Essay Contest Update

So only one writer has taken my challenge to compose a face-to-face rejoinder of same sex marriage to a gay couple. I'll talk later about the implications of this lack of interest. I posted this challenge to hundreds of people...

In the meantime, here is the essay, and we'll call the writer "Entry #1" for now. Perhaps we could name the essay "Incrementalism," but I don't want to second-guess the writer or this well-constructed essay:

(The following views are not endorsed by this web journal or its author)

Dear Patricia and Rosemary,

Of course its hard for me to explain to you why I would support something that you perceive as discriminatory. But I need to assure you that my opposition to same-sex marriage is not because I question your morality or fidelity. I don't adhere to grotesque stereotypes about predatory "gays" out trying to recruit children nor do I hold to literal interpretation of obsolescent Old Testament injunctions against homosexuality. Even if I believed in the precept that homosexuality was intrinsically immoral, I would still oppose the state acting as enforcer of personal morality.

So, if that's the case, why would I oppose your "right" of gay marriage? Quite simply, it is because we as a society aren't there yet -- we're not culturally able to make an immediate shift to gay marriage.

In the public debates, people argue over whether marriage is an institution of the state or an institution of religion. Of course, marriage encompasses aspects of both, with different couples partaking in religious and state aspects seperately. Some couples are only married by the state (I was married by a judge) while others embrace forms of marriage that are explicitly religious (such as the Mormons' "temple marriage").

But I think we can agree that "marriage" is fundamentally a cultural institution -- it is a concept that is deeply imbued with cultural and emotional meaning. It is a foundational building block for the conceptual map that people use to see the world.

This is important to recognize because this means that people's reactions towards the institution of marriage are not entirely rational. "Marriage" is a symbol that strikes deeply into people's ways of viewing the world. Indeed, this is probably precisely why you want to get married -- you have a completely understandable and legitimate desire to access that symbol and integrate it into your lives.

There, now since I've explicitly endorsed the legitimacy of your desire to get married, you're probably wondering how I could possibly have a coherent reason for still opposing gay marriage. But please hear me out.

Since marriage is such a conceptually foundational symbol in our culture and since people's reactions to it are not completely rational and are imbued with emotional overtones that are only partially consciously recognized, when a proposal comes up -- like gay marriage -- that suggests important changes to how that institution will be defined it is felt by many as "threatening". Such people will often be unable to articulate precisely what is "threatening" about the proposed change and they will also be unable to state explicitly how it even affects them. But the "this just isn't right" feeling is very powerful.

Accordingly, when people have these inarticulate feelings of "threat" to something (like marriage) that is fundamental to their conceptual map, they often respond emotionally, even angrily, to defend the conceptual map -- the "traditional way" from the perceived threat. This is the source of the anti-gay marriage backlash -- people's natural unease and discomfort with a fundamental alteration (however well-justified) in an institution that is perceived as extremely important.

So, then, we are left with two things in deep tension with each other. On the one hand, we have your legitimate and important desire to be married to the person of your choice. On the other hand, we have the legitimate and important perceptions of a "threat" against the fundamental cultural institution of marriage. Our important challenge is now to figure out how to reconcile these conflicting imperatives.

The overriding imperative that I think almost everyone would agree to is the importance of non-discrimination. The state should not seek to impose one group's morality upon another in a way that infringes upon their equal protection under the law. Thus, our goal is to seek equality for same-sex couples. But the question is how to get there and, strongly related, how to obtain incremental gains in that direction as quickly as possible.

Gay marriage imposed by court fiat is precisely the wrong way to go right now. Because it provokes the feelings of "threat" in the strongest way, it guarentees the strongest backlash and the strong likelihood of additional barriers and new types of discrimination and even violence arising from the irrational reaction to the "threat" of gay marriage. Reform of the cultural concept of marriage is like a Chinese finger puzzle -- the more one moves directly, the more the goal is frustrated.

What we need to do instead is to assuage people's fears about cultural change and demonstrate publicly that same-sex couples are not a genuine threat to society or to the institution of marriate. Civil unions are the best available institution to do this.

Civil unions would allow you to publicly declare and legally enact your commitment to each other. Civil unions would also ensure access to the important legal benefits from the state, such as inheritence, health care benefits, and next-of-kin rights. In this way, civil unions would serve as a major step towards non-discrimination that solves almost all of the discriminatory aspects that you have been living with for a long time now.

Of course, I understand that the access to the cultural symbol of marriage in civil unions is only partial. "Seperate but equal" status is, as the courts have observed, rarely equal in social status. But it is important for you to realize that change is hard. Whether we like it or not, people's minds are not going to be altered overnight no matter what we do. And moving to override people's cultural queasiness about gay marriage only guarentees frustration and failure, along with an unnecessary and tragic increase in overt discrimination.

However, civil unions offer a ray of hope in that they are a transitional institution. As the institution of civil unions became common and mature, people would be able to observe for themselves that there was no massive outbreak of new sexual immorality, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia or any of the other grotesque predictions about what would result from legally recognized same-sex unions. Instead, people of good faith (which I think most people are) would begin to see that same-sex couples in civil unions had the same kind of lives, concerns, problems, and joys that married couples had. Thus, the institution of civil unions would serve to progressively undermine the conceptual distinction between "civil unions" and "marriages". After a relatively short period of time -- probably merely a couple of decades -- we would wake up one day to find that the cultural symbol of "marriage" had already been redefined in people's minds in a way that judicial fiat could never, ever do. At that time, the seperate institutions could be joined.

Patricia and Rosemary, no one can deny your joy at being together or your legitimate desire to enshrine your union within the symbol of marriage. Unfortunately, we also cannot deny the current state of our culture, where "marriage" exists as a fundamental cultural symbol that beyond the power of any court or legislature to modify directly. Thus, my opposition to gay marriage is grounded in the question of timing and method -- how do we properly change our society to make it more open and non-discriminatory? We can agree on the goal of non-discrimination and tolerance and I hope we can also agree that civil unions offer the best path to get there even though it may not be all that you want for yourselves and all your friends want for you.

(the preceding was an essay contest entry and the following is me again)

I think this is a well-written response, and that's all I will say for now. I am interested in what others have to say. Send comments to stannard67@aol.com.

The writer makes a great effort to distance the position of this letter from the position of anti-gay conservatives. I still wonder what the Christian will say (and what's frustrating is I have asked a number of Christians to respond and they have all refused). The lack of response tells me --disturbingly, because these are mostly people I know personally-- that the priority of those intelligent conservatives out there who want to restrict marriage is to be correct rather than to be good; to be right about their arguments and secure in their comfortable, self-contained belief systems rather than face those to whom they wish to deny access to a part of their beloved contract-based minimal state.

I'm drawn once again to Emmanuel Levinas, not because I think Levinas would have been at all comfortable with same sex marriage, but because his foundational beliefs about communication and justification would compel him to at least face the "gay other" and attempt to explain his position...as well as concede the ultimate problematicity and incompleteness of such an ethical doctrine.

I'm troubled about it (the lack of interest in justifying restrictions to the face of those restricted) because each and every person who refuses such engagement knows someone who is gay.

Interesting Comments

All that said, I have to share some comments anonymously from some Christians (Mormons, actually) who won't commit to the essay, but who are honest about their feelings on the issue:

This email in particular is funny, self-aware, and makes an important point that restricting types of marriage is the province of religious covenants. The writer is explaining his dilemma in talking about gay marriage to a non-christian friend:

To me homosexual practices in themselves aren't de facto wrongs, but rather engaging in homosexual practices when one has promised to refrain from homosexuality is wrong. (Call me a Pharisee, but I'm kinda contractual about the gospel.) I could tell her that her behaviors are inconsistent with the teaching of my church, indeed, most churches, but, as you said, I don't think that would get me anywhere.

The other argument would be to suggest that homosexuality is somehow un-natural. On this score, however, I recently had the misfortune to see a JPEG of a monkey sipping his own urine as he was peeing. I can only conclude that nature, as such, is truly sick and two women engaged in a sexual relationship is pretty far down on the "against nature" list.

Which leaves me with my "no-need-to-stick-your-neck-out" argument. Kinda weak, but, in the context of this particular couple, probably justified. Of course, this line of reasoning has the same fault as the thinking of the Weimar legislators -- maybe if we just elect him Chancellor, he'll just shut up.

Jason West and New Paltz

I'll just provide some exerpts from articles about Jason's work as mayor of the village of New Paltz. Jason has been performing marriages there for a week and has caused all hell to break loose. Jason is a former Marist debater! Last weekend he took time out from national attention to judge at the CEDA East Regionals. He's good friends with my friends Max, Andy, and Jimbo. I haven't met him personally, but I look forward to it when I do. He has instantiated something I hoped would happen and if he goes to jail, watch this site for continued updates and channels of material and rhetorical aid.

Here is Jason West's most recent statement to the press:

"Marriage is a declaration of love, devotion and commitment. It is a public acknowledgement of a couple's willingness to share their lives and to love, trust and compromise. It is also an important civil institution that provides legal protections, benefits and responsibilities. The couples who were recently married have made this important commitment, and we join them in celebrating their loving unions.

"Upon becoming mayor of the Village of New Paltz, I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the State of New York. I take this oath very seriously, particularly as it relates to my duty to conduct marriages. I firmly believe that it would be both unfair and contrary to the New York Constitution to deny the benefits and responsibilities afforded by marriage to same-sex couples. Two adults who decide to make the commitment of marriage should not be denied the protections of marriage."

Now this got big when Gov. Pataki told NY AG Eliot Spitzer (who I am told is a pretty straight guy and a hard ass) to go stop Jason West from performing these marriages. According to today's New York Daily News:

"State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer declared yesterday that
same-sex couples should be allowed to wed - openly defying Gov. Pataki's stance on the controversial issue.

"I have no problem with gay marriage," Spitzer told the Daily News. "I think the law has moved to a point where people are comfortable that [marriage] can be extended to people of the same sex," he said."

The plot thickens. Now, the Mayor of Ithaca is going to do it too...according to today's New York Times:

"Carolyn K. Peterson, the mayor of Ithaca, told a packed news conference at City Hall that the clerk would accept marriage applications by same-sex couples and forward them to the state's Department of Health for a ruling on whether they could be granted. In doing so, she said, she would force the issue into the courts."

The best evidence that Jason West has really accomplished something is that the Reverend Fred Phelps is going to New Paltz. Phelps, a traveling fire-and-brimstone hater based in Topeka, has made several trips to Wyoming advancing the incredibly uninsightful notion that Matthew Sheppard is burning in hell. Wyoming has used those visits as rallying points to build an impressive public image of tolerance. I am sure that came in handy when lawmakers rejected a Wyoming Defense of Marriage Act last month.