JOE: Hi, Jerry. Everything under control?
JERRY: Have I got things to tell you!
JOE: What happened?
JERRY: I'm engaged.
JOE: Congratulations. Who's the lucky girl?
JERRY: I am.
JOE: WHAT?
JERRY: Osgood proposed to me. We're planning a June wedding.
JOE: What are you talking about? You can't marry Osgood.
JERRY: You think he's too old for me?
JOE: Jerry! You can't be serious!
JERRY: Why not? He keeps marrying girls all the time!
JOE: But you're not a girl. You're a guy! And why would a guy want to marry a guy?
JERRY: Security.
JOE: Jerry, you'd better lie down. You're not doing well.
JERRY: Look, stop treating me like a child. I'm not stupid. I know there's a problem.
JOE: I'll say there is!
JERRY: His mother - we need her approval. But I'm not worried - because I don't smoke.
JOE: Jerry - there's another problem.
JERRY: Like what?
JOE: Like what are you going to do on your honeymoon?
JERRY: We've been discussing that. He wants to go to the Riviera - but I sort of lean toward Niagara Falls.
JOE :You're out of your mind! How can you get away with this?
JERRY: Oh, I don't expect it to last. I'll tell him the truth when the time comes.
JOE: Like when?
JERRY: Like right after the ceremony.
JOE Oh.
JERRY: Then we'll get a quick annulment - he'll make a nice settlement on me - I'll have those alimony checks coming in every month -
JOE: Jerry, listen to me - there are laws -conventions - it's just not being done!
JERRY: But Joe - this may be my last chance to marry a millionaire!
JOE: Look, Jerry - take my advice – forget the whole thing - just keep telling yourself you're a boy!
JERRY: I'm a boy - I'm a boy - I wish I were dead - I'm a boy - I'm a boy –
-- Some Like It Hot
Pretty ironic casting Tony Curtis as the paragon of heterosexual marriage. That guy jumped on anything that moved. Fish wouldn’t move in the tank when Tony Curtis visited.
I’ve been meaning to write about gay marriage since I was in New York during June, which coincided with the 40th anniversary of the “Stonewall Riots,” which as it turns out really was just a bunch of frustrated bar patrons throwing rocks at New York cops trying to shut down a Mafia-run gay bar that wasn't paying liquor taxes and was blackmailing Wall Street patrons.
What began as an incendiary political movement has apparently devolved into what can only charitably be called a totally jacked up annual Gay Pride Parade and freak show down 5th Avenue from near the Plaza all the way down Midtown, ironically in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, to the Village. At least one United States Senator marched in the parade, and it seemed like all of Manhattan was either in the parade or lining the routes. Everyone seemed to have a good time, especially the tourists checking out the interestingly clad men in the parade. Boss Tweed, however, was heard rolling rapidly in his grave.
It struck me that despite humorless Gay Protester Guy, public attitudes towards homosexuality have changed in this country with almost lightning speed (for such things). As recently as the 1970s, homosexuality was not publicly tolerated, and mere whispers that one was a homosexual could ruin one’s reputation and career. When Elton John acknowledged his “bisexuality” in 1975, his career immediately tanked. Up to the 1980s, most states still criminalized homosexual conduct, and while few prosecutions occurred then, its remarkable that less than 30 years and one Supreme Court case later, homosexuality is not only legal, but is so well accepted (or at least tolerated) publicly as to move many states towards legalizing gay marriage. If one thinks about how long it took this country to end slavery, enfranchise women and minorities, stop routinely tossing the mentally ill into prisons, or establish free public schools, the march of gay rights has been extraordinarily swift. In 1969, Easy Rider showed Louisiana rednecks killing two motorcycle riders because they had long hair. Now gay boys can swish around shirtless in the French Quarter in body paint and glitter, completely free from official retribution. Of course, the Quarter was always something of a sanctuary for at least intellectual homosexuals-Tennessee Williams comes most famously to mind.
Part of this rapid change stems from the fact that public attitudes toward homosexuality were never quite as vicious as they might have seemed. Homosexuals were tacitly tolerated “among us” to the extent they had the good taste not to flaunt or openly acknowledge their predilections. "We" felt license to laugh at them, and often along with them, feeling free to enjoy a Paul Lynde or Charles Nelson Reilley vamping it up, despite pretty much knowing which side they buttered their bread on. Americans idolized a number of stars whose manner and appearance should have left little doubt about their sexual preference-Sal Mineo, Montgomery Clift, Farley Granger, and most famously, Rock Hudson. Many, many others at least dabbled-Garbo, Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, Olivier, even Brando. Liberace could be as soft as wet Charmin, but because he was generally liked, the public was content to not ask if he would not tell. The other was the AIDS epidemic. Ronald Reagan admitted that at first, he and his advisers actually giggled a bit when the subject came up. That was not necessarily a minority reaction. But then Magic Johnson, virile male basketball star, contracted the disease and at that point it seemed that mainstream America finally got it that this was a modern plague. That realization, and the fact that so many heterosexuals began contracting the disease, seemed to bridge whatever chasm existed between a lot of straight and gay Americans.
On and near the coasts, homosexuality is largely accepted. Many of these states and cities have passed “civil union” statutes or otherwise conferred certain civil benefits on homosexual partnerships. Attacks on homosexuals in many instances are classified as “hate crimes” garnering increased criminal sentences. In the heartland, or what Manhattanites call “campground,” attitudes are somewhat less accepting. While I was in New York, the news reported about a gay couple being detained outside the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake. Talk about the lion’s den. One even occasionally hears about physical attacks, although notably, such instances generally make the headlines, an occurrence that would not have been thinkable in recent decades. Still, although more rejection occurs in these areas, it lacks the sort of moral outrage and hostility exhibited as recently as the 20 year ago time frame. But, as Joan Rivers once put it, these are largely places where women wear high heels and socks, so most self-respecting gays wouldn’t be caught dead there anyway. If they could avoid it.
By and large, the march of history and public sentiment clearly is moving towards universal acceptance of homosexuality, and along with it, gay marriage. I estimate its about 10 years behind acceptance of inter-racial marriage or so. People in their 20s grew up watching Will and Grace, Boy George, Madonna kissing Britney and Christina, celebrating Elton John and Martina Navratilova, and seeing anti-gay celebrities condemned for intolerance. The gay social agenda, such that one exists, continues to advance. Gay themed shows populate television programming and mainstream movies. Gay movie stars, musicians, even politicians abound. Gay issues are openly and thoroughly discussed in major media outlets. About the only places where it seems to be absolutely prohibited would be in the military (soon to end with President Obama’s expressed intent to lift the ban) and in major sports. Though even as to the latter, the NFL’s recent suspension of Larry Johnson for using gay slurs, and his rather meek acceptance thereof, does mark something of a watershed event in the traditionally anti-gay world of professional athletics. That athletes should be so virulently anti-gay is somewhat ironic. What other profession, outside of male prostitution I suppose, entails so much exposure to male nudity?
Now, the centerpiece of the gay rights agenda (again, to the extent such an agenda could be said to exist), gay marriage, has not completely gone over. Liberal California and Washington have recently rejected gay marriage by referendums. The very recent close vote in even more liberal Maine (it may have two Republican senators, but they are RINOs and those seats are going Democrat when the incumbents move on) shows that trepidations about gay marriage exist even in the most “progressive” regions. About the only places where gay marriage has become legal have been in states where the courts have found a constitutional right. How interesting is it that these judges have suddenly found rights existing in constitutions that have lain dormant, in secret, under the bushes no doubt, for more than a hundred years, waiting for these judicial heroes to discover them. But despite this recent stall, have no doubts. Gay marriage will become the law of the land within the next 10-15 years. While polls continue to show that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, it is a relatively slim majority and younger Americans are far more approving. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The pro-gay view has completely won the culture wars. By a far broader margin than older Americans, young people view homosexuality as completely normal and lacking any sort of moral deficiency, and support gay marriage. So as this younger generation and ones following it occupy a greater percentage of the electorate, gay marriage inevitably and universally will become legal. That’s not a trend that going to reverse either. Witness the denunciation and demonizing of Miss California for expressing opposition to gay marriage. On the one hand I was shocked she had an opinion on something other than world peace (for it) and saving children (for that too). On the other hand, I don’t like her filling that pretty little head with complicated thoughts (which cause wrinkles). The momentum clearly favors gay marriage, and only heavy-handed judicial intervention will forestall that (such as what happened when the Supreme Court’s blundering into Roe v. Wade disrupted a pronounced national trend favoring abortion rights and sparked a conservative backlash that still has steam).
The more significant question is, having won all legal battles and overturning all laws banning homosexuality, what’s the big deal about obtaining the right to marry someone of the same sex? Divorce rates remain very high. If marriage is so bad, why are gays clamoring for it? Clearly one reason rests in symbolism. Legalizing gay marriage would demonstrate that society values homosexual unions as the equal of heterosexual partnerships. That’s clear, and that reasoning makes sense.
The other reason can only be to obtain the goodies that marriage bestows. Its easier for heterosexual couples to adopt children, I mean, other than little Chinese girls. The tax code still favors married couples over single people. Married people also have better insurance rates and coverage, inheritance and estate rights, and marrying a non-citizen can allow one to emigrate to the United States.
This begs the question why does the state and society effectively subsidize marriage to such an extent? These privileges and benefits, much like other tax code provisions, originated based on social policies strongly favoring marriage and family development. Our forefathers actually tried to drive singleness out of our midst. Pennsylvania even enacted taxes against single men. But even granting the social benefits of marriage (e.g. fostering a better environment for raising children or resulting in more stable lifestyles), wouldn’t people get married even without these benefits? Who gets married for access to insurance, or to lower their taxes, or to inherit their spouse’s estate (ok, Anna Nicole, but who else)? The evidence suggests that even as such distinctions have become reduced, people are still getting married at about the same rates (albeit at slightly later age). And don’t homosexual couples at least try to adopt children, thereby depriving such subsidies of their “family promotion” justification?
What then, exactly, is the reason for continuing to subsidize marriage? Ultimately none. Subsidies should only exist where desirable social actions or conditions do not result from the functioning of the free market (or through social norms). People do get married and stay married without these incentives, so they are unnecessary. The rise in illegitimate births disproves the necessity of marriage for forming and maintaining families. The divorce rate rebuts any notion that promoting marriage through easing its financial burden through tax and other policies represents an effective policy. And while the social benefits of the family structure obviously benefit our society, would we see fewer families without these subsidies? Marriage, as presently constituted, represents a wealth transfer from single individuals to married without demonstrable benefit. “Pound for pound,” singles have greater expenses than marrieds, and these policies do nothing to help. Ironically, legalizing gay marriage will aggravate that schism, as a good proportion of single people will become reclassified as married. On the other hand, it will impose legal restrictions on existing homosexual unions, and arguably introduce them to the same stresses on marriages that heterosexual married couples experience.
To quote Mr. Spock (from that episode where he goes nuts in his once every seven years mating ritual and hijacks the Enterprise back to Vulcan where he fights Kirk for his wife), “After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting.”
Next-my adventures at the San Antonio Half Marathon
No comments:
Post a Comment