I’ve been working to try to understand the recent arguments America’s Right Wing has been trying to make against marriage equality. If you have been following the reports from Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that will determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, or have read, “Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?,†my piece detailing the, dare I say, “ridiculous†arguments America’s Right Wing is using against same-sex marriage, you’ll know what I’m talking about. But even well before Prop 8, America’s conservatives have been actively involved in maintaining second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian Americans.
Whether you have or you haven’t been following along, let me share with you (even more of) the reasons why I say America’s Right Wing’s anti-marriage equality arguments are, indeed, ridiculous.
The Real Purpose Of Marriage: Sex, Not Love is the fifth and final part in our week-long series, America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments.
Part Five: The Purpose Of Marriage
Another ridiculous and disturbing argument America’s Right Wing makes against same-sex marriage goes to the very core of how conservatives view the institution of marriage. Now, let me remind you that marriage has a long and, at times, by twenty-first century standards, inglorious history. Marriage in the past was used to united kingdoms, secure wealth, subjugate women and treat them as property (chattel,) and so on. (The Bible details many examples of this.) It is only in recent times that the concept of marriage has become about love, not money. Except for the anti-marriage equality folks on the Right, who still insist marriage is not about love, but about sex.
Specifically, and this is central to the argument used in the Prop 8 case, America’s Right Wing says that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage is to “channel” man’s natural desires into procreation. In “Hijacking the Marriage Debate,” at the National Review, Thomas Messner writes,
“Marriage is not fundamental to our ‘existence’ and ‘survival’ merely because it sometimes is marked by expressions of love, commitment, and respect. Marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival because it remains society’s best and most effective way of ordering sexual relations between men and women, encouraging procreation, and increasing the odds that a child will have the influence and support of both a mother and a father.”
Once again, this shows the ridiculousness and zero-sum mindedness of conservatives, like Messner.
What has gender or orientation have to do with the desire and ability to marry?
One of the essential questions surrounding state-sanctioning of marriage, (opposite-sex or same-sex marriage,) is, “Is it in the best interests of the state?” If the state has a vested interest in marriage, then it has a right to intercede and to regulate. (So lawmakers think.)
Is it in the state’s best interest to offer marriage only to opposite-sex couples? It is not.
Marriage does afford couples many benefits, including monogamy (should they choose,) financial and emotional stability, and societal acceptance, recognition, and support. Why should these ideals be limited to opposite-sex couples, when clearly it is to society’s benefit, and therefore, the state’s, to offer these to everyone?
(Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin published a piece on her blog yesterday titled, “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” which exhibited the extreme arrogance and sense of entitlement America’s Right Wing, especially the “Tea Party,” has. It also displayed their extreme lack of desire to understand social issues, especially as they relate to non-traditional families. In, “Michelle Malkin: “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals,” I write, “Yes, that’s right. America’s Right Wing, ever trolling to find ways to “prove†they are victims and the unfairly-treated majority, thinks now that because same-sex couples, who for, well, forever, have had to pay over a lifetime thousands upon thousands of dollars more in taxes than their opposite-sex married counterparts, are getting a “break†from beneficent corporations like Google, that it’s tantamount to discrimination against straights.”)
And again, the conservative dictum that only a mother and a father can raise a child comes to the fore. And we know — studies prove it, as does common sense, and millions of single parents and same-sex parent couples — that children can thrive in a variety of households, as long as love, not procreation, is the basis for the desire to be a family.
Sad, when you think about it, that the people who claim to be trying to “protect” marriage, see it as merely an institution to foster procreation.
So, the Right thinks that if gay marriage is legalized, children will be in trouble. Somehow, parents will give up their biological children automatically to same-sex couples, or, same-sex couples will come to straight households in the dead of night and, like Peter Pan, perhaps, convince children to fly away to NeverLand.
Additionally, the Right fears that if same-sex marriage is legalized, straight couples will cease to want to marry, and straight married couples will cease to want to have children.
We’re not going to steal children from same-sex couples, and we’re not going to stop having them or adopting them, regardless of the laws surrounding same-sex marriage. But laws that support same-sex marriage would serve to strengthen our families and protect children. Sadly, the Right is only concerned about protecting straight marriage and protecting children of straight parents.
Back in January, Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight.com (now a New York Times site,) published, “Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans.” He writes, “Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.” (Emphasis added.)
It’s almost as if the anti-marriage equality crowd secretly thinks if same-sex marriage (I’m sorry, when same-sex marriage) becomes legal, their spouses will leave them and enter into a same-sex relationship. Perhaps they’re right?
The other fact — since we’re bringing up statistics — the Right doesn’t want you to know, is that states that offer full marriage equality also have the lowest incidents of child homelessness. It’s true. In, “2.9 Million Orphans, Happy Father’s Day,” I write that, for example, Utah, which “ranks #38 [50 being the worst,] prohibits adoption by ‘a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage.’ Coincidence?”
The Right wants to make people believe that “homosexual marriage” (they love to call it that too, because “homosexual’ sounds “bad,”) will somehow obliterate “traditional marriage.” Well, it won’t. Marriage, is marriage.
In a bigoted and strongly fallacious piece, The Family Research Council says that, “[h]omosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution.” The Family Research Council thinks that marriages are like iPhones. The moment a new model comes out, it makes the existing ones less valuable.
The folks who really should be angry at that are the folks who have been in long-term marriages. Those marriages have withstood the test of time, making their relationship one of beauty and value.
All of this bigoted, hate-mongering is preposterous.
As is this concept: If marriage equality becomes the law of the land, it will mean that homosexuals are normal.
Oh, wait. We ARE.
And that, my friends, is what America’s anti-marriage equality Right Wing is really afraid of.
(image: kevindooley)