Family Matters

Public opinion plays like a broken record. As the New Jersey bill to legalize same-sex marriage floats and flounders in the state legislature, I can’t help feeling that I’ve heard the same sound-bite arguments from supporters and detractors a million times. Groups with names like Garden State Equality and Progressive Change Committee Campaign decry empty promises of the pursuit of happiness and the withholding of individual rights. They yell and scream across the aisle at the Council on the American Family and the Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, products of the 90s culture wars, which judging by the media clips, continue unabated.

Somewhere in all this mess, it’s become painfully apparent that the camps are talking past each other. In my perspective, advocates for same-sex marriage could go about advancing the message with a bit more tact. Although the proponents of marriage equality have made tremendous strides—achievements should be rightfully recognized and applauded—we must now engage socially-conservative opponents on their own turf. In addition to emphasizing the case for same-sex marriage in terms of individual freedom and rights, we must add community-oriented dimensions to the message. Progressives need to stress that same-sex marriage won’t erode institutions conservatives hold dear—in fact, it might very well strengthen them.

It’s difficult for young progressives to contemplate that the case for same-sex marriage might be cast more persuasively outside the cheap vocabulary of political liberalism. There’s a reason for this. Bread-and-butter arguments for a mere “live and let live” policy are easy to understand and easy to preach. But they’re also the least persuasive.

So long as same-sex marriage opponents claim a monopoly on protecting the common good, preserving family values, and tightening the social fabric of America, the movement for same-sex marriage will have trouble making headway. Yet we can garner more popular support by stressing that there is something beneficial for society about marriage and that these benefits are present in wedlock whether it’s between heterosexual or homosexual Americans.

Many liberals are uncomfortable with the state taking an explicit stance on what is viewed as a primarily private moral matter. After all, “keep the government out of our bedrooms” is a slogan that’s won many a vote in the past. Yet the state has always had its hand in the cookie jar. In fact, in Hillary Goodridge v. Department of Public Health—the case that first amplified the same-sex marriage debate at the onset of the decade—the Massachusetts Supreme Court legally contended that marriage serves a crucial function of the general welfare: It anchors society by promoting stable relationships over transient ones, provides for the orderly distribution of property, and ensures that adults and children are cared for and supported by private funds rather than state coffers. American government has long been unabashedly pro-marriage.

The current political landscape is particularly fertile for a community-oriented message in favor of same-sex marriage. Marriage of any kind is in a crisis. Almost half of all marriages end in divorce, and the institution itself is treated as contingent and casual. If anything is dramatically eroding the ties that bind us, it’s more likely the broken promises between heterosexual citizens than the affinities between homosexual citizens. A culture of instant gratification tells couples to separate when their needs are not momentarily met. Although legalizing same-sex marriage will certainly not alleviate the problems that beset heterosexual marriages, it seems strange for social conservatives to advocate against reinforcing interpersonal relationships through the bonds of matrimony. At the end of the day, those who are worried about the disintegration of the American social fabric should be supporting same-sex marriage rather than fighting against it.

Many on the fence in the same-sex marriage debate remain unconvinced that same-sex marriages will provide the same public benefits as heterosexual marriages. According to Clayton W. Brooks III ’10, former Political Chair of Harvard BGLTSA: “One of the biggest barriers to same-sex marriage advocacy is the stereotyped image that’s been given to same-sex couples. There are very few public same-sex couples which mainstream Americans families feel comfortable identifying with. Gay couples tend to be viewed as more promiscuous and less stable, which makes them less appealing to the family values crowd.” In order to counter this stereotype, advocates should advance a pro-family image of same-sex couples strengthening the institution of marriage—a picture in direct contrast to the one painted by same-sex marriage opponents.

Today, folks of many political stripes are worried about the primacy of private choice: Many citizens seem to loosely choose lifestyles, cultural affinities, and identities like favorite sports teams. These liberties are sweet, but many Americans, especially the crowd that opposes same-sex marriage because of its supposed links to promiscuity and broken families, are looking for something more stable. Those same Americans should consider it harmful that two people of any gender who claim to love each other do not solidify their love publicly through the institution of marriage. And they certainly shouldn’t support the creation of second-class families.

All in all, champions of marriage equality would be wise to illuminate the many parts of the American dream that support the cause. Individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness are two relevant themes. But so is the idea of communities and families who, despite their differences, recognize each others’ contributions to the general welfare and the need for mutual respect.

Raúl A. Carrillo ’10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears regularly.