Gay marriage

Christian Century, March 23, 2004 by David Shirey, David M. Horst, Daniel Liechty, Andrew Warner, Elane O'Rourke, Ralph C. Jung, Dennis O'Brien

I APPRECIATED Dennis O'Brien's thought-provoking article "A more perfect union" (Jan. 27), but it is hard to ignore certain holes in his logic.

O'Brien encourages homosexuals to abstain from sexual activity and he minimizes the difficulty of that abstinence by comparing it with checking his anger. That is not a valid comparison. Not only are the two needs (sexual expression and anger) vastly different in motivational urgency, but our society does not always chastise anger (e.g., football players using rage as motivation), while, by denying marital status, it would always chastise homosexual expression.

How easy it is for us in socially sanctioned heterosexual relationships to speak of a life of chastity for others. I'm sure most people who have chosen a life of abstinence would describe it as difficult. How much more difficult for those who have celibacy forced on them.

Also, O'Brien's theory that homosexual behavior may at some level (conscious or unconscious) be a choice creates problems for his argument. If, as he states, a) sexual orientation is not genetic, b) homosexuals should hide in abstinence and c) most human beings have sexual needs (my own unoriginal observation), then doesn't it follow that a homosexual in a world of polymorphous sexuality would eventually "rechoose" and become heterosexual? This is, of course, absurd and not explicit in O'Brien's theories. It is, however, a logical end to his line of argument.

O'Brien compares bisexual marriage with an "open" marriage, and that is a mischaracterization. Bisexuality implies openness to either sex as a partner, but it does not preclude a monogamous relationship with one partner. It simply means that the search parameters for that one person are larger than those for heterosexuals. By way of a simplistic analogy, a heterosexual man may be equally interested in two physical characteristics of women (e.g., green eyes and blond hair). That does not mean that he will need relationships with multiple women to meet his needs; it simply means that his search will be open to women who possess either (or both) of those qualities. It can be the same with bisexuals.

O'Brien's inability to ascribe monogamous tendencies to bisexuals does that segment of society a disservice. Finally, the inclusion of "open" marriages in the article is bewildering at best (insulting at worst), because that subject has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage. If O'Brien is going to paint with a broad brush, he would be better served to paint our entire society as deficient in the areas of healthy sexuality and monogamy.

David Shirey

Dalton, Mass.

Why do those who oppose equal marriage seem so preoccupied with gay sex? I'm sorry that Dennis O'Brien finds gay sex unacceptable or even repugnant, but I'm sure gay and lesbian partners and their advocates are not going to all this trouble just so the government will sanction their sexual orientation and practice. We are seeking the fundamental right of same-sex couples to have the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage as different-sex couples. O'Brien misses the point: marriage is about more than sex. It's about love, commitment and mutual concern. Aren't these the values we leaders in the faith community should be promoting in all marriages?

David M. Horst

First Parish in Malden (Universalist), Malden, Mass.

Although predictions are always tentative, there are a number of facts already on the ground (prevalence of cohabitation, successful "palimony" suits, increasing use of pre-nup agreements, widespread divorce/remarriage amounting to serial monogamy, to name only the most obvious) strongly indicating that as law finally codifies actual practice we are likely to see a system in which various levels along a "coupling continuum" will have legal status. In the continuum, increasing socially recognized fights and responsibilities will be reflected in the legally sanctioned benefits accruing to each level.

It seems doubtful that same-sex or different-sex status will play much role at all in this, except perhaps in the initial stages of solidifying one major category (civil unions/partnerships) which will then of necessity be available to both same- and other-sex couples. We may expect that, as one of the main "conserving" forces in society (and this prediction is firmly guided by historical precedent), religious institutions initially will resist this multilevel coupling continuum, tacitly accept it after a few generations, and finally embrace it and defend it as the "traditional" option against whatever further evolutions in marriage structure may be down the road of history.

Daniel Liechty

Normal, Ill.

Dennis O'Brien offers what might best be called an elegant case for bigotry; behind the fine words lies a commitment to prejudice and discrimination. His argument culminates in a call for prohibiting gay marriage so that the law, as an educational vehicle, can teach people that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality. While he suggests that civil unions might be allowable, the force of his rhetoric would put no brakes on legalized discrimination. The force of his argument would support marginalization of gays and lesbians.