Jonathan Soroff explains why some gays, including him, are against same-sex marriage.
It seems like every time I see certain family members—my niece and father, for instance— they ask me when I’m going to marry Sam, the man I’ve been with for five and a half years. Sam’s father is one of the worst offenders. He and I are literally never together alone without him saying (as if there were a direct correlation between the two), “Jonathan, when are you and Sam going to get married? I think you two should have children.” I put a temporary kibosh on this one day at lunch, when I answered, “Paul, I’ve been trying to impregnate your son on a regular basis for a couple of years now, and you know what? So far, nothing!” This silenced him for about six months.
♦◊♦
Living in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, this is one of the hazards of being gay. Everyone expects you to be pro-gay marriage, and I can’t say that I am.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Sam should have inheritance/pension/social security rights, be my healthcare proxy, get the tax breaks, be eligible for citizenship, etc., etc., exactly like heterosexual married couples. What I’m against is the use of the word “marriage,” and I think we would have achieved equal rights by now, on a national level, if so much breath hadn’t been wasted and the right-wing gotten its knickers in a twist over the nomenclature.
I’d go so far as to say that “gay marriage” (not even as an issue but as a matter of semantics) helped cost John Kerry the presidential election that brought us for more years of squandered opportunity and global goodwill, along with gross mismanagement, that characterized the Bush administration. So why do they insist on calling it marriage? 
It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so (which is probably healthy for them but neither here nor there). So the promise part is nice. Otherwise, “gay marriage” is beside the point. And for precisely that reason, I find it cringe-worthy to watch gay couples aping the rituals of a heterosexual wedding ceremony.
Which brings me to the saddest story I know about the legalization of gay marriage. A prominent gay couple who had been together for many years and were raising two sons were expected to be among the first to throw a lavish wedding when marriage became legal in Massachusetts. When the invitations weren’t forthcoming, I asked one of them why, and he said, “Fuck that. We’ve already spent a fortune on lawyer’s fees to be able to have the same thing.”
♦◊♦
That’s where the true injustice lies. Gay people (even in states with gay marriage, if they’re dealing with a federal matter) have to shell out big bucks for something a drunk straight couple can pay an Elvis impersonator fifty bucks to do in Vegas. Wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate on that, instead of what to call it?
We could call it a “floogle,” or any other word you’d care to make up. The argument that this would create a ”separate but equal” scenario is specious; simply make the legal wording exactly the same as civil marriage, and who really cares?
In short, I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate the desire for an acknowledgement that my relationship is the equal of any other. But Sam and I don’t even know what to call each other. “Boyfriend” sounds trite. “Partner” sounds like a business arrangement. Significant other, better half, lover, all unwieldy or awkward. Out of frustration and facetiousness, I usually refer to him as “my de facto husband-type-person.”
So if we don’t know what to call each other, why harp on what to call the relationship? We know what we mean to each other. We both want what the world grants straight couples after they exchange vows. And someday we’ll commemorate our commitment somehow, which will probably involve a fairly major party. But if it wasn’t called “marriage,” neither of us would care, and for the gay people who do, you’d probably get what you want sooner if you weren’t so hung up on that one word.
—Photo Katie Tegtmeyer/Flickr
The only thing I take from this piece is that the writer is very likely over 50 years old.
It seems to be the ‘cut-off’ line on the marriage issue. For gays and straights alike. (Of course, there are exceptions.)
The writer seems very much to have internalized the notions of his day ~ that gay citizens are unequal human beings and undeserving of every civil right every other citizen is simply by virtue of birth.
It’s kind of sad that the writer does not consider himself inherently equal. Because that is the only revelation in this piece.
It’s remarkable how carelessly people read things and then incorporate their pre-digested, firmly held beliefs into their interpretations of what they read. I’m not 50 (although I’m close) and I certainly don’t fall into any “cut-off line” on any issue. I have always been an independent thinker, and I have been openly gay since I was in high school (which in the 80s, was a much bigger deal than it is now). I internalized nothing but the love and acceptance shown to me by my friends and family, and nothing in what I wrote indicates that I consider homosexuality inferior to heterosexuality. In fact, I’m conceited enough that I wholeheartedly consider myself inherently BETTER than 99.9999999999% of humanity. So where this “revelation” comes from is a mystery.
Yeah, I read an article written by a gay guy that lays out very interesting points on homosexuals against same-sex marriage. http://voices.yahoo.com/gays-against-gay-marriage-11112030.html , I think gays for gay marriage just tend to SPEAK the loudest!!!!
I’ve often wondered why, if there is a separation of church and state, it is even called a “marriage license?” It should be a “civil union license” across the board. For all, woman and man, man and man, woman and woman, 2 people could be the requirement. The marriage part is traditionally what happens in the religious arena/church. That might also help the whole scenario, as well as streamline some of the legal aspects, that “mythago” points out.
Jonathan, I always enjoy reading your work in The Improper. You’re a great writer.
Work is getting in the way of my putting together a more thorough response to your piece, but the words of a 27 year old reader of The Daily Beast seem to be a good start: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/why-new-york-matters-ctd-2.html
Other bullet points: (a) marriage, at least in America, is primarily a civil institution, not a religious one; (b) given the record, procreation is silly gatekeeper for marriage; (c) the politics are complex, but the civil union/marriage distinction makes only a marginal difference in terms of the palatability of gay unions in most places (the true right wingers won’t give you that either), and it will only further complicate the issue down the road as we move toward the repeal of DOMA (your state-sanctioned civil union won’t get you federal rights even after repeal — it would take even further, perhaps more controversial federal legislation, to get you there); and lastly (d) I take no issue with your and other’s distaste for marriage, it’s not for everyone, but it terms of achieving full civil equality it is the most straightforward, effective and (small c) conservative way of getting us there.
Thank you, Ben, for one of the most articulate and reasoned replies to this. I don’t disagree with you. Just arguing a point, and yes, as an older-than-you gay man, I also value the lawlessness of gay life back in the day. But you’re a lawyer, as are so many of the people who have replied, and not a single one of you has adequately explained why the law can not be rewritten so that all couples joined legally in whatever you want to call it can’t have the exact same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexuals.
Thank you, Ben, for one of the most articulate and reasoned replies to this. I don’t disagree with you. Just arguing a point, and yes, as an older-than-you gay man, I miss the lawlessness of gay life back in the day (but AIDS did more to scotch that than the prospect of marriage). Regardless, you’re a lawyer, as are others who have replied, and not a single one of you has adequately explained to me why the law can not be rewritten so that all couples joined legally in whatever you want to call it have the exact same rights as married heterosexuals do now, both state-by-state and on the federal level. I understand you pick your battles, and that’s the most difficult, but who said life was easy?
So, are you saying you’d be pro Civil Unions?
I simply don’t care what it’s called and think we’re getting hung up on semantics.
If you don’t call it “marriage,” it will fall short in some way, and perhaps in a way that we can’t predict. It was decided a long time ago that “separate is inherently unequal.” This applies to marriage as much as it applies to the original context in which it was uttered.
The most obvious flaw is portability. Even if DOMA is dead, another state will say that they don’t have to recognize something other than marriage as having any legal bearing. You can’t force a state to recognize an entire category that is not part of that state’s law (all states have “marriage”).
Lately this while gay marriage thing has been quite unsettling for me. I am not gay, first off. People urge my boyfriend and I to get married for reasons such as money, benefits, and personal religious views, which to me is no reason to get married in the first place. Unless somehow those religious view were so fit ours. But reading your article is was an interesting thing. But I wasn’t sure if you were saying your opposed because the word marriage. Sorry I’m a bit of a dits. And I had one more question, even against the same sex marriage, would you vote for it so people who made the decision to get married would have the right to do so? Why or why not? I am certainly not one to hate no matter the answer. I am just trying to learn about this very sensitive topic. Every opinion holds value. And I am very eager to hear.
I am against gay marriage for similar reasons. Call all marriage unions with these “unions” granting all legal rights in all states, then have religious cermonies where us religious people can choose not to marry gay people that want to be married in accordance with doctrine and conscience with them granting no extra rights. This bull about seperate being inherently unequal is nonsense and has no legal basis as changes can be affected in line with what I said, it is in fact all about semantics and forcing people to give up their religious views so that can trash religion. If it where about getting the same rights as straight couples more folk would agree with this brave author but the ones in favour of calling it marriage are so entrenched that they never reflect on what exaclty equality means and what they are trying to achieve and the rights of others. In uk we have civil partnerships yet they demand marriage when not one extra right would be granted, its about the extremist front taking aim at institutions that once, wrongly, supported homosexuality being illegal, its all about revenge or hurting people.