« Bad Week for Andrew Sullivan | Main | To the Ides of March, Let Us Add the Go Fuck Yourself of August »

August 04, 2003

Comments

Amy

If everyone's going to decide to marry their best friend for the financial and legal benefits...they could already be doing it!(Male/female, that is) but they don't appear to want to.
Like your blog-saw your comments on M.J.Totten-

Eric

Amy,

Thank you so much for your kind words and encouragement. You are only the second person not personally known to me who has left a comment here, so this is really quite exciting for me.

P.S. If you're interested in this issue, I hope you get to check out the post and comments on Roger L. Simon's blog that I link in this post. They're pretty interesting. Thanks again.

Joe Incognito

Yes, some of these anti-gay marriage arguments are foolish. But why not just give the gays who wish to marry all the benefits of marriage (insurance and health care advantages, for example) through federally-recognized civil unions? These would avoid some of the negatives that marriage entails: the marriage tax penalty, divorce, alimony,etc. That way gays who were interested in long-term commitment could get all the perks with none of the risks, and gays who weren't into commitment wouldn't be burdened with all that divorce and palimony hassle when they partnerhop around. Why shouldn't I be able to share my health insurance with whomever I want to? I know that I can give my life insurance benefit to whomever I want- it needn't be my wife.
On the other hand, If the conservatives want to really stop gay marriage, they should give them the benefits and the drawbacks- make them play by the same rules as everyone else. Let them deal with divorce-Seems fair.
But I can still kind of see the conservative argument about how this is ultimately just one more way to break up the traditional family structure, like out-of wedlock births, divorce, single parenthood, gay adoption, etc.
Coming from the very unique perspective of having been raised by (honestly) a married heterosexual couple, two single parents, two lifepartnered lesbians, and a straight couple both on their 2nd marriage, I think I know a little bit about what each situation has to offer a child. I still say kids need a mother and a father and that's what's best. Will another scenario cause them to become a heroin addict or a serial killer? Probably not. But I would rank the best situations as follows:
1) straight mom and dad married
2) remarried parents
3) gay couple parents in long-term commitment
4) single parent/divorced

Having experienced this firsthand, I can say that divorce is far more disruptive and harmful to a child than having gayness around the house.
So I suggest a compromise that hopefully will satisfy everyone:
The conservatives agree to allow binding civil unions that are like marriage in every way and may or may not be called that.
and the liberals agree to eliminate no-fault divorce.
That way the net gain to traditional family structure should be positive, and the good and loving gays will be rewarded for their commitment, while those who enter into it lightly will be punished by being trapped in rotten marriages. The promiscuous and nasty by being be punished with divorce.
Just a few thoughts.
Joe Incognito

ken

right on, eric. as i've said and other have said, it's straight people ruining heterosexual marriage, not gay people. i think James Lileks even pointed out that the most damage has been done by straight celebrities.

The comments to this entry are closed.