problems.
I am gay myself, so know a few, including some who are against SSM for themselves, as they regard it as a hetro institution that they want no part of. Being blackballed by ‘mainstream’ society for so long doesn’t particularly make them want to join the country club, if you get my meaning. However, I know none that would deny it for others, as I don’t think I’ve ever met a gay person who doesn’t have a ‘live and let live’ attitude.
I know a guy who, in his twenties, opposed same-sex marriage because he believed that marriage was a sacrament for religious straight-people. He believed that he should be able to confer certain rights to the partner of his choosing and for it to be recognized in the eyes of the state, but he wanted a system specifically for BGLT couples that would have nothing to do with marriage.
Today, his relationship is not recognized by the state, but he wears a wedding band and refers to himself as married, but I suspect that’s more of a result of his long-time boyfriend than any choice of his own.
I knew several gay people in college who wanted EVERYBODY, gay or straight, to reject the institution, using language from one ideology or another – feminism and Marxism were popular choices. I knew a few more who rejected it as “heteronormativity.” I haven’t heard those arguments from anyone I know in a decade or more, though.
Over time I’ve probably known about the same number of gay people opposing SSM (or any M) as straight people opposing male-female marriage. Typically this is on the grounds of opposing the idea that a government (or religion, in some cases) should be the sole solemnizer of unions.
norinew, please tell your sister that my partner and I had a commitment ceremony almost 12 years ago, were married when that option became available, and have the least-lengthy partnership of any female couple we know in our community.
I know one woman who opposes SSM despite being gay. She says it is because the fact that they insist on using the M word instead of “civil union” or whatever means that religious assholes are going to oppose it with all their might and it will take 10 years longer to pass and she will be without the benefits that she would otherwise have in a civil union.
He is a tad confused. SSM is not a sacrament, nor has it anything to do with churches. It is a legal contract that enables couples in a gay relationship to have much the same rights has straights. It is particularly appropriate, indeed vital, for end of life matters, such as Health decision-making and inheritance. So this gent is attributing the sense of Holy Matrimony to what is really a state/legal arrangement. Try to get him to understand the difference. It is important that people should be clear on this.
It is also important that people realise that the church does not bestow the sacrament of marriage on anyone. Even the RC church freely acknowledges that in religious terms, marriage is a sacrament of which the participants are the only ministers. The priest/cleric who officiates does so purely as a witness for the church in question. Moreover, the church did not actively insist of a church ceremony until about the end of the first millenium - about AD/CE 950. Up until then, it was purely a legal matter.
I’ve heard of gay folks who oppose it because of the heteronormative thing - they feel it’s an effort to force “traditional” norms onto gay couples that aren’t appropriate for them.
I’ve encountered gay people who oppose marriage for anyone, that is, they have a general disdain for the institution. I’ve also encountered gay people who claim that marriage - civil or religious - is inappropriate for gay couples (that “heteronormativity” thing). And, of course, I’ve encountered gay couples who simply feel that SSM is unnecessary for themselves.
However, I’ve never encountered a gay person who thought that SSM should be illegal as long as opposite-sex marriage is legal, and I’ve never encountered a gay person who felt that gay couples should be entitled to fewer legal protections and benefits than opposite-sex couples.
I have a gay male friend who thinks the whole idea of SSM is ridiculous. For him it’s about a hetero institution being given a gay equivalent where there really isn’t one (his opinion).
I’m opposed to the current system of marriage in the United States as well, because an ordained minister can officiate a marriage - this seems like excessive entanglement to me. However, I certainly wouldn’t vote against a bill allowing same-sex marriage.
I know one gay man, now in his eighties, who used to say that he “just thought gays were above that shit”. He also didn’t see much point in marriage for straight people, either.
I haven’t run into him since it became legal, so I don’t know if his point of view has changed.
I think it’s great that we’re starting to stop calling it a ‘gay wedding’ and just call it a ‘wedding’; my kids couldn’t believe that anyone could have had a problem with Larry and Gary’s wedding last year.
Well, if it was a formal service, it was probably Lawrence and Garry!
Thanks for all the responses, folks!
I’m a little surprised (but only a little) at the gays who oppose “marriage” because that’s a “hetero” institution. I’ve heard a lot of protest about ‘civil unions’, with gays saying ‘hey, if straights can be married, so can we!’.
Well, I guess it just proves you can’t please everyone!
)