Ghost of a flea

Muddying the waters

This weekend I was exposed to the first sensible argument I have heard against gay marriage. The argument is simple: to change the law would be to tamper with a social convention and in so doing, "muddy the waters". I believe the argument is sensible even though I disagree with its intended conclusion that it would be best not to change the law. But I think it is reasonable to suggest that some confusion is entailed by extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Because that is what we are doing. I have made it clear here and elsewhere that I do not acknowledge the right of any state, or indeed any church, to sanction a marriage. The "Quaker" part of that fighting Quaker tag is serious. In my belief, a marriage is created in the face of the Almighty not in registry office (post-facto blessing or no). Even so, we are talking about the government recognizing a change that has already come about and in short order most people are going to take it for granted that a marriage might refer to couples that, despite having lived together for decades, had not hitherto had the same benefits as everybody else. This is a big step and it is going to be a difficult one for some even though the issue is on the periphery of their lives. For many folks the prospect of same-sex marriage must be like watching same-sex pairs figure skating. The sensation is probably one of unheimlich Gefühl, a jarring sense of the unfamiliar in something that would normally be taken-for-granted.

One of the most confusing aspects of this debate to me is that those folks arguing against gay marriage are often people who argue vociferously for the state to stay out of private business and who seem to genuinely feel no animosity toward gay people. Yes, there are a bigoted few but this hardly accounts for the overwhelming number of otherwise sensible people who, I am quite certain, will look back on their opposition with embarrassment in the fullness of time.

Every time I have this conversation with someone struggling to articulate why their gut is telling them other folks should be prevented from doing something that, whatever their particular beliefs, harms nobody the same arguments are proposed. Marriage, I am told, is about reproduction. Or it is about the will of God. Or it is about nature. Or it is about history and tradition. Each of these arguments can be dismissed in turn by rudimentary logic and observation of the marriages of Michael Jackson or Britney Spears so it occurs to me that something more basic is in play.

Here is the problem. Even Britney Spears admits her overnight Vegas wedding was a farce but it was a real wedding in the eyes of the law. If marriage can include everybody from infertile couples to couples at the registry office who may one day be King and Queen or couples who are planning to add an extra wife or two if they can get Utah to go back to the old faith (that would be the seriously traditional form of marriage) we are talking about an institution whose definition may be set in law but whose intentions, aspirations and religious underpinnings are extremely flexible.

What happens when folks come along who say that marriage is about two people loving each other and forming a bond that entails commitment and obligations to one another? Gay marriage is not the source of confusion but it certainly highlights some serious confusions. Think of all those people arguing against gay marriage but who do not intend to have children themselves. Or those who argue gay marriage is against their particular religious law but shy at the idea of having to ask the province of Ontario for an annulment. Or who argue that marriage is about the union of one man and one woman even as they head for their second divorce because of infidelity. Or who want to defend a tradition that in not so distant times meant a proposal had legal standing because women could not hold most jobs, let alone vote, and needed to be protected from the various scoundrels of the world. If a revised definition of marriage was to limit its scope to loving commitment there are many, many people who might have cause to reflect on their own behaviour.

Talk about muddying the waters.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at April 11, 2005 10:33 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/trackback-engine.cgi/3458

Comments

Posted by: Debbye at April 11, 2005 01:03 PM

Posted by: urthshu at April 11, 2005 02:28 PM

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at April 11, 2005 05:13 PM