The Gay Marriage debate

Dec 2 10:20 UTC 2003

Interesting column on the gay marriage debate by William Safire in the 
New York Times today:

"On Same-Sex Marriage

By William Safire, The New York Times

I'm a "libcon." To that small slice of the political spectrum called 
libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central.

With a consistency that strikes some as foolish, I'm pro-choice on 
abortion before the quickening, pro-choice on my investment in Social 
Security and pro-choice on private competition to Medicare.

That also explains why libcons demand that government protect rather 
than intrude on privacy, and why we excoriate government officials who 
permit media mergers that limit public access to all shades of opinion.

The libcon credo: respect majority rule and deeply ingrained cultural 
custom unless they step on individual freedom, at which point wave the 
Bill of Rights and holler.

That mind-set, so helpful in providing instant certitude on everything, 
is generating the jangle of cognitive dissonance on same-sex marriage.

The issue is often posed as one of simple legal fairness: why shouldn't 
two adults of the same sex who want to become life partners have the 
same opportunity   and gain the same legal rights of government 
insurance, pension protection and hospital visitation   as a couple who 
choose op-sex marriage?

That encouragement to making homosexual relationships more permanent is 
the primary argument for "civil union," the euphemism for "legal 
marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people 
angry." Many gay people, like many casually cohabiting heterosexuals, 
will embrace the principle but not the practice, as it would involve 
the consequences of dissolution of such a contract: alimony, child 
support when applicable, division of assets, and the law firm of Nasty, 
Brutal and Short.

The libertarian in me says: civil union corrects an inequity in the 
law. There should be no legal or economic discrimination against 
homosexuals anywhere in the U.S. And what is lawful in Vermont or 
Massachusetts should be recognized in every other state because we are 
one nation when it comes to basic rights, popular statutes to the 
contrary notwithstanding.

That's the easy part. More difficult is the argument that the primary 
purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear 
children in a home of male and female role models known as caring 
parents. But now that there are adoptive and scientific substitutes for 
old-fashioned procreation, and now that 43 percent of first marriages 
fail, the nuclear family ideal is not what it used to be. Little lock 
is left in wedlock.

But what about the religious dimension to marriage? The ceremony 
performed by clergy in a house of worship involves a sacrament, invokes 
God's blessing on a man and a woman who take a solemn vow on entering a 
spiritual and not just a physical union. Won't pressure to marry people 
of the same sex split denominations, dismay millions of churchgoers and 
infuriate many ardent believers?

Yes. Divisive it would surely be. Proponents of s-s-m who want more 
than a city hall wedding   who want more than a civil union   would 
seek clergy and congregants who welcome them. It would be a source of 
bitter doctrinal debate in many neighborhoods. So was racial 
intermarriage; but this faces scriptural admonitions as in the doomed 
city of Sodom.

That brings us to the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy 
law in Texas. That victory for privacy slammed the bedroom door in the 
face of prosecutors who disapproved of forms of consensual sex engaged 
in by homosexuals and others. The stinging dissent by Justice Antonin 
Scalia, however, was prescient: the court decision opened the door to 
agitation for same-sex marriage. It may not be the slippery slope to 
polygamy, polyandry, incest and bestiality, but s-s-m is surely upon us.

The conservative in me wonders: if equal rights can be assured by civil 
union, why are some gays pushing so hard for the word "marriage"?

The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil 
union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant 
recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes 
society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment 
reversed.

The pace of profound cultural change is too important to be left to 
activist judges. As moral-political issues go, this big one deserves 
examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal 
contradictions   which is the libcon way.


12-01-03 06:50 EST

Copyright   2003 The New York Times Company."