Shut up, Marriage hypocrites!!
by John
Elaine on twitter pointed me to this fantastically self-important vanity fair piece by Andrew Cohen. You can read it for yourselves (it’s not very long), but if you’re too lazy, the basic thesis is that anybody who isn’t in a perfect relationship, or who has had a failed relationship, or has done something or somebody they’d rather not admit to, or has moral views based on religious beliefs should just shut up. About Gay Marriage. The idea being that unless you are perfect, you may not comment on the decisions society makes about what relationships to recognise. It comes from the same school of thought that says criminals should be denied the vote for the rest of their lives, though I suspect that Mr. Cohen would find that idea a little more problematic.
Obviously, the world is full of hypocrites. Iris Robinson is just the latest victim of her own standards. There have been others, and there will be more. It’s a problem that tends to befall those of us on the right more often than those on the left precisely because we believe in certain things* to begin with. You’ll notice that there are few satirical songs to be found out there about Roman Polanski’s alleged rape of a 13 year old girl, but at least three that I’ve found about dear Iris. To be fair, one of them was very funny.
Anyway, that was a detour. The point is that Gay Marriage advocates are constantly telling us that the issue is none of our business. Understandable, but wrong. How we order society, and the relationships that we recognise, are our collective business. On an individual level, many moral issues are none of our business. The teenage mother who wants an abortion. The old dear who wants a morphine overdose. The couple who want to clone their child. None of those decisions impact on me, but they have a societal impact. So does this. Gay Marriage means a dramatic, root and branch reform of our societal norms. Absolute equality requires absolute equality of treatment. It means normalising gay relationships as part of our world from the moment of birth. It means actively educating children about homosexuality – at least on a theoretical level, without the physical details.
I don’t doubt that that’s where we’ll end up. I’m not even saying it’s a bad thing. Personally, I’m not yet a supporter of Marriage, but I do support civil unions. This process is absolutely necessary, but necessarily slow. The reason I don’t support Marriage is that I don’t think society is ready for that step. I look forward to the day that I can.
That said, the Gay rights movement is setting marriage back years. In the US, the constant referenda, which they keep losing, merely expose divisions and deepen a sense of oppression, I imagine, within the gay community itself. The reaction, as expressed in this article, is to declare certain views illegitimate. That is wrong, and counter-productive. Irritating as it must be, this is a societal decision. We’ll get it right in the end. We generally do.
*Update Lest this be interpreted as my saying that some of us have a monopoly on ideals, what I mean is that we tend to emphasise standards of personal behaviour far more aggressively than the left, and thus are more vulnerable to our own failings.
Comments
I would imagine there was a rush on the Iris songs, purely because of the whole “The Graduate”/”Here’s To You Mrs Robinson” stuff.
That, and you have to be pretty good to get a laugh out of child rape.
Hear, hear John!! I agree with a lot with what you say. The Gay Marriage agenda in the Gay Community drives me insane! I am not alone in this though!
Its nice to see we have something in common!
In fairness, I think the reason there were more satirical songs about Iris Robinson than Roman Polanski is that it’s easier to find humour in the circumstances of a relationship between two people who were legally adults, whatever the age difference, and a situation involving the rape of a child (he was convicted in court, so it doesn’t need to be qualified).
I accept that allowing gay couples to marry will change society, and I think gay activists should be honest and address these issues head on. Yes, children will find out that some people are gay much sooner than they might have otherwise, and that does need to be defended.
But I suppose I’d have two questions for you. You say you have no problem with civil unions. How will it be any different then from the point of view of children finding out about homosexuality, for example? Suppose after the Civil Partnership Bill comes into effect, someone were to mention in the classroom here, the effects would be near enough the same as if we had marriage. The second is that you seem to worry about adjustment problems. But was there any evidence of that in Spain, after it added a simple line to its marriage code in 2004, “Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex”? I’m deliberately taking a Catholic country here, but have other countries that have changed the law suffered even short-term negative consequences?
The first question you pose is easily enough answered, William, in that the difference in the name allows the two institutions to be taught at different stages of development. Marriage first (as the institution most familiar to most children) and civil unions a few years later. I don’t think that implies inequality, only a fair approach to teaching the issues.
The second question stumps me, purely because I know so little about it. The only observation I’ll make is that at the time, I remember large-scale marches and protests by anti-marriage groups. I can’t imagine that that sentiment vanished overnight. Nor do I want to see similar protests here. I happen to think, as I said, that this is an inevitability. But it doesn’t have to happen in a way that brings people onto the street to vent their homophobia.
When are people taught about marriage? I’d say the first time it came up in school was at some point, probably second class, learning about the sacraments. But it’s not something that needs explaining to people. Suppose now with civil partnerships, a family passes by a town hall where a couple has just been registered, a child would see them there celebrating with their families, just as any couple who are getting married. Suppose the nephew of a man who has just been civilly partnered mentions in the “My news” section at the beginning of class in primary school on Monday that he had a great weekend with all his family there. Once civil partnership comes in, or soon enough after, it won’t be something that will be have to be taught once children reach an age of maturity.
Of course, we are taking a step by step approach that you commend, with the Civil Partnership Bill this year. So really, I just hope it’s a smooth road from here.
John, nice article and it has prompted me to write a response. Take a loot: http://wp.me/s92Gw-420
[...] Gay issues by William on 12 January, 2010 Earlier today, I commented on John McGuirk’s piece, Shut Up, Marriage Hypocrites!! and think it worth writing a few words on the conservative case for allowing gay couples to marry. [...]
Saw this today – http://www.ark.ac.uk/publications/updates/update64.pdf
Table 2 on page 2 has a really interesting statistic on how attitudes to homosexuality have changed, particularly when compared with abortion (the next row in the table). In less than 20 years, the % seeing ‘nothing wrong at all’ with homosexuality has shot up from 13% to 42%.
Societies may often move a glacial speed, but not always!
The word ‘hypocrite,’ is overused. People seem to think that it means someone who says one thing and does another, contradictory thing. This sets up an impossible standard, who has not broken a rule or law at one time? Call it was you want, a moral lapse, weakness, concupiscence, we all make decisions, do things that go against our own beliefs. This does not make a person a hypocrite. The actual definition of hypocrite is someone who says one thing while believing another thing. This is not semantics, it is a very real and important distinction.