« Change, Our Way. | ricchase's Blog | The Winners Write History »

Gay Marriage, Is it Wise?


I am fully aware that I am opening myself to a multitude of varying opinions by having the audacity to claim I have the qualifications to evaluate such a controversial and volatile subject as Gay marriage. But being smack dab in the thick of Gayness, the good, bad and ugly, for more than 50 years, I'm gonna be this audacious.

Being Gay gives one many unique perspectives. First and foremost, you don't wake up one day and realize you are Gay. It doesn't happen that way. It is a slowly evolving process. While I am certain being Gay is a human characteristic that is there  from birth. A person is not conscious of what it is in infancy, of course. I would say not even in early childhood, say, from birth to perhaps ten to twelve years old. A gay person begins to have snippets of curious thought early in life. Different feelings that seem to randomly enter your processes from time to time, thoughts you instinctively know should not shared or revealed. You are not exactly certain why. But you do know they are not normal. At least not normal in the sphere you are accustomed to. The world you have been taught about. You have been raised, schooled and subjected to an exclusive heterosexual existence. The thoughts, feelings and perhaps desires that have been slowly manifesting within your psyche first start as a sociological taboo. This much you know. But this does not stop them from materializing within you. Gradually becoming more aware they are a part of what is you. You are somewhat confused about what it all means. You are cautious and apprehensive from the beginning.

At this point you become increasingly conscious of the fact you are different in a very basic way. You become aware that what you are experiencing within is not something most everyone else is. Through each individual's unique environment, circumstances and experiences, along with a variety of other factors the reality that one is Gay becomes established in the consciousness. Most will go with natures flow and grow accordingly. Some will refuse to accept this reality and fight their frightening, irreconcilable feelings. Often with varied but predictable results. Most which are not easy, pleasant or successful. To attempt to change basic human nature is generally a loosing exercise.

After acknowledging and accepting being Gay is a natural part of what and who you are, you are constantly confronted with a variety of vexing and extremely difficult choices. What do you do? Who do you tell? What will people think of you? What about your family? How will they react? How to live, in what can be a cruel and largely disapproving world. The challenges are immense and never ending. These are all huge issues that usually must be dealt with at a very young age. You have not matured. You do not yet have the learned faculties to make decisions, properly, with such complex and problematic but undeniable realities. You quickly become proficient at lying, manipulation and when necessary, altering or disguising your natural self to deal with whatever the situation requires to fit in or avoid detection. After years of honing chameleon like defenses it seems to become just another part of who and what you are. It is survival in a world that too often wants nothing to do with you. Often, even the people that profess to accept you, in reality wish you were not the way you are. This practical and necessary method of being included in the human race is understandably responsible for a wide variety and degree of neurosis, anxieties, insecurities and skewed development of personality. Every Gay person deals with their individual portion of these inflictions differently. Most are so strengthened by these experiences that we become intuitive, unusually creative, productive and "normal" adults with little to no difficulty. However, too often the result is immaturity, irrational and impulsive decision making. Many will lack the ability to make rational, consequential life decisions, but that does not mean you don't have to. And you can believe me when I say there are, sadly, disproportionate amounts of these people. A product of an unfair and unjust society. This is where the issue of Gay marriage becomes debatable.

I can personally attest to the fact that during my early adulthood and most everyone I knew, 16, 17 years of age, we were wild and reckless, to extremes. Having several long-term relationships and many more short term relationships was par. So impulsive and shortsighted were we that if legal marriage had been an option, we would have needed file cabinets to store our marriage licenses. Falling "in love" many, many times was as normal as having breakfast. Frankly, it was simply part of the culture. I am not convinced this has changed much. Especially for the younger Gay men. Many of who were either denied or actually disowned by their families. Shunned by lifelong friends. For myself, at least, it wasn't until I was well into my forties before I finally developed the mental and emotional maturity to grasp the idea of an enduring monogamous relationship. One that could be classified as secure enough to actually be legally married to another man.

In addition to the widespread, inherent characteristics I listed above, the Gay culture itself has not had enough time to mature. Only since the Stonewall Riots in 1969 have we been able to actually progress. The riots and subsequent exposure gave rise to the idea one could actually "come out of the closet", be public with our gayness. That perhaps being Gay wasn't some kind of cruel infliction to hide and be ashamed of. True, that was forty years ago. But I do not believe 40 years has been long enough for Gay men and the culture to evolve and mature to the point where way too many "impulsive" and knee-jerk, spur of the moment marriages would not still outweigh the serious, well thought out enjoinments. Thus making a mockery of the process and giving those that object for all the bigoted reasons Carte Blanche to cackle "I told ya so!"

Civil Unions with protected rights, without the legal ramifications that come with a failed legal, recognized marriage, I feel, would be a far more practical, initial approach. It is very important that committed Gay couples have many of the significant protections afforded heterosexual couples. But how are you going to separate the genuinely committed, deserving couples from the inevitable flighty, superficial and guaranteed to quickly fail marriages? And there would be MANY! The obvious answer is you can not. At this point and until it is widely acknowledged among ALL Gay people that legal marriage is serious stuff and not to be taken lightly, I do not in my heart feel full blown legal marriage is wise, just yet.

35 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Nice post, Ric. The evolution to gay awareness you describe is much like many of my friends desrcibe. The most heartbreaking part is the need to lie, cover-up, become "a chameleon."
I can't even imagine the fear and trepidation of informing your family and friends: when to tell, what to tell, whom to tell. My stars. At the twelve-year-old time we are all at the height of fear of revealing ourselves anyway; to add being gay to the mix must have been really hard.
May I ask how your parents and sibs reacted?
I have gay friends who have been in long-term monogamous relationships; some would like to get married, some wouldn't. Almost all of my lesbian friends would. I wonder if lesbians were less "impulsive and reckless"?
For what it's woth, I am glad you are just who you are.

user-pic

Hi Wendy and thanks for your thoughtful comment. As I indicated in the first paragraph of my post, I expected and am prepared for the 360 degree scope of comments I have received. (I thought the one about my choice of uppercase was telling. Such triviality...Oh well.)

You asked about my experiences in regard to my family. I must preface with what happened initially.

I joined the Marines when I was 17, by 2 days. After serving TWO tours in Viet Nam and most of the remaining time of my enlistment, it was revealed that I was Gay. I was immediately detained and held in solitary confinement in a 5foot by 10 foot, concrete floor cell for two months . After being sent for psychiatric evaluation I was ordered court martial-ed. I was promptly discharged. I received a "Undesirable Discharge w/dishonorable conditions." I was stripped to the rank of Private, lost all pay and benefits (Education, VA Hospitalization, VA Home loans, everything). Everything ever issued to me by the government was confiscated. I was escorted by Military Police to the base main gate. Told to get out of the vehicle and walk to town, 12 miles. I was given a 32 dollar bus ticket, all I received for three years of dedicated service to my country. I was, after all, Gay.
After arriving home and explaining to my parents, brothers and sister in excruciating, humiliating detail what had happened, it was pure Hell.
My Father first demanded I stay away from my younger brother. He then flipped open his Bible and read the usual passages regarding lying with man, etc, etc. He demanded I pack my things. He drove me to the airport and told me to get out. I had 2 dollars in my pocket. The rest of this story is irrelevant, just more misery.

After about 15 years of estrangement my Mother somehow got the rest of the family to accept ME, not my homosexuality. Eventually, they did, reluctantly.

Today we are once again a close family. But my being Gay or anything about my personal life is never discussed, ever. Everyone's concession to have peace.

I know not everyone that is Gay has this kind of confrontation with their family. But many do. I have heard so very many very sad stories from others who have had a wide variety of very negative results. To be honest, to have one's family readily and unconditionally accept their child, when informed he/she is Gay, is rare indeed. No matter what anyone else may say or think, it's rare.


user-pic

One (at least this one) thinks that the wisdom of any arrangement is no wiser than the wisdom of those entering into it: which means that those entering the relationship should be free to make the choice and bear the consequences, foolish or wise as the result turns out to be.

user-pic

I'm sorry to disagree with Wendy, but I think it's a terrible premise.

Essentially what the writer is saying is that gay people are NOT YET WORTHY of having equal marriage rights - based of course on his own opinion on what "worthy" is.

And the writer doesn't seem to care at all that while, in his infinite wisdom, he sees a sea of unworthy gay people, he's also willing to subject those select few "deserving" gays and lesbians who have to wait until the masses redeem themselves.

This attitude, in the end, is no different from what the social conservatives would want us to believe.

The fallacy of this writer's premise is based on the idea that people have to "deserve" equality by conforming to some sort of prevailing stereotype of the day. Like sexual fidelity or personal maturity or a style of behavior.

But if you extend this premise to its logical conclusion, you would end up with things like condoning racial discrimination ("some black people committ more crimes and use drugs more, therefore let's wait with equality until blacks en masse deserve it!").

Bottom line, the writer has self-esteem issues he needs to face and work through.

user-pic

Oh, I was even commenting on the notion that gay marriage is a bad idea. Not sure what I said to create that impression. I was just considering whether ric were even right about reckless gay men. And I said I didn't know that to be true among my acquaintances. I full support gay/lesbian marriages. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was commenting "nice post" on his desription of how it was to slowly become aware of being gay; that's what I got caught up in.

user-pic

"Wasn't even" was what I meant to say.

user-pic

Lalo35adm...

No, I really don't have "self-esteem issues". Actually I pretty proud of myself and am extremely happy. Every issue within a society or country that needs serious consideration and evaluation is unique. Whether it's race, discrimination, human rights, legal injustice or whatever. As with the issue of Gay marriage, the aspects and consideration are unique. My opinions and ultimate decision to consider a viable alternative are based on the unique influences that have molded many of the people within Gay society. The argument I make has nothing to do with condoning inequality or injustice. Rather I am trying to make the point that right now, today, I do not feel like something as revolutionary and untried as legal marriage should be thrown onto a society (Gay) with so many opportunities for mass failure. I see nothing wrong or unequal with incrementally introducing civil unions, with significant guaranteed rights before making marriage available. After all, what the Hell is Marriage? What people want is to be able to receive recognition and protections that straight people receive. This is equality. And I believe this can be obtained with strong civil unions legislation.

user-pic

I understand your "feelings" about society's ability to accept something so revolutionary.

It seems to me if it were up to you, you would still be advocating the delay of recognition of interracial straight marriages.

The trouble with your argument is it is frivolous, lacks any reasonable rationale and has no objective method of evaluation (when is the society ready??)

user-pic

Here's just one of the places your argument falls down. "The gay culture has not been around long enough . . ." What's long enough? And I would argue that gay culture has been around as long as men and women have been around. Only over the past 40 years is has gradually come more into the open and is no longer hidden behind some imposed veil.

Finally, marriage has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. Every marriage starts out full of promise. Sometimes that promise is fulfilled and sometimes it is not. It matters not whether one is gay or straight.

user-pic

Sorry, wisdom isn't really pushed down on people by the culture that they live in, it is absorbed and pulled in by the individual, otherwise, generation after generation wouldn't do the same stupid things.

Legal environments and cultures tend to become more enlightened over generations. Individuals? Not so much. More knowledgeable? Yes. Enlightened? No. Decidedly not.

Lots of straight marriages would be thrown out, too. Let's outlaw them, too? Your premise sucks.

Sorry.

user-pic

Your argument that individuals do not always "become enlightened" or are not affected by the culture they live within, is flawed. No, erroneous.

To believe Gay people are not heavily influenced by the proliferation of bars and clubs that substitute for "Community" is uninformed. And if you believe that the "entertainment" establishment within Gay society is not basically the only avenue of socializing, finding partners to establish relationships, even relative information and much more, then you either are not Gay, or are completely out of touch with the mechanics of Gay life. Being constantly in the influence of this lifestyle does not constitute a mindset conducive to a healthy, lasting relationship. Unfortunately, the bars are pretty much the only available "Community" we have. This is simply a fact. And they do not strive to educate or empower people in any positive manner. Take a young man that has been deprived of an otherwise "typical or normal" societal influence and it's hard to see how he will develop in a manner that would be helpful in understanding the full consequences of legal marriage. Heterosexuals on the other hand have many more methods and opportunities to expand their ideas of what the responsibility of marriage entails. Whether they make it work or not is another story.

user-pic

While I think you raise interesting points with regards to a larger societal conversation around what being married means, not unusual in a country with a 50% divorce rate, I think you have the right solution for the wrong reasons.

I believe gay "marriage" has become such a lighting rod that it may be preferable to take the word "marriage" out of it all together and have ALL committed, legal relationships between two consenting adults be considered a civil union.

That leaves marriage to the more religious among us as an additional qualifier to their legally sanctioned civil union.

user-pic

"I believe gay "marriage" has become such a lighting rod"

- So was the Civil Rights Act and abortion.

user-pic

Both required finesse and subtlety and long-term strategies to address, if in fact we have gotten past them at all.

user-pic

In my view, the most compelling reason why impulsive marriages with little hope for permanence are undesirable is that the dissolution of a marriage threatens the welfare of the children the marriage has produced. In the absence of children, an enduring relationship is something to hope for, but its absence is of relatively minor consequence - some pain for the partners, some gain for the lawyers, and little overall effect on society.

Heterosexual couples may at times procreate within a shaky marriage, with potentially damaging effects. Infertile heterosexual couples, and gay couples must adopt to have children, and it is at that point where marital stability becomes an overriding consideration.

Substantial evidence already exists abroad to justify legalizing the unions of gays and straights in relatively equal measure. As Jason suggests, this could relegate the term "marriage" to the province of religion, but I don't think the distinction will matter in the long run. Ultimately, American society is almost certainly destined to accept gay marriage, and a few generations hence, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

user-pic

When i opened this blog, i was sitting here trying to write a wedding card to my husband's nephew. Most of this young man's family has always assumed that he's gay; he's 30, has only ever had one "girlfriend," and is an extremely fundamentalist christian. Saturday he is to marry into the church of the infamous pastor doug wilson of the Southern reconstruction calvinist church and college in moscow, idaho. Google him if you want to get seriously creeped out. He did some debates with chris hitchins and wrote pamphlets about how slavery was in fact good for africans.
I believe he is one of the homosexuals who was indoctrinated with gay hatred, and that he is now so filled with reaction formation that he has embraced anti-gay church dogma that is even a few steps beyond his parents' narrow evangelicalism.
Reading ric's piece, i was imagining what thoughts and feelings he had as he was maturing, and the amount of deceit he felt pressured to impose on himself: guilt, denial, self-loathing... Without going into details, it is clear that we are not the people who can talk to him about any of it. He is quite sure we are wrong about everything, and that we're going to hell to boot. I only ended up writing two non-descript, pro-forma sentences on their wedding card.

user-pic

Well I appreciate your frankness but do feel there is a certain degree of projecting yourself and your experiences on to the entire gay community as a whole that I object to.

I would also say that what you describe as far as flighty relationships etc. is not so different from the heterosexual culture. Relationships break up, a majority of marriages end in divorce.

I feel that we need to revisit 'marriage' in our culture. It is clearly 'not' natural for all of us to spend our lives with one partner.

Perhaps we need to look at a variety of variations on the theme of 'commitment' in relationships. Some have adopted a one year at a time commitment, remarrying every year as they make the decision to remain together. I think it is healthy to 'own' the 'real' parameters of committing to a relationship rather than conforming to a notion that does not fit.

While there may be some unique qualities to the gay community in their development of relationship, I think it is best that they have the right to commit, marry, divorce, and basically experience the full gamut of the joys and pitfalls of relationship as everyone else.

I see no other way for maturity to develop and they should be as free as anyone to get it wrong/right.

user-pic

Sounds like a Robert Heinlein spin on marriage from many of his alternate histories. It was much more of a business contract with set renewal periods. Interesting ideas here.

user-pic

Actually your perception perhaps took all of the romance etc out of it. I am just recognizing the reality that a majority that marry do not stay married. That means something... and I don't think it's wise to just ignore that.

user-pic

Heinlein's relationships were passionate and romantic - the contracts themselves were just a little more clinical than we currently understand marriage to be.

user-pic

So gays (lowercase, BTW) are too frivolous to marry? That's hysterical!!

It's kid of an insult to the straight people I know who have gotten divorces only a short time after a "serious" marriage commitment. If over 50% of straight marriages fail, has the hetro culture really "evolved" to the point where it can deal with the "seriousness" of marriage?

Human rights include the right to be stupid, long as you aren't hurting others. Why should gays be barred from the misery we all get to endure?

user-pic

There should be no marriages, merely civil unions.

user-pic

To me, "civil union" merely reinforces the idea that "marriage" is primarily a religious rite. Each has gotten their foot in the door and act like they own it, but marriage predates big government and big religion. I have even read that the early Christian church was against marriage, preferring that its followers be closer to God than the flesh.

According to my college prof, my wife and I would not have been allowed to marry in the early church because she was beyond child-bearing age. He said the church orchestrated riots when rich, older women remarried. (She noted that no self-respecting Italian woman would have married an Irishman anyway, so there.)

user-pic

Marriage is a religious rite. A civil union is not.

Churches should be free to discriminate against whoever they like.

user-pic

Which came first, marriage or religion?

user-pic

Brilliant, thank you.

user-pic

Religion.

user-pic

Well, let me expand since the topic is convoluted: there are two types of unions, the primal of which is a straightforward union between two (or, I suppose, more) people, and the other one is a rite or a ritual with usually traditional and almost without exception religious rules, restrictions and connotations.

The state should have nothing to do with the latter; and should merely recognise (civil) unions between consenting people.
How you feel about the union, what you want to call it, how you celebrate it, who sets additional restrictions on it and how it fits in your community are not concerns of the state. A religious organisation is perfectly welcome to require virginity to recognise a union for their purposes - for usage of church facilities, for example - but that is irrelevant to the state.

user-pic

Nice try. Marriage is older than recorded history. Animism may be, too, but all the descriptions of early marriage I've seen describe it as an arrangement between families that determines paternity and the inheritance of property.

user-pic

Please refer to above.

As a sidenote, I have always been intrigued by this knowledge beyond recorded history. How do people come by it?

user-pic

Archaeology, I guess. Above doesn't change anything. The Greeks and Romans were non-religious about marriage. As I noted, Christians were hostile to marriage, kind of like Shakers.

user-pic

Our government lets corporations form unholy relationships all the time, often with disastrous results.

Corporations claim to be citizens and they have the right to form relationships pretty much any way they please. Just pay off the right congressmaen and you're good to go.

Why should we prohibit people from getting in on the act? People are citizens aren't they?

user-pic

I have a solution: Why don't you allow lesbians marry if they want to and you gay guys can wait until you're ready!

user-pic

No marriage is wise. It involves the state having two entities coming together for essentially a business arrangement. There's nothing about "love" there! Therefore, carefully worded prenups are to be considered before any such arrangement.

However:

a) homosexuals should be allowed the same privilege for screwing up their finances as much as heterosexuals.

b) the sooner we have homosexual marriage, the faster divorce laws will become truly equitable and gender-neutral. It will force people to see what marriage really is, rather than simple hoary gender roles.

Give everyone equal ability to screw themselves!

user-pic

Good night, clearthinker, sleep well.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address