No Answer on “Gay Marriage” - Because It’s Not Really About “Marriage”

from Stand Firm by David Ould http://www.davidould.net

Curiously, there was no answer this whole week in the letters page of the Sydney Morning Herald in response to my headline letter of Monday. The sum total of responses was one paragraph at the end of a letter on thefollowing day...

Of similar concern are the condescending comments of Reverend David Ould (Letters, November 21). His linking of polygamy and polyamorists with the enduring and loving relationships of same-sex couples can only be described at best as sophistry and at worst as insulting to fellow human beings who care about each other.

Richard Fry Marrickvile

It's hardly an argument is it? My comments are condescending but it's not explained why. Nor is the "sophistry" outlined nor why it's insulting. Frankly, I think Richard Fry is being insulting towards polygamists and polyamorists by suggesting that they can't have enduring and loving relationships! Which is, of course, my point - why draw the line where the gay marriage advocates want to draw it? There's no reason why marriage should be favoured as "a loving commited relationship between two consenting adults" as opposed to "a loving commited relationship between any number of consenting adults".


That's not to say, of course, that all gay marriage advocates draw this line. I spoken recently to an activist who (albeit in a first response to the question being put to him) said he saw no reason to restrict it in that way - so let the polygamists and polyamorists also be "married". Fascinating.


But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that it's not about "marriage" at all. Marriage is just the touchstone for a deeper issue - affirmation. What the gay marriage lobby are pushing for is their relationships to not simply be tolerated and protected (which I want to agree with them on) but for them to be affirmed and somehow publicly declared to be good. So, as one example, consider Senator Penny Wong's article last Saturday which kicked the whole debate off:

For some, this issue may not be a top priority. But for the people it affects - it affects them deeply. It goes to the core of how they define themselves, and their most intimate relationships.
...


Can we justify valuing a relationship less, in law and in practice, solely on the basis of the genders of the partners?

Surely Australia has reached a point where we can value relationships by markers such as respect, commitment and love. I have no doubt our laws will one day reflect this.

Again, note the argument - homosexual relationships cannot be consider to be valued unless they are publicly, legislatively, affirmed. This is not about equality so much as positive affirmation in the form of equivalence. The gay marriage lobby wants us to alter how our culture has understood marriage, a fundamental building block of society whichever way you look at it, in order that they may be approved. It is not enough to be accepted, thus must be positively affirmed. And this for a  section of our population that is, at the most, 2% [wiki]. And yet this equivalence is argued for a relationship which is strikingly not equivalent to a heterosexual relationship. Like it or not the statistics overwhelmingly show that the relationships are different (so for example this 2003 Gottman paper [pdf]).


So the demand is for affirmative equivalence for a relationship which is not equivalent. That is not to say in and of itself that it is better or less or any other specific comparative term that you want use. But they are different. And they represent, at most, 2% of the adult population.


So why this massive push? There is no clear redefinition of marriage because none is actually needed - for the gay marriage lobby it's not about redefining marriage objectively, it's about simply ensuring that they affirmed and such self-interest is, surely, a really bad basis for such a major shift.