pstrongby John Corvino/strongbr /emFirst published at b365gay.com/b on October 24, 2008/embr //p pIrsquo;ve been doing a lot of same-sex marriage debates lately, and thus interacting with opponentsmdash;not just my debate partner, but also audience members, some of whom will soon be voting on marriage amendments./p
pRecently one of them asked, ldquo;Where does your standard of marriage come from?rdquo;/p
pFrom her tone, I could tell she meant it more as a challengemdash;a purely rhetorical questionmdash;than as a genuine query. Still, I wanted to give her a good answer./p
pBut what is the answer? My own ldquo;standardrdquo; of marriage, if you can call it that, comes from my parents and grandparents, whose loving, lifelong commitments I strive to emulate. That doesnrsquo;t mean mine would resemble theirs in every detailmdash;certainly not the male/female partmdash;but I canrsquo;t help but learn from their example./p
pThat wasnrsquo;t the answer she was looking for, so she asked again. This time I tried challenging the question: talking about ldquo;THErdquo; standard of marriage suggests that marriage is a static entity, rather than an institution that has evolved over time. Historically, marriage has been more commonly polygamous than monogamous; more commonly hierarchical than egalitarian. It changes./p
pI pointed these facts out, adding that our standard for marriagemdash;or any other social institutionmdash;ought to be human well-being. Since same-sex marriage promotes security for gay and lesbian persons and, consequently, social stability, it meets that standard./p
pShe wasnrsquo;t satisfied. ldquo;But if we donrsquo;t have a single fixed standard,rdquo; she continued, ldquo;then anything goes.rdquo;/p
pTherersquo;s something rhetorically satisfying when an opponentrsquo;s fallacies can be identified with neat names: in this case, ldquo;false dilemma.rdquo; Either marriage remains solely heterosexual, she was saying, or else society embraces a sexual free-for-allmdash;as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it, ldquo;man on man, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.rdquo;/p
pNo, no, no. The fact that boundaries change and evolve does not entail that we should have no boundaries at all, or that where theyrsquo;re drawn is entirely arbitrary. Again, the standard is societal well-being, and everyone agrees that ldquo;man on dogrdquo; marriage fails to meet that standard. Letrsquo;s not change the subject./p
pHer challenge reminded me of those who cite the dictionary and then object that same-sex marriage is ldquo;impossible by definition,rdquo; since marriage by definition requires a husband and wife. Dictionaries reflect usage, and as usage evolves, so do dictionaries. (Ever try to read iBeowulf/i in the original Old English?)/p
pMore important, the dictionary objection founders on the simple fact that if something were truly ldquo;impossible by definition,rdquo; there would be no reason to worry about it, since it canrsquo;t ever happen. No one bothers amending constitutions to prohibit square circles or married bachelors./p
pBut my rhetorical satisfaction in explaining ldquo;false dilemmardquo; and the evolution of language was tempered by the reality I was confronting. My questioner wasnrsquo;t simply grandstanding. She was expressing a genuinemdash;and widely sharedmdash;fear: if we embrace same-sex marriage, than life as we know it will change dramatically for the worse. Standards will deteriorate. Our children will inherit a confused and morally impoverished world./p
pSuch fear is whatrsquo;s driving many of the voters who support amendments in California, Florida, and Arizona to prohibit same-sex marriage, and we ignore or belittle it at our peril./p
pAnd so I explained againmdash;gently but firmlymdash;how same-sex marriage is good for gay people and good for society. When therersquo;s someone whose job it is to take care of you a vice-versa, everyone benefitsmdash;not just you, but those around you as well. Thatrsquo;s true whether yoursquo;re gay or straight./p
pI also explained how giving marriage to gay people doesnrsquo;t mean taking it away from straight people, any more than giving the vote to women meant taking it away from men. No one is suggesting that we make same-sex marriage mandatory. Our opponentsrsquo; talk of ldquo;redefiningrdquo; marriagemdash;rather than, say, ldquo;expandingrdquo; itmdash;tends to obscure this fact./p
pNot all fears bend to rational persuasion, but some do. In any case, I donrsquo;t generally answer questions in these forums for the sole benefit of the questioner. Typically, I answer them for benefit of everyone in the room, including the genuine fence-sitters who are unsure about what position to take on marriage equality for gays and lesbians./p
pTo them, we need to make the case that same-sex marriage wonrsquo;t cause the sky to fall./p
