In 1974 the Supreme Court substituted its judgment for the more complicated, slowly developing, textured legislative approach to abortion and ushered in 32 years and counting of controversy which has done much to sour our national political discourse. The pro-life members of our population felt that their beliefs were thoroughly disregarded about a fundamental tenet of greatest importance to them and those who are pro-choice celebrated. Many years later we find our country in the position where the pro-life argument has made a fair amount of progress, in part because our unease with the ease of terminating a life, or a potential life, has been accentuated by the demand by the most extreme pro-choice proponents that there can be no restrictions on abortion in any circumstance. The idea that a viable third trimester pregnancy can be terminated on a whim, even if in reality this is extraordinarily rare, troubles the vast majority of Americans of good will. This is because a third trimester pregnancy is a baby and despite the frequency with which we relegate our children to second class status in this country, we still believe children are important. So, what does this have to do with Gay marriage?
Psychoanalysts tend to be both strongly individualistic, even libertarian, and deeply conservative. When you work so closely with a person exploring the deepest strata of the mind, the realization of how difficult it is for someone to change is unmistakable. At the same time, our theories, and a growing body of sociological evidence, suggest that the optimal environment yet devised in which to raise children who can become healthy and successful adults, is a nuclear family with married parents.
I have read a number of reports on the New Jersey Supreme Court decision about Gay Marriage. Captain Ed offers a reasonable synopsis and analysis about a muddled court decision that suggests Gays should have all the rights of heterosexuals in a relationship except the right to call their relationship a marriage:
This issue really is simple. If two adults want to live together, nothing stops them from doing so, no matter the gender composition of the relationship. The government cannot stop adults from doing so, and has no real interest in doing so. What gays want is an active government sanction for the relationship, and that is a legitimate public policy interest for the people of New Jersey -- and the people should make that decision. As long as gay couples can contract as described above, no one faces any kind of discrimination for their relationships.
Like so much surrounding the issue of gay marriage, this decision has provided more hypocrisy than light. The court refused to legislate, but then ordered the legislature to pass a law on its behalf. That's judicial activism no matter whether the court refuses to acknowledge it.
Because I tend to take a libertarian attitude toward people, I have a problem with those who say Gays should not have the right to marry, yet because I am appreciative of the basic conservatism of the human mind, I am reluctant to support a fundamental change in our concept of a structure that forms the bedrock of our culture, ie redefining marriage. It is a conundrum. At the moment, it is inarguable that the courts, by injecting themselves into a cultural discussion at the behest of the most aggressive and maximalist of Gay proponents, have unnecessarily inflamed the issues involved. At the same time, by attempting to use court edicts to dictate a change in social policy for which so many people are unprepared, they have managed to discredit the court system.
I suspect there are many Americans who are uncomfortable with the idea of Gay Marriage for all sorts of non-rational reasons. There are many people who are conflicted about homosexuality or have strong religious objections; there are probably many more who object without really being able to articulate what their discomfort is about. As long as Homosexuals are depicted in terms of Hollywood stereotypes, flamboyant drag Queens, histrionic interior designers, pedophilic predators, and the like, rather than human beings who happen to prefer sleeping with same sex partners, it will be difficult for the temperature to be turned down on the subject.
This morning, I did a Google search on "Gay Marriage AND children" and found A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage by a Gay man in California. CaliforniaGrown very much wants Gay Marriage to become a reality:
No, I haven't become a straight, Christianist, homophobic operative of the religious right. Trust me, I am as Queer as I have ever been. And yes, I do think that we Gay people are totally equal to straight people and should have every equal right, including marriage. However, given the state of our nation and the Gay rights movement today, a good case can be made as to why we shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.
While I don't agree with him that opponents of Gay Marriage are necessarily "straight, Christianist, homophobic operative(s) of the religious right" I do think he is absolutely correct in his suggestion and his assessment:
We know that not all Gays are sexually promiscuous demons ready to molest innocent children and turn them Gay, too. AIDS is neither the Gay Cancer or a punishment from God for our evil ways. Further, we are not hated by God or doomed to spend an eternity in hell because we want to sleep with a person of the same Gender. We also know that we do not simply choose to be Gay. But we haven't done a very good job of portraying all of that to those who fear us.
What we should be doing is attempt to live our lives as best we can. If we want to marry, we should find partners and live as married couples with whatever form of civil union we can get from our states and santify them with an appropriate ceremony. We should live in homes next to theirs, mow our lawns next to them, raise our children next to theirs, and invite them to our bbqs.
Then they might finally see us as people.
Not long ago I suggested that the Democrats were going to be disappointed by people's rather tepid response to the Foley and Allen scandals:
My educated guess is that the appeals to anti-Semitism and homophobia that were the covert aims of the Allen and Foley scandals have failed to do what was intended by the MSM because, in America in the 21st century, familiarity has bred, not contempt, but acceptance.
The genius of America has been its ability to continually adapt and adjust around an optimal balance between the needs and wishes of the individual and the community. I understand some people's impatience ("We Want the World and We Want it NOW!") but I suspect a little diffidence would go a long way.
Recent Comments