4.7 - About Gay Marriage
First of all, the idea that marriage is primarily a mechanism for raising children is reminiscent of brain-dead sociological theories that ascribe everything to reproductive drives as if no other process were ongoing in the individual human psyche or within society as a collective taker of actions.
Marriage has been, and is being, used to: bind property, bind nations, bind previously disjoint families and titles, provide mutual support for the parties involved, latch onto property that would otherwise be out of reach, maintain a constant source of sexual relief, obtain financial support, obtain relief from a single lifestyle, avoid censure by the religious droolers, obtain citizenship, social climb, obtain green cards, allow access to one country or another, to obtain insurance obligations and pay-outs, to differentiate tax responsibilities, and... oh yes... as a structure within which one can, if one is so motivated, raise children. Of course, as you don't actually need marriage to do that, while you may very well need marriage to do many, if not all, of the above tasks, child-rearing is really a minor point.
Clearly, the reason that gays are being denied marriage rights is because the intent is to marginalize them, to ensure that they are not able to access the broad spectrum of social and personal benefits that marriage can, under various circumstances, confer. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from raising children without marriage (and it is worth pointing out that in the US, at least, presently the number of unmarried couples outnumbers the married anyway.)
Part of the problem — and I definitely think this is a problem for gays — is the tendency to turn to your neighbor for approval; if gays expect recognition, per se, from neighbors who abhor their lifestyle, they're going to have to wait quite some time, specifically until society turns over enough mores to simply forget that it's not usual or OK to accept gays; just like it is still an ongoing process for women to be accepted throughout the workplace (for instance, speaker of the house is the closest (3 away) any female has gotten to the presidency as of early 2007... other stats agree.) Acceptance is increasing, and the pressure is there so that I think it will keep increasing overall, but it is early enough in the process that you can expect major attempts at accelerating that acceptance to meet strong resistance and appear to constitute major setbacks.
The funny thing is, they're not really setbacks. Every time the issue raises its head, homophobes feel oppressed, and they're right. Every time the issue raises its head, homosexuals feel like they're being heard; and they're right, too. Every time the issue raises its head, the undecided are forced to confront basic issues of liberty and equality, and this is a process that will almost always favor the oppressed, in this case, the homosexuals — in my opinion. These are part of the social pressures that will eventually marginalize the homophobes. Just don't hold your breath. Like religion, homophobia is a deep-seated social problem that can't just be surgically excised; it is systemic, it is sub-rosa (in the sense that most homophobes cannot articulate just what it is that is causing them such distress about the idea), and it is insidious in that it is a fulcrum used by the simple-minded to artificially create social divisions at every level from cliques to classing (like marriage) to corporate assignments to political positions.
We're not going to solve this here, but we can apply just a tiny bit more pressure. One way to do that is to expose marriage for what it presently is in the USA, and that is a government sponsored gateway to a set of conditions that mostly, with the exception of taxes at present (see "marriage penalty"), confer benefits upon the recipients of government permission. From sharing medical benefits to receipt of insurance pay-outs, from the ability to visit a loved one in the hospital, marriage is a cultural gateway to concrete benefits managed by the federal government. Every day that passes during which these benefits are arbitrarily limited to single-partner, opposite sex pairs is a day that undermines the commitment of our government to liberty and equality, a day of continued shame for those citizens who support such an outlook.
Perhaps when we can get this done, we can begin to seriously look at the religious paranoia that causes polygamy and other arrangements of consensual, informed personal choice to be looked upon with such fear and loathing, and excise those social problems as well. Or perhaps I'm just too much of an optimist. Perhaps, as I recall one of the replicant characters in Blade Runner (a screen adaptation of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep") saying, "Then we're stupid and we deserve to die."
Have a comment for me? Click here.