The Other Kind Of Gay Marriage
Bret Stephens writes at the WSJ:
As conservatives debate the subject of gay marriage, maybe they should pause to consider their view about the other kind of gay marriage.You know the one: He works mind-boggling hours and only comes home once his wife is sure to be asleep. He beams at the sight of an old college buddy. Two years into the marriage, she starts murmuring to her closest friend that he just isn't very interested in her, that way. Five years later he starts acting out in odd ways when he drinks. And he drinks a lot.
The correct term for this kind of thing is "mixed-orientation marriage." Human needs and desires and conveniences being what they are, sometimes these marriages serve some mutually agreed purpose. So it was between Cole Porter and Linda Lee Thomas, Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West. The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of, as someone once said.
Still, I'll go out on a limb and wager that, nine times out of 10, we're talking about a human tragedy, or rather two tragedies, his and hers. That is what happens when deceit and self-deception are the foundation of any relationship, marriage most of all. Now and again, the private tragedy becomes a full-blown public catastrophe. As in: Larry Craig, Jim McGreevey, Ted Haggard, you know the list.
So--are conservatives for this kind of marriage? Would they, for themselves, choose to share their life, and their bed, with someone toward whom they never had and never will feel a physical attraction?
...I have a crazy theory; see if you agree. It's that gay people generally want to lead lives of conventional respectability. So much so, in fact, that many are prepared to suppress their sexual nature to lead such lives. The desire for respectability is commendable; the deception it involves is not. To avoid deception, you can try to change the person's nature. Good luck with that. Or you can modify a social institution so that gay people can have what the rest of us take for granted: The chance to find love and respectability in the same person.
via @stevesilberman
As a gym rat, I can tell you that there are a staggering number of men who frequent the gym as a place to cruise other guys. And a lot of them have wedding rings. Their poor wives.
Patrick at April 9, 2013 6:08 AM
"you can modify a social institution"
Oh, really?
Social institutions, arising organically out of the totality of circumstances of thousands of cultures over thousands of years, are strong candidates to be considered strange attractors.
If you push on a strange attractor hard enough to send it careening out of its quasi-stable zone, you have no idea what is going to happen. It's a risky business.
Not that one social "engineer" in a hundred would even have a clue what I'm talking about. Real engineers, more so.
phunctor at April 9, 2013 7:20 AM
My problem with the passage above is that the author pigeonholes all conservatives. It is no more fair (or accurate) than saying all liberals are vegetarians.
I consider myself conservative, but don't really care if two men or two women want to have the CIVIL part of what we call marriage (the part where the state recognizes the union). I DO have a problem if they want to force religious organizations to change their definition of the term "marriage." I've met folks of both camps w/in the non-heterosexual community (who just want the legal equality and others who want it to be recognized by churches, etc.).
To me, it's like if somebody wants to eat squid. That's fine, go ahead, but don't come to somebody else's home and insist THEY eat it!
So, I have a problem with all conservatives being lumped into one crowd here. I'm a fiscal conservative and dislike excessive governmental regulation, but that doesn't have anything to do with my views on marriage!
Also, the notion that if you are against gay marriage then you are for the unhappy marriage scenario above is bad logic. One could reasonably be against gay marriage and still not think everyone needs to be married! It's as if the author thinks conservatives live in 1900 and think all people need to be married or there's something wrong with them!
Shannon M. Howell at April 9, 2013 11:07 AM
> So--are conservatives for this kind of marriage?
I like the double-dash! When a guy's about to throw a big volley of teenage smug, he's gotta warmup the arm a little, right?
> Would they, for themselves, choose to share
> their life, and their bed, with someone toward
> whom they never had and never will feel a
> physical attraction?
Depends on what was in it for me.
'Know what's weird? Rhetorical questions.
No, seriously, what's weird is that GM supporters talk as if every straight marriage was a ticket to paradise. And from what I've seen, that ain't how it works.
But the first thing to note is that despite the childish tone, the question posted above concerns only individual ADULT feelings.
There have been plenty of men wo've lived with shrewish women, and women who've lived with clumsy men, because they knew it was best for the kids. So they did it humbly and well.
Is that what's so scary to you?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 9, 2013 11:09 AM
"If you push on a strange attractor hard enough to send it careening out of its quasi-stable zone, you have no idea what is going to happen. It's a risky business."
You make a good point, Phunctor. The erosion of class barriers and the rise of political equality have unleashed destructive forces in society we have yet to see the end of. Life was so much more stable when we all just knew our place and had the snese to stay there.
Jim at April 9, 2013 1:19 PM
'what phuntor said'
Well Jim already beat me to the punch, but in a fight I like to kick a guy when when he down so I'll point out that phunctor's reasoning also applies to a whole host of other things.
Like slavery, FGM, women as property, marital rape, shall I go on?
Also am I the only one sick of the 'we know that the fall out of this change will be bad' only to have such doomsayers refuse to EVER give any examples?
lujlp at April 9, 2013 1:53 PM
Human needs and desires and conveniences being what they are, sometimes these marriages serve some mutually agreed purpose. So it was between Cole Porter and Linda Lee Thomas, Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West.
And pretty much all of humanity, for pretty much all of human history. The romantic, lifetime of devotion stuff came along only recently.
It's that gay people generally want to lead lives of conventional respectability. So much so, in fact, that many are prepared to suppress their sexual nature to lead such lives.
It strikes me that most people have to suppress a lot of their natures to lead conventionally respectable lives.
None of this really alters my position on gay marriage, but really: These days, marriage, for convenience, appearances, or otherwise, is usually voluntary in this country. Deceit and self-deception? Nobody's got the market cornered on that, gay or straight.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at April 9, 2013 2:11 PM
I think this argument may have been more valid 20 years ago. In my own family, my aunt married a very nice man whom, after 22 years of marriage, came out of the closet and exited the marriage. They wed in 1975. Totally unacceptable then (especially in the mid-west, Irish Catholic part of the nation) to be a openly gay man. Fast forward to 1997, when being gay isn't a call for public stoning, and he comes out.
Now that kids in high schools proudly take their same sex date to the prom, I don't imagine too many gays marry to save their reputation.
So maybe this would fly in 1978...but not now.
UW Girl at April 9, 2013 2:36 PM
>> …sometimes these marriages serve some mutually
>> agreed purpose. So it was between…
> And pretty much all of humanity, for pretty much
> all of human history. The romantic, lifetime of
> devotion stuff came along only recently.
ORD gets this!
The fantasy of lifetime romance is what's weird... I suspect that happens for a very small number of young couplings. Nonetheless, there are many good marriages.
And many loving and productive ones, even when the sex isn't great. The GM people come off like idiots when they snarl, usually in this grade-school tone, 'Well, how would YOU like it if you were in an emotionally and sexually unfulfilling marriage?'
That describes a lot of straight marriages. And the sorrow of those marriages deserves respect from sensitive hearts, not clucking from sarcastic teenagers.
Amongst other things, GM is tinged with counter-feminism.
> It strikes me that most people have to suppress
> a lot of their natures to lead conventionally
> respectable lives.
ORD is squarely hitting the target here. I blanched at the mention of "conventional respectability" in the piece, and I'm glad ORD took down the straw man... Chatter like that is further evidence that marriage is coming to mean nothing to society except a chance to put on fun clothes, host a party with an open bar, and giftwrap toaster ovens.
Of course, it means more than that to CHILDREN, but their needs aren't factored, are they? Not by the bitter-bots who never grew up themselves.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at April 9, 2013 2:57 PM
Luljp's proof that all change is good because shutup lacks rigor.
I'd like to counter Jim P's point but I just can't do it, so I'll delegate: Chou En Lai, when asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good idea, said "too early to tell". A most becoming humility.
Sometimes it takes a while for the consequences to play out. Circumspection, even trepidation is in order. The sheer hubris of "you can modify a social institution" continues to amaze.
All of this is orthogonal to the merits of the proposed change, speaking only to the possibility of unanticipated costs. There's a difference between cheering enthusiasm and cost-benefit analysis.
Examples, luljp? I give you the passed-away civilizations of history. No-one can say what change, exactly, brought them down. But one fell day, what had worked didn't work anymore.
phunctor at April 9, 2013 3:43 PM
phunctor, GK Chesterton talked about your point quite well
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable."
- GK Chesterton
causticf at April 9, 2013 4:23 PM
Gay marriage is the perfect example of a Potemkin village.
Notable, not for what it is, but what it is not.
And gay couples want to incorporate these Potemkin villages for the "inheritance benefits" and social attention that "real" villages get. :-)
The sad part is that so many hetro couples have bought into the romantic illusion of marriage as a semi disposable consumer item.
Marriage is about shared values, not interests, and when you value marriage, and you value your biological children from it, you will be more likely to stay married, and put the interests of your spouse, and your children first.
Yes, people are selfish and stupid, but selfish people who get married and then get divorced for trivial reasons are not an argument for expanding the franchise to people whose marriages don't serve a social purpose to begin with.
Also Patrick, married men cruising bars, and gyms and bathhouses for gay sex, is not a new phenomena. Read "The Tea Room Trade".
Men like sex, and quite a few men are not too picky about where they get it. I know you would love to think these men are in your camp, and are closeted homosexuals, but a lot of them are most likely bisexual, and may value their hetro marriage for reasons that have little to do with sexual orientation, (but have a lot to do with their children, and their culture, and their religion.)
Isab at April 9, 2013 5:17 PM
I consider myself conservative, but don't really care if two men or two women want to have the CIVIL part of what we call marriage (the part where the state recognizes the union). I DO have a problem if they want to force religious organizations to change their definition of the term "marriage." I've met folks of both camps w/in the non-heterosexual community (who just want the legal equality and others who want it to be recognized by churches, etc.).
Shannon, I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by 'force religious organizations to change their definition of the term "marriage."'
*
Patrick: As a gym rat, I can tell you that there are a staggering number of men who frequent the gym as a place to cruise other guys. And a lot of them have wedding rings. Their poor wives.
I wonder if these guys are gay, and got married to a woman because they felt they had to, or whether they're basically straight and are just looking for some action on the other side. If they're basically straight and cheating, that's bad and, like you, I feel sorry for their wives, but I feel a lot more sorry for them if these guys are living a lie and don't have (and never had) any sexual interest in their wives.
JD at April 9, 2013 5:50 PM
Shannon, I agree with you completely. I support the push for equal legal treatment, but I have a problem with the terminology. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman are not the same as a man and a woman. As Amy has pointed out so often, men and women are different. Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
Goo at April 9, 2013 6:22 PM
I think Katha Pollitt put it well when, in 2003, she wrote: "Gay marriage--it's not about sex, it's about separation of church and state."
And I don't understand why Bernie Goldberg said the Democrats made a mistake in pushing for gay marriage, since it meant the Republicans became obsessed with it. (I've forgotten just what he said - it was in his 2009 book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.") From what I can see, it was the Republicans who made themselves look foolish - by suddenly obsessing over preventing gay marriage instead of improving the economy.
lenona at April 9, 2013 6:29 PM
I actually hadn't commented on this yet. That Jim is a different one than me.
Shannon is closer on my view:
I hear this all the time from conservative talk show hosts, but it is hard to get through to make them think about it.
From time immemorial there has been a spiritual aspect to the word marriage. That comes from the your non-secular beliefs (church, temple, mosque, atheism, personal belief, etc.)
Then there has been the temporal (secular) aspect which comes into play on taxes, inheritance, parenting and many other places. If there was no temporal aspect, a notary public couldn't declare you married.
Under the First Amendment there is no legal way way to force a religious institution recognize a temporal marriage.
But as found under the Fourteenth Amendment (Loving v. Virginia) the state can't refuse to recognize a spiritual, and therefore a temporal marriage that doesn't break state or federal laws.
(This is where you get into the Mormons, multi-marriages, age constraints and all the rest. I refuse to get of into the tangential marriage argument. This is a discussion of couples wanting to marry.)
The DOMA challenge is applicable under the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Equal protection for secular purposes.)
California's 8th is a state choice under the Tenth Amendment and should actually not been heard by SCOTUS. Or as heard by SCOTUS is whether the population or state was right within California. It should not have any effect on any other state.
As for churches or other religious organizations wanting to recognize non-traditional marriages, go for it. The secular law recognizes a coupling of two people as a marriage. The only change is that the government needs to recognize that they can be multi-sex or single-sex couple and give them the same benefits.
Jim P. at April 9, 2013 7:33 PM
I may be piling on a bit here, but Phunctor does make a good point. Conservatives aren't against social change, but rather rapid social change, particularly when forced by some self-anointed elite. The reason should be obvious: social conventions embody a great deal of distributed knowledge, not only within themselves, but between conventions as well.
So, in the view of conservatives, rapid externally imposed change runs the risk of unintended consequences, about which it is impossible to know at the outset.
Progressives, whose ideas are de facto correct, or else progressives wouldn't hold them, can't fathom that there is anything they don't know.
Back when first the pill, then abortion, became widely available, conservatives warned about the consequences. Well, of course all Right Thinking People know that conservatives just wanted to re-impose white patriarchal heteronormativity.
Forty some odd years later, the pill and abortion have -- and who could possibly have guessed -- led to half of births out of wedlock and a hecatomb of abortions.
And, arguably, with the separation of women's sexuality from reproduction, the objectification of women into self-propelled sex toys.
NB -- I am not arguing either for or against the pill and abortion on demand; rather, I'm suggesting that hurling a spanner into the works might, just might, lead to consequences so disruptive that one might later conclude the spanner hurling wasn't totally wonderful.
Jeff Guinn at April 10, 2013 8:50 AM
I have not abandoned my position of preserving 1m+1w marriage since it is one of the few (albeit crumbling) things upholding that children are best served by a mom and a dad (and by that I by no means believe that gays cannot be good parents they just cannot be both a mom and a dad).
That said, this is perhaps the most reasonable, persuasive arguments on behalf of society, and not just the two people, I have heard.
It says.it better than I did, having long advocating removing unfairness to gays in many ways (taxes, medical trust, beneficiaries, etc.). J still want to preserve the mother/father ideal as the standard in parenthood, but gays deserve to have their relationships without penalty or stigma.
Trust at April 10, 2013 1:36 PM
Jeff: Conservatives aren't against social change, but rather rapid social change,
That would indeed describe some conservatives. Other conservatives, however, are dead-set against social change (or specific social changes.) For example, most, if not all, religious conservatives are against same-sex marriage, not because it's happening faster than they'd like but simply because they're opposed to it.
JD at April 10, 2013 5:34 PM
Goo: Calling each of these unions a marriage blurs the gender differences.
You've got a point there. Since interracial marriage is legal, racial differences have become very blurred. Just the other day, I overheard someone say, "The reason Letterman didn't get The Tonight Show spot years ago is because he's black." And many people are upset about all the illegal Asian immigrants from Mexico.
JD at April 10, 2013 5:52 PM
As a gym rat, I can tell you that there are a staggering number of men who frequent the gym as a place to cruise other guys. And a lot of them have wedding rings. Their poor wives.
I'm with Isab and JD on this one, I don't think they're really gay or closeted - they're just men. There's a line from Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" where, floating on a raft out in the middle of the ocean, they get intercepted by a pirate boat. The local guy explains, "they're basically het, but they'll go after anything warm and concave".
There's a reason for the stereotypes about prisoners and sailors.
Ltw at April 10, 2013 6:25 PM
If you want to blame the Republicans for being for Slavery and against civil rights, please do. But I would like to you read this.
Some how the socialist agenda such as welfare, food stamps, Section 8 and all the rest of the stuff that allows the recipient to abrogate personal responsibility seems to come from the Democratic side.
A simple change that was hard and solid could probably make a big change. Set up all aid programs that if the recipients have two dependents at beginning of service (and up to three nine months later) that is all they get reimbursed for. If they leave the assistance program, they will only get assistance for three dependents unless they are out of the program for over seven years.
But blaming societal breakdown on the pill and abortion is looking at the subjects in a vacuum.
Jim P. at April 10, 2013 7:41 PM
The gays listed above were very devoted to their opposite sex partner, they just never fucked them much if at all ( like most marriages har har har).
Makes sense as strong long term devotion is not generally hot , sexy n' romantic.
Ppen at April 11, 2013 2:12 AM
JD,
Regarding "force religious organizations to change their definition of the term 'marriage.'"
There are people (certainly not all of them) in the non-hetero folks who want to have "marriage" include non-hetero couples... and not just legally.
I have met folks who want to force all religious organizations to accept their personal definition and be forced to religiously recognize all unions as 'marriage.' Some of them want to law to dictate that if a religion is going to recognize a m-w marriage, then it must consider a m-m or w-w union as spiritually the same.
So, if religion XYZ says only married couples can dance the polka at Thursday meetings, then these folks want to force religion XYZ to consider m-m, m-w, and w-w as valid for Thursday polka dancing (and any other things that were previously only available to m-w marriages).
I hope that clarifies. This is kinda confusing to write about since we don't have two different words for the religious and legal aspects of marriage, which is, in my opinion, a major part of the problem.
Shannon M. Howell at April 11, 2013 12:39 PM
Leave a comment