Gays and lesbians are important contributors to our country. Besides often being among the most economically and/or culturally productive members of society, they are numbered among our friends, our relatives, our parents (yes), our children, our co-workers. They are people deserving of human rights and basic protections like anyone else; I see no reason a person shouldn't be able to designate anyone -- including a lover of the same sex -- visitation rights, willed property, etc.

That said, I don't believe the question of gay marriage should be settled in the courts -- no matter what the desired outcome, it should be settled by the people, by popular vote. Justice Martin Baxter -- himself a proponent of gay marriage -- agreed, writing in his recent dissent:

[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will. [source]

Amazing what can be "discovered" in a document, isn't it? The resort to using the courts (that is, non-democratic processes) to "get our way" by creating new legislation, I believe, a large part of what caused the country to be in such turmoil over abortion.

But beyond the question of process is the question of desired end result. Is "gay marriage" a good thing, or isn't it? Is it a "civil right" or something else?

Marriage and Government in History

First, "marriage" is not exactly something we could easily call a "right". Until the rather recent reforms of the early 1970s, marriage was more of an obligation -- to leave your partner, you'd have to prove infidelity. You could prosecute your partner for infidelity or lack of emotional support. And sometimes, marriages have been taxed at higher rates than for single people.

Further, "marriage" itself precedes governments. Some believe it has spiritual origins, being established by God as a beneficial institution. Others may see it as the result of evolution -- of the trying of many possible forms, with the most "fit" arrangement (that is, in this case, conducive to producing well-functioning offspring) being the successful one having become the predominant norm.

But whatever one's belief, its important to recognize that marriage, as an institution, is as old as, if not much older than, recorded history. Like "natural rights", it is a state of affairs that our government merely recognized rather than created.

And it has generally been found to be a beneficial institution, not merely for the spouses, but for society as a whole: Children of intact marriages are found to have better outcomes (less crime, drug use, promiscuity, mental illness); while the pledge of fidelity also encouraged married men to "settle down"; married women and men have a partner in the difficult business of bearing and raising a child. Married people often contribute more to a society than unmarried people.

As such, recognizing that (heterosexual) marriage was beneficial government recognized and conferred certain benefits upon the institution, such as support (by making it harder to divorce, and being able to prosecute infidelity), tax breaks, a higher precedence for adoption requests, spousal immunity in court, conjugal visits for prisoners, etc. This institution is not so much, then a "right" but something the government, and society has a whole, has recognized as part of promoting the "general welfare" -- much the way the government builds roads in certain areas. Yes, roads are helpful. Yes, we all donate to create roads. But no, that doesn't necessarily make having a road near your house a "right".

So the question before us, and the good people of California in particular, is whether "gay marriage" confers these same benefits, and what downsides, if any might be incurred.

Whence "Gay Marriage"?

First, it's important to note that it is difficult to speak definitively, on either side, about the impacts of "gay marriage" -- as it is a completely new thing.

Though homosexuality is as old (surely as old as heterosexuality) we don't find any ancient societies that defined "marriage" to include homosexual partners. For example, ancient Greek men were famous for copulating with anything that moved (boys, slaves, prostitutes -- even their wives, in a pinch). Greek philosophers even went as far as to suggest that the male/male sex was in every way superior to relations with women. But, for all that, the ancient Greeks never redefined "marriage" as a male/male bond.

So its important to be clear and honest, on the outset, with our language, about what is happening here. I often hear, from my more easily-led friends, that this is a program originating from "the right" to "take away" the right of gays to "marry" -- as if we were all just sitting around, minding our own business, when suddenly, apropos of nothing, "the right" decided to cook up this program to "take away" the "rights" of gays and lesbians.

While there is some truth to the observation that there is indeed a battle between the courts (who keep trying to "create" the "right") and the voters (who have generally not recognized such) -- the overall picture is rather that there is one group of people who are trying to create a new right -- one which has never before existed -- and another who aren't sure that's really a good idea. The conservatives are merely, reacting to that initiative being taken by the left. And that's fine, but do we have to be dishonest in our portrayal of what's going on? Can't we proceed with honesty?

Pros and Cons

It seems to me that the main desire behind "gay marriage" is more about wanting society/people to say, of one's relationship, "that's just as good." When people have proposed creating "civil unions", which are the exact equivalent in everything but name to "marriage", the response from the activist community has been "That's not good enough." So it seems this is being more driven by a need for recognition and acceptance than deep, deep concerns about inheritance rights or hospital visits. (Most hospitals are pretty lax about such policies anyway, in my experience.)

I think an experience I had a while ago illustrates this well: Two men came to our door one summer day, campaigning for gay marriage. We welcomed them in to listen to what they had to say. One argued: "We've been together for ten years, and he has kids. What if something was to happen to him, who would take care of his kids?" Of course, he must have fathered them with a woman, and they were probably at least ten years old by now. The idea that dad's new lover would have custody rights higher than or equal to mom's -- or that the kids would be given to dad's new lover if both died -- concerned me, to say the least.

It also suggests their line of argument -- poorly thought through as it was -- wasn't the real issue which made them take their time to canvass the area. They should have just plainly said that they wanted the law -- and then society, under the force of said law -- to view their relationship as the exact equivalent of any happily-married heterosexual couple, like, say, my mom and dad. Of course, they probably also understood that argument was a non-starter, even among the most "progressive" couples in the area (which itself was fairly left-leaning). Hence the appeals to visitation rights, and wills.

And concerning the purported non-legal benefits?

Sometimes gay or liberal friends of mine complain they can't "marry" whomever they want. Given my own beliefs about marriage, this always strikes me as a bit odd: You see, for me, marriage has always been about two people formally and publicly pledging sexual fidelity and support to each other for life. Sure, I'd like tax breaks as much as the next person (though sometimes marriage has been more highly taxed), and it would be nice if society were impressed (though they aren't impressed with marriage in Denmark, where my relatives live) -- but that's not what makes a marriage. So my first mental reaction is always: "Well, why can't you pledge to have sex only with that person for the rest of your life?" -- since that's what marriage means to me (and, I think, to most heterosexuals).

And of course, that's the meat of the marriage's benefit to society: benefits to any children, from the parents staying together -- not to the parents, from being invited to a dinner party as a "married" couple, or hospital visitation (however important). A man learns to please and be faithful to just one person, and benefits from having a "woman's touch" in his life. (Visit a frat house if you have questions.) And, on the other hand, women benefit from -- well, whatever it about a woman that is often complimented by having one of us men in their life. Gay and lesbian relationships may provide a bit of this sort of effect, but not to nearly the same extent as an exclusive union with a member of the opposite sex.

Marriage and Monogamy

Yet I among gay men I know, including "faithful" and allegedly "married" gay men, there just isn't the same expectation of fidelity. As a recent New York Times column recently averred:

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.” Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.” Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”

Despite what the TV networks would like us to believe, this situation is nothing like the vast majority of heterosexual marriages. (David Benkoff adds: “I have never been at a soiree with multiple straight “committed” couples in which someone suggests we take off our clothes and see what happens, but I’m sad to say it’s happened with gay friends in long-term relationships. Of course, I know, many men cheat on their wives. But they almost never define their marriage as something that accommodates adultery.”)

I'm not mentioning this to be judgmental: the point here is that one of the biggest benefits of "marriage" -- monogamy -- seems largely absent from gay marriage. (Mr. Erbelding has it largely correct when he notes that "Men are pigs" -- and that they're not going to be "settled down" by another similar pig.)

Further, this has led to "monogamous" being redefined not so much as sexual exclusivity, but rather as having a sexual default. Combined with the push for "open marriage", the desire to decouple (excuse the pun) monogamy from marriage will lead to "marriage" being further defined down: Since we don't want to make non-monogamy gay "married" couples feel bad (and "swingers"), we need to stop defining marriage as a two people who love only each other. How will the expectations for straight marriages be diminished by gay marriage? There's one example.

But the larger point here is that it's not at all clear that the same benefits imperfectly conferred by traditional Western marriage (that is, heterosexual and mostly monogamous) will be present in most "gay marriages". This point alone doesn't demonstrate that "gay marriage" will be unhelpful, on the whole, for society, but it does seriously call into question many of the alleged benefits, at least as far as men are concerned.

Marriage is Love, Love is Marriage

Marriage has migrated from being mainly about duty (arranged by parents, or an obligation to take care of an unexpected pregnancy) to being an expression of love. Gay marriage takes the next, but probably not last step in that direction: Why should love be limited by gender? If marriage is about my desires, and my need to legitimize my feelings, then why should only one kind of love be legitimate? Of course, this quickly raises the question of why variations in number, families ties, etc, should also be discouraged.

I don't see any neat answer to this question. If it's "bigotry" to say a male/male attraction is less helpful than a heterosexual one, then why isn't it also "bigoted" to prefer the number two rather than, say three? And why isn't it "bigoted" to exclude those who happened to be enamored with a relative? I've never heard a good answer to such questions, so it's easy to believe gay marriage is, indeed, another step on this particular slippery slope. And perhaps some would say: "Well, what's wrong with that?" And indeed, I would welcome that honesty -- but so far the official party line has been to insist otherwise.

And again, if this were only a question of the private affairs of consenting adults, I probably wouldn't be writing this. But part of the demand for "marriage" does include equal standing regarding child-rearing, custody, and adoption, and does include the demand that others view the arrangement as not merely legitimate, but "just as good."

Impact on Children and Society

Very often the debate about gay marriage centers on the feelings of those wanting to called "married." I have admitted above that as far as that is concerned, gay marriage would indeed allow gays to feel more loved and accepted by society.

But this isn't the first time we've argued about restructuring marriage to make people feel good. Back in the 1970s, the main argument for making divorce easier was also about the feelings of the adults involved. And I would there also agree that if a woman or man is unfulfilled in their marriage, they would probably feel better and more fulfilled if they could leave the marriage with as little fuss as possible.

But, sadly as study after study after study has now confirmed, easy, no-fault divorce was much harder on the children of such marriages. It turns out it is much better for the children if parents stay in a merely "unfulfilling" (though not violent) relationship. I'm not saying this out of "bigotry" against divorced people, but simply because I think we all have to grow up a bit and start looking beyond how a given policy makes some adult "feel."

And concerning gay marriage, I don't believe that male/male households (or female/female) ones will be at all "just as good" for the children as those having one male and one female parent, who show affection and love towards each other. I'm trying here to compare apples and apples: Perhaps two lesbians would be better than one single woman. (Or perhaps not: I know at least one friend who was raised in such a family, and he's in far worse shape than my friends who suffered from divorce.) But the demand is that male/male be considered "just as good" for kids as a heterosexual couple having similar parenting skills, income, affection for each other, etc. Sorry: I just don't think it will be. I think that healthy kids require both a woman and a man as close guardians and models while developing.

Further, contemporary gay activists often argue that "sexual orientation" is set at birth -- perhaps genetically. They point to -- rightly, IMO -- adult gay men whose desires seem to unchosen and immutable. And likewise, I'm sure that there are many many heterosexual men who would, in any scenario, always prefer to only be with women, and would find it difficult or impossible to learn to be attracted to another man.

But such an argument ignores easily-discovered facts about history. In fourth and fifth century Athens, male homosexuality was an integral part of social life. Were ancient Greek men of a different genetic composition than modern men? How about men in prison? Here's another example from Wikipedia:

In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were, until the middle of the last century, an integral part of the culture. The Etoro and Marind-anim for example, even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead. In many traditional Melanesian cultures a pre-pubertal boy would be paired with an older adolescent who would become his mentor and who would "inseminate" him (orally, anally, or topically, depending on the tribe) over a number of years in order for the younger to also reach puberty.

Was there some genetic difference in Melanesian societies? And was that genetic factor somehow magically altered in the middle of the last century, causing the majority of men to stop desiring to have sex with other males and boys?

Of course not -- the simpler answer is that sexual preferences, attractions, and practices although perhaps not easily altered in certain adults, is indeed changeable on a societal basis. And having studied a number of such societies, I find that the untamed male nature in such leads easily to diminishing the value of women, to preferring men and even boys as sexual objects, and to the increased exploitation of slaves and others of low status. Indeed, it even leads to such results in our own time, as anyone familiar with the underside of sex tourism would admit.

I don't wish to live in such a society, and I *do* believe that the male nature, once released from the societal stigma which leads men to enduring sexual bonds with women, will indeed lead to such. No, not this year. Not even in ten or fifteen years. But within the next generation or two. I've read enough about ancient Greece that I don't want to see my own society devolve to that mode of operation. I don't wish to see my children grow up in a world where most men aren't encouraged to love and take care of one woman and their children.

Indoctrination and Religious Freedom

One of the arguments against putting homosexual marriage on the exact same legal footing is that it will be illegal to discriminate against marriage forms. In other words, critics say, public schools will be required to treat all forms of coupling as equals. Textbooks, they say, will equally show male/female, male/male, and female/female parents as normative. Instead of a little girl wondering what kind of boy she will marry, she will be encouraged to first wonder what gender of person she should want to marry.

A recent field trip in California lends legitimacy to that line of argument:

A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, a friend of a friend, officiated....

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," [school director Liz] Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

Again, consider the example of ancient societies: Why wouldn't children be influenced by such? Certainly the educators at the school feel it will have an impact on their thinking. It's a "teachable moment."

Of course, again, some people might argue: "Well, what's wrong with that?" I would respect such a counter-argument. Instead, the argument has been that no such thing will occur. (Why? Probably because proponents know full well that most parents don't think this would be a great idea. They want their children to be tolerant of gays, but they would probably also prefer, all other things being equal, that their children grow up to prefer spouses of the opposite gender.)

But instead, as this MarketWatch editorial, Proposition 8 opponents have been deeply dishonest on this particular point -- on one hand telling the public that it is "a lie" that they wish to indoctrinate schoolchildren, while arguing before the court that they have every right to do so. For example:

According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of "diversity," and any attempt to prohibit such instruction - or to permit parents to opt their children out of it - must be stopped....

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

"There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one's children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue - or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system." [pp1-2]....

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p 9]

"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]

So the progression goes like this: Activists need children to be inculcated with their desired values. So they oppose the practice of "opting out". And further, I suspect, even be led to oppose alternative forms of schooling (religious, home, etc.) in furtherance of the same goal. (And even if one agrees with that social agenda, one should still be concerned about the coercive impact on educational choice.) And we will ultimately see, I suspect, the ability of religious institutions to propagate their own sexual mores and preferences brought under increasing legal assault.

Wrapping Up

I don't like the idea that gays are treated like second-class citizens. But nor do I wish to see children raised in polygamous families, or families legally recognized as being headed by two women or two men. (Imagine the custody arrangements after divorce and remarriage: having four women or men for a child to report to?), And I certainly don't wish to see my grandchildren born into a society were men have stopped being primarily encouraged to bond a woman.

In short, I want to ensure that gays and lesbians have the same individual human rights everyone else has. But however much it may benefit individual gays or lesbians, in terms of sending a signal that they are valuable and loved people, I can't say that I believe that it will be ultimately good for society to treat gay and lesbian relationships as exactly identical to heterosexual marriage.