Last week, the California Supreme Court struck down the law banning marriage between members of the same gender here in the Golden State. According to Chief Justice Ron George, “Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation.”
To no one’s surprise, the only thing louder than the whoops of happiness from West Hollywood and the Castro District have been the cries of outrage from the religious and political right. Part of their argument is that this decision “subverts the will of the people of California,” 61 percent of whom voted in favor of Prop 22, which stated “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” back in 2000.
Having forgotten that “majority rules” only counts when the rights of the minority are protected, they are pinning their hopes on an amendment to the state constitution decreeing marriage a one-man/one-woman institution—an amendment that would, if passed, overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
I want to talk to these people for a few minutes. Not the talk-radio blowhards and the Bible-thumping zealots, but the average, even-tempered people who also want to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
And I want to say to these people: I understand. I understand why you’re against gay marriage. And I want you to listen to me, with an open mind, just for a few minutes.
No one wants his or her child to be gay. A gay child is subject to isolation, or name-calling, or ridicule, or bullying, or far, far worse. No parent wants that for his son or daughter.
And no one aspires to be the parent of a gay son or daughter.
We don’t know whether homosexuality is a result of genetics or chemistry or upbringing or some combination thereof, or if it’s just some cosmic accident. But because, unlike eye or hair color, it’s a trait that’s not obvious at birth, parents frequently consider themselves responsible for it.
“He loves baseball—just like his father.”
“She’s stubborn—she gets that from me.”
“She loves horses. I did too when I was her age.”
“He’s gay—where did I go wrong?”
People do care what others think of them. And as a result, some parents don’t want a child to be gay because of what they think it says about them.
So how do these concerned parents think they can stop homosexuality from happening, so that they can ensure that their children and their children’s children will be heterosexual and the neighbors won’t talk?
By denying its existence.
If there are no books in the school library that feature gay characters—
If we boycott the products of sponsors of television shows that feature gay people—
If the only role models our children see are heterosexual people in traditional marriages—
If we make sure that our children don’t even know there is such a thing as homosexuality—
Then how can they become what doesn’t exist?
That, I believe, is at the very core of the argument against gay marriage: a belief that if there is no gay marriage, fewer children will grow up to be gay—and vice versa.
But it doesn’t work that way.
Gay just happens.
Whether society accepts it or denies it or decries it, gay just happens. It’s happened throughout recorded history. It’s happened in cultures that embraced homosexuality and it’s happened in cultures that demonized it. In the absence of positive role models and in the presence of punishment, gay just happens. It happens to the children of conservatives who espouse family values just as it happens to the children of left-wing free-love advocates. Like being left-handed, there are children—about ten percent of all children—who just turn out that way.
And as no parent wishes for his or her child to be gay, believe me: no child wishes to be gay either. They just turn out that way. Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is naïve at best. The only choices homosexuals have are whether to admit their preference to themselves and others, and whether to act on their desires. Their sexual orientation itself? That’s not a choice; it’s a fact of their lives.
In a world that tells children—from before they are even aware of their sexual feelings—that being gay is unnatural and wrong, that being gay means you can’t grow up and get married to the person you love, how do you think these children feel?
They feel guilty. Ashamed. Afraid. Alone.
Parents who think they’ll prevent their children from becoming homosexual by denying them the opportunity to see happy, productive gay people in long-term committed relationships are not preventing any such thing. Their straight children will still be straight; but their gay children will not only still be gay, they’ll also feel marginalized and inferior and without hope.
This is the environment that produces people like Jim McGreevey and Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, men who are willing to build lives of elaborate lies (hurting many others in the bargain) to hide their sexual orientation—desires that they can then only indulge in pathetic places like turnpike exits, motel rooms and airport toilets.
So I understand the argument against gay marriage. It’s a well intentioned hedge against a child’s unhappiness. But that hedge can create its own unhappiness, a much deeper and more damaging unhappiness.
Gay marriage won’t turn heterosexuals gay any more than allowing marriage only between a man and a woman has turned homosexuals straight. What it will do is allow some boy or some girl, somewhere, to feel that he or she can grow up and live a normal, healthy life with the partner of their choosing.
In the end, what parent wouldn’t want that?
To no one’s surprise, the only thing louder than the whoops of happiness from West Hollywood and the Castro District have been the cries of outrage from the religious and political right. Part of their argument is that this decision “subverts the will of the people of California,” 61 percent of whom voted in favor of Prop 22, which stated “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” back in 2000.
Having forgotten that “majority rules” only counts when the rights of the minority are protected, they are pinning their hopes on an amendment to the state constitution decreeing marriage a one-man/one-woman institution—an amendment that would, if passed, overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
I want to talk to these people for a few minutes. Not the talk-radio blowhards and the Bible-thumping zealots, but the average, even-tempered people who also want to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
And I want to say to these people: I understand. I understand why you’re against gay marriage. And I want you to listen to me, with an open mind, just for a few minutes.
No one wants his or her child to be gay. A gay child is subject to isolation, or name-calling, or ridicule, or bullying, or far, far worse. No parent wants that for his son or daughter.
And no one aspires to be the parent of a gay son or daughter.
We don’t know whether homosexuality is a result of genetics or chemistry or upbringing or some combination thereof, or if it’s just some cosmic accident. But because, unlike eye or hair color, it’s a trait that’s not obvious at birth, parents frequently consider themselves responsible for it.
“He loves baseball—just like his father.”
“She’s stubborn—she gets that from me.”
“She loves horses. I did too when I was her age.”
“He’s gay—where did I go wrong?”
People do care what others think of them. And as a result, some parents don’t want a child to be gay because of what they think it says about them.
So how do these concerned parents think they can stop homosexuality from happening, so that they can ensure that their children and their children’s children will be heterosexual and the neighbors won’t talk?
By denying its existence.
If there are no books in the school library that feature gay characters—
If we boycott the products of sponsors of television shows that feature gay people—
If the only role models our children see are heterosexual people in traditional marriages—
If we make sure that our children don’t even know there is such a thing as homosexuality—
Then how can they become what doesn’t exist?
That, I believe, is at the very core of the argument against gay marriage: a belief that if there is no gay marriage, fewer children will grow up to be gay—and vice versa.
But it doesn’t work that way.
Gay just happens.
Whether society accepts it or denies it or decries it, gay just happens. It’s happened throughout recorded history. It’s happened in cultures that embraced homosexuality and it’s happened in cultures that demonized it. In the absence of positive role models and in the presence of punishment, gay just happens. It happens to the children of conservatives who espouse family values just as it happens to the children of left-wing free-love advocates. Like being left-handed, there are children—about ten percent of all children—who just turn out that way.
And as no parent wishes for his or her child to be gay, believe me: no child wishes to be gay either. They just turn out that way. Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is naïve at best. The only choices homosexuals have are whether to admit their preference to themselves and others, and whether to act on their desires. Their sexual orientation itself? That’s not a choice; it’s a fact of their lives.
In a world that tells children—from before they are even aware of their sexual feelings—that being gay is unnatural and wrong, that being gay means you can’t grow up and get married to the person you love, how do you think these children feel?
They feel guilty. Ashamed. Afraid. Alone.
Parents who think they’ll prevent their children from becoming homosexual by denying them the opportunity to see happy, productive gay people in long-term committed relationships are not preventing any such thing. Their straight children will still be straight; but their gay children will not only still be gay, they’ll also feel marginalized and inferior and without hope.
This is the environment that produces people like Jim McGreevey and Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, men who are willing to build lives of elaborate lies (hurting many others in the bargain) to hide their sexual orientation—desires that they can then only indulge in pathetic places like turnpike exits, motel rooms and airport toilets.
So I understand the argument against gay marriage. It’s a well intentioned hedge against a child’s unhappiness. But that hedge can create its own unhappiness, a much deeper and more damaging unhappiness.
Gay marriage won’t turn heterosexuals gay any more than allowing marriage only between a man and a woman has turned homosexuals straight. What it will do is allow some boy or some girl, somewhere, to feel that he or she can grow up and live a normal, healthy life with the partner of their choosing.
In the end, what parent wouldn’t want that?
3 comments:
A well worded and thoughtful commentary on an emotionally charged and difficult issue.
Chip,
I believe most of the arguments against gay marriage are because many individuals equate marriage with religion, the Church and scripture. Marriages usually occur at churches through a religious ceremony. I believe if we clearly outline that we are fighting for the same legal, financial and marital rights afforded to heterosexual individuals by law we would not have such a fight. We need to stop trying to meld gay relationship with their heterosexual counterparts. They are different.
Is it easier to write a law (amendment) that states “Gay unions performed through a legal, civil ceremony have the same rights as heterosexual marriages!” or fight the base foundation of marriage which is religion? I must say that Religion is not perfect. Another Commandment states “Thou shall not kill.” but try arguing that topic with a Muslim. Basically we as a community need to come to a consensus on this fight. Are we fighting to get the approval of our love through a marriage in church or are we fighting for the rights that a marriage provides? I want the rights. Religious fighting is still what divides the world!
One of your AI followers.
I agree with you, Anonymous #2. I was writing specifically about marriage as a legal, not a religious, state. Because we (theoretically, and not entirely) have separation of church and state in this country, churches have -- and should have -- the right not to recognize, condone or conduct marriages between members of the same gender.
That may be key to defeating the proposed constitutional amendment, in fact -- publicizing the fact that this is not a fight against religion, or an attempt to interfere in church affairs -- simply an effort to accord equal legal rights to same-sex couples.
Post a Comment