Peter Blair's recent column ("Marriage Without Meaning," Jan. 20) makes a cowardly and logically unsound argument against gay marriage. Blair seeks to tie a progressively weakening institution of marriage since the 1960s and 1970s to the societal ills of the present, contending that we must intensify efforts to reestablish this sacred bond to strengthen our great nation. Nested within his argument, however, is the more sinister idea that a rise in gay culture and petitions for equal rights are intrinsically connected to the degradation of marriage that, while gay marriage "isn't a proximate cause of our marriage crisis," it is a "consequence of that crisis."
First, what Blair does not realize is that gay people have wanted to be able to love each other and be equal to heterosexuals for a hell of a lot longer than 50 years. It is only since the relative social liberalization that came in the 1960s and with the Civil Rights Act (also unpopular at the time among social conservatives) that we I say we because this is a human issue, not simply one related to sexuality have been able to publicly seek basic forms of equality through recognition of genuine love with less fear of violent repercussions. Gay marriage is neither a cause nor a consequence of our marriage crisis and its concomitant societal ills; it is part of the solution.
Second, if we truly want to promote family values, decrease poverty and increase the education and psychological health of children, we should no longer hesitate to pass laws legalizing gay marriage, much less repeal those already in existence. Gays, in general, make more money and are more likely to have college degrees than heterosexuals in this country, and children of gay partners "thrive equally" with homosexual and heterosexual parents. A study by the Brookings Institution one actually related to gays, not subtly hijacked to be found an interesting correlation between high-tech growth and substantial gay populations. Indeed, Microsoft recently joined Apple in publicly supporting gay marriage to attract the most diverse and capable employees possible to their main campuses: intelligent, financially stable, economically productive people raising stable, thriving children. This is gay marriage.
Third, Blair is right in saying "we no longer have any coherent idea of what marriage even is as an institution," but this is in no way because our nation has finally begun to be less bigoted. It is, however, in some part because marriage has been commandeered by socially conservative movements whose supporters are either too scared of their own sexuality or still desperately clinging to the white, straight America of old. Marriage has become politicized, a talking point, an easy way to stir up fear and votes. When tens of millions of dollars are being spent to convince the general population that gays are nothing but pedophilic, amoral outcasts who are destroying marriage, they will believe it. Marriage then becomes about politics, about fear not love.
Lastly, though Blair starts with the argument that the sanctity of marriage is necessary for strengthening and stabilizing the country, the only contention he truly has against gay marriage is that gay couples can't make babies. If reproductive capacity is to be our sole and most important definition of marriage we should throw it out altogether or deny marriage to infertile couples and those choosing not to reproduce. But furthermore, the reality is that by denying gays the equal right to marry and receive the accompanying marital benefits, we are preventing tens or hundreds of thousands of stable, productive and happy families from contributing to the strength of the United States or adopting otherwise unloved children. To argue anything else is a result of ignorance, insecurity or bigotry.
Blair's argument is not driven by love or logic. His voice contributes to one that would have us believe equal rights are bad for this nation. It is the same voice that once said women voting would lead to the end of the political system and that giving blacks true equality would tear apart the fabric of our country. It is a voice against progress. Time has proven this voice wrong, and time will prove it wrong again.
