Blog#12 Wm. Campbell

Blog#12-Campbell


To traverse the issue of gay marriage one first runs smack into the emotionally charged wall that surrounds it. This first obstacle is not as hard to scale as it seems. It requires a steady nerve, quiet nonjudgmental conviction, and an absolute lack of defensiveness. The next obstacle to be encountered will be the most daunting, the thorny hedge where marriage is being defined. Questions fly, answers come back, faces flush, and lips purse. The argument starts and circles around issues of love, consent, religion, and legality. Words like union, partnership, legally sanctioned, bond, and family are tossed back and forth. Again, it will take a steady nerve, no judgment, and a completely open mind to be successful here.
In “The M-Word, Why it Matters to Me,” Andrew Sullivan defines marriage as a way prove the dignity of a gay couple’s love. “This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love.” He feels the family values granted by marriage, “are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities.” (154) In her essay, “Same-Sex Marriage,” Laurie Essig disagrees rather emphatically. To her marriage is an institution “founded in historical material and cultural conditions that ensured women’s oppression.” (156) Essig also feels that granting the right to same sex marriage would open the door for other alternative lifestyle groups to try for recognition. Sam Schulman, in his, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage,” feels that any tinkering with the sanctity of marriage would change its definition and result in disastrous social consequences. He takes a rigid stance and defines homosexual males, radical gays, and any incestuous relationships as being unfit for marriage. “Those who seek to arrange a kind of marriage for the inherently unmarriageable are looking for those things in the wrong place.” (165 ) He then adds an exclamation point to this by debunking the existence of “romantic love.” In his editorial, “Abolish Marriage,” Michael Kinsley argues that government should have nothing to do or say of marriage and feels this view might be appealing to all sides of the issue of gay marriage. “The solution is to end the institution of marriage, to end the institution of government sanctioned marriage.” How would he do this? Simple, he says, “Privatize marriage.” (172 )
The possibilities here are exhausting. A quick peek at heterosexual marriage provides somewhat frightening insight. It seems not to work about as well as it seems to work. These would be considered lousy odds in any book. Would gays do it any better? Who knows without trying it. Should gays be afforded the same rights? Certainly.
Works Cited

Andrew Sullivan, “The M-Word: Why it Matters to Me.” TIME, February, 16, 2004.

Laurie Essig, “Same-Sex Marriage.” Salon.com, at www.salon.com, July 10, 2000.

Sam Schulman, “Gay Marriage-And Marriage.” Commentary, November, 2003.
Michael Kinsley, “Abolish Marriage.” Slate, July, 2003