Today's historic legislative override of Vermont governor Jim Douglas' veto of the marriage equality bill has me doing a very happy dance; married, middle-aged, hetero guy that I am. This action in Vermont moves the ball forward, but not all are with us even here in the People's Republic of Vermont.
During a special Vermont Edition program on Vermont Public Radio shortly after the vote was held, I was subjected to several versions of the same intolerant attitudes spewed by the most skilled 'culture warriors' on hate radio and Wingnut TV. And these came from not only Vermonters, but listeners of public radio, to boot. Most attempted to frame their intolerance in specious terms, alleging some attack on the "traditional" version of marriage, which, after nine years of civil unions in Vermont, I have never heard defined beyond "between one man and one woman".
Let's deconstruct that slogan below the fold...
Same sex marriage opponents are always careful to avoid openly expressing their intolerance and hide behind "defense" of "traditional marriage". This slippery bit of glibness too often goes unchallenged, because, like so many right wing frames, it is carefully labeled to allow assumption to substitute for fact, thus making the intolerant appear tolerable.
First, let's dispense with the "defense" frame. That one's cute, because like so much of the right wing hate, it moves any discussion away from an intolerance or civil rights frame into the "they're out to get us" frame with which these skilled liars are so comfortable. Victims must always be given the benefit of any doubt, no? So marriage is under attack from Teh Gaze. That makes it A-OK to fight back. But exactly what kind of attack? Are Zebediah and Hope going to divorce now that old Zeb has the legal right to marry Ezekiel from the next farm? No?
Then we (and by "we" I mean all those who have a problem with Teh Gaze getting too uppity) need to defend "traditional marriage" from...what, exactly?
The only explanation anyone has ever offered in my presence is the idea of dilution. It goes something like this; "By letting gay people get married, it cheapens the whole idea of marriage" (Note the implicit conflation of religious and civil marriage in that "whole idea", and the "letting" part strongly implies an inherent veto power conferred by...nobody). My response was something along the lines of "Well, it does to you, but it has the opposite effect on me." Of course, had I lived in the Jim Crow South, I would have gone thirsty instead of using a whites-only water fountain. I certainly wouldn't go around wondering if I was at risk of infection from an integrated water fountain, but that is essentially what this person was saying, though he would never, ever admit as much. What that viewpoint exposes is that the very idea of same sex marriage creates a mental picture that is uncomfortable to the person expressing it.
That's a pretty good definition of intolerance, imo.
But that's tangential to the point. The argument falls flat on its face because it applies perfectly to second, third, and all sequential marriages, too. Not to mention easy annulments, no-fault divorce, drive thru wedding chapels, "The Bachelor/Bachelorette", and Britney Spears-style weekend marriages.
Where was the outrage when states all across America made divorce an acceptable alternative to "until death do us part"? Because that "traditional" version of marriage had no such loophole. It was added (necessarily, imo) to reflect that inconvenient thing some folks call 'reality'.
So make no mistake and brook no easy assumptions: those who oppose gay marriage are defending NOTHING. They are attacking others who presume to belong to our supposedly open, pluralistic society in all the most important ways. To a man (or woman), they are the same people who would deny gays and lesbians the right to teach our children or to act as role models in any way. It's got nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with fear of the other.
That's bigotry. Pure bigotry.
Next, let's look at that scanty definition of "traditional marriage" a little more closely:
"One man, one woman" - well, until Loving V Virginia in 1967, some states made sure that definition included the appendix "of the same skin color", but you won't find that part being defended by any but the most lunatic fringe. I guess, um, "traditional marriage" evolves, then. Rather an important point to make, given current events. At the risk of piling on, I feel it necessary to point out that marriages between slaves went unrecognized as a matter of course (or economics; it would be a bit embarassing to admit your excellent deal on a male slave came at the cost of sundering a marriage of any consequence in the eyes of God.)
Speaking of the Divine, "traditional marriage, between one man and one woman" also quite often means "of the same religious denomination", since many churches still won't validate certain interfaith marriages. For example, the Catholic Church is obliged to invalidate any marriage in which one of the applicants is unbaptized (see Canon law 1086). Granted, this law is not always observed, and there are ways to get around its requirements, but there it is in black and white. So it stands to reason that many interfaith marriages are to be excluded from the "traditional marriage" club, depending on exactly which faith and denomination hold sway. And that's just one of the many pitfalls of conflating religious and civil versions of marriage.
Less official, but just as stifling, is the strong pressure to marry someone of similar financial means. Not long ago, "traditional marriages" took place for openly political reasons - that's what dowries ARE. Marriages were and still are in many cultures arranged between the parents of the betrothed for reasons having more to do with peace between tribes, preserving bloodlines and ethnic purity than love. My in-laws' marriage was arranged - it's not ancient history. So again, marriage has evolved from a peacemaking arrangement to a public expression of love. Another particularly salient point with regards to the rights of gay and lesbian couples to have their love and commitment honored and recognized by the society at large.
Speaking of commitment, one of the overt functions of "traditional marriage" is to be a sort of enforcement mechanism for sexual fidelity. Aside from the no-fault, easy divorces mentioned above, the casual acceptance of prostitution, prevalence of pornography, and ubiquitous selling of sex everywhere you look, how long ago was it legal for a husband to beat or rape his wife without consequence? (Update from the comments: regarding rape - that would be 1993) There's another quaint aspect of "traditional marriage" that won't be getting much open support from the family-values crowd. For that matter, again, I haven't seen the type of pitchfork-waving over open marriages that has accompanied the pushback against same sex unions, either. So orgies are less offensive and diluting of those selfsame family values than a monogamous gay marriage? oh, kay.
Then there's the whole '"traditional marriage" is the best environment for...(tah-dum; bring on the tears) children'. Ah, yes. Won't anyone think of the children? This is another easily debunked case of, well, moral relativism. According to this "logic" all childless marriages, either by biology or choice, are as offensive and diluting as a gay marriage. QED. I won't bother beyond this except to briefly point out the absurdity of courts and society at large placing a misguided and dangerous premium on "keeping families together" when a parent (or both) is/are abusive, irresponsible, drug-addled, or otherwise poisonous to their offspring.
So, how about that "one man, one woman" thing? Is even that accurate? Unsurprisingly, no. Historically, "traditional marriage" quite often meant one man, one girl. Sometimes it meant one man, lots of girls. Just read the Bible for a whole bunch more on that one, if you can stomach it. Or recent news out of southern Utah. The "traditional marriage" of the late Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall was way grosser than the religious right's bogeyman, 'Adam and Steve'. Not to mention mercenary. Hmmm...it seems more "traditional" the more I look at it. Yuk.
It is so easy to debunk the crap spewed by culture warriors (note the RW frame inherent in even that phrase) that sometimes we forget or don't bother to do so. But when we get caught up in the emotional minefield of personal preferences and inherited bigotry (exactly as intended), we seldom take this ugliness out into the sunshine and kill it. The assumptions based on cultivated falsehoods and appealing to our tendency to believe we all agree on the meanings of basic nouns are insidious. For too long a lack of honest examination of these assumptions has enabled the oppression of a significant portion of our populace.
No more.
Today is a great day to take one such example out into the backyard and put it out of our collective misery.
I hope this has been of some use to those of you who live in as yet unenlightened communities. "Traditional marriage" never was what the dividers and haters vaguely imply it was. They are masking religious intolerance and simple bigotry behind the beautiful face of one of the most precious expressions of love and loyalty people can offer each other.
It must stop now.
Peace, and a hearty welcome to all our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the community of the happily married!