A Gentle Debate About Gay Marriage
Swamppundit does not have a new idea on the subject of gay marriage. The best idea (at this time) is well known: Civil Unions. This subject does not need a new idea. What the subject needs is some gentleness in the debate. It needs gentleness, plus some mutual empathy, and, if this is permissible in a political debate about marriage, some love. Love is a tough topic to handle in a political essay. It is an easy subject in a grandfather’s letter to a grandson.
C E Sutton
Dear Jeff
Your mom told me you are a bit down over the election results. I can understand why, but I hope you don’t make more of it than it is. I know this is easy for me to say, but, don’t take it personal. All those voters who voted against gay marriage don’t hate you. They voted on a ballot measure, nothing more. All the people who loved you before election-day (and there are a lot of us) still love you.
Before I go on, I want to warn you. What follows may sound like a bunch of B.S. rationalizations that try to hide the fact that a lot of people are homophobic bigots. Okay, maybe that is partially true. There were millions of votes cast for millions of reasons. Some of those reasons are unpleasant to contemplate, so I suggest you don’t contemplate those particular reasons. (And don’t assume those are the true reasons. As I have told you before, life is just better if you assume the best in people.) Some of those reasons, however, are worth contemplating. Some of those reasons, maybe, make the results easier to handle. This is going to get abstract and philosophical so hang on.
Two keys. The first key is to separate cultural tolerance/acceptance from legal tolerance/acceptance. Ballot measures, statutes, constitutions, and court decisions directly affect only legal stuff. Giving the relationship you and Ron have the same legal rights as the relationship your mom and dad have is legal stuff. Calling the relationship you and Ron have a “marriage” is cultural stuff. There may not be too many people that would articulate it this way, but a lot of people have an instinctual reaction against anything that they sense is an attempt to force-feed a cultural change down their throats by court decision or political act. I think that is why Civil Unions have so much more political support than Gay Marriage. For many, a vote against Gay Marriage is really a vote against a perceived elitist attempt to change their culture by fiat.
The second key is to recognize the importance of words. Can you think of any other example where a ballot measure was created to change the meaning of a word? I can’t. I can’t even think of an example where a new word was defined by ballot measure. The meaning of words is simply outside the realm of government. There is not a single word in the dictionary whose meaning is dictated by a political act. This is not to say that the meaning of words cannot change, they can. But it is the culture than changes the meaning, not the legal system. The best example of this is highly apropos – back in my day the word “gay” meant only happy, joyous, and festive. Today’s meaning did not come about by any legislative act. It came about slowly over time as a result of millions of individual decisions to start using the word in a new context with a new meaning. That is the process in which every culture defines every word. Again, a ballot measure to preserve the meaning of a word, i.e. to protect the meaning of a word against a perceived political assault, can seem instinctually correct regardless of one’s view of homosexuality.
Remember, the word “marriage” is a word millions of people use to describe themselves. In my day, people often described themselves as “gay” as in happy. No one does that today. This is not terribly important since the word “happy” is available to take the place of “gay.” The word “marriage” is very important to you and Ron. I appreciate that and understand why. But, you and Ron have to appreciate that the word “marriage” is also important to millions of heterosexuals. It is the single word that describes the most important relationship in their life. Unlike, “gay,” there are no readily adoptable substitutes. If the husband/wife relationship is no longer a “marriage,” what is it?
I know you and Ron have no wish to steal the word “marriage.” I know you only wish to share the word with heterosexuals. I also know why sharing the word is so important to you. Sharing the word is a symbol of total cultural acceptance. And frankly, that is what you really want, and deserve – total cultural acceptance. If you truly had that, I bet you could care less about the word.
This brings me full circle. Cultural acceptance, as opposed to legal acceptance, simply cannot be achieved by legislative fiat.
So what to do? Achieve the full legal acceptance that is within your grasp, and live a rewarding life full of friends and family. A few years after Civil Unions become commonplace, the culture may, or may not, come to refer to such Unions as “marriages.” The culture will make its choice quietly, gradually, without argument, debate, or public demonstrations. There were, no doubt, many people who disapproved of the homosexual usurpation of the word “gay.” But, because this was a cultural decision, and not a political decision, such people had no place to fight, nowhere to protest, and no ballot measure to vote for or against.
I have a prediction. After a few years of Civil Unions, I predict the gay community, not the straight community, will ultimately decide what words are used to describe the relationship. I also predict the gay community will find that communication is enhanced by using a word other than marriage. Words work best when they are unambiguous. I predict you and Ron, and gays everywhere, will find that when you meet someone without your spouse at your side you won’t like answering the question “Are you married?” with a simple “Yes.” You will find the word “marriage” misleading, and you will feel compelled to clarify your answer. Therefore, I predict the gay culture will choose a term that unmistakably means “gay marriage” and not simply “marriage.” For instance, it appears to me that the gay culture has already decided that “husband” and “wife” are terms they have no use for. The term “partner” appears to be preferred.
The bottom line: these electoral defeats about the word “marriage” are needless distractions. Full legal acceptance is coming soon – I am sure of it. Fuller cultural acceptance is also coming, but it can’t be rushed, and it can’t be mandated by a court, a legislature, or a voter initiative.
Love,
Grandpa
Dear Jeff:
Thanks for the letter; it is always nice to receive mail from family.
I am writing back to try and defend those you blame for what happened on Election Day – Red State Churches.
The term “culture war” is popular these days, but the concept is not new. Church leaders have been fighting a culture war since the day the first church was founded. I bet the day after Moses came down from the mountain with stone tablets that said “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” someone argued back to Moses something like this: Many men are not born to be monogamous. It is just not natural. Men were made by God, or nature, or evolution, preprogrammed to want to plant their seed in as many different places as possible. When men cheat on their wives, it is not really a choice, it is simply men behaving as nature intended them to.
Does that language sound familiar? Can you see why some church leaders see the gay agenda as a slippery slope? Can you see why some church leaders appear so rigid? For 3000 years they have been battling the “it’s not a choice” argument. I am not saying the church is right. The slope may be slippery to some, but I personally have no trouble accepting “it’s not a choice” when it come to gender preference, while rejecting “it’s not a choice” when it comes to questions of when/where/how/with-who one goes about acting on that preference. I personally have no trouble embracing Gay Marriage while staying committed to the wisdom of monogamy.
This battle of monogamy vs. promiscuity is a core issue for the church. A church that embraces promiscuity is a church that has forgotten one of the reasons civilizations need churches – to promote faithful families. Bottom line: the church will never, ever, drop monogamy as a core value, no matter what anthropologists say, and no matter how few of the membership faithfully practice it.
No one should forget that it wasn’t that many years ago (pre-HIV) when the iconic features of gay culture were gay bars, bath houses, and an underground network of public rest rooms where gays engaged in indiscriminate sex utterly devoid of personal commitment. Such a culture was, and is, anathema to any church.
I make no prediction as to when gays will be fully accepted by Red State Churches. It will not happen in my lifetime (short as it is at this point), and maybe not in yours. Churches change, but they change slowly. If it is to happen, however, gay culture will also have to change. If the gay culture refuses to choose sides in the monogamy v. promiscuity culture war, then frankly, gay culture and churches will never progress beyond peaceful coexistence.
A letter like this cannot end without a touch of proselytizing. Please don’t conclude that Red State Church leaders speak for God. Turn away from Red State Churches if you must, Jeff, but please don’t turn away from God. Just because there are one or two verses you must reject does not mean the central message and meaning of the New Testament is not fully open to you. Preachers from both Blue and Red States join me in saying the Lord loves you, and the Lord loves Ron. And over time, more and more preachers will join me in saying the Lord loves the relationship the two of you are building.
Love,
Grandpa
C E Sutton
Dear Jeff
Your mom told me you are a bit down over the election results. I can understand why, but I hope you don’t make more of it than it is. I know this is easy for me to say, but, don’t take it personal. All those voters who voted against gay marriage don’t hate you. They voted on a ballot measure, nothing more. All the people who loved you before election-day (and there are a lot of us) still love you.
Before I go on, I want to warn you. What follows may sound like a bunch of B.S. rationalizations that try to hide the fact that a lot of people are homophobic bigots. Okay, maybe that is partially true. There were millions of votes cast for millions of reasons. Some of those reasons are unpleasant to contemplate, so I suggest you don’t contemplate those particular reasons. (And don’t assume those are the true reasons. As I have told you before, life is just better if you assume the best in people.) Some of those reasons, however, are worth contemplating. Some of those reasons, maybe, make the results easier to handle. This is going to get abstract and philosophical so hang on.
Two keys. The first key is to separate cultural tolerance/acceptance from legal tolerance/acceptance. Ballot measures, statutes, constitutions, and court decisions directly affect only legal stuff. Giving the relationship you and Ron have the same legal rights as the relationship your mom and dad have is legal stuff. Calling the relationship you and Ron have a “marriage” is cultural stuff. There may not be too many people that would articulate it this way, but a lot of people have an instinctual reaction against anything that they sense is an attempt to force-feed a cultural change down their throats by court decision or political act. I think that is why Civil Unions have so much more political support than Gay Marriage. For many, a vote against Gay Marriage is really a vote against a perceived elitist attempt to change their culture by fiat.
The second key is to recognize the importance of words. Can you think of any other example where a ballot measure was created to change the meaning of a word? I can’t. I can’t even think of an example where a new word was defined by ballot measure. The meaning of words is simply outside the realm of government. There is not a single word in the dictionary whose meaning is dictated by a political act. This is not to say that the meaning of words cannot change, they can. But it is the culture than changes the meaning, not the legal system. The best example of this is highly apropos – back in my day the word “gay” meant only happy, joyous, and festive. Today’s meaning did not come about by any legislative act. It came about slowly over time as a result of millions of individual decisions to start using the word in a new context with a new meaning. That is the process in which every culture defines every word. Again, a ballot measure to preserve the meaning of a word, i.e. to protect the meaning of a word against a perceived political assault, can seem instinctually correct regardless of one’s view of homosexuality.
Remember, the word “marriage” is a word millions of people use to describe themselves. In my day, people often described themselves as “gay” as in happy. No one does that today. This is not terribly important since the word “happy” is available to take the place of “gay.” The word “marriage” is very important to you and Ron. I appreciate that and understand why. But, you and Ron have to appreciate that the word “marriage” is also important to millions of heterosexuals. It is the single word that describes the most important relationship in their life. Unlike, “gay,” there are no readily adoptable substitutes. If the husband/wife relationship is no longer a “marriage,” what is it?
I know you and Ron have no wish to steal the word “marriage.” I know you only wish to share the word with heterosexuals. I also know why sharing the word is so important to you. Sharing the word is a symbol of total cultural acceptance. And frankly, that is what you really want, and deserve – total cultural acceptance. If you truly had that, I bet you could care less about the word.
This brings me full circle. Cultural acceptance, as opposed to legal acceptance, simply cannot be achieved by legislative fiat.
So what to do? Achieve the full legal acceptance that is within your grasp, and live a rewarding life full of friends and family. A few years after Civil Unions become commonplace, the culture may, or may not, come to refer to such Unions as “marriages.” The culture will make its choice quietly, gradually, without argument, debate, or public demonstrations. There were, no doubt, many people who disapproved of the homosexual usurpation of the word “gay.” But, because this was a cultural decision, and not a political decision, such people had no place to fight, nowhere to protest, and no ballot measure to vote for or against.
I have a prediction. After a few years of Civil Unions, I predict the gay community, not the straight community, will ultimately decide what words are used to describe the relationship. I also predict the gay community will find that communication is enhanced by using a word other than marriage. Words work best when they are unambiguous. I predict you and Ron, and gays everywhere, will find that when you meet someone without your spouse at your side you won’t like answering the question “Are you married?” with a simple “Yes.” You will find the word “marriage” misleading, and you will feel compelled to clarify your answer. Therefore, I predict the gay culture will choose a term that unmistakably means “gay marriage” and not simply “marriage.” For instance, it appears to me that the gay culture has already decided that “husband” and “wife” are terms they have no use for. The term “partner” appears to be preferred.
The bottom line: these electoral defeats about the word “marriage” are needless distractions. Full legal acceptance is coming soon – I am sure of it. Fuller cultural acceptance is also coming, but it can’t be rushed, and it can’t be mandated by a court, a legislature, or a voter initiative.
Love,
Grandpa
Dear Jeff:
Thanks for the letter; it is always nice to receive mail from family.
I am writing back to try and defend those you blame for what happened on Election Day – Red State Churches.
The term “culture war” is popular these days, but the concept is not new. Church leaders have been fighting a culture war since the day the first church was founded. I bet the day after Moses came down from the mountain with stone tablets that said “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” someone argued back to Moses something like this: Many men are not born to be monogamous. It is just not natural. Men were made by God, or nature, or evolution, preprogrammed to want to plant their seed in as many different places as possible. When men cheat on their wives, it is not really a choice, it is simply men behaving as nature intended them to.
Does that language sound familiar? Can you see why some church leaders see the gay agenda as a slippery slope? Can you see why some church leaders appear so rigid? For 3000 years they have been battling the “it’s not a choice” argument. I am not saying the church is right. The slope may be slippery to some, but I personally have no trouble accepting “it’s not a choice” when it come to gender preference, while rejecting “it’s not a choice” when it comes to questions of when/where/how/with-who one goes about acting on that preference. I personally have no trouble embracing Gay Marriage while staying committed to the wisdom of monogamy.
This battle of monogamy vs. promiscuity is a core issue for the church. A church that embraces promiscuity is a church that has forgotten one of the reasons civilizations need churches – to promote faithful families. Bottom line: the church will never, ever, drop monogamy as a core value, no matter what anthropologists say, and no matter how few of the membership faithfully practice it.
No one should forget that it wasn’t that many years ago (pre-HIV) when the iconic features of gay culture were gay bars, bath houses, and an underground network of public rest rooms where gays engaged in indiscriminate sex utterly devoid of personal commitment. Such a culture was, and is, anathema to any church.
I make no prediction as to when gays will be fully accepted by Red State Churches. It will not happen in my lifetime (short as it is at this point), and maybe not in yours. Churches change, but they change slowly. If it is to happen, however, gay culture will also have to change. If the gay culture refuses to choose sides in the monogamy v. promiscuity culture war, then frankly, gay culture and churches will never progress beyond peaceful coexistence.
A letter like this cannot end without a touch of proselytizing. Please don’t conclude that Red State Church leaders speak for God. Turn away from Red State Churches if you must, Jeff, but please don’t turn away from God. Just because there are one or two verses you must reject does not mean the central message and meaning of the New Testament is not fully open to you. Preachers from both Blue and Red States join me in saying the Lord loves you, and the Lord loves Ron. And over time, more and more preachers will join me in saying the Lord loves the relationship the two of you are building.
Love,
Grandpa