Gay Marriage is Inevitable

by on February 12th, 2004

I haven’t written anything about the whole gay marriage issue either here or at my personal blog, because basically, I don’t care. But with everything that is going on in Massachusetts and San Francisco it is clear that this issue is not going to fade away. I am going to ignore for now the judicial hubris of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the extra legal activities of the San Francisco County Clerk. As wrong as their actions are, in the end that won’t matter. In the end – however far in the future that is – gays will marry.

I would like to propose a solution. Conservatives insist that the definition of marriage, traditionally and religiously for thousands of years, is the union of one man and one woman. The truth that liberals and homosexuals from across the entire political spectrum don’t seem to get is that conservatives are right. The truth that conservatives don’t want to see, is that this doesn’t matter. My advice to the gay community is to let the right keep its definition of marriage legally in tact. My advice to the right is that there best way of doing that is create a legal state of union that carries with it all of the rights, privileges and extra tax burdens of marriage, but call it something else under the law. Call it a union. Refer under the law to those choosing this status not as married but united. If the relationship falls apart they are not legally divorced but disunited.

My next bit of advice to the gay community is accept the Union designation under the law and call it whatever you want on the street. But always remember that you are encroaching on a significant value and belief of a majority of the population. So don’t try to force something on them and don’t expect them to be happy about it. And if you ever want to eliminate this stupid linguistic charade, don’t insist or allow that unions be limited to same sex couples. The more heterosexual couples choosing to be united rather than married, the faster the lines will be blurred and the distinction will not matter.

My last bit of advice for conservatives is get over it. Your lumping of all homosexuals into one group and judging them en masse as evil or inferior is repulsive. Cling to your traditional definition of marriage if it helps you to sleep better at night but have the courage and the decency to acknowledge these human bonds.

The one thing that is lacking from this issue is almost any semblance of reasonableness from either side. It is an issue effecting people to the core of their beliefs and their understanding of who they are. It is an issue that without the temperance of reason can do great damage to our More Perfect Union.

Stephen Macklin