The Inevitability of Marriage Equality
Normally I try to practice what I preach, at least when it comes to giving attention to right-wing media personalities. Instead of jumping up and down and pointing excitedly at each instance of their reactionary excess, I prefer to turn the other way. My theory is that they will wilt without the nourishment of the attention they thrive on. Of course, it could just be avoidance on my part. Either way, though, I'm generally more content.
But–hey!–everyone around me seemed to be talking about this episode (e.g., see it at The Brad Blog, "VIDEO: Even O'Reilly Appears to Finally be Surrendering to Marriage Equality…") from whatever program that features Bill O'Reilly. Here he's talking with some opponent of marriage equality about the situation in California following that state's Supreme Court recent ruling on the subject.
It was kind of interesting. O'Reilly says something like "I think if you're going to win this thing in California [referring to a proposed referendum on a California Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage], you're going to have to come up with a reason that goes beyond the religious." His interlocutor tried for several minutes, and the best reason on offer what that "it would change the definition of 'marriage'." Even O'Reilly thought that not reason enough.
What struck me most about the clip was the sense of inevitability in O'Reilly's attitude. It was all said as though there's no stopping it, that perhaps it wasn't such a big deal to begin with.
And you know what? It's not a big deal, except to those few of us to whom it is a big deal. I know: it's largely (but far from solely) symbolic for gays and lesbians to have marriage equality, and its symbolic for our foes. However, I can't help feeling that it's only become important to our opponents because it's important to us. I don't think they can really, really care that much that Isaac and I would like to get married and share property rights and hospital-visitation rights as the guaranteed product of our relationship.
I suspect that most people in the US now believe that marriage equality for same-sex couples in this county is inevitable even if they won't admit it to themselves. For the past few years I've listened to opponents try to score point after point, each shot missing the target. When backed up against the blank wall of no more arguments, a surprising number of them have whined "but it's too fast!" Odd, that. "Too fast" accepts the inevitable but hopes to forestall the inevitable for some reason.
"It would change the definition."
I keep thinking of the US Constitution. It promised a vote for every citizen. When it was ratified, "citizen" meant landholders, predominantly white men. As time has passed–and with a sense of belated inevitability–we have redefined "citizen" to include all sorts of people not originally included in the definition. This has been seen as a good thing, albeit at times long after the fact for some.* (Yes, I realize the ambiguity in the preceding sentence, but it works for me.)
You know I'm not a Christian, and I hate to do their PR work for them, but just imagine if a number of marriage-equality opponents got together and announced one day that, in view of Jesus' injunction to "love thy neighbor as thyself", and realizing that their neighbors are gay and lesbian, they now embrace full marriage equality for every loving couple because–there's no good reason not to! Such approbation they would earn it would advance their political agenda to an alarming degree. But then, I think the barrier to embracing the inevitable rather than grudgingly accepting it may be too high for those who could most benefit. So they press on, opposing, with all their might, equality for their gay and lesbian neighbors because–"it would change the definition".
I think it's time for me to remind everyone, once again, that my blog's motto,
Nullus pudor est ad meliora transire
(It is no disgrace to pass on to better things.)
was originally an argument–made in the fourth century by the Christian St. Ambrose–in favor of accepting Christianity.
Sure, allowing marriage equality for every loving couple will change the definition of "marriage", a little bit. It will take some getting used to, but not that much. To my mind it will improve the definition of "marriage" and, in my opinion and that of St. Ambrose, nullus pudor est ad meliora transire.
__________
* The irreverent memory comes from an episode of "Fawlty Towers". Basil and Sybil have just shared a moment fighting a common enemy, an intransigent guest. Basil sighs and says, "You remember, Sybil: we use to laugh quite a lot." She answers, a bit briskly, "Yes, but never at the same time, Basil."
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 30 May 2008 at 02.39
Permalink
Well said. The growing number of Americans who on some level accept marriage equality as inevitable, yet are intent on delaying it, exhibit a kind of social inertia. Change brings uncertainty, anxiety and can be disorienting. So they resist.
It takes some time, but people do catch on and adapt. They'll see that a bunch of countries and a few U.S. states where same-sex marriage is legal aren't thrown into chaos. Heterosexual marriage is neither threatened nor harmed. The family survives, with some new variations added on.
Who knew?
And then more and more people will relax and go with the flow. Oh, there will always be a few who will carry on like George Wallace blocking the school door during the civil rights struggle. But they'll be swamped, just as Wallace was, and maybe will even come around, as Wallace did on racial equality in his later years.
on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 at 13.29
Permalink
Yes, it does take some time, but I also believe that acceptance can settle in after the legalities show the way. As for "who knew?"–well, we knew of course, but nobody believed us.