My series “Conversation with a bigot” documents not-quite-imaginary conversations, each highlighting a disprovable assumption held by those who have come to the false conclusion that “queer = bad.” Queer people endure the effects of this conclusion in all areas of their lives. I want it to stop.
Published: Part I, Abnormal and Unnatural; Part II, Pedophile; Part III, Promiscuous
Upcoming conversations: Part V, There are men. There are women. Period.; Part VI, There’s no need to think. I feel instinctively this is wrong.
Before I begin, please understand that in order to address issues as broad as those in this series, I find it necessary at times to commit the sin of gross generalization. Let this statement serve as a comprehensive caveat, so you don’t have to keep seeing warnings about it.
Also, let’s assume the bigot in question is male; statistically, more men than women are uncomfortable (or worse) with the concept of “queer.” If you’d like to dive into some of the reasons for that, there’s an interesting study in the National Library of Medicine.
Bigot: It’s like you’re telling me that if I think marriage is something special between one man and one woman, you’re calling me a bigot!
[Note: This is a direct quote from a man speaking to a roving reporter in 2015, the year that marriage equality could no longer be outlawed, thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges.]
Me: Actually, I don’t need to call you a bigot; you just did it yourself, if you think something as fundamental to the human condition as marriage should be reserved only for a “special” group. That kind of defines bigot.
Bigotry is the reserving of a right or privilege for a particular group of people, at the whim of that group, to the exclusion of anyone not in that group.
I wonder if you have the wrong question in mind. It shouldn’t be “Should we allow gay people to marry each other.” If you need to ask a question, it should be, “Why not?”
Well, here’s a damn good reason. If we allow men to marry men, and women to marry women, pretty soon there won’t be enough children in the world.
[Note: This is a direct quote from a woman in Boston speaking to a roving reporter in 2003, the year that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its groundbreaking decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, making Massachusetts the first U.S. state where same-sex couples could legally marry.]
You’ve taken an interesting tack, here. Instead of relying on religious dogma, and instead of basing this opinion on your personal gut reaction (whatever it happens to be), you’ve pointed toward something few would dare speak against: the importance of children. Good try.
But here’s the thing. Or, really, there are several things.
1. Are we in any danger of running out of children? We are not.
2. How many people would need to stop having children for the world to begin to run out? 50% of the population? Maybe 70%? Or even 25%? And what’s the percentage of people who are known to be homosexual? Maybe 5%? Or 7%? So, no joy here for your point.
3. Is it true that gay people don’t have children? No. Statistically, the proportion is less than in the straight population, but it’s hardly 0%.
4. If gay couples aren’t allowed legal marriage, will they give their partners one last kiss, turn toward someone of the opposite sex, and start procreating? No.
5. If we say it’s legal for two people of the same sex to marry, will everyone start going it? Again, no.
I suspect you believed you were thinking when you came up with this one. But... think again.
You want “Why not?” I’ll give you “Why not.” Because one group shouldn’t get more rights than another. That’s why not.
[Note: This is a quote from a man who called in to the NPR (National Public Radio, as it was then) talk show “On Point” several years ago.]
[Crickets. Then:] Um, what are you talking about?
It’s obvious! Why should gay people have an extra choice about who they marry?”
I don’t understand where you’re coming from with this. There are no extra rights. You could marry a man, if you found a man who wanted to marry you. Or you could marry a woman, given the same condition. This isn’t an extra right for anyone.
Okay, then, how about this? Gay marriage will open the door to polygamy.
First, it’s not “gay marriage.” We’re not talking about a different kind of marriage. It’s just marriage equality.
Second, this hasn’t happened under any government that has legalized marriage equality.
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t! And what about incest? And… and… what if someone wants to marry their donkey?
[Smothering laughter] That hasn’t happened, either. And nothing you’ve mentioned would meet the legal requirements for a marriage license in the U.S. With minor exceptions in a couple of states, the standards are: consenting; adult; not already married; not too closely related; no dread diseases; ability to pay the license fee; ability to find someone authorized by the government to execute the license (i.e., declare the marriage legal).
Donkeys can’t consent. A child isn’t an adult. Bigamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. The demand was never for the laws to change, with the exception of eliminating laws that were enacted in a frantic attempt to stop marriage equality. The demand was for the existing laws to be applied equally to all citizens.
But what about societal instability?
Instability in communities is greater with high numbers of people who don’t feel at home there; they are the most likely to move, and the least likely to agree to a tax structure that increases money for schools, fire departments, police departments, sanitation departments... the list is endless.
Gay men in the U.S., on average, have higher incomes than other demographics. This means they pay more taxes. Their taxes support all those services I just mentioned. Their money also supports health care for you and your children. And because gay men have fewer children than other couples, they aren’t drawing back from these services. In short: Gay men support everyone else.
You have an answer for everything, don’t you? But you’re changing the very definition of marriage itself, a basic tenet of societal norms!
Definition, you say? The only time we’ve defined marriage in any formal way was when some states frantically passed laws to exclude gay couples. It’s a tradition, not a definition, that marriage is one man and one woman. And tradition is essentially peer pressure from dead people. Tradition as a principle is not good or bad; but, as we see throughout history, some traditions change.
But giving you back the term “definition,” it sounds like you’re saying that allowing gay couples to marry would be redefining marriage. I’m tempted to ask, “And your point is ...?”
Marriage has been redefined many times in the history of mankind. The typical Biblical marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford. When the Catholic Church got involved, it did nothing to change the tradition that maintained the inequality of women; they become one with the man, losing their own identities; any fortunes they had became the property of their husbands. Here in the U.S., none of that is still tradition.
When traditions have changed, it’s been because society itself changed. Right now, society is changing again, creating a new description for the tradition of marriage. And why not? What piece of sky is going to fall if we do?
[Crickets]
And here’s something I don’t believe you’ve thought about. If you define marriage as between one man and one woman, you’ll need to define “man” and “woman.” We’ve been talking mostly about gay vs. straight, here, but there are lots of other options. Just picking one permutation, there are men trapped in women’s bodies. So could a woman in a man’s body marry a man and meet the requirement? Tricky, this bigotry business.
The only sane approach is to stop trying to limit each other’s human rights, and—in the U.S.—to realize that our constitution prohibits any one citizen from interfering with the civil rights of another.
[More crickets]
Seems like you’ve run out of objections. So I’m going to say that the answer to “Why not?” is “Indeed.”
Maybe you could spend a little time thinking before our next conversation: Transgender.
Whoo, boy.
Again, Indeed.
Disclaimer: It seems to me that the queer community is always in need of allies who, like me, can’t claim a place under that colorful umbrella, being boring old het-cis. Please count me as one of those allies.
You can subscribe for free to Robin Reardon Writes, though I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. It’s not expensive, really! You’ll have access to everything I write on Substack. You’ll also have my undying gratitude.
Not ready for a paid subscription, but you really liked this post?
I’m an inveterate observer of human nature, writing novels about all kinds of people, some of whom happen to be gay or transgender or bisexual or intersex—people whose destinies are not determined solely by their sexual orientation or gender identity. Check out my work on my website.
I just love you! So glad you're you!