The Illinois House and Senate have passed a civil-union bill that is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. Good thing, say I, but that’s not what this thread is about.
In this article, a state rep opposed to the bill believes that we’re on a “slippery slope” to gay marriage, and had this to say:
My first response to this quote was “WHUH?” Of course a man and a woman can still have the honor of marriage! Who the hell said they couldn’t?
Rep. Stephens goes on to say that he’s a traditionalist who belives homosexuality is wrong, but whatever. I’m more interested in the mindset behind the above quote. It’s an old chestnut in the gay marriage/civil union debate that traditional male-female marriages will somehow be threatened or nullified or weakened or otherwise made less special if gay relationships are legally recognized.
So my question here is, what is the basis of this way of thinking? Why would somebody sincerely believe that his heterosexual marriage is in any way whatsoever affected by anybody else’s relationship, gay or straight? Mine’s not. I really don’t get it.
I’m not interested in discussing civil unions and same-sex marriage in general, just this particular aspect of the argument. (And keep in mind this isn’t the Pit. Thanks!)
I think they’re trying to say that the special, set-apart status of heterosexual marriage as an institution is threatened because, obviously, with gay marriages and civil unions and domestic partnerships, the heterosexual marriage no longer has that special unique status in our society/culture.
That’s what I’m inferring, since there’s nothing that actually threatens the validity of hetersexual marriage, so it has to be a status thing. Like if you’ve been following this really cool local band for all these years and suddenly they become really popular - it somehow makes you less cool to like them now.
You can’t separate it from the “homosexuality is wrong” belief.
It generally goes like this:
Marriage is good and sacred (and religious - although this part is sometimes omitted)
Homosexuals are innately sinful
Allowing homosexuals to be married diminishes the goodness and sacredness of marriage
It doesn’t work without step 2 (I’m not sure it really works with step 2 either), which is why at its core this argument stems from disapproval of homosexuality.
In reality the more truthful argument is: Homosexuals are deviant, and as such should be kept apart from “normal” society. Marriage is a social construct that provides social legitimacy to a relationship. By “normalizing” or legitimizing a homosexual relationship you also normalize and legitimize homosexuality in general.
Either way, it pretty much always comes back to the belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.
The only arguments that don’t stem from that are ones arguing about the impact same-sex marriages have on children raised in them. Those are just based on bad science, not outright distaste of homosexuality (although the proponents often fall into that camp as well).
It’s as if country-club membership were reserved for the “right class” of people, and suddenly there was a proposal to let anybody in. That would threaten the “honor” of belonging to the country club. I can’t think of any other meaning to give to Rep. Stephens’s statement. In other words, he thinks gay people are less worthy of “honor” than straight people.
God defined marriage a certain way. Changing the definition of marriage clearly goes against God’s will, and thus cheapens and destroys the very concept of marriage.
Or so said some Mormons no doubt when the church decided that marriage no longer encompassed polygamy. But I’d suspect that this Trojan horse’s ass is coming from a similar place.
Well, he’s right about that. Of the four previous states that instituted civil unions 3 have switched to full civil marriage after only a few years; one was by court order (CT), but the other two were by legislative vote (VT and NH). And there’s alot of agitation in New Jersey for full marriage (probally won’t happen under the current governor). Illinois will have full marriage equality withing a decade.
With respect to the quote, I think it’s a sort of “if everyone wins, nobody wins” mindset, as if marriage were a race. “If everyone who crosses the finish line gets First Prize, what’s the point of coming in first?”
Is this how most SSM opponents see it? Well, maybe not; at least not primarily, although it may play a subconscious role. More to the point is the conviction that gays are deviates, gay sex is degrading and perverted, and any implication that what they do is in any way similar to Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman is an insult to marriage, God, and decency itself.
Basically, civil unions *are * a step on the path to SSM (at least I hope so), and both imply that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. SSM opponents generally believe there is something wrong with being gay – very wrong – and hate the idea of living in a world where they have to fight against the tide just to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.
Imagine that you’re an American Jew in the Peace Corps, and you’re discussing female circumcision with some local who’s defending it. You argue that it’s harmful, you argue that it’s sexist, and he argues that Jews circumcise male infants. How do you respond, internally, to this facile equivalence between genital mutilation and the bris?
Internally? Probably something along the lines of “Why am I wasting my precious time trying to improve your life, you barely-evolved primate? Go get yourself killed in some pointless civil war and leave this planet to those of us with brains.”
Externally, just smile and nod.
One of my best friends (a Mormon) said this on facebook defending a sermon by Mormonism’s next-in-line to the presidency that called homosexuality “evil” and “unnatural”:
Another LDS friend said this back in August:
Both of these friends are actually pretty liberal, at least compared to other practicing Mormons.
So it appears that members of a group that produces much of the anti-equality propaganda justify it by implying that Religion owns the copyright on the word “marriage” and its use should be restricted to those who believe and respect LDS traditions.
In that case, abolish marriage as far as the state is concerned, and just leave it up to the various religions. Replace it with civil unions recognised by the state, and carried out by celebrants authorised by the state. The celebrants could be priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc., or could be non-religious civil celebrants, and the religious marriage ceremony could be carried out at the same time as the civil union ceremony. That would mean that the state would not be tarnishing marriage, because it would be having nothing to do with it.
And as I understand it that is the one interesting part of the IL law. It allows for opposite-sex civil unions, something most states that added same-sex civil unions did not allow.
Sounds good to me. As long as I continue to get ALL of the legal and psychological benefits of marriage, and as long as the religious don’t try to say who can or can’t participate in civil unions, they can have their word back. I have divorced myself from the church that performed my marriage, and I don’t give a rat’s ass if their religion continues to recognise my marriage as long as my family stays intact in the eyes of society and of the law.
That’s an interesting assertion. Obviously, if God used the word in Genesis (which I think he did), that’s enough evidence for the true believers. But in actual human etymology, does it really have religious origins?
Yup. Isis and Osiris called, and they want their word back. It’s just as funny as them looking up from reading the books of Kings in the Bible and yapping about marriage being between one man and one woman.
We got married by an atheist organization in a ceremony which did not mention God in any way, so I’d like to hold onto the word, please. In Pennsylvania you can marry yourself. I like the term marriage, so much so that I want to spread it to all who want it, and not cede it to bigots.
I think what’s behind it is at least partly the fear: “our ability to control [some thing] is being diminished” - either directly, in that the imposition of traditional marriage gets more difficult, or indirectly, in that other associated moral standards are less easy to impose upon someone if you are not first able to impose traditional marriage.
Of the four previous states that instituted civil unions 3 have switched to full civil marriage after only a few years; one was by court order (CT), but the other two were by legislative vote (VT and NH). And there’s alot of agitation in New Jersey for full marriage (probally won’t happen under the current governor). Illinois will have full marriage equality withing a decade.