So, as news sites around the world are undoubtedly reporting even as I type this post, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases regarding same-sex marriage. And, as a supporter of same-sex marriage, I think this is wrong.
Wait, what?
This event comes at an oddly coincidental time, just as one of my classes is finishing its unit on gay marriage. It's been an incredibly thoughtful time for me - same-sex marriage is an issue that I've had trouble taking a position on for almost a decade now, but after hearing arguments from leading scholars on the issue like Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, I'm ready to take a stance. Examining the pros and the cons, I believe that on the whole, same-sex marriage is a step forward for America and that we ought to support it. That said, I understand and respect that some have reservations.
Side note: it completely defeats any hope of the argument when we label people who have reservations about same-sex marriage as bigots or irrational or whatever you'd like to call them. This is the problem with labeling gay marriage as a civil rights argument - it equates those against gay marriage as those against interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia, or those against rights for women and minorities in the 1960s. Certainly, some who oppose gay marriage do so for bigoted or irrational reasons, but others have valid arguments that are immediately discredited as soon as we label them as irrational bigots. Consider Brenda Almond who cites numerous studies that show children do best when raised by their biological mother and father, or Mr. Blankenhorn, who demonstrates that many gay marriage advocates hope to deinstitutionalize marriage and both the good and the bad that come with it. These are serious considerations worthy of some debate, and were I against same-sex marriage I would draw upon these arguments to explain why.
However, I was swayed by Jonathan Rauch, a conservative, gay rights activist, and gay man who wrote Gay Marriage in 2004. It's the best (though not perfect) argument in favor of same-sex marriage that I've read and I highly encourage all of my readers to read some or all of it regardless of where they stand on the issue. Mr. Rauch explains why he believes same-sex marriage will be good for gays, straights, and the institution of marriage, and does an admirable job of offering counter-arguments to those who oppose gay marriage. In short, he argues gay marriage based on its merits, not whether or not it's a civil right.
Then he says he does not support a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Instead, he believes this is an issue that ought to be decided on the state level. This is a good idea on two main levels. First, because there are valid arguments against gay marriage, gay marriage can be tested and modified at the state level to avoid or fix some of the potential problems with gay marriage. Second, developing gay marriage at the state level, especially by a popular referendum, would help legitimize it. As much as we may sometimes hope, legally imposing a policy, especially a controversial one like gay marriage, does not make it socially acceptable. If gay marriage works on the state level and a lot of those reservations are proven wrong, gay marriage may well gain national support, and then we could have a popular vote or legislative decision on it, not a Supreme Court decision.
Until November 6, 2012, not a single state had approved of gay marriage by popular vote, and by contrast, several had approved a popular ban on gay marriage. Only two, New Hampshire and New York, had approved it by legislative approval with executive concurrence (i.e. the governor supported it too). That said, I think gay marriage will eventually gain popular support. Already, more young people than old people support it, and support for gays in general has grown (10 years ago, gay sex was illegal under sodomy laws). Down the line, and likely sooner than we expect, gay marriage will have popular support at the national level. But if we rush the issue now and make it a legal battle, even if gay marriage wins the legal battle it has a long way to go to win the culture war.
Let's consider another controversial Supreme Court case: Roe vs. Wade, in 1973. Whether or not you support the outcome (which I am not here to debate and will avoid doing so), there is no denying that legalizing abortion did little if anything to solve the cultural debate on the issue. I have yet to see someone say, "you know, I was against abortion, but if the Supreme Court says it's right then I can't reasonably have any reservations about it." It's nearly 40 years later, and we're still angrily - sometimes violently - debating it, with no major headway on either side. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself recently said that while she believes the Roe v. Wade decision was the right one, it came too soon. It would have been better to overturn the Texas ban without making it a national issue. Likewise, the Supreme Court, should it choose to overturn the ban on gay marriage in California, should avoid language that would result in national legalization of same-sex marriage. Some will undoubtedly say that avoiding the national debate is cowardly or foolish. But if marriage, that ancient and yet timeless institution, is as important as most of us say it is, shouldn't we be more careful about just what it will do before we make a radical change as to what it means across America?
This brings me to my final point, a larger issue for consideration. Nearly every author I have read on the subject, regardless of their stance, asks the same question: what is marriage for? Few if any say love is the only or even primary reason for marriage. Blankenhorn says it is to provide every child with their biological mother and father, and to create a publicly-approved institution of commitment and support. He makes a point. Rauch argues that procreation, while a nice reason, is not the primary reason; instead, marriage serves to "settle the young" (why do you suppose we call it settling down?) and to "provide a reliable system of caregiving." This seems like a broader definition of marriage, but one I still find acceptable. I was shouted down for asking this question earlier this year, as someone angrily told me that I was arguing semantics, but I think it's a core question we must all ask. What is marriage for? And just as important, who should decide what marriage is for, or even the terms we use to define marriage? For me, I think the power to define these essential terms should not lie with the Supreme Court, at least not right now.
I have further thoughts about how same-sex marriage may fundamentally change how we define marriage as well as parentage, but I'll cover those issues at a later date. Thank you again for reading everyone, and I'm happy to be back after a nearly two-month hiatus from writing.
TL;DR: I support same-sex marriage, but I don't think it should be up to the Supreme Court to decide the issue. Marriage is too important, controversial, and fragile for us not to give it more consideration.
