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
Leave a Reply
53 Comments on "Gays Against Adam and Steve"
.
boy people on here are gullible. I seriously doubt John dude isnt even gay. Christian rightwingers are chronic liars.
[…] Did you ever hear the expression “words get in the way”? Check out this article on the s… […]
[…] For a full read please visit: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/gays-against-adam-and-steve/ […]
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.
Which means you don’t care if it’s called marriage, right? Don’t get hung up on semantics if it’s called civil marriage.
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.
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.
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.
Awesome Jonathon!
You go, John. You got your head on straight, and I love your ability to be a TRUE QUEER; standing out and not conforming to the hetero world. I love your ability to realize your relationship is more than just calling your lover your husband. I respect that.
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!!!!
[…] man against gays” is a man-bites-dog article no editor can resist, Jonathan Soroff writes a facile article about why there shouldn’t be same-sex marriage. If you’d rather not wade through this […]
I don’t think he meant that gay couples shell out big bucks for marriage; he was talking about the legal rights that come with the marriage license.
Marriage and love are are relatively new ‘couple’ in the history of the institution of marriage. Throughout most of history, the bride has been treated like a commodity – traded from her father to her husband. And based on notions of “the ball and chain,” the “seven year itch,” and the “loveless marriage”… it’s hard to persist in the romantic ideal. Marriages are social contracts between two people. Sadly, in the conservative/non-revolutionary United States of America, the two people permitted this kind of social contract are all too often restricted to “one man and one woman.”
“It has however always seemed closely related to the concept of romantic love. ”
Always? Boy have you got that wrong. Marrying for love was considered at best very foolish and often just selfish and wicked. At best. In most societies the kind of women who would marry for love was not the sort of woman you could marry and bring homw to Mother.
I don’t have a partner and doubt I would marry him if I did, but I work for marriage equality because it is the right thing to do. I want the legal protections in place for ALL partners, gay or straight.
I do think we sell ourselves short by trying to mimic straight people in their marriage rituals. Yes, call it something different and create new traditions that reflect our culture. As long as the legal ramifications are the same, it’s all good.
Let the gay and lebian couples who want to marry fret about the stability or their relationship. But to deny them marriage simply because other people who get married are getting divorced at a high rate is short-sighted. I could ask you a variant off your mother’s bridge question… “If straight couples who get married then get divorced, are you going to follow them?” Whether marriage is a failing institution in the United State or not… to enter into a marriage ought to be an equal opportunity for all citizens.
“Heterosexual notions of commitment are inextricably joined to jealousy, possessiveness, and the insistence that the primary value of any relationships lies in its duration”
That’s completely unfounded. It’s not even a logical argument. Are you linking jealousy and possessiveness to monogamy?
At any rate, homosexuals are just as likely to be possessive in relationships. It’s human nature. It’s not a homosexual/heterosexual issue; it’s a universal one.