Brendan O'Neill in The Australian:
"...The political thirst for gay marriage is underpinned by officialdom’s instinct to get a foot in the door of the family. It devalues marriage as it is currently constituted - in real life, not just in law - and, in an historically unprecedented step, it makes the sovereign of society into the sovereign of marriage and the family too.
The gay-marriage bandwagon isn’t only bad for married couples. It’s bad for gay couples too. For while it’s presented as a positive drive for equality, it’s actually motored by a very defensive clamour for state recognition of gay relationships.
A gay relationship is fundamentally one of romantic love, far more so than traditional marriage is (although that can have romance in it too, of course). But ours is an era which feels uncomfortable with romantic love, viewing it as naive, even as the site of abuse and harm. This means many homosexuals feel increasingly uncertain about their unions based on romance, on pure partnership, and feel compelled to wrap them in the legitimating comfort blanket of that respectable institution, marriage.
This ties in with another gay-activist tactic today: the search for evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Gay-rights spokespeople constantly claim, on the basis of dodgy science, that every creature from penguins to donkeys engages in homosexual behaviour, and therefore it must be natural.
This, too, represents a frenetic search for external legitimation of gay love. Gay activists defensively seek to naturalise their relationships through the use of pseudo-science and to normalise them through state recognition, through the demand for marriage. Both of these activities reveal a profound lack of confidence in the modern gay movement, which once simply declared: “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”
There would be nothing positive about institutionalising gay marriage on the basis of a new defensiveness amongst gay people about their lives and loves. That would leave unaddressed the moral question of why romantic unions, of which gay ones are amongst the purest, seem lacking in confidence today.
Underlying the gay-marriage debate is a relativistic reluctance to distinguish between different kinds of relationships. Gay love is fundamentally a relationship between two people. Traditional marriage is not. It is a union between a man and a woman which very often, through its creation and nurturing of a new generation, binds that man and woman to a great many others, to a community. It is an institution, not a partnership."
12 Comments
"Allowing the state to redefine ancient, organic relationships is a short step from allowing it to police them."
This guy gets it. Great article.
Same sex friendships are not marriages, what is so hard for the left to understand about that?
I also thought that was one of the greatest parts of the article, AM. It's chilling that all relationships would be redefined from "mother" to "parent 1," "husband" to "partner A," etc. It's disgusting, and it turns the family into a government construct.
And before SSMers start saying how changing the legal understanding of fundamental words in our culture isn't a big deal, they should keep in mind how much emotion they seem to have invested in the word "marriage." No other word will do!
They love to say: "No one gets on one knee and says, 'Will you civil union me?'"
Likewise, no one wants to celebrate "Parent A Day"!
So true, Ash
This author is definitely a progressive but he actually understands the *libertarian* argument against redefining marriage than most self proclaimed Libertarians do.
For example:
"It’s bad for those who are already married because it is part of an inexorable drive to throw open the institutions of marriage and the family to state snooping and bureaucratic remodelling."
M.Jones: Opposite sex friendships aren't marriages either. However, same-sex marriages are marriages - and they're often healthier, more successful and longer lasting than many opposite sex ones.
M.Jones: Opposite sex friendships aren't marriages either. However, same-sex marriages are marriages - and they're often healthier, more successful and longer lasting than many opposite sex ones!
Where is the evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Two animals snuggling together for heat?
Where is homosexuality in the anumal kingdom? Or is it a case of hermaphrodites? There's also cannibalism in the animal kingdom. So, therefore, accept cannibalism, at Food-land?
We only draw attention to homosexuality in the animal kingdom to disprove your argument that it is not natural. You may think it is wrong and unhealthy, but it is oh so certainly natural.
@Bryce,
Making false statements in support of your demands for special rights does nothing to bolster your ridiculous assertions.
"it is oh so certainly natural"
Yes, mental illness exists naturally in the animal kingdom, as well. No shrinks there, though. What are the humans' excuse for not seeking treatment?
"This means many homosexuals feel increasingly uncertain about their unions based on romance, on pure partnership, and feel compelled to wrap them in the legitimating comfort blanket of that respectable institution, marriage."
sure, that's it - the fact that a gay person can be denied access to his/her partner's hospital room for not being related, is forced to rely on their partner's family to be accepting & supportive of their relationship since gay partners don't qualify as "next of kin" and all those other rights that are granted to people solely on the basis of a legally valid marriage license has absolutely nothing to do with it.
/sarc
Cranky, in California that was not the issue. Domestic Partnerships/Civil Unions laws made marriage equal in every way under California law. You can harp on "benefits" all you want, but in California, that wasn't the case. If you want "benefits", then work on gaining benefits, not redefining marriage. The whole "benefits" argument is a side circus.