Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Why Gay Marriage is Important for All Americans

On HuffingtonPost: http://bit.ly/14777a
or Intent.com: http://bit.ly/zPCaQ

The California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Proposition 8 in banning gay marriage is a setback not only for gay rights, but for the psychological and spiritual growth of our country. Gay marriage concerns far more than the 5-10% of our population that identifies as gay. America’s deepest tradition is the protection and expansion of individual rights and freedoms with a goal of liberty and justice for all.

Today, the movement to overturn millennia of discrimination against gay people represents the next major expansion of individual rights and freedoms. Even as a straight man, I see this not just through the lens of fairness but as an essential part of the evolution of America. While most commentators see Proposition 8 as a temporary setback in the context of an otherwise clear march towards equality, it does provide an appropriate moment to reflect upon why gay marriage is important not just for gay people but for all Americans.

At the core of the debate is the right of same-sex couples to marry and receive the full benefits and blessings accorded others under the law. Marriage is the most sacred contract sanctioned by our nation, consecrating the love between two beings and forging a legal partnership that also creates a stronger container for families. As such, it is a key place where spiritual values meet secular values. So long as gay marriage is outlawed, we are, as a country, creating a definition of sacred that excludes 5-10% of our citizens and the way they love. This message creates a profoundly split social order and has insidious effects on the psychology of straight people as well.

The suffering that comes from this form of apartheid is not as obvious as when we have separate drinking fountains for “white” and “colored.” And yet, the number of people directly affected is parallel to the 10% of the US population that was black in the 1950s and faced with “separate-but-equal” facilities.

The indirect effects of discrimination against gay people hurt everyone. For straight people, the lack of full sanction for gay relationships creates a more polarized social view of gender. Children are particularly sensitive to what is socially approved and what is not. Boys raised in a homophobic culture learn to overemphasize masculine qualities, fear feminine qualities, and create more macho personas, as well as to fear being “loving” with their male friends. Girls are similarly affected in a negative way. As both learn to be less authentic to their true nature in an effort to fit social ideals, they create long-term psychological challenges for themselves. The pain of inauthenticity flares up in substance abuse, violence, sexual dysfunction, isolation, and divorce. We all crave being loved for who we are. To the degree that we create an inauthentic facade, we never have the feeling of full loving acceptance.

Suicide rates have long been higher among homosexual teens and, by inference, we would expect that heterosexual teens with some same-sex attractions would also have lower self-esteem and higher suicide rates. A single suicide can have a devastating effect on dozens of other friends, families, and allies. I would know. One of my close friends from high school, who came out to me and a few others in college, was one of those suicide statistics and his sexual orientation certainly played a role in his eventual fate.

When we multiply negative self-esteem effects by millions, we realize how many social problems arise when homosexual feelings are defined as sinful or bad. The ban on same-sex marriage thus creates distortions in our children’s development that have profound affects on our national health and happiness. For example, since we have a primarily male power structure in America, a more macho social ideal for masculine behavior leads to an overemphasis on aggression, which creates more conflict and violence than may be necessary. The costs to our society of our psychological gender imbalance may be enormous.

The legalization of gay marriage will not, by itself, alleviate all our society’s imbalances. What it will do, though, is create a more expanded sense for what we hold as sacred and worthy of respect. That will trickle down, creating more permission for every child to be authentic to themselves and, in the end, forge a society with a healthier balance of masculine and feminine qualities, less conflict, and more overall happiness. This will not only have benefits for gay citizens but literally for all Americans.

For religious Christians who tend to be more strongly oriented to preserving the social order, legalizing same-sex marriage will ultimately allow an expansion of their heart. As it is now, Jesus admonition to “love thy neighbor as thyself” is at odds with the ban on same-sex marriages. By creating social approval for same-sex marriage, we eventually make it easier for religious people to put their core teachings into practice and love gay people fully.

The movement for gay marriage is, at the deepest level, a movement for the psychological and spiritual growth of our country. By honoring same-sex marriage in the same way as heterosexual unions, we send the signal to the next generation of children that their natural inclinations are, well, natural. This in turn allows all Americans to grow up in a more authentic way. Men can be less hyper-masculine or defended and women can be more connected and loving as well.

The full legalization of gay marriage in America will represent a pivotal moment in evolving an ever-more-perfect union that is a beacon for liberty and justice for all. May that moment come quickly and gracefully.

3 Comments:

At 4:54 PM, Blogger Terrill said...

I couldn't agree with you more Stephen. Thank you for taking the time to say so eloquently what needs to be said.

 
At 6:38 PM, Blogger Michael Dowd said...

I wholeheartedly agree with Terrill. Excellent piece, Stephen!

 
At 2:57 AM, Anonymous Kate Jones said...

There's a lot of tortured reasoning going on here. Humans have had a societal interest in the couplings of their members since societies began. The alpha male had his pick, as many as he could handle, to propagate his seed. Lesser males could only get their sperm in edgewise or fight the leader for possession of the females. In the Odyssey, Homer recounts that the best females were awarded to the best warriors. A kind of eugenics of merit...

People to this day are absorbed with the matings of their heroes - sports stars, movie stars, even fictional ones.

The point is that unions were for procreation, hence a male and a female. "Marriage" was instituted for civil and religious purposes to protect and control the reproductive units and mate selection without constant combat among competing males. Whether the fertile females were wooed by romance, sold by parents, or carried off by force, societies eventually worked out ways to ensure continuity of their populations and maximum safety and happiness to their members by endowing mating couples with licenses and tax breaks.

Such notions of a domestic unit became so engrained that anything different was instinctively rejected. The idea that people could love each other in ways other than for procreation was simply too alien. The idea that people would want to form domestic units other than for procreation was incomprehensible by the old paradigms.

In the end it comes down to whether Society as a whole has any business tracking the sexual behavior of its citizens. How far Society's (government's) authority should extend in regulating private behavior is the eternal tug-of-war between individual rights and group claims.

Why does society have an interest in seeking to extend its control over the private acts of its citizens? Because they have public consequences, usually financial. Some people have to pay for maintaining other people's illegitimate offspring. More people mean a larger tax base for the government. How to define individual rights and freedom of association?

Yes, people should have the freedom to be with anyone they choose, and to love anyone they choose. The controversy arises when love involves sex. Non-procreating sexual conduct between individuals of the same gender is still too new a paradigm, notwithstanding its existence in human societies for millennia.

Take sex out of the equation, and the entire subject becomes moot. Take government preferential policies for "families" out of the equation, and all households become equal. Take church and state out of private individual relationships, and all can live in peace. Framing the subject of loving couples (or triads, or any number) as subject to government rules and permissions perpetuates an interference, an injustice, an affront against individual rights and liberties. No one or group has the right to abridge the rights or freedoms of any individual who is not transgressing against others'. It is up to the individuals, not the government, to define themselves as family. Why bloodlines are still considered a tighter bond than chosen love relationships is a separate subject (see "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins), but that hoary paradigm also still clings.

A true respect for individual rights as established by the U.S. Constitution would do away with all restrictions on private, victimless human conduct and associations. We've accepted interracial and interfaith couples. It's overdue that we stop governmental obstruction of individuals' choices of whom they love, live with and visit in hospitals. If it takes extending the word "marriage" to achieve this goal, let's do it.

Above all, let us reject the notion that it requires a governmental law to ALLOW people to associate (marry or otherwise). That right is non-negotiable and unalienable.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home