WaPo article on Gays’ mixed feelings about marriage
The Washington Post reports on the reluctance of some gay couples to get married, even though it is now legal. On the same day, the Post reports on how the new law recognizing same sex marriage has been costly to others in the District of Columbia, including Catholic Charities, and the people they serve.
So given these costs, and the divisiveness surrounding same sex marriage, don’t you think the gay community, and the Post could have the decency to keep these doubts out of the front and center of the public eye? I mean, we have been given to believe that the self-respect of every gay man and lesbian woman was on the line in the legalization of same sex marriage. We’ve been led to believe that the burdens on same sex couples are simply not to be borne, and beyond the imagining of any heterosexual couple. And now that same sex couples have the right to marry, why aren’t they rushing to the altar?
Here are some of the reasons, in their own words:
Some say that although they committed to their partners long ago in their hearts, they oppose the idea of marriage as an institution — especially because it is one that so often collapses.
“I’m not against gay marriage in any way, shape or form, but having been married before, I think you legitimately have concerns about the failure of marriage in general for the majority of people,” said Nash Blain, 43, a lawyer in Harpers Ferry, W.Va., who was married to a man for eight years before she and Marla Seymour, 57, a bookseller, got together 13 years ago.
Blain said she can think of few happy marriages, and she still chafes at the memory of receiving letters addressed to “Mr. and Mrs.” followed by her husband’s name. “I think it’s very hard not to have some diminishment of each person occur.”
Ms Blain, didn’t you know these potential pitfalls of marriage before the City Council rammed same sex marriage through, over the objections of many in the community? Were you there to tell them it wasn’t really worth that much to you that your neighbors should be forced to conform to the City Council’s new definition of marriage? (BTW: what does a person like MsBlain, who used to straight before she was gay, do to the claim that sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable, legally recognizable and definable trait?)
Other couples in successful long-term relationships might balk at marrying because they don’t want to upset their balance, said Mark Forrest, a licensed social worker in Boston, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. “They may have gotten into a routine with each other and never expected this to come up, and it may be too disturbing” to introduce a new dynamic.
So disturbing. So sad. The Archdiocese of Washington had to redefine their spousal health benefits to accomodate the District’s new invented definition of spouse. All for people who can’t handle a “new dynamic.”
As with heterosexual couples, the reasons for one same-sex partner balking are myriad. Some simply aren’t ready to commit; others refuse to consider marrying until the right is extended nationwide and includes federal benefits.
So, after ramming same sex marriage through the DC City Council, the radicals are still not satisfied: nothing but the national same sex marriage and the federal benefits of marriage is sufficient to induce them to take advantage of the institution they have gone to such trouble to gut for everyone else.
“It’s so personally revolting to me,” said Rhodes, 36, who has been in a committed relationship with a man for 13 years.
“I’d rather see marriage abolished than see me married,” he said as he ate lunch in a Columbia Heights cafe with his partner, Bray Creech. “The materialism of it, what I perceive as kind of a narcissism. Like all the money and decoration. . . . I have no interest in having a performance, which to me is what weddings are.”
Interesting comment. Is the abolition of marriage the real goal? Some of us have suspected so for some time.
“There’s a whole segment of the [gay] community for whom the marriage equality bit seems way too heteronormative,” mimicking conventional heterosexual practices, said Suzanne Scott, director of women and gender studies at George Mason University. “Some would even argue that marriage is an outdated norm based on archaic rules.”
Why do they want to participate so badly in an outmoded institution?
Some of the considerations are practical. Creech, an accountant, who shares a home and dogs with Rhodes in Adams Morgan, said that after years of arguing (with his partner), he has largely given up on his dream of a wedding. Still, “my biggest fear is the hospital thing — that he would be in the hospital hurt, and I wouldn’t be able to see him. That terrifies me.”
Of course, in many states, including CA for sure, the hospital visitation problem has been solved for years through the Domestic Partnership laws. If you don’t get married, don’t form a domestic partnership, you can’t very well be mad at society for not taking you seriously when you demand hospital visitation rights, and the right to make medical decisions (which are two different things, I realize.)
Given the unending stream of press declaring the urgent human need for defining gender out of marriage, these are trivial reasons to not get married. These divisions have been present in the gay community all along. Only now that the Sex Radicals have acheived the objective of redefining marriage in the District of Columbia, and imposed costs on other people, will these fissures in the gay community be exposed to the light of day.
It is no wonder that the wider community has lost its stomach for accomodating the gay community.
Loading ...
It’s been obvious to many of us for so long now — that the advocates for SSM don’t really respect the institution at all, and would prefer to dismantle it completely — just read what they themselves were writing about Marriage in the 1980′s!
And on every marriage related blog I frequent, there’s always someone claiming that we’re a bunch of hypocrites, because we’re not fighting against divorce instead! AS IF! I (and just about everyone traditional marriage advocate i know) has been fighting the culture of divorce for years — not that they’ve noticed, of course. No, whenever anyone on our side brings up mothers and fathers and natural families, it is the SSM advocate who immediately leaps to divorced families, stepfamilies, and single parent families as a justification for this idea of “two mom” or “two dad” families.
Talk about hypocritical. If we outlawed divorced (YES!) advocates for SSM would completely dissapear. This whole “forsaking all others, til death so us part” is simply not part of their plan.
What about all the gay people who do want to get married, and have? Do they count, Dr Morse? There are plenty of straight couples who live together but refuse to get married; should heterosexual marriage be abolished because so many straights refuse to take advantage of it? Yours is a pitiful and weak argument, all because you don’t have the courage to just come out and say that you oppose gay marriage because you oppose any state measures to provide security and dignity to people whom your church teaches are “disordered” and “evil.”
Alex, a two-headed coin might fool some people, but it’s not legal tender. You pit gender bias against Dr. J’s First Amendment rights? You can’t be a husband without a wife, a mother without a father, a lock without a key, a pair of shoes without both a left AND a right, or a coin without both a heads AND a tails.
Gender bias has nothing to do with marriage, except to prove that no, separate just isn’t equal.
No one is claiming that Dr Morse doesn’t have First Amendment rights–she can say whatever she wants, and I too can debate and deconstruct what she says. I have First Amendment rights too.
You’re making a fallacious “argument from design”–the problem is that unlike shoes or locks or coins, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans were “designed” for anything. And if we were, well, the same Infallible God who made you straight made me gay. So obviously, my homosexuality is as “natural” and “designed” as someone else’s heterosexuality–it just hasn’t been recognized as such by an overwhelmingly heterosexual world, unfortunately.
Seriously, my childhood got so much better after my parents divorce. Sometimes things are just too broken to fix, and should the children suffer for it?
There are thousands, of single parents out there who beg to differ. Having a partner in parenthood is fantastic, but stop trying to cheapen single-parenthood.
Alex: there is no evidence whatsoever that humans were “designed” for anything
If you can’t see that humans were “designed” to come together as one man and one woman, for the sake of humanity, then I can’t help you friend. Mother Nature is heterosexist. Sucks for you, sorry.
Nerdy,
Not to cheapen anything — we do the best we can and that’s usually less than perfect. But there are only 2 main differences between single-parents and redundant “parents” that I can see. The number two, and the fact that only one group is demanding that they be considered married, when they clearly arent.
Alex, what you just said is patently absurd. We’re talking biology and physiology here. I’m assuming you were created male. I happen to have been created female. There are a very few rare situations where there are inter-sex births, but that circumstance is so rare it is irrelevant to this discussion. We are born, with rare exception, as boys and girls with the right physical and genetic make-up to create, through the natural union as adults of one man and one woman, our progeny. This natural union is the ONLY union that can naturally produce children. When two men can produce a child, or two women – without a third party or outside intervention, maybe we can talk. But it’s just not going to happen naturally. Men weren’t built that way and neither were women. It is that natural process of the union of a man and woman – the only union that can produce children naturally – that most of us in this country thinks needs and deserves the protection and benefits of our laws.
Having said that, no one is telling anyone they can’t love who they want or life with whoever they want. But we ARE saying that this is something unique and special about the union of a man and a woman that we bloody well ought to protect and honor with our laws and with what we teach children and with our social services. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is.
Marriage brings financial, psychological, and legal benefits to the people who enter into it, regardless of whether or not they have children. Since both gay and straight people naturally form romantic, long-term relationships, it makes sense to afford both gay and straight people those financial, psychological, and legal benefits that make their lives better–isn’t the welfare of the citizenry the reason that government exists???
And given the fact that there are millions of orphaned children in the world–more than can be accommodated by heterosexual couples adopting, it is absolutely cruel to deny countless children the opportunity to live in a loving home, just because their parents would be two men or women. Or would you rather see these children languish in orphanages and institutions rather than–Heaven forbid–be raised by gay people? Gays could actually serve a great niche by adopting children without any parents, but you and rabidly anti-gay organizations like the Ruth Institute would prefer to keep those children orphaned! It’s scandalous!
Yes, it is scandalous that gay activists in Washington DC caused the Catholic diocese to close down their foster care and adoption services because they had the audacity to want to place children in the homes they think will be in the children’s interests.
You didn’t respond to the question. Would it be better for the millions of orphans in this world to grow up with no parents at all, or with a loving gay couple? There simply aren’t enough heterosexual adopters! So it’s up to people like the church authorities to decide whether giving loving homes to orphans is more or less important than discriminating against gays. Unfortunately for the orphans, the Church decided that the anti-gay crusade trumped the pro-children-having-homes side.
Actually, if that’s the case and the DC Council was so concerned about children, why didn’t they create or allow an exemption for the church so they could follow what they believe to be the best interests of children?
The church was forced by what they laughingly call elected ‘representatives’ on the District Council between choosing their faith and the best interests of children over this loud-mouthed, partisan push for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle. I’m glad they stood up for their faith.
Maybe if the voters of DC wake up and elect decent men and women who aren’t bought off by religion-hating gay activist groups, the church may re-open their services and the kids will have a chance. I think part of this will depend on whether or not the courts do the right thing, repeal the current gay marriage law, and let the voters make this choice for themselves if they want.
Sorry, I meant to answer your question. Your question hinges on the idea that there are too few hetersexual couples willing to adopt. I don’t think that’s true at all. I do think many couples don’t get involved in adoption because of the expense, how long it takes to adopt, etc. My answer is that adoption should be made easier, not more difficult. We should create a greater culture of adoption rather than abortion. If we do that, your question will be moot.
Yeah I’ve heard it both ways — that there are too many kids waiting to be adopted, and that there are long lines of married husbands & wives waiting to adopt. Perhaps both are true — almost certainly for kids over age 8 or so. But I’d like to see detailed statistics on both claims.