Gay-Marriage Proposal
By William Saletan,
washingtonpost.com from the Web, April 30, 2006
Dearly beloved, we are gathered
together to join two ideas in holy matrimony. On the right, covenant
marriage, an option legalized by some states but widely shunned as too
conservative. On the left, same-sex marriage, an option widely sought but
outlawed as too radical. Covenant marriage, in which spouses choose to
make divorce more difficult, has become a forlorn maiden, a home without a
constituency. Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage movement has become a
frustrated suitor, a constituency without a home. Let us bless them, that
they may join as one flesh: gay covenant marriage.
How did these two young movements come to be so perfect for each other?
The story begins many years ago, when gay men and lesbians, having campaigned
for a right to privacy and then for equal treatment in the workplace, sought
legal recognition as families. As their ambitions grew, so did resistance.
In states where judges gave them the right to marry, voters took it away.
Two years ago, after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that gay residents
could no longer be denied marriage, voters in 13 states passed ballot measures
against the practice. In a few weeks -- on 6/6/06, for those of you
keeping track in your copy of Revelation -- the Senate will vote on a
constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Supporters of gay equality think they can demand marriage like any other right.
They call it "marriage equality" or "freedom to marry." But in the minds
of most Americans, not all freedoms -- or equalities -- are equal. Three
years ago, in a Pew Research survey, 80 percent of Americans agreed that gays
shouldn't face "restrictions on sex between consenting adults in the privacy of
their own home." Nevertheless, 56 percent worried that same-sex marriage
"would undermine the traditional American family." In Gallup polls on
homosexuality, support for "equal rights in terms of job opportunities"
approaches 90 percent, but solid majorities oppose offering gay couples the
"same rights as traditional marriages." Last month, a Pew survey found
that majorities think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military but
not to marry.
Why do people who tolerate gay equality in other realms draw the line at
marriage? Look at a letter released recently by 50 religious leaders in
support of the constitutional amendment. Marriage "sustains civil
society," they wrote. "When marriage is entered into and gotten out of
lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity, or when it is
allowed to be radically redefined, a host of personal and civic ills can be
expected to follow." Divorce and illegitimacy were bad enough; now courts
are twisting marriage into "an elastic concept able to accommodate almost any
individual preference."
This is what keeps same-sex marriage, unlike sexual privacy or workplace
equality, on the wrong side of public opinion. Marriage isn't like a job
or a tryst. You can't assume or demand it; you have to earn it.
Marriage is bigger than you -- it's usually about kids, and it's always about
commitment. Suing for it in the name of equal access rubs people the wrong
way. It sounds as though you're trying to loosen the commitment or stretch
the boundaries. Marriage doesn't come to you. You have to come to
marriage.
That's what inspired the covenant marriage movement. Beginning in 1997,
Louisiana, Arizona and Arkansas enacted laws making covenant marriage an option
for heterosexuals. Before marrying, you have to go through counseling.
You have to affirm orally and in writing that your marriage is "for life," that
you accept its "responsibilities," that you've "chosen each other carefully,"
that you've "disclosed to one another everything" important, and that you'll
"take all reasonable efforts to preserve our marriage, including marital
counseling." Divorce takes longer than today's no-fault dissolutions, and
the grounds are narrower. The prescribed waiting period is usually two
years.
The pioneers of covenant marriage thought their followers would flock to it.
They were wrong. In states conservative enough to promote it, fewer than
one in 100 marrying couples have chosen this option -- about 6,000 to 7,000
couples, judging from published data. Meanwhile, in states liberal enough
to permit same-sex marriage or civil unions, thousands of gay couples have
signed up -- more than 7,300 in Massachusetts, 1,200 in Vermont (6,600 more if
you count out-of-staters) and 700 in Connecticut. About 3,700 gay couples
have registered for domestic partnerships in New Jersey, and 30,000 or so have
registered in California. More blue-state gay couples than red-state
straight couples are signing up for as much commitment as the law allows.
So, on the right, empty pews in the church of commitment. On the left,
people fighting to get in. It's a match made in heaven. There's just
one problem: Covenant marriage laws exclude same-sex couples.
If covenant marriage were opened to gays, many on the left would spurn it.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force calls it "reactionary" and chafes even
at the notion of pre-divorce counseling. Last year, when Gov. Mike
Huckabee (R) of Arkansas upgraded his marriage to a covenant, activists crashed
the ceremony with a banner demanding "Queer Equality." Moderate gay
organizations, however, have yet to weigh in. Two years ago, John
O'Sullivan, editor at large of the National Review, mused on the possibility of
calling their bluff. "Just how many gay couples would sign up for a
marriage that really was lifelong?" he asked. "It would be a searching
test of consistency. And it would also settle the question of whether gays
seeking marriage are seeking public commitment to a lifelong partnership or
merely absolutely equal status for homosexuality."
But the test goes both ways. In their foundational statement on marriage,
Catholic, Baptist and evangelical leaders claim to be defending it against
cohabitation, divorce and "diminishing interest in and readiness for marrying."
They call for "mentor couples" and "influence within society" to promote
marriage. Can you imagine a more powerful influence than finding out that
the gay couple down the block has a stronger marriage than you do? Here's
a chance to get more marriage, less cohabitation and less divorce. Is that
what conservatives want? Or would they rather keep out the gays?
If anyone can show why these two movements should not be joined, speak now or
forever hold your peace.
human@slate.com
William Saletan
covers science and technology for Slate, the online magazine at
www.slate.com.
|
