this made me happy.
Right. Furthermore, even on the other side of the (gender) street, back during the 60s-70s there were factions who thought themselves as in a would-be cultural revolution that would do away with the established sexual/gender mores – who’d reject the institution of marriage and even put down mere monogamy because it was a patriarchal and bourgeois value.
There are some, in the gay community and beyond it, who don’t like that the marriage issue has become the central feature of LGBT politics. This typically is because (1) they feel it is “heteronormative” and diminishes the value of non-marriage-like relationships or (2) they feel marriage itself is a flawed institution. But the opposition is not to extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples so long as we keep marriage on the books.
Others, following a lifetime of degradation, just take a turn toward the self-loathing, which I think explains the case of your interlocutor.
That’s actually exactly what I was thinking of on the way home last night. It reminded me very much of a Pit thread on the anti-Cochlear implant debate. But drawing that parallel, in some ways you can sort of understand it.
Parents of Deaf Child: “These implants will let my child live a normal life!”
Deaf Activist: “Excuse me? Did you just say we’re not normal???”
The parent, in good faith, want his child to have all the opportunities for social enrichment that the implants provide. The implants will also allow for integration into the hearing world. The anti-Cochlear implant activist is miffed that the integration is only going one way. If the kid has implants, the parents may not be motivated to learn ASL. The child has to integrate into the hearing world with the implication that being deaf is not an acceptable way to be.
Whether I agree with it or not, I can understand the point of view and sort of compare it to anti-SSM sentiments of some gay activists.
Gay Dude: “I want to be able to get married and live a normal life like hetero couples!”
Anti-SSM Activist: “Excuse me? Did you just say we’re not normal???”
I think the argument breaks down in similar ways too, due to just the general pragmatic benefits. Cochlear implants can enrich a child’s life in many ways (and at least partially restores one of the senses necessary for basic safety and survival). Gay marriage would secure legal rights that include things like benefits, recognizing a spouse’s right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner etc.
So it sounds like the anti-SSM argument has more to do with cultural theory. With gay couples marrying it validates the hetero model as the “only way to go”: two people in matrimony, with the implication that other relationship types are doomed to forever be considered “alternative lifestyles.”
Side note: a guy in Canada has been arrested for polygamy and is using the legalization of same-sex marriages in his defense, essentially saying if the government is going to legally recognize non-traditional relationship types, then how come three consenting adults can’t live in a multiple marriage?
An odd belief, considering that marriages were a civil institution long before the church laid claim to it.
The state has *always *regulated marriage (and I mean even before the US was founded). You must get a license to marry – and there is no requirement that you do so within a church (various civil authorities can perform marriages). And the civil law has always trumped church law in the issue (for instance, a divorced Catholic can marry even though the Church does not recognize divorce).
Originally, the church got involved because people wanted the ceremony as a celebration of their marriage. But it was the state that always licensed marriages and what the church did or didn’t do was up to them and had no effect on whether a marriage was legal.
I have a law school friend, a conservative, traditionalist, well-closeted gay Catholic man, and he strongly opposes gay marriage. He insists that marriage is an ancient institution, one man to one woman, and shouldn’t be changed to permit same-sex unions.
Baffles me. Personally, I like the bumper sticker: “Let gays marry. Why shouldn’t they be miserable, too?” 
I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage, but I do know that there are a few friends of mine who make me wary of the day when it will finally be legal. These are the friends who are in love and moving in together after “dating” someone for a week. These are the friends who get a dog with their soulmate-of-the-week, only to end up giving the dog away when they realize there’s more to a stable relationship than having sex with someone who you’ve known for less than a month. These are the friends who have only two “modes” they are in while in a relationship - fighting or fucking.
I’ve been in a relationship for 6 years, and while I don’t think we’ll immediately “make it official” when it is legalized in Texas (once Hades freezes over), I definitely see myself doing it down the road. Many of our friends have been in long-term stable relationships - getting rings to signify their commitment, joint bank accounts, etc.
What worries me is that I have a few friends who will typify everything that the naysayers are proclaiming. Those will be the new poster-children for the opposition. “Look at how irresponsible those gays are, divorcing a month after getting married!” (All the while conveniently forgetting all the Britney Spears-like examples that occur with straight couples, divorcing within days of tying the knot.)