I know the horse has already left the barn since the SCOTUS ruling, but even as a staunch same-sex-marriage proponent, something’s been really bugging me with one of the arguments our side has been making, specifically, “Two people who love each other should be allowed to get married” in an attempt to appeal to emotion.
I think this argument has actually been hurting our cause. Conservatives, especially the religious conservatives who are leading the campaign against SSM, don’t give one whit about homosexual love. In fact, I think such a thought repulses them and only makes them redouble their efforts.
Better SSM proponents underscore the stance of equality for all under the law, which is a cornerstone of American political thought and might just serve to garner more of the libertarian crowd.
I do not believe I have ever used the term “love” as part of my arguments for the acceptance of SSM. I do not recall it being mentioned in the paperwork (although it was repeatedly mentioned in the ceremony) back when The Wife and I were married.
I do not believe it is a necessary prerequisite for opposite-sex-marriage, and so I do not believe in tying it to any SSM support.
The reason any two people wish to enter into a marriage contract is irrelevant, as are what they may do in the privacy of their homes.
Worked well here in Minnesota getting it pushed through the legislative body. The Suburbs, a local band, had a hit called “Love is the Law” that was co-opted to push through the bill.
Of course, love should be a reason people are getting married.
Yes, that’s how it works for me. I am happy for my gay friends and relatives when they get to express basic human feelings and participate in our society’s institutions just as heterosexuals can. I was glad my cousins could dance with their gay partners at my brother’s wedding. The thought of attending their weddings, how happy they’ll be, warms my heart.
But ultimately my gladness can carry no weight in establishing social policy, not unless I want to assign equal weight to those who are incensed at the same things. The reason, as a matter of the social contract, that I believe SSM should be law is the simplest one, the same threshold I use for similar topics: It’s none of my fucking business.
IIRC, they and proponents in Washington State switched to emphasis on love precisely because so many people didn’t give a shit when gay people demanded their rights, but talking about love, families, etc. humanized the issue for many who weren’t so sure.
I disagree with the OP. If you don’t hammer home the fact marriage is about love (as it should be), then the other side of the debate is gonna make the “marriage is about procreation” argument. Arguing that SSM is about love puts the ball in your court and makes the other side debate on your terms.
I agree. It’s like how many people change their minds about gay rights when they know a gay person, rather than just seeing gay people in the news. Humanizing the issue can help a lot.
Is it? It seems to me that marriage is really about economics. I would no more say that a couple that didn’t love each other weren’t really married than I would say a couple WI th out kids weren’t married.
I disagree. Old School Republicans don’t think of SSM as equality. There’s a reason they call it “special rights.”
If you don’t bring love into it, then OSRs just retreat to the argument that gays are perfectly free to marry partners of the opposite sex. See? We’re all equal under the law.
I honestly haven’t known any Libertarians who were anti-gay. They were pretty hands-off on social issues.
I think Republicans who aren’t crazy teabaggers might be better swayed by government keeping their hands off and the equality angle.
And in response to other posters about the love issue, why does marriage have to be about love? There are plenty of straight marriages that are marriages of convenience for one reason or another. It’s no ones business why two people get married.
People who think like that don’t believe in equality; appealing to that principle isn’t likely to work. And the conservatives who are leading the fight for bigotry are beyond appealing to; it’s the more reasonable people that you want to aim for. And “love” is an argument that will work with them. The “love argument” also has the propaganda advantage of making those arguing against it look like uncaring bastards (it helps that they actually are uncaring bastards, naturally).
Because it gets better results sometimes than demanding your rights
Because most people’s exposure to people demanding their rights involves criminals or “hippie” protesters, so that sets a bad mental image
Because uber-religious/uptight douchebags try to claim that marriage is about making babies and biological families and passing down your own genes
Because lots of straight people are freaked the fuck out about gay people having “deviant” or “weird” relationships and talking about love as being the reason for marriage humanizes it
Because a lot of (straight) people are weirded out about marriages that aren’t based around love (arranged marriages, shotgun marriages with reluctant partners, Green Card marriages, marriages for health insurance coverage, marrying for money)
Because the ideal marriage in America includes love. Pretty much no woman dreams of her wedding to a man who she’ll somewhat tolerate because of a mutually beneficial marriage of convenience. And I don’t think any man wants to have a wife who will just be like a roommate to procreate with. Some people end up in marriages of convenience and deal with it, but I don’t think that’s what anyone aspires to. So gay people should have the same opportunities to try to have a great marriage with someone they love, just like straight people do.
Yeah, I think the real argument is simply that it harms no one and helps many, but the real argument isn’t really the argument.
SSM is still an argument against a bunch of people who think gays are icky and/or sinful.
Representing gay relationships as healthful, loving relationships is reasonable. It’s not going to change the views of the vehement, but I think it certainly can increase the support from the reasonable.