Homosexual Marriage Does Not Pose a Threat

¶ … Homosexual marriage does not pose a threat to me or my manhood therefore I am for it." Although I am heterosexual, I know what it means to long for union with another human being. I will choose a woman for my partner, but if another man desires to choose one of his own sex, there is no harm for me in his choice. In fact, since we are both part of humanity, his legal union, as does mine, brings positive reinforcement to the institution of marriage.

As early as 400 BC Plato in his Symposium discussed the mystery of sexual desire, concluding that humans are always searching for their other half, having been cut in two as punishment by Zeus. The whole humans that existed before this action, according to Aristophanes, Plato's debating companion, all had two heads, four legs and four arms. They were of three types: some with both halves male, some with both halves female, and those who were half male and half female.

Although Plato's argument rejects marriage for males in his own time, it does pertain to our time in it's understanding of why homosexuality does not deny masculinity and how a dedicated homosexual relationship can be the most self enhancing union possible. Far from being shameful, says Plato, boys who like boys, are "bold and brave and masculine," tending to cherish "what is like themselves.

In seeking out their long lost other half, they find a sense of love and "of belonging to one another." Plato poses a question which is extremely relevant in the instance of the current argument.

Assuming that there is more than mere sex to the question of human bonds, Plato has Hephaestus, god of the forge, stand over two lovers lying together and ask: "What is it you human beings really want from each other?" With his mending tools in hand, Hephaestus says: Is this your heart's desire, then -- for the two of you to become parts of the same whole, as near as can be, and never to separate, day of night? Because if that's your desire, I'd like to weld you together and join you into something that is naturally whole, so that the two of you are made into one.

Then the two of you would be one being, and by the same token, when you died, you would be one and not two in Hades, having died a single death. Look at your love, and see if this is what you desire: wouldn't this be all the good fortune you could want? (Sullivan, Same Sex Marriage 4-6) In the history of the institution, marriage has not always been about love.

As Jonathan Rauch points out in an article included in Andrew Sullivan's Pros and Cons of Same Sex Marriage: At one point, marriage in secular society was largely a matter of business: cementing family ties, providing social status for men and economic support for women, conferring dowries and so on (170). Arranged marriages, never were, and still aren't based on love. The case for same sex marriage, may also, in some cases, be a matter of business. Homosexual couples may, like heterosexual couples desire to share financial assets and responsibilities.

They may want to bequeath and inherit like so called normal human beings. One male partner may want to support another less financially solid male partner.

Gay couples argue that they deserve legal rights of "immediate family," such as medical decision-making and hospital and prison visiting privileges, obtaining health insurance, and tax benefits and public assistance, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance, workers' compensation survivor benefits, spousal benefits from annuity and retirement plans, and the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse, to name just a few (Mohr 43-45 and (http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/).Thus, to a certain point, gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage may sometimes contain an economic element.

The larger aspects of gay marriage, and why it should be supported by straights, however, provide the solid structure of the argument. Headlines recently recorded on the gay web site, PlanetOut.com, as collaborated by the Associated Press, confirm that around the world legalization of gay marriage is gaining ground. In April 2001, this Reuters headline appeared: "Netherlands Holds World's First Gay Marriages." The article described happenings on the first day a Dutch law allowing same-sex matrimony went into effect.

"Two lesbian brides and six gay grooms became the world's first same-sex couples to wed legally, tying the knot in a colorful communal ceremony in Amsterdam. "Vows were exchanged "to the cheers and whoops of family and friends -- some clad in tight black leather, others in sedate frocks and picture hats." The passage of this unique law came about in spite of fierce opposition by Christian parties protesting that gays are merely satisfying their "lusts," which to this hearer, is an extremely contradictory argument.

Certainly, one of the couples among those marrying, on the first day of legality was gratifying a long standing longing for legal union. After a 36-year relationship, the 63 and 72-year-old partners rejoiced to finally have a real union in the eyes of the law. These people are seeking true commitment. The Netherlands had previously, since 1998. offered gays "registered partnership," which allowed same-sex couples legal status similar but not actually called marriage.

The desire, however, to offer the symbolism of true marriage to those of any and all sexual orientation, encouraged the legalization of homosexual unions in this "country that sets the global pace in gay rights" (http://www.PlanetOut.comunpaged). In further headlines, in August 2001, same sex couples across Germany "cut cakes and sipped champagne and exchanged rings" as official registration of same sex unions became legal. In July of 2002, an Ontario, Canada, court ruled that not recognizing the legality of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The three-judge Superior Court panel also ordered Parliament to offer a redefinition of marriage within the next two years. Canadian law currently defines marriage as "a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." In September of 2002 voters in Zurich, Switzerland, approved giving same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples, including tax, inheritance and social security.

Six months before qualifying for these benefits, same-sex couples who must live in Zurich must offer formal commitment hat they will share a joint home and to provide each other with mutual support. This decision shows that the state no longer considers these couples "second-class citizens," said a combined group of gay activists. Similar rights for same-sex couples are being sought throughout Switzerland. (http://www.PlanetOut.comunpaged).

All this progress did not come easily, and in our own country we must be continually vigilant to be sure that we are moving toward human recognition of rights for homosexual couples. It has been a long hard struggle and there is much more ahead. As William Sloane Coffin states on the cover of Richard D.

Mohr's book, A More Perfect Union: "Whenever we demean gays and lesbians, we diminish ourselves." In his chapter on Gay Marriage, Mohr, uses a scene from Harvey Fierstein's play Torch Song Trilogy to make his point. Arnold, who's gay lover has just been killed, is having a heated exchange with his mother who feels insulted to think that her widowhood may be compared to the loss her gay son has suffered. Arnold's reply to his mother is a perfect summary of how straights diminish themselves by bashing gays.

Arnold says: You had it easy, Ma. You lost your husband in a nice clean hospital, I lost mine out there. They killed him there on the street. Twenty-three years old, laying dead on the street. Killed by a bunch of kids with baseball bats. Children. Children taught by people like you. 'Cause everybody knows that queers don't matter! Queers don't love! And those that do deserve what they get! (22).

In 1987 a California court declared that in a case similar to Arnold's that a homosexual relationship, no matter how "emotionally significant, stable, or exclusive" could be cause for a suit against bashers for "emotional distress" or "wrongful death" (Mohr 40). This all too familiar attitude places gays in a less than human status and debases the society that allows it.

Disavowing so-called legal definitions of marriage as a union of male and female designed for the propagation of children, Richard Mohr offers another definition: "Marriage," he says, "is intimacy given substance in the medium of everyday life, the day-to-day. Marriage is the fused intersection of love's sanctity and necessity's demand" (41).

In the epilogue to his book, The Case for Same Sex Marriage, William Eskridge, attempts to explain America's "inexplicable" resistance to same-sex marriage by what he calls "fear of flaunting." In addition to just plain "ignorance" and "anti-homosexual hysteria," otherwise know as "homophobia," Eskridge analyses America's sex-ambivalent society, alternately fascinated and repelled by sexuality." He describes how our society is both "prurient and puritanical, tolerant and judgmental." Voyeurism is fine if the X-rated movie is about heterosexual sex, but on screen homosexual relations are still very much taboo and shocking to the majority of Americans.

We live by a double standard, allowing media expression of heterosexual freedom of expression, but insist upon "public suppression of the lesbian or gay person's sexuality." For example in the television show Melrose Place several outrageous heterosexual characters freely indulge in wild abandoned sex, while the "discreet homosexual" Matt, never even comes close to an on camera kiss. "The purpose and effect of this double standard," says Eskridge, "is the public suppression of the lesbian or gay person's sexuality." Such suppression is both mentally and politically "unhealthy" (Eskridge 183-188).

I would in fact go farther toward stating that this double standard is extremely debilitating to the American psyche and would suggest how illuminating and mind-stretching it might prove if American's were offered a new and updated version of the Archie Bunker show that did so much to expose our own bigotry in other areas. In a paper presented on October 12, 2000, at Albany Law School as the 2000 Edward C. Sobota '79 Memorial Lecture, the same writer mentioned above, William N.

Eskridge Jr., Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School said: On April 26, 2000, Vermont's governor signed legislation recognizing civil unions between same-sex couples. Under the new law, same-sex couples entering into civil unions will enjoy the same benefits and obligations that Vermont law provides for different-sex couples who enter into civil marriages. The law was a legislative response to Baker v. State, a state supreme court decision interpreting the state constitution as requiring the state to equalize the benefits and obligations afforded same-sex couples and different-sex married couples.

The court's decision explicitly contemplated the possibility that the legislature could remedy the discrimination either by extending civil marriage to same-sex couples, or by creating a new institution entailing the same state-sanctioned benefits (such as the right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a spouse) or obligations (such as the duty of support and maintenance) for same-sex couples that are afforded to different-sex married couples.

Six European countries had created such new institutions, called registered partnerships ("Equality Practice" unpaged) Eskridge, himself a gay, highly respected in legal circles, reasons logically and convincingly in this lengthy speech that even though Vermont's law authorizing civil union is "inconsistent with the premises of the liberal state," it is a giant step in the right direction.

Eskridge describes how the law received criticism from both traditionalists who found it "compromising to the institution of marriage, or promoting homosexuality," as well from liberals who describe "civil union" language as" falling short of full legal equality" and "in essence creating a 'separate but equal' regime for gays.

The new law treats homosexuals differently from heterosexual couples, and, says Eskridge, "for reasons that are hard to justify without resort to arguments grounded in status denigration or even prejudices." In support of his opinion he quotes Justice Denise Johnson's dissent in the Baker case in which the majority refused to require the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Johnson argued that "The majority's concern with 'disruptive and unforeseen consequences,' was similar to the concern raised by segregationist states that had opposed the breakdown of apartheid in the 1950s. "The Supreme Court's 'compelling answer' to that contention," says Johnson, "was 'that constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise'" ("Equality Practice" unpaged).

Eskridge also quotes a compelling argument offered in Vermont's state legislature by Representative Steve Hingtgen who opposed any compromise in calling the law civil union rather that marriage, on the ground that it not only "validates the bigotry" against homosexuals, but "institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont." Eskridge admits that these are pertinent issues and that the Vermont legislation is a compromise of liberal principles, but he asks his listeners to consider that the compromise is a step in the liberal direction and may be a stepping stone to future developments in equality ("Equality Practice" unpaged).

Eskridge sees Vermont's civil union law as a big step forward in the "politics of recognition stating that "For most of the twentieth century, lesbian and gay people were outlaws, potential felons on the basis of their consensual activities and social outcasts if their identities were revealed." Even so, this legislation is to Eskridge, a "sacrifice of liberal principles" because the state, according to liberal theories, is "supposed to provide a context within which its members can flourish," "to be neutral as to its citizens' moral virtue," and to" inculcate civic virtues of toleration and cooperation in the citizenry." Vermont's civil unions law recognizes that the liberal state cannot discriminate against same-sex couples.

Its central goal is "to provide eligible same-sex couples the opportunity 'to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples." Yet, according to Eskridge, as well as in my opinion, this law no matter how thoughtfully conceived "does not assure the full equality liberalism would seem to demand." The law fails to take the final step that would give gay couples true equality before the law.

It admits honestly that it "does not bestow the status of civil marriage" because it intention is to "provide due respect for tradition and long-standing social institutions." I have to agree with Eskridge that this clause imprisons gay couple in the realm of "second-class citizenship," the only justification for which is the traditional precept that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. More simply and honestly this tradition al view is inane and degrading justification for treating some citizens differently from others.

The Vermont legislation in creating a new institution, in effect chickened out in allowing tradition to take the blame for withholding the truly humanizing status of marriage from gays, keeping them effectively still separate and different ("Equality Practice" unpaged).

Although the Vermont law is open to a multitude of contradictory appeals due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) which says that, for federal purposes "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife," as Eskridge says, this law, now serves "a facilitating function -- offering couples opportunities to shape satisfying lives as formal equals and as they, rather than the state, see fit." These couples can now have an easier time in structuring their committed relationships.

This "full formal equality" in Vermont contrasts with formal inequalities of federal law and of the laws of other states that do not recognize civil unions, and with functional inequalities created by social hostility to same-sex unions." Thus gay couples when facing a wider world than Vermont, are still the victims of "symbolic disrespect." In spite of this Eskridge still sees civil union as "a big step forward in the politics of recognition, one that might be described as a necessary compromise.

"Justice delayed, " says Eskridge, "is not always justice denied." In the Netherlands, Eskridge points out, it only took three years to move from registered partnership to same-sex marriage.

It will take longer in Vermont, but in well-chosen words as Eskridge puts it: the same-sex marriage movement teaches us that process matters and that equality cannot be shoved down unwilling throats, especially by the judiciary...If a goal of liberalism is the inculcation of the values of tolerance and mutual respect, the way in which liberal projects are accomplished must be consistent with these values.

For the judiciary...to tell traditionalist citizens that their time-tested family values count for nothing in the same-sex marriage debate is a time-tested path to political alienation or revolt ("Equality Practice" unpaged). A must fully agree with Eskridge, that the genius of Vermont's equality practice is that although traditional family values had to bend to recognize lesbian and gay rights, those rights in turn bent to accommodate traditional anxieties for moment.

The hope being that as civil unions reveal to single sex relationships are serious and loving and not all that different from heterosexual unions, the state might be ready for real equality. Andrew Sullivan, a prolific author on the subject of same-sex marriage, makes the following dedication to the book he edited and published in 1997, Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: "For all those, gay and straight, who have found the strength and the love to sustain the institution of marriage" (ix).

As indicated in this sentiment, he center of all Sullivan's presentations about gay marriage is that marriage is a complex demanding relationship and that those who work to sustain such long-term relationships, should not have to explain their sexual behavior to anyone. As E.J. Graff, one of the authors in the book insists, "a good marriage is defined from the inside out" and "sodomy is a sin only in the mind of the beholder" (135).

As Sullivan points out, "homosexual marriages have always existed." There many forms have just been "euphemized," or called something less distasteful to homophobic conservatives. Sullivan continues with the argument that public commitment as gays are increasing accepted in society, is a "healthy trend." If two homosexuals love each other and want to acknowledge their ongoing relationship with a pledge of permanent union, allowing them to legally do so, witnessed by family and friends, only provides support for stable long-term moral relationships.

It can do nothing to harm the psyche of a male who is secure in his own heterosexuality. (Virtually Normal 183) Sullivan further confirms the value of gay marriage by arguing that it would be an "unqualified social good for homosexuals," providing "role models for young gay people, who after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity." Sullivan guesses that many homosexuals would welcome a positive marriage goal with perhaps more responsibility than heterosexuals.

He points out that many gay relationships are "virtual textbooks of monogamous commitment." This has become especially true as AIDS has made the vow to stick together through sickness and health a reality for many gay couples. Gay marriage could also reunite homosexuals and their families in a socially acceptable and healing way (Virtual Normalcy 183-184).

In an impassioned argument Sullivan underscores the positive values of gay marriage as "a profoundly humanizing, traditionalizing step." He reasons that as gay marriage became part of a cultures consciousness, it would provide a sense of identity and future for gay children.

Growing up gay could come to mean not "shame, or otherness," but could allow for the same humane possibility open to heterosexuals to "love and be loved as complete, imperfect human beings." Without broad scale legalization of gay marriage, says Sullivan, "this fundamental element of personal dignity will be denied a whole segment of humanity" (Virtual Normalcy 183-185).

After considering Sullivan's arguments, it is obvious to me how personally debilitation it must be to grow up feeling that you sexual instincts are wrong and that there is no possibility of long-term love and commitment. If I cannot allow two men to pledge eternal love to each other, then I cannot claim to be much of a man myself. Gay couples, elated not to have to hide or to face the stigma of being viewed as sick or criminal, will have a psychological burden lifted from their shoulders.

This sort of humane support of other human beings, no matter how different they might be from oneself, should bring a contagious elevation of spirit to any soul that desires to feel at peace in the world. Those who oppose gay marriage, should look closely at their motivation.

Is their own sense of masculinity at stake? How can the sexual preferences of others harm them? Do they feel threaten simply because they are not sure of their own convictions about their sexuality or moral beliefs? Paula Ettelbrick, a legal advocate who has participated in the development of some of the key principles of lesbian and gay family law in recent years, believes that our community is invested in moving beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to family definition.

As another scholar who seeks a humane approach to complex social problems, I support her arguments. In her speech to a law school forum, published in Albany Law Review, entitled "Domestic Partnership, Civil Unions, or Marriage; One Size Does Not Fit All," Ettelbrick says that it is "important to remind ourselves...that social change doesn't just happen. It is a dynamic process involving theory, strategy, advocacy, and the story of human lives.

It is the dynamic process of history in which we know that nothing ever stays the same, even the role, function, and definition of family. Ettelbrick describes how in the past several decades, the definition of family has changed dramatically with important many important legal shifts regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and economic class. Families, says Ettelbrick are now more accurately defined as "people who love, care for, and support one another," the norm being a diversity of form, not the one-size-fits-all structure of marriage and biology.

Ettelbrick cites a long series of law cases which give recognition to relationships which had not been previously recognized. This essay will not pursue, due to space considerations the issue of parenting in relation to homosexual marriage, though it will state that the same logic that leaves my masculinity not being threatened by gay marriage, leaves my parenting ability unquestioned by gay parented families. As Ettelbrick points out, it seems only obvious that as loving gay couples should be granted recognition, they should also be granted equal parental rights (unpaged).

Movements toward gay unions, in Ettelbrick's opinion, challenge discrimination, in the same way that workplace discrimination against gays was an earlier target. The term domestic partnership evolved in this way. As employees, beginning in 1981, in committed non-marital partnership began to receive the same benefits and compensation as married employees. This was a successful challenge to the stereotype that non-marital relationships are less committed than marital bonds. Thus one barrier to traditional conception of family was down. A partner could be as committed to sticking through a crisis as a spouse.

Ettelbrick brings up an interesting point that marriage alone is a "limited, and even misguided, strategy for gay families," primarily because " the best family policy by far is to support all families." This argument ties in with the argument for humane recognition and understanding of all relationships.

What is the point of any narrow definition whether it be of family, partnership, union or marriage? If we can stop placing people in boxes and widen our scope we can stop stigmatizing any union or family structure that is not neatly packaged in the traditional manner. If our society could make this leap we might create fewer dysfunctional relationships and families and produce more truly supportive human bonds.

Andrew Sullivan in The New Republic cover story, "Why Civil Union isn't Marriage," that came out just as the new Vermont law went into effect argues for same sex marriage as he did against miscegenation laws, saying, "The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed.

Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.. And to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs" (20), When Sullivan, in the same article, first discussed his advocacy of gay marriage with his mother, she said: "That's all very well, but can't you call it something other than 'marriage?'" His reply is worth quoting at length: The answer to that question is no.

Marriage, under any interpretation of American constitutional law, is among the most basic civil rights. "Separate but equal" was a failed and pernicious policy with regard to race; it will be a failed and pernicious policy with regard to sexual orientation. The many advances of recent years -- the "domestic partnership" laws passed in many cities and states, the generous package of benefits finally granted in Hawaii, the breakthrough last week in Vermont -- should not be thrown out.

But neither can they be accepted as a solution, as some straight liberals and gay pragmatists seem to want. In fact, these half-measures, far from undermining the case for complete equality, only sharpen it. For there are no arguments for civil union that do not apply equally to marriage. To endorse one but not the other, to concede the substance of the matter while withholding the name and form of the relationship, is to engage in an act of pure stigmatization.

It risks not only perpetuating public discrimination against a group of citizens but adding to the cultural balkanization that already plagues American public life (18).

Other Sullivan quotable quotes applicable here are: "Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved?" And "if gay love truly is as valid as straight love, and if civil marriage is a deeper constitutional right than the right to vote, then the continued exclusion of gay citizens from civil marriage is a constitutional and political enormity." Finally, Sullivan stakes his own bet "that gay marriages may well turn out to be more responsible, serious, and committed than straight ones...Far from wrecking the neighborhood, gay men and women may help fix it up" (21).

Marriage law for heterosexuals, says Sullivan "makes no judgments about the capacity of those seeking a marriage license to fulfill its obligations. Perhaps if it did the divorce rate would be lower. But it doesn't, and in a free society it shouldn't." The law understands, Sullivan continues: that different people will have different levels of achievement in marriage. Many will experience divorce; some marriages may not last a week, while others may last a lifetime; still other couples might construct all sorts of personal arrangements to keep their marriages going.

But the right to marry does not take any of this into account, and failing marriages and successful marriages are identical in the eyes of the law. Why should this sensible and humane approach work for everyone but homosexuals? (22). On the Vermont law, Sullivan has this to say: "To offer gay men and.