Help! Help! Marriage is under attack! At least thats what fringe groups like the Canadian Alliance and Focus on the Family would like us to believe in the aftermath of the federal governments decision to finally accept the reality that its ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.
For example, Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage in the United States, contends that “Canada is an illustration of what the forces are behind the attack on marriage want to do here in the United States.”
But, is the recognition of same-sex marriages really an attack on traditional (opposite sex) marriage, or is it more of an affirmation that the model works?
Perhaps only by seeing marriage through the eyes of those who have long been denied the right to marry can we truly appreciate how important marriage is.
As Andrew Sullivan writes in the June 30 edition of Time, “When I grew up and realized I was gay, I had no concept of what my own future could be like. Like most other homosexuals, I grew up in a heterosexual family and tried to imagine how I too could one day be a full part of the family I loved. But I figured then that I had no such future. I could never have a marriage, never have a family, never be a full and equal part of the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning& Many heterosexuals, I suspect, simply don’t realize how big a deal this is. They have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love. So they find it hard to conceive how deep a psychic and social wound the exclusion from marriage and family can be.”
The strength or survival of my marriage or your marriage isnt really that dependent on the existence or non-existence of other marriages.
Those who disagree with same-sex marriages arent going to go out and get a divorce tomorrow (or argue that other heterosexual couples should) to protest the fact that the state has allowed two other people who love each other to also get married. If anything, other people choosing to make a commitment to each other should be welcomed — even by those who seem to find gay sex acts to be so abhorrent to their belief systems.
As comedian Paula Poundstone famously pointed out on a billboard in Colorado (after the state became one of the first of thirty-seven states to pass “defense of marriage” legislation), “Maybe you misunderstood the question. No one is asking you to have sex with gay people. Just to give them equal rights under the law.”
Make no mistake; this change is about giving equal rights, not about so-called “special rights”.
Im not suggesting for a minute that there arent very real threats to the survival of many marriages.
For example, every time the TV networks show Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor or Married In America, I wonder whether Focus on the Family is going to stage a rally or launch a petition drive to protest the clear lack of respect being shown to the institution of marriage.
Of course, thats the point: heterosexuals have always been free to make good or bad decisions, well-considered or impetuous, regarding whom they want to marry. Theyve been able to get married, get divorced, and get remarried. Whats the big deal about giving lesbian and gay couples the same rights?
Moreover, there are so many threats to marriage that arent even on the radar screen for the self-appointed arbiters of who should be permitted to marry.
In Ontario, for example, minimum wage has been frozen at a paltry for eight years. This will force many people to sacrifice time with their family to work a sixty-hour work week or to work more than one job — hardly the best recipe for maintaining a viable marriage.
Likewise, the lack of quality affordable childcare or adequate housing will certainly put considerable strain on the survival of even the strongest marriages. If those who claim to be defending marriage and the family took some time off from their gay-bashing to take on these very real threats to the survival of existing marriages, they might actually be a force for good.