About a week ago, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann helpfully reminded gays and lesbians that we already have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. When a high school student asked her why same-sex couples could not marry, she responded:
“They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.”
This is a common talking point, for sure. Indeed, a commenter here likewise echoed Bachmann’s informative statement:
“….[A] man is eligible to marry a woman if either he or she or both of them identify as homosexual. They can yell it from the hilltops and they would still be eligible to marry [someone of the other sex].”
Yes, it sure is true that gay men and lesbians are free to marry people of the other sex if they wish. Although, I’m not sure this statement is as big of a revelation to gay men and lesbians as those who utter it believe it to be. Nor is it particularly clever. After all, most children grow up having others assume that they will, one day, marry someone of the other sex.
But, well, for many of us (us, being gays and lesbians), the “they already can get married” argument is a non-starter.
Sure, some gay men and lesbians might find happiness entering into a man-woman marriage (although, would such people more accurately be called bisexual?). But oftentimes, such a marriage will not result in positive outcomes for either the couple or their resulting children, if any.
I was reminded of what such a marriage can look like, when I read Hugo Schwyzer’s piece, “I Married A Lesbian” over at The Good Men Project. A snippet:
“Twenty months after Courtney and I had married, I relapsed on drugs after several years of sobriety. I ‘used at her,’ getting loaded out of hostility and frustration that I couldn’t fully articulate. I went back to drugs in the hope that that might show her how much pain I was in, particularly over the sexless state of our marriage. Court insisted I move out. I rented a room in a sober living boarding house, and soon began an affair with a housemate. After more than a year and a half of fidelity, I cheated with a woman who made it clear she wanted me. It was a cowardly, but understandable, way to get back at Courtney. I told my wife what I’d done, and she instantly demanded a divorce.”
Why are those who purport to defend marriage promoting marriages like this?
Categories: Marriage
Nobody is “promoting” such marriages. Just pointing out — AGAIN — the exasperating LIE that anyone is being PREVENTED from marrying because of their sexual orientation.
I don’t think anyone even really CARES that you’re a lesbian, Fannie. Only that you’re a woman. Just like the rest of us. A daughter, a wife, a mother. Never a son, never a husband, never a father.
“Nobody is ‘promoting’ such marriages. Just pointing out — AGAIN — the exasperating LIE that anyone is being PREVENTED from marrying because of their sexual orientation.”
Here’s the thing.
Gay men and lesbians already know we are Totally Free To Marry People Of The Other Sex. What I, and many others, argue is that we are being prevented from marrying the person of our choosing, which happens to be a person of the same sex.
Also, there does seem to be, IMO, an element of promotion going on when people tell gay people that we can marry people of the other sex. Otherwise you’re basically saying, “You can marry someone of the other sex, NOT that you should.” What kind of “choice” is that? Isn’t that kind of a mean thing to say?
“I don’t think anyone even really CARES that you’re a lesbian, Fannie”
As someone who has been harassed and threatened precisely because I’m a lesbian, I beg to differ.
Obviously there are people who care that she is a lesbian; otherwise she’d be able to marry he partner with no harm/no foul to anyone else. It’s hardly a “lie” to say that one isn’t legally permitted to enter a marriage that is a love-full marriage; that he or she is only legally permitted to enter (what would be for that person) a loveless marriage.
Questions for those who think that “they can already get married” is sufficient: would you choose this type of marriage for yourself? Would you knowingly enter into a marriage with someone whose sexual orientation is at odds with your own, and do you think you could build a productive, mutually-satisfying, long-term (let alone lifelong) bond in such a marriage? If you have children, would you recommend that they enter such a marriage, or would you advise that they hold out for a partner with the same orientation? Do you think that opposite-orientation marriages have challenges that make them more prone to failure than same-orientation marriages? Do you think that most people possess the personal traits necessary to make such marriages work (such as not considering sex important, or perhaps a lack of jealousy that would assist in an “open” marriage—one in which there is a mutual agreement that sexual satisfaction will be sought outside of marriage)?
This ploy is way to avoid the real issue, which is whether the state has any compelling reasons to prefer heterosexual unions over homosexual unions. It’s not a serious argument.
It is also recognition that they don’t respect the dignity of gay and lesbian people. It’s interesting that none of the people who suggest that gays should just marry someone of the opposite sex are lining up for such sham marriages (I’ll leave the whispers about Mrs. Bachmann’s husband stand on their own). Proposing sham marriages doesn’t improve the institution of marriage, even though there is clearly support for “anything that looks like baby-making pairs should be allowed to marry” suggestion we see when someone questions the procreation mandate that has suddenly overtaken the institution of marriage.
Fannie: I am no fan of Michelle Bachman and I don’t like what she said in this instance. Further, I don’t know anyone who supports these sham marriages, as you call them, and I agree with you that one benefit of gay marriage will be (probably) to reduce the incidence of such marriages.
BUT. People on the other side of this issue from you make this point mainly, I think, in order to get everyone in the conversation to be clearer and more specific about the claims being made. The gay pro-ssm advocates reguarly says in so many words, “I am not allowed to marry.” But, for whatever it’s worth, that is not a full or accurate statement. The full, accurate thing to say would be, “I am not allowed to marry whomever I choose” or “I am not allowed to marry a person of the same sex.” Now for some people (I am one of them) these distinctions matter, and that’s mainly where this “talking point,” as you say, comes from, in my view. It’s not about saying, gay people should marry straight people. But I have learned personally that trying to make point I just made almost never leads to anything productive, so I don’t say it.
“The gay pro-ssm advocates reguarly says in so many words, ‘I am not allowed to marry.’ But, for whatever it’s worth, that is not a full or accurate statement.”
I hear you and agree.
Although, saying that gay people can already marry people of the other sex is such a statement of the obvious that when people actually say it aloud it does seem to carry the implication “therefore they should.”
Above, the commenter “Any Mouse” claimed that it was “a LIE” to say that people are being “PREVENTED” from marrying, suggesting that SSM advocates are somehow being dishonest when we say we can’t marry or that we’re maybe trying to hoodwink the public about it. And really, I don’t think that’s giving SSM advocates or the general public enough credit.
Are there significant numbers of people who actually think that lesbians are legally prevented from marrying men? Does it confuse people when SSM advocates talk about the “right to marry” even if they don’t explicitly say “the right to marry someone of the same sex”?
Given the context of the debate and that it arises in the context of LGB people specifically asserting the right to marry people of the same-sex, I think most people understand “the right to marry” as a shorthand in the conversation for “the right to marry a same-sex partner.”
“Further, I don’t know anyone who supports these sham marriages, as you call them”
I didn’t call them sham marriages. I’m not sure it’s for me to say whether someone else’s marriage was or is a “sham.” My point is that such marriages between gay people and people of the other sex don’t often seem to lead to positive outcomes.
Anyway, I believe the entire ex-gay movement is predicated upon the notion that gay people (or, as they say, “same-sex attracted individuals”) can and/or should enter into relationships and marriages with people of the other sex.
And anecdotally, I know that many gay people have had friends and relatives try to pressure them into marrying and having relationships with people of the other sex. I certainly have. Many of my friends have.
On anti-LGBT blogs, you see people express their support for such marriages pretty frequently. People will talk about their Gay Friend(tm), who used to be a lesbian but who is now married to a man, and use that as “proof” that gay people can change.
I’m kind of surprised you haven’t come across this way of thinking.
David,
Your statement is true.
BUT. The fact of the matter is is that a lot of people WONT and refuse marry someone of the opposite sex cause thay is not the person they love.
Assuming you are straight, what if this was no straight person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, how would that feel? If you loved a woman and were told that you can not marry her, but you can get married to a man?
The gay people who want to get married don’t want to for the sake of marriage, they want to bind themselves heart and soul to another person that they love.
They aren’t like children hoping for a big wedding without caring who they are getting married to. They have that person, they want the legal right to marry them for any number of reasons.
So when they say ‘I can’t get married.’ that is their absolute truth. Cause they wont marry someone they don’t and can’t love sexually.
To me, Bachmann’s argument is a perfect illustration of the difference between the kind of faux-equality she says we already have, and the substantive equality that marriage equality advocates favor.
David, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to see how your comment undermines “the equal dignity of homosexual love” (I think phrase needs a bit of updating btw, it feels like “longtime companion”). You’ve said you recognize a biological basis for sexual orientation, so what you are saying, im real practical terms to me is – Chris, you can avail yourself of the right to
civally marry as long as you hide from your biology, or hide your biology. But if you are honest with yourself and others, you may not avail yourself of what we recognize as a fundamental right. (it strikes me as odd that people who fight so well for the important right of donor kids to know and claim their biology would consider that asking me to reject my biology to obtain a right was acceptable, or even a logical construct, given the case law surrounding marriage (Griswold, Loving, Turner, Zablocki to name a few)).
For more on the biological basis, I suggest this piece: articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/la-oe-rosbash23-2010feb23 . “Genetics and Prop 8: Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots. Written by two genomics experts.
Christopher,
Although I suspect you don’t intend it this way, the focus on the biological basis of homosexuality can backfire. I don’t doubt there is likely some biological basis for sexual orientation, but I am not sure that it all that clear cut. More importantly what if for at least some lesbians and gay men they exist on a continuum but choose same sex partners. Is this choice any less valid even if it is not biologically hard wired?
The possibility of a biological basis for homosexuality is a red herring if we’re looking at legal questions. There the only questions is whether sexual orientation is a legitimate basis for discrimination. By now there are few plausible arguments for supposing it is, whatever its origins.
For some people it is Brian. They are called bisexuals. While I agree Tristian, immutability is a very string basis for heightened scrutiny in the law. One thing we won in the CA Supreme Court in 2008 that is in place is the “strict scrutiny” standard that applies to sexual orientation discrimination. We also achieved “intermediate scrutiny” in the Varnum case in Iowa. Both were based in part on the courts recognition of the immutability of sexual orientation. But yes, Prop 8 also failed a “rational basis” test in the 9th Circuit.
Christopher,
But if an appeal to equal rights is based upon biology, how do you respond to the argument that bisexuals should not be allowed to choose a same sex marriage? Assume for the sake of an argument a bisexual individual who feels equal attraction to those of the same sex and the opposite sex. How do you respond to those who say this person has the same rights as others to enter into marriage with a person of the opposite sex and therefore should not be able to choose a same sex partner to marry? To defend same sex marriage you need some basis other than biology.
Ultimately we need to defend a right to freedom to choose who we want to love or marry and not base our rights on claims that we were born this way so please don’t blame us.
Yes Brian, marriage can be won on a “rational basis challenge as the Perry case and other cases have shown. But heightened scrutiny in the law, the most probable is intermediate scruntiny as is accord to gender in federal courts, would help us Olin a lot of other areas where the law would protect us from discrimination, as opposed to marriage or DADT where it is the government discriminating.
Tristan: “There the only questions is whether sexual orientation is a legitimate basis for discrimination.”
But I think that is exactly the point that Bachman and myself are making. When it comes to marriage, sexual orientation is NOT the basis for ANYTHING. Gays and lesbians CAN and often DO marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights. So IF there is discrimination within the sphere of marriage, it exists somewhere else, in something besides sexual orientation.
Well, the laws have been discriminatory in the sense they affect one group very disproportionately. Suppose someone were to propose a law that would require at least one person in a marriage to be Protestant. Would it be convincing if someone argued this wasn’t discriminatory against Catholics (inter alia) because they’re as free as anyone to marry Protestants? Straight people are free to marry kind of person they typically fall in love with; gays aren’t. And there lies the problem.
In reference to Any Mouse’s comment:
Let’s say there’s a ban on people wearing crucifix necklaces.
When it comes to wearing necklaces, religious belief is NOT the basis for ANYTHING. Christian people can and often do wear necklaces other than crucifixes, just like Jews and atheists and Muslims. They can even wear the Star of David if they want to! (What? I’m not saying they should or anything, I’m just stating a fact!)
Furthermore, the ban on wearing crucifixes applies to EVERYONE, regardless of religious belief. So IF there is discrimination within the sphere of wearing necklaces, it exists somewhere else, in something besides religious belief.
Yeah?
My point, Any Mouse, is that laws that discriminate can have disparate impacts on certain groups of people, based on those people’s identities.
You may say you that “no one” cares that I’m a lesbian, but that kind of proves my point. By completely ignoring homosexuality as a relevant identity that actually exists in the real world, you ignore the fact that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman disproportionately affect gay people. Just as a ban on wearing crucifixes would disproportionately affect Christians.
That’s the big fail of the “I don’t even see sexual orientation/ I hate identity politics” argumentation. It assumes that laws have the same impact on everyone Just Because We’re All Humans.
The legitimacy of the argument that homosexuals can marry equally because just like heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex is based on the fact that heterosexuality is definitional to marriage as a concept. Two males or two females a marriage does not make. To say that one is going to marry someone of the same sex is as nonsensical as saying that one is going to program a coffee table or that the color of the sky is trapazoid. or that the number 23 is one’s favorite food. The above are all category errors just as it is an error of categories to call the relationship between two gays of the same sex a marriage. Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Lastly before one makes the mistake of asserting “well, it’s still not fair because if they exercise the right they do have, they’ll be miserable!”, I should point out that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. It’s born out of an aversion to members of the opposite sex, inadequacy to handle relationships with members of the opposite sex, and emotional lacking in relationships with members of the same sex, and a sexualization of those feelings, among other things. Relationships between a homosexual and a member of the opposite sex does not need to be dysfunctional but often is made to be so out of these emotional struggles. it’s a shame that people continue to legitimize these emotional confusions. Think about it people.
Christopher: You are putting me in charge of an argument that I am not making. I am NOT saying that all is well because both gays and straights have the same right to marry (someone of the opposite sex). I am NOT saying that. What I am saying is what I said in my reply to Fannie, and that is all that I am saying about this point.
David: Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand you are saying is that you yourself would not make Bachmann’s point but you believe her point is valid. Am I correct?
Further as gay Californian that is exactly the position Prop 8 puts me in vis-a-vie California law. In order to marry which SCOTUS has defined as a “fundamental right to marry the person if one’s own choosing” their words, over and over, I must either hide my biology or disclaim it. Or by your own definition subvert the very core purpose of marriage in order to enter into it. In any case it would force me to lie in order to enter into the legal status of civil marriage. So Bachmann claiming I can marry simply does not seem to be a valid argument to me. Is it to you?
I ask this question of you very respectfully and seriously.
PS David: I give you all props and kudos for not yourself making Bachmann’s argument.
Gino, your assertions about why gay people feel the way they do are totally unfounded. Psychologists have rejected your theories entirely, because they lack evidence.
Christopher, I think that David’s been clear enough.
We can acknowledge that the claim that gays can already marry isn’t a worthy argument, or we can get hung up on a technicality.
As I see it, there’s nothing to be gained by trying to clarify the technicality. And since David isn’t making the argument you object to, I don’t see why he needs to be cross-examined about it.
Peter, I ask David to answer this exactly because he seems to say that while he would not make this argument, it is a valid argilumen to make. These distinctions matter to me. My simple, polite, and direct question stands.
In reading — and re-reading — David’s response, I see no endorsement of the argument. I see no statement that it’s a valid argument. He recognizes a technicality with regard to one way a certain idea is expressed, and that’s about it.
Instead of trying to argue this technicality, I think it’s worth reading what David wrote as a bit of advice. Advocates should consider saying, “I’m not allowed to marry the person I want to marry,” rather than “I’m not allowed to get married.”
Christopher: I can’t improve on what Peter Hoh said.
David: Thank you. I now assume that you believe this argument is not a valid one, something I did not glean from you first post in this thread. I will say Peter that in the circumstance of gay people, for gay people, marrying is not a realistic option. SCOTUS has several times defined “the fundamental right to marry” as “the right to marry a the person of one’s choosing” (expect in cases that apply equally, i.e., consent, consanguinity, etc. So the right to marry is in US constitutional jurisprudence, “the right to marry the person of one’s choosing”. That is why this post from Fanny and the parsing of it is essential.
Christopher, you have a strong argument with regard to the Supreme Court rulings about the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choosing.
I have my own favorite argument. I can ask for people to listen to it. I can hope that people will engage with it. But I can’t insist that people draw the same conclusion from it that I draw. I can’t insist that my argument is sufficient to end the debate about same-sex marriage. Heck, I can hardly convince anyone else who is in favor of same-sex marriage that mine is a winning argument.
You and I are asking people to accept something that many people are unwilling to concede, for a number of reasons. I think it’s best not to dismiss their concerns, but to try to understand them.
Getting people to change their minds is a daunting task, made all the more difficult by human nature. Our default setting is to be defensive about and and emotionally attached to our ideas. People resist change when they feel it forced upon them.
If the goal is to change people’s minds, nudging is more effective than pushing.
At best, you and I can to offer a way of looking at the issue that might encourage some fence-sitters to consider the issue in a different way.
There are some who argue that argument is an ineffective way to change public opinion. Instead, they are asking people who support marriage equity to share their stories with those to whom they are connected.
Peter, I respect and appreciate your advocacy, as you know, since we have corresponded via email in the past. I do respect DB’s and EM’s concerns and share some of them, I’ve said this as well. The question if whether this a valid argument seems to me as important as the idea that gay people are “defective” by nature is a valid argument. One that David has recently explicitly said he rejects. (Thank you David!). I hereby table my question since iit seems to be causing confusion, though my intention was to ask as only a point of information. As for sharing my experiences, I do that regularly, including here . To recap, I have very near death from cancer, I have been forcibly kept from my partner in a hospital, St Luke’s/Roosevelt (which is ironically a few blocks frm IAV) within the last decade having been told, against hospital policy that since we no legal relationship recognized by NY he had no right to see me, and I worry every time I go to one of the 43 states where we have no legal relationship to each other that if should die there no one would claim me, that my partner could no legally claim me. This is very real for me – not an abstraction, an academic debate. This is my life. Again, I admire you Peter and I thank you but I don’t have the luxury of time that many others do.0
Yeah, it’s low-hanging fruit, but Gino said:
“The legitimacy of the argument that homosexuals can marry equally because just like heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex is based on the fact that heterosexuality is definitional to marriage as a concept. Two males or two females a marriage does not make.”
So putting aside the problematic circular nature of this
statement, notice how Gino actually does seem to care about sexual orientation as a relevant category. This contradicts Any Mouse’s statement that “nobody” cares about the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians.
Also, I believe the argument more adequately made is that it’s not “heterosexuality” that’s “definitional” to marriage, it’s “one man and one woman, of any sexual orientation.”
He also claims:
“I should point out that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. It’s born out of an aversion to members of the opposite sex, inadequacy to handle relationships with members of the opposite sex, and emotional lacking in relationships with members of the same sex, and a sexualization of those feelings, among other things.”
I would be interested in hearing whether people think Gino’s (unsupported, offensive, inaccurate) views above are outside of the mainstream with respect to anti-SSM advocacy. In my experience, at least on the Internet, Gino’s opinions about what “causes” homosexuality are pretty typical. This is precisely how a lot of everyday people talk about marriage and homosexuality, as opposed to the mroe civil and understaed way some scholars and opponents of SSM talk about it here.
The morality of ‘gay’ sex is not a legal argument against the redefinition (neutering) or marriage, I agree. The key point is this:
Alan Keyes explains the difference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw
I suggest reading the definition of the legal term “similarly situated” and taking into account that for instance the defendants in the Perry do not contest that gay couples are similarly situated to infertile opposite couples in terms of procreation. They have also stipulated that not every marriage must meet every purpose of marriage. The defendants in the 1st and 2nd circuit DOMA cases have done the same. So this 2004 clip articulates a definitional argument that will always be made -people will make it 100 years from now and God bless them – but as we can see from current legal cases it is no longer an argument being seriously made in American courts. The argument being made is that while these two sets of couples are similarly situated, discriminating against same sex couples is not good, opponents even stipulate that in court – there is no legal argument that same sex couple do not need or would not benefit from marriage that is being made now, and necessary. In short, Alan Keyes legal argument here, is not considered plausible by lawyers trying these cases on the other side.
* not good…but necessary. I will note they have failed to prove, in court under rules of evidence, the necessity for this discrimination. Even state courts considering the right to marry for same sex couples which have declined to find that right in their state law have almost uniformly said that their reasoning amounted to the idea that the legislature needed to decide this issue as opposed to the courts. As a point of information, the last three times a case such as this has reached a state supreme court marriage equality has won. The last time the other side prevailed in such a case in a state supreme court was, I believe, in 2006 in NY where the court specifically stated the legislature should address the issue and hoped they would. They did.
We continue to hit the proverbial brick wall. There are no further words to get past this. I think it has to come down to a public/democratic vote. Even then it will never be resolved. Of course you disagree. We are stuck.
Not in the law we don’t. Federal constitutional is very clear. “the right to marry the person of one’s choosing” is a “fundamental right” under the US Consitution.
That doctrine, in those words – the words of the Supreme Court of the United States, has been upheld using the same language for more then 40 years. And the right to marriage, or the choice not to marry, has been upheld over and over for almost 50 years.
There is no mechanism for a national referendum in US law. Even if there were, marriage and access to it is distinctly a province of the several states and always has been according to the 10th amendment. Unless a marriage violates the US Constitution.
What you are suggesting, I think, is changing the US Constitution. There is no public vote involved in that. It requires yes votes from 67 US Senators, 290 US House members, and approval of both houses of 38 of the 50 states. There are currently 32 Senators and 133 Reps who have co-sponsored DOMA repeal. They are Dems in very safe seats very largely. My point here is that a constitutional amendment didn’t even pass the House when the GOP had control of both chambers. There are even a couple congressional GOPers coming out for DOMA repeal now. Even if it passed the congress I can think of 20 states off the top of my head that would not approve it, even at this post 2010 high water mark for the GOP in the states.
Also, people’s opinions change and the electorate changes. When marriage wad banned in law in CA in 2002 it had 61% of the vote, just six years later only 52% of the vote.
Demographically, cohort replacement in the electorate accounts for about a two point net swing toward marriage equality every year. That people are increasingly more comfortable with marriage equality and gay people in general accounts for the rest and the recent acceleration in the overall trend in the numbers.
When Loving was decided in 1967, 72% of American disapproved of interracial marriage. 72%! There was tremendous concern about the children those couples would produce and whether or not they should have children, whether it was “fair to the children”. Whether you see that as analogus or not you have to admit that things have changed mightly since then.
Interesting point, Christopher. I have long been unable to understand why so many heterosexuals are so passionately devoted to the cause of same sex marriage. I understand why gays would be (I made this point before but didn’t clarify this) but I just don’t see why I should be so interested either way in other people’s relationships. For the record I am pro-SSM, in a mildly indifferent way, and I assume that all of genuine heterosexuals (i.e. not closeted gays) never anticipate marrying a person of the same sex.
Regarding Loving Vs. VA, does that 72% take into account Americans of all races, or just whites? I’m sure that very few of those polled (either in favor of or against) wanted to be part of an interracial marriage but they had strong opinions nonetheless. I sometimes think that the reason these debates become so fierce even when very few of the debaters are directly affected is that deciding to legally validate certain private unions and discourage others is a fundamental part of civilization. Of course in determining which relationships are worthy of being deemed marriage societies make as many mistakes (banning interreligious, interracial, gay etc. marriages) but some societies also make a few good ones (banning marriages between close kin, marriage of children, marriages of adults to minors, involuntary marriages).
It was 72% of all American adults. The interracial issue actually hits closer to home for most people because, especially at that point – history bears that out- they imagined their children marrying someone of another race, and having children with them. And that was very uncommon and probably a little frightening at that point. Now of course one of the children created by a marriage that so many disapproved of, a child people thought it would “unfair on” if his parents wed, is now President of the United States.
” The interracial issue actually hits closer to home for most people because, especially at that point – history bears that out- they imagined their children marrying someone of another race, and having children with them”
I agree with you. However that argument was stupid because people were already having interracial sex and mixed-race children e.g. Strom Thurmond, they just were shamefully shuffled away. Still, I think gay marriage and gay parenting is a more radical social experiment than interracial marriage. Marriages between different races or ethnic groups have been legal in some times and places and illegal in others but there is precedence for it human history. There is no historical precedence for gay marriage and that is one reason I think it makes some people nervous. I think gay marriage, by the time it is legal throughout the US in a decade or so, will have very little impact on those who aren’t directly involved, that is most heterosexuals and their children.
As I’ve said I think the disappearance of marriage among poorly educated and moderately educated Americans is going to cause far greater problems for more people and for society at large than gay marriage ever could.