On Marriage Equality, Part 1: Spite and Self-Loathing

While the Supreme Court tries to figure out the most politically expedient way to avoid having to make a decision about “gay” “marriage,” I thought it would be interesting to look at a few different approaches to the civil government and holy matrimony. Today, I’ll be expressing my puzzlement with the homosexual perspective.

The homosexual perspective on marriage puzzles me on many fronts. It’s like a penguin resenting its classification as a flightless bird and wanting to be numbered with flying birds even though it won’t make a bit of difference to anything in the end.

Why do homosexuals want to get married? “Everyone else is doing it so why can’t we?” I don’t know. Most people regularly make jokes about how miserable marriage is and how boring married people are. My wife and I just celebrated our eighth anniversary (This is where all the 30 and 40-year achievers say, “Young whipper snappers…”), but even that seems to be a rarity in our day. How embarassing would it be if homosexuals were “allowed” by the civil government to get married, and their divorce rate was just through the roof, and they finally decided that marriage just didn’t suit their promiscuous lifestyles? And if they do become really boring married people—and, I must say, if the real reason they want to be “legally married” is for tax reasons and such, they are already the most boring of married couples—who will play the savvy “with-it” stock character who stabilizes the imbecilic heteros in romantic comedies? And who will give us fashion advice and design our clothes? Will we have to turn to zoophiles as the next cutting edge incarnation of social hipness?

Why do homosexuals need the permission or endorsement of the civil government? Aside from tax breaks and other totally unromantic stuff, aren’t homosexuals allowed by the “gubment” to do their thing for the most part? They talk about marriage “equality,” but what does that mean? If they have what they say they have—a real and lasting bond of unity that is so strong, it could be the nucleus for a family unit—why do they need any other endorsement beyond that? Their marriages are already “equal,” if they are in fact real. They might even have stronger marriages than most heterosexuals. But they aren’t satisfied with substance alone. They want a cheap piece of paper and the cheap label that comes with it. In fact, they prove themselves in this area (as in so many others) to be statists.

Perhaps they want legitimacy in the eyes of the church? Really? Why should they care? Or they want to adopt? Well, let’s think about that. Since they can’t produce children, they’re really in no better or worse way than other couples that can’t bear children and have to convince adoption agencies that they’re fit parents. I’m sure most adoption agencies would prefer to put children into a heterosexual home. Because that would generally be better. Duh. Homosexuals must understand at least that. They all talk about how they didn’t ask for this, and they would change if they could, and “It gets better…” and blah blah blah. But they want to bring a child into that (apparently involuntary) difficult, painful, uncertain environment? Even putting aside the moral reasons for disallowing homosexuals to adopt, this should be reason enough. It’s just pure and unadulterated selfishness. “I want a child, and I don’t care what kind of environment I bring him into.” Wow. They might say, “Well, heterosexuals bring children into really terrible environments all the time… Why should it be different for us?” Yeah, that’s true. Which is why we recommend those heterosexuals give their children up for adoption. Which puts homosexuals exactly where they were before: they have to convince an adoption agency that they are a better fit. This does happen, by the way. Which only adds to my “marriage equality” puzzlement.

The real reason homosexuals want to be “legally” married seems simple: homosexuals want you, yes you, to be forced to recognize that their marriages are just as good and wholesome and valid as your own. Why they want this, I don’t know. It seems at the root to be driven by spite and self-loathing. Years back, I expressed a parallel puzzlement concerning feminists. I was in a required gender equality class in college and I asked my teacher, “Why is it that feminists put so much value on jobs that men are already doing well, that they are willing to abandon the jobs that men can’t do at all?” My professor hadn’t really thought about it in this way. In a sense, feminism is a misnomer for that reason. It isn’t about the power of woman as woman. It’s about the ability of a woman to function as a man. That’s the self-loathing part of it. The spite part of it is that many feminists want men (all men) to pay for all the ways men have made women suffer in the past. So, even when it ruins families and destroys societies, feminists will still plug along doing jobs only just as well or worse than men could have done them while their families rot and men become even more idle and useless. Way to go feminist! You won. And everyone else lost. And really, so did you.

The situation is parallel with homosexuals. They too seem driven in many cases by spite and self-loathing, which go together more often than you would think. If homosexuality is so great, it will naturally be recognized as such. If it is not, any endorsement from the civil government, the church, or individuals will be no more than a declaration that the Emperor’s clothes are in fact luxurious and beautiful. And who really knows why they’re so drafty…

Tune in tomorrow: we’ll look at some problems I have with the libertarian approach to homosexual marriage.