Gay Marriage
Here is a thought experiment for gay rights advocates. What if tomorrow morning the US federal government legislated that couples comprising a man and another man, or a woman and another woman be given the same exact rights as heterosexual married couples? Only, there would be one difference. Gay couples would enjoy the very same legal rights and protections as straight couples, but they would not be allowed to call their unions “marriages”. Under the new law, they would be granted a distinct but equal title called a “civil union”. Would this be an acceptable end to the gay marriage debate?
I didn’t think so.
In truth, gay marriage is actually two debates. The first debate concerns the specific question of rights for gay citizens granted by the government. The second debate concerns the acceptance of gay citizens and gay lifestyles by civil society. Even though people frame the argument as if it were about the former problem, it is actually this second issue that is of greater significance.
Personally, I suspect that a strong majority of citizens support equal rights for all, including gays. My guess is that most would support gay civil unions which encompass the same rights as heterosexual marriage. That this type of solution has not been attempted tells us a few things.
First, it tells us that gay rights activists are using the marriage debate as a proxy to fight for societal acceptance of gays. Rightly or wrongly, they are not willing to accept a “separate but equal” compromise, and, like prior US civil rights movements, they hope to use federal/state legislation as a means of advancing their cause and forcing societal change.
More interestingly, the lack of civil union proposals also tells us that the US elites who could relatively easily “solve” the gay marriage problem, do not really want to do so. In fact, it makes it clear that government elites actually benefit from having this debate rage on.
For Democrats, gay marriage rallies a generation of young voters who have only experienced political activism in the narrow realm of social and identity politics (besides the recent and important Occupy movement). It also distracts attention from the economy under the Democratic president, where the problems that caused the 2008 crisis of global capitalism have not even begun to be resolved. For Republicans, the debates surrounding gay rights serve the same purpose as other classic wedge issues, which is to trick not-rich people into voting against their interests. By arguing against gay marriage, Republicans get evangelical Christians fired up and also energize older voters who are afraid of disturbing the old ways. FN1
What is not clear of course is what everyone else gets out of the gay marriage debate. It is estimated that about 3% of the population is gay, and no doubt, for them gay marriage is incredibly important. Enlightened people should also be concerned when any kind of discrimination persists in society. Still, when we ask “cui bono” with regards to debates over gay marriage, we should not be so happy about the intensity of the argument.
FN1: For reference: see Karl Rove’s masterful addition of gay marriage ballot measures in the 2004 Presidential Election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions


