Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Is opposition to same-sex marriage primarily based on the "ick factor"?

Despite the fact that American culture is clearly moving in a libertarian direction with regard to homosexuality, there is still a discomfort in some quarters with the idea of intimacy between members of the same gender. There are plenty of folks who cannot embrace the notion that such intimacy is in any way, shape or form "natural."

However, are those who perceive homosexuality as "not natural" the only ones who reject same-sex matrimony?

It’s inaccurate to say so. The reality is that, while there are those who steadfastly oppose gay marriage because they cannot accept societal approval of behavior they consider unnatural, there are also large numbers of people who reject gay marriage for legal, not moral, reasons.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often claim that the controversial 2003 Goodridge ruling authorizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is nothing more than the modern-day version of the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws forbidding marriage between members of different races. However, as opponents of same-sex marriage frequently point out, the Loving ruling did not fundamentally alter the one man-one woman marriage dynamic.

There is a legitimate concern that, once a precedent redefining the parameters of marriage has been established, further "redefinitions" are inevitable, potentially allowing the legitimization of polygamy and marriages between very close relatives. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it clear that marriage is a civil right that cannot be restricted because of sexual orientation; if that is indeed the case, then how can the civil right of marriage be restricted because of numbers or familial closeness?

Because American culture leans libertarian in its view of homosexuality, opponents of gay marriage must emphasize that their views are not based on bigotry or the aforementioned "ick factor," but on a reasonable concern about just how far American jurisprudence will go on the matter of marriage. Objecting to same-sex marriage on moral grounds–i.e., not wanting to have society officially approve behavior viewed as morally erroneous–will become increasingly difficult as the society continues to move in a live-or-let-live direction; as Boston political commentator Jon Keller recently suggested, we live in a time in which many heterosexual unions can be considered "unnatural."

In 2006, the burden is not on supporters of same-sex marriage to prove that such marriages benefit society; the burden is on opponents of same-sex marriage to prove that their beliefs are not rooted in anti-gay animus. Thus, supporters of traditional marriage must make it clear that their views are not based on a desire to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens, but to ensure that American jurisprudence is not altered in such a way as to make matrimony meaningless.

UPDATE: Hub Politics on gay marriage in Massachusetts.

SECOND UPDATE: The gay-marriage controversy continues in the Bay State. Plus, the American Spectator on the politics of same-sex marriage.

THIRD UPDATE: The Boston Phoenix condemns a black anti-gay-marriage activist’s role on Mass. Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick’s transition team. I don’t understand the point of the criticism. Patrick made it clear that he wanted to have a diverse transition team. "Diversity," as understood in the modern political sense, means among other things the inclusion of blacks. Many blacks happen to oppose same-sex marriage for various reasons. Thus, if Patrick wants to have a diverse transition team, the law of averages dictates that he will have on that team blacks who oppose same-sex marriage. What is Patrick supposed to do? Not have a racially diverse transition team? More from the AP.