IGF CultureWatch

First published January 9, 2004, in National Review Online. Reprinted by permission of the author courtesy of Scripps Howard News Service.

Social conservatives are working overtime to argue that gay marriage would imperil straight matrimony. They say that if Jack and Joe were united, till death do them part, they would jeopardize husbands and wives, from sea to shining sea.

"We will lose marriage in this nation," without constitutionally limiting it to heterosexuals, warns Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. The Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, sees "same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether."

It would be far easier to take these claims seriously if gay-marriage critics spent as much energy denouncing irresponsible heterosexuals whose behavior undermines traditional marriage. Among prominent Americans, such misdeeds are increasingly ubiquitous.

Exhibit A is musical product Britney Spears's micromarriage to hometown pal Jason Allen Alexander. The 22-year-olds were wed on January 3 in Las Vegas. Clad in sneakers, a baseball cap, ripped jeans, and a navel-revealing T-shirt, the vocalist was escorted down the Little White Wedding Chapel's aisle by a hotel chauffeur. Spears and Alexander, who wore baggy pants and a zippered sweater, soon were wife and husband.

Almost as soon, their marriage was annulled. Clark County Judge Lisa Brown accepted Spears's request and ruled that "There was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract, and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void."

The revolving-door couple's 55 hours of marital bliss were based neither on love nor shared commitment, but because "they took a joke too far," explained Spears's label, Jive Records.

Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.

Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?

And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.

But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.

Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?

Of course, not every American is an overexposed pop diva, network talk-show host, or sitcom multimillionaire. For rank-and-file heterosexuals, marriage can involve decades of love and joy. In 51 percent of cases, people stay married for life. Such unions are inspiring, impressive, and deserve every American's applause.

On the other hand, 49 percent of couples break up, according to Divorce magazine. The Federal Administration for Children and Families calculated in 2002 that deadbeat parents nationwide owed their kids $92.3 billion in unpaid child support. In 2000, 33.2 percent of children were born outside marriage. Among blacks, that figure was 68.5 percent. A 1998 National Institute of Justice survey found that 1.5 million women suffer domestic violence annually, as do 835,000 men. So-called "reality" TV shows like Fox's Married by America and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fianc� turn wedding vows into punch lines. In nearly every instance, heterosexuals - not homosexuals - perpetrated these social ills.

Gay marriage is a big idea that deserves national debate. Nonetheless, social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.

First published on January 7, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press. This version has been slightly revised.

Have you noticed how seldom the defenders of marriage as an exclusive heterosexual privilege talk about love as a reason for marrying?

They give a number of reasons why only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry: the procreation of children, the preservation of social stability, the purported "fit" of the male and female genitalia. But they never seem to mention that men and women might love each other and want to spend their lives together.

This is odd if you think about it. Of all the motivations heterosexuals might have for marrying, love would seem to be first and foremost. Is it really likely that a man might say to a women, "I notice that our genitals would fit together well. Would you marry me?" or "Our nation needs to generate more children. Please be my wife."

But the defenders of exclusionary heterosexual marriage dare not mention love because they know that if they admit for one moment that one primary reason people marry is love, then gays and lesbians - who have as much capacity for love as heterosexuals - would have just as much claim to marriage as heterosexuals. And they know most Americans would realize that.

Not that they came to this point willingly. During much of the 1990s, religious right groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition tried to deny the existence of same-sex love. They characterized committed gay and lesbian couples as "sex partners" or "just friends who have sex."

Apparently that was not broadly persuasive. Perhaps the slowly growing visibility of gay couples was a factor, or awareness of the 600,000 same-sex couples acknowledged in the 2000 census. In any case, that tactic was largely abandoned.

So gay marriage opponents have been forced to retreat to curiously strained or insubstantial reasons based on human physiology ("natural fit") or so-called "social policy" (e.g., the need for babies, two parents families, etc.).

Consider the argument that we need heterosexual-only marriage in order to be sure the nation and/or the human race will survive. In fact, heterosexuals are creating babies at a high rate. In 1950, the U.S. population was 150 million. By 2000, the U.S. population was 280 million.

So the problem is not one of inducing heterosexuals to marry so there will be more children. They are having plenty of children. The problem is that heterosexuals are having children without marriage. In 1990, 26.6 percent of babies were born to unmarried women. By 2000, 33.2 percent were born to unmarried women. So the task is inducing heterosexuals who have children to marry.

Religious right advocates say allowing gay marriage would separate the concepts of marriage and child-rearing. You can be sure that if gay couples had been able to marry during the 1990s, religious right polemicists would have blamed the rising birthrates among single women on gay marriage. But it is clear that many heterosexuals already separate marriage and child-rearing.

So the religious right argument amounts to this: Because heterosexuals are producing children without marrying, therefore homosexuals should not be permitted to marry. Another way to put that is: Because many heterosexuals who produce children do not love each other enough to marry, therefore we should not permit same-sex couples who love each other to marry.

The core question then is: What does prohibiting loving gay couples from marrying do to increase the likelihood that unmarried heterosexual procreators will feel enough love for each other so they will want to marry? How exactly might that work?

But if gay marriage opponents fall back on illogical arguments against gay marriage, they also conspicuously avoid mention of ways in which gay married couples can be a social good and help solve the very problems they claim to be concerned about.

Single parents, usually women, face real challenges. Researchers have found substantial social problems associated with single parenting: Higher crime rates, drug abuse, lower educational attainments, chronic poverty. Many single mothers are unwilling or unable to care for their children, so the children are put up for adoption or foster care.

But if the problem is heterosexual procreators who do not marry, one obvious solution is adoption by married gay and lesbian couples. In most states gays can already adopt and provide foster care for children. By marrying, gay couples would be able to provide evidence of their love for each other, their commitment to the concept of family, and greater assurance of a stable and loving home life for children than unmarried parents can.

Because the arguments against gay marriage are so poor but advanced so fervently, we might wonder if gay marriage opponents are arguing in good faith. That is, are they using arguments they find convincing, or ones they may not themselves believe but hope will convince others. If the latter, then they must be reluctant to submit their actual reasons for opposing gay marriage to public scrutiny.

First published on December 24, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press. This version has been slightly revised.

In most ways, 2003 seemed to be a year of accomplishments: The Supreme Court struck down 13 state sodomy laws; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage; Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination clause; and "Queer Eye" became an instant, widely discussed hit.

But 2004 looks far more like a mixed bag. On the positive side, same-sex couples seem poised to be able to marry in Massachusetts some time in 2004. New Jersey seems certain to adopt some sort of civil union legislation. MTV - without Showtime - will finally launch a long-delayed gay-oriented cable channel. More large and mid-sized companies will add domestic partner benefits and more Gay/Straight Alliances will be formed in high schools.

Also on the positive side, industrial productivity started what appears to be a sustained growth. The Dow broke the 10,000 barrier again and seems likely to go further. Inflation is likely to continue at a gratifyingly low level. Saddam Hussein's capture secures the end of his Stalinesque dictatorship, weakens the opposition to a democratic Iraq and hastens the reduction of American forces there. These are things to be grateful for and President Bush deserves some credit for them.

But those good things about the economy and foreign affairs also mean that President Bush, the least gay-supportive candidate, seems likely to win reelection in November. Bush continues to support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" despite its obvious failure and injustice. He opposes gay marriage and probably supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. He seems more concerned about AIDS in the rest of the world than in the United States. While he urges "tolerance" for gays, he seems unable to say a single word in our favor.

Not only is Bush likely to be re-elected, but Republicans seem likely to increase their majority in the Senate by 2-3 seats and in the House by 6-8 seats, making non-discrimination legislation and repeal of the military gay ban non-starters.

To be sure, the most plausible Democratic presidential contenders win no prizes, but at least they are better on gay issues. All say they support some sort of same-sex civil unions. And the leading contender, Howard Dean, is likely to be the most open in support of civil unions since he has a record to justify. All except the evasive General Clark explicitly favor an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," although they do not bother to explain how they could push repeal legislation through a Republican Congress.

On the other hand, none of the plausible Democratic contenders favors gay marriage any more than President Bush does, although all say they oppose a constitutional amendment prohibiting it and Dean advocates federal entitlements for couples with civil unions. The key question then is, do they support the Defense of Marriage Act with its discrimination against any legally married gay couples? Only Dean and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry oppose DOMA.

But even if the others support DOMA's stipulation that the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause should not force recalcitrant states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, what argument can they offer in favor of the federal government itself discriminating against gay couples? If they support federal non-discrimination laws, which they say they do, on what principle do they think the government itself should discriminate? Probably the principle of "I want to win."

I said Bush "probably" supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Who knows? In his December 16 interview with the ill-prepared Diane Sawyer, Bush said "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment," "We may need a Constitutional amendment" and "It (the Defense of Marriage Act) may be undermined at this point."

The words to notice are: "if necessary," "we may need" and "may be undermined." Everything is in a tentative mode. Bush certainly sounded as if he would have no trouble supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment, but he avoided making a specific endorsement or saying what would trigger an endorsement. It is a complicated game of signals Bush is playing, trying to suggest something to everyone while avoiding anything specific.

Most likely, Bush is waiting to see (a) where public opinion jells, and (b) if the election looks so close that he needs to generate religious conservative zeal on his behalf. Ironically, that could well mean that the more likely Bush seems to win, the less pressure he will feel to endorse the amendment. Nobody said politics was simple.

Whatever happens in national politics, we can look forward to gains at the state and local level as more jurisdictions approve non-discrimination laws or domestic partners registries. More important in the long run, we can expect more visibility in the field of popular entertainment and more support in the private business sector as more companies adopt favorable employment practices and/or initiate marketing outreach to gays. So our progress toward equality will continue despite the ups and downs of national politics.