What Prop. 2 Isn't About

Well, a bit behind schedule, but since I promised to respond to a comment in my anti-Prop. 2 post, better late than never. Here's the comment in question:

Greg and Dale (and maybe Ted, too),

What is it exactly about, say, a straight couple with no children that makes them more deserving of 1,138 legal protections and rights automatically bestowed on them than a gay couple who has to hire an attorney to secure a fraction of those rights and responsibilities (which might be challenged in court anyway) to protect their family (it seems to me that the fact that more than 6,158 children in Texas are being raised by same-sex couples is getting lost in the debate)? Reproductive organs?

To purport that what marriage looks like today in Texas is how it's been everywhere for centuries is disingenuous baloney. Like it or not, marriage has evolved (I've gotten criticized for using that word in this context before, but I use it again consciously) over time and over space to take many different forms and to accept or reject different exogamies. I mention reproductive organs above because I think our current notion of marriage seems to be based on the pairing of certain reproductive organs, but that that this is a rather faulty basis, since reproductive organs can fail us (hystorectomies, low sperm count, menopause), be changed (transsexuality), or be ambiguous (intersexuality). Yet certain groups with less-than-perfect reproductive organ matching are able to marry and have their family unit recognized by the state, while others who would like to, and who would benefit from it, are not.

Dale, more than discrimination, I call this unfair discrimination.

And Greg, I believe that allowing gay couples to marry under law would solidify a building block of society. Whether you agree with our "lifestyle" or not doesn't change the fact that there are already gay families in existence (at least 42,912 of them right here in Texas). Allowing these families the option of marriage would strengthen them.

But maybe I am spending too much time barking up the wrong tree. After all, both of you have stated that trite "some of my best friends [are] gay" phrase, which I always interpret to mean "I still don't think your identity is right/worthy/etc., but I have made an exception for you." Gee, thanks.

First up, for the sake of Prop. 2, I believe there's a huge disservice done by failing to acknowledge that one can believe that marriage should be the sole province of one male and one female, yet also be as adamant that divisive politics such as Prop. 2 ought to be stamped out, kicked out, and squashed at every opportunity. Those of us who fall into that range of the spectrum may not represent much in the way of a majority, or perhaps even a plurality (though that second point might be open for debate). But we may well represent the swing votes on an issue such as this should it ever become close.

Sadly, though, I don't foresee a particularly close election on this issue here in Texas. Part and parcel is that many folks will go to the polls under the mistaken impression that they are voting on gay marriage. They aren't. Yet there exists a great number of activists who are opposing Prop. 2 who seem to still fall into the trap of debating the issue of gay marriage. For this once, I'll indulge that just to put my own thoughts on the proverbial table.

Yes, I'm one of those souls who will be voting No on Prop. 2, yet I do believe that marriage ought to be defined as one man and one woman. And even more perplexing is that my one-line rationale for being against gay marriage comes from one whom I don't often take my cues from: Bill Maher. Seems Maher has an excellent line that applies here, as well as several other issues: "Why does everyone have to belong to everything?" For instance, why do atheists feel the need to belong to the Boy Scouts only to find themselves complaining about the religious overtones of the organization's structure? Likewise, why do gay/lesbian couples wish to share in a relationship that's defined by Biblical principles (as applied to the Judeo-Christian history that's served as the basis of our nation's laws) as one man and one woman?

Traditions, customs, and law didn't just land in our lap recently. When you look around at your community, or when you take a step back and ask yourself how you think civilization got to where it is today, it's nearly impossible to chalk it up to being one big accident. Yet it's surprising that there are those who may believe creationism a pipe dream yet just as firmly believe we can re-create the rules by which civilization operates. If you're reading this, chances are you arrived on this earth via the help of one man and one woman. When you look at how healthy, well adjusted kids are brought into this world, you see the necessity of positive male and female role models in their lives. If there's any doubt, just take a look at those communities where such role models are absent to see the damage done. We can rewrite the laws of our books all we want to accomodate our increasingly positive acceptance of gays and lesbians, but by rewriting such a fundamental element of positive sociological progress, we would be nearly as wise to start re-writing laws of physics just because our attitude toward gravity has changed a bit since the 17th century.

And yet, of all the arguments made for gay marriage, there are a few good points that should be granted. Take, for instance, what Glen Maxey writes in his personal appeal to his friends:

It?s a daily experience for many of us dealing with the ?little things? that everyone else takes for granted in their heterosexual relationships. Sometimes, for us, it turns tragic. It affects everything about our lives.

I?ve stood in the emergency room, partner unconscious, me in tears, trying to convince an uncaring desk clerk that I had a right to be there. I?ve gone into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt paying for health care of a partner who I cannot put on my insurance policy. And I even have to go through the hassle and cost of doing a legal document just so that a partner can bury my body when I die.

You might take for granted the 1,130 rights and responsibilities heterosexual folks get when they pay for that marriage license. I have lived through the horror of not having those same rights.

I've shared in the outrage over friends being told to wait in the lobby while their partner was in the emergency room. I have no sentiments favoring the notion that one group has to shell out thousands of dollars to preserve their legal rights when another group has to pay about $40 for the same privelage. But there's one thing missing from Glen Maxey's letter ... any mention of a love so deep that you want to spend the rest of your life with that person.

It's a common rebuttal that marriage is simply a contract. It isn't. I have yet to have a friend call me and gleefully inform me that he/she and her significant other have engaged in ... a contract! There's a reason for that: marriage means more than a contract, even if the cold beady eyes of legalistic thinking might well view it as such.

Marriage means something, and that "something" eminates from a Judeo-Christian heritage that has seen civilization prosper and grow under it's guidelines. To seek to change the definition of that heritage is to presume that civilization will be just fine and well with a little editing. That's a high burden of proof. And if gay marriage were to clear that hurdle, here's my challenge: name the civilization that's operated just fine and dandy under this other definition of civilization. Sociology is a richly defined field of study, so it shouldn't be difficult to find a prominent example, should one exist. If it's readily obvious, then perhaps the proponents of gay marriage are really missing out on making a case. But I don't see it.

Now, with all that said, I'd only close with one last reminder that none of this has anything to do with Prop. 2. Those who believe in the superfilous use of big government can advocate it all they want, but it fails to serve the purpose that it's strongest advocates claim and I'd just as soon lose a hand or foot than have Warren Chisum or the KKK speak for me on an issue. Marriage is already defined under federal law as consisting of one man and one woman. The end.

Civil unions should be built into law in order to simplify the legal equality and fairness that deserve to be shared by common-law couples as well as same-sex couples. I'd go so far as to suggest that Social Security and other social insurance mechanisms should have the ability to be passed on to surviving partners in those relationships. In short, every concern that Glen Maxey has with what he sees as marriage, I have no problem with levelling the playing field. That's the right thing to do. But the means to do so isn't by allowing gay marriage, it's by allowing the fact that what he seems to be wanting is a more affordable contract.