God Bless THE ECONOMIST: "The Case for GAY MARRIAGE"

[liberalpragmatist]

> http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2459758

The case for gay marriage

Feb 26th 2004
From The Economist print edition

It rests on equality, liberty and even society

SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

(snip)

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

* Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough... that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage... is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.

***

I love the Economist. Sure, I disagree with them on a lot of economic issues and their cheerleading for the Iraq War turned me off, plus there is the matter that they endorsed Bush, but they really are maverick. They're economics and trade conservatives and social liberals. They're also VERY smart - probably the world's smartest newsweekly (far better than TIME certainly, though Newsweek has impressed me w/ some of their more hard-hitting stuff), and though they've sided with the right plenty of times, they're not at all blind to the right's faults and follies. They endorsed Clinton mutliple times, and even when they endorsed Bush in 2000 they endorsed a Democratic house "to reign him in." Of course, it's questionable if they'll even endorse Bush this yr -- they've been pretty harsh on him with the budget.

Also check out this article from the same issue:
> http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2460765

[unblock]

1. republicans want to deny marriage to gay because...

... they are obviously in favor of rampant homosexual promiscuity.

the republican 'logic' on this point is even more tortured than on other points. the fact is, they want to ban gay marriages simply because it's a mean thing they can do to gays.

[JI7]

2. they are british

british conservatives tend to support gay rights. i remember seeing the conservative leader once and he was very supportive of gay rights. maybe andrew sullivan thought the cosnervatives in america were like those in british. it's a shame he learned it wasn't true in a very hurtful way. but at least he isn't supporting them anymore.

[LostInAnomie]

3. Poor Cons

I feel a little bit sorry for the cons.

It is a well documented fact that those who are the most vocal against gays tend to be repressed homosexuals. So they are torn between two masters. One telling them that homosexuality is taboo, and the other telling them that it is oh so right. It is natural (I guess) for them to hate the ones that arouse them and tempt them towards deviance.

They are afraid that once the stigma has been removed that they will no longer be able to control their tendencies, and once they bite the apple they will never be able to turn back.

Those poor cons... :nopity: