THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Michael Sellitto replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie writes: "But at a meta-level people who insist SSM has no effect on marriage are making a fundamentally unserious argument. 'How can my marriage affect anyone else?' may be a good pop response, but anyone who studies marriage will tell you that ideas about marriage prevalent in a culture have an effect on how people behave. That's what it means to be a social institution or a social norm."

I agree with Maggie that same-sex marriages have an effect on how other people behave, but I disagree with her claim of what that effect is. She believes it hurts "marriage," I believe the opposite.

As has been posted here before (I believe), and the media covered, there is a small, but growing, group of heterosexual couples who choose to not get married because their gay and lesbian friends cannot marry. They feel that getting married would be uncomfortable and distasteful, given the lack of equality for their friends and family.

At the same time, the "gays don't need marriage" crowd are doing a great job convincing straight couples--who automatically get more common-law protection than same-sex couples--that they (opposite-sex couples) don't need marriage either. Why should opposite sex couples feel the need to marry when they see their gay and lesbian friends told that they do not need marriage to protect them or their children?

Both of these trends are likely to increase in the future, if we maintain the status quo of anti-same-sex marriage groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to push their "gays don't need
marriage" position, while, at the same time, the younger generation continues to grow more comfortable with gays and the idea of same-sex marriage. A majority of younger people already support same-sex
marriage, and as the stigma against homosexuality continues to erode, the support will continue to increase. Heterosexual young adults are less and less to see distinctions between themselves and their gay and lesbian friends; their empathy for gays regarding the ban on same-sex marriage will continue to grow.

A federal marriage amendment would only exacerbate these issues. Straight couples who were iffy before the FMA would be pushed over the top to being completely uncomfortable taking part in "marriage" when their friends and family are written out of the US Constitution.

At the same time, we should think about what the counter-movement would be if the FMA were passed. Professor Gerard Bradley, co-author of the FMA, said in a debate at the Pew Forum that the FMA doesn't
necessarily have to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting any protections at all, aside from the word "marriage" itself. He explained that the FMA only stopped families headed by same-sex couples from getting the protections that are "incidents" of marriage. Therefore, he suggested that same-sex couples could get all of the protections that are currently "incidents" of marriage by simply
de-coupling these incidents from marriage. If "marriage" were stripped of all of the incidents--the rights and responsibilities that presently come with it--then same-sex couples would be eligible for all of them. What effect will that have on the "institution" of marriage? Not one that the "pro-family" groups would probably be happy with.

The result would be that (1) there would be a negative stigma on "marriage," as far as empathetic heterosexuals are concerned, and (2) marriage would lose the legal benefits/incidents.

Who's going to marry then?

The FMA will be the "end of marriage" in the US.
posted by Eve at 9:13 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home