Luncheon in Fur, Meret Oppenheim, 1936. Museum of Modern Art, New YorkWorking at a wine shop is not quite like being a bartender, but one does hear stories, and one does get a chance to observe human nature. What I notice more than anything else in my customers across the counter, it seems, are the love troubles of an aging Baby Boom generation. To be fair, I do see them at a certain time of the day, and when they are soaking up a certain kind of influence on their emotions and garrulity. One man, a widower nearing sixty, is frankly "trying to meet women," but he's an anomaly. More often, I see women coming in, in groups of friends, not necessarily admitting that they are looking to meet men but certainly free, dressed to show it, -- and wounded. Divorce, not death, is where they come from.
Among these Boomer women I've seen more drawn faces, stiffly composed blonde hair, and half-exposed, shrunken breasts than I ever cared to. I look at them and, in my mind's eye, I strip away the makeup and wash the hair gray. The resulting image is often that of an instant seventy-year-old. This makes the words coming out of their mouths still more jarring. "My boyfriend," "then he asked me out," "we broke up," sound odd and artificial. "My grandchildren" would be more dignified, and would make these women sound, and probably be, more happy.
I don't require them to go home and knit booties and be old. We get our share of plump, or wizened, graying grandmothers in the store, who look every day of their age and who are not necessarily therefore better people or more pleasant customers than the anxious, bejeweled blondes. But the anxious, bejeweled blondes have an insurmountable problem which the forthright grandmothers don't seek: they cannot hold a candle to young women, as far as looks, sheer scrumptiousness, are concerned. They simply can't. And yet, with the hair and the decolletage and the makeup, they are obviously choosing to compete for men's attention on fields of battle where the young must win. There is a whole opera about this, isn't there? At the end of Der Rosenkavalier, young Octavian is paired with young and lovely Sophie, exactly as his former mistress, the nobly fascinating -- and aging -- Marschallin knew he would be.
All this has led me to think about marriage, and especially about what our society is now compelled to call "gay marriage." Of course it's an absurdity, but unfortunately the very bored and childish people who control large chunks of our public discourse have plunged the absurdity into everyone's lives, and so require rebuttals where, properly, they should not even deserve the dignity of a hearing. (My grandmother would spin ....) No, homosexual men and homosexual women cannot "marry" each other, and the reason why parades before me in the wine shop, in the faces and bodies of these rejected, mature women.
I've come to the conclusion that marriage, at its crudest and most fundamental, is a promise from a man to a woman and to society that he will stay with this woman even as she grows older and un-nubile. Infertile. "While girls are growing up in neighboring fields" (I quote the nineteenth-century teen diarist Marie Bashkirtseff, who I think used to be rather popular in college Women's Lit courses). Oh, he'll grow old too, but not necessarily inevitably at the same pace and that's a fact.
Therefore a man cannot promise another man and society anything like a marriage vow, because men age at the same rate and because, by their choices, homosexual men show that there is no logic in their looking out into society at their opposite, the fleshly ideal of nubility who has vanished slowly and naturally from the home. A woman cannot promise another woman and society anything like it for much the same reasons. Women also age at the same rate, and -- by their choices -- they too show there is no logic in their being tempted away from respect for a sacred union, maybe decades on, by any personal concerns to effect anything on a stranger's nubility.
So homosexual partners are in no danger of creating, and then fraying, any bond that society has a stake in protecting. Society, the public sphere where endless fresh new cohorts of young fertile women are off-limits to aging but everlastingly fertile married men, because the men have given their word about it, can take no interest in love affairs or inheritance problems among homosexual partners. These partners can't "marry," any more than two nations can have a "peace treaty" who have never been at war, nor two companies "merge" where there is only one company. The conditions for a meaningful contract do not obtain.
If you look at pictures of gay Hollywood "weddings," you'll notice that there is something inchoate missing (not to put too fine a point on it) in the whole look and feel of the affair. What's missing, amid all the flashbulb laughter and white clothes, is risk -- the sense of risk that makes peace treaties and mergers good but scary things, and that makes a bride and groom on their wedding day feel not only excitement and joy but also, maybe even more so, fear and palpitations. This is It, people say. This is it. A gay "marriage" is not It. There's not that thing that the husband, especially, denies himself, sight unseen and decades into the future, that all husbands have always vowed to deny themselves as condition number one of marriage. The "married" gay, of either sex, is a promiseless fraud.
Of course there are many more noble attributes to marriage, and many more sophisticated reasons, not to say religious reasons, against "gay marriage" than what I've just put forth. Of course, most men love their wives (would collapse in a heap without her) and are not seriously chomping at the bit to get out. Most women love their husbands (ditto) and aren't chomping at any bits either, and of course a woman's vows to her husband are as important as his to her. There are reasons for each divorce apart from a man's rejecting a wife -- and when marriages fail, that is irrelevant anyway to what the institution is, just as the existence of war is irrelevant to what a peace treaty is.
And of course, talking of fertility and when it ends, some couples never have children and never want any. Of course there are always excellent men and women who choose to remain single. Some men and women meet and marry, or not, happily in middle or old age. (They might even meet at wine tastings.) Of course homosexual partners love and respect each other too. Of course some men do not only age, but rush up to and topple off a cliff of frailty that leaves a vibrant woman, to her shock, either a caretaker or alone. All moot points. The sacrament of Western marriage has been always, every day, up and doing something entirely different. The root of its dignity lies in the life of man and woman, who knowingly unite their different identities as individuals and appetites and fates as male and female, say Yes come what may before witnesses, and become miraculously one.
Advocates of "marriage" among homosexuals might argue with disgust that if I think it can't be done, then my contentions are already hollow, and they do no harm to me in merely acting through the impossible. That's a straw man. Their very eagerness to pursue the charade shows the value they put on attacking the truth of what marriage is, for who knows what interior reasons, really. Possibly it is boredom, "shocking the monkey," the fact that the left's political work is done and something like this fills the vacuum. Possibly it is just the enjoyment of titillation, and that goes for all of us. I don't notice the outraged public boycotting People magazine when it puts pictures from a gay "wedding" on its cover. I looked at the pictures, too.
But we come back inevitably to the man, the husband who doesn't age. Not like a woman does -- not like his wife. At some point we women pass a barrier, and we see that what unites the women on the other side is just that they are young. What keeps them young is something that men share, too, for decades. My widower friend of sixty presumes to show an interest in women in their thirties, and is disappointed when they look on him as a father figure. "That's not what I want," he complains. But there's hope for him. When he dates a woman in her fifties, who knows? -- he may adore her. Or he may be settling and they both may know it. Whereas for her, the situation could not possibly be reversed. Marriage knows that, and marriage, ideally, protected her.
Still have doubts? Your best friend met the love of her life at fifty, at sixty -- or, European men have always been more interested in ripe, older women? Or, what about Compassion, and insurance problems?
Since Hollywood especially loves gay marriage, let's finish with a scene that they do so well. You're watching a movie where the hero is trying to rescue his wife. Let's say you're watching Die Hard 2. Silly, to be sure. You missed it back in the '90s because you were busy having babies and avoided gory films regardless. But you're watching. It's almost the end and John McClane is desperately trying to convince the helicopter pilot to fly down in front of the jumbo jet and block its escape. The bad guys are getting away and somehow he thinks that if he can stop them, the other plane circling overhead with his wife on board will be able to land safely elsewhere in the airport. (Okay, the scriptwriters didn't think this one through.)
He's a husband. He's pale and dry mouthed and past tears, and exhausted and bloodied. He can't convince the pilot to do as he asks. A flight number is announced over the radio. "That's my wife's plane," he pleads. "My wife is on that plane."
Now imagine Ellen deGeneres is sitting next to him. She's pale and past tears, too. "So is mine," she says.
He turns to her.
What does he do?


Salon.com
Comments
Now to more important matters: I have heard countless excerpts from Der Rosenkavalier, but I have never seen the opera. I refuse to buy a recording because I want my first experience to be live. Van Cliburn says the last twenty minutes contains some of the most sublime music every written. I adore Strauss and can’t wait until my day comes!
Rated.
And about Strauss. Funny Steve should mention him. Lately I've been jotting down lovely music I hear on the classical station, and surprisingly often, what inspires me to jot is Strauss. Who knew??
Thanks again to all.
But fighting gay marriage is a little like trying to stop the Earth from turning. It's happening, and it's inevitable, as societies in different countries gradually get past traditional preferences and historical biases. That's a good thing - a sign we're putting less effort and emotion into things that don't matter.
I was a bit puzzled by one portion of your essay, in which you say, "Their very eagerness to pursue the charade shows the value they put on attacking the truth of what marriage is..." And you propose that the motive for this purported attack might be "boredom", "titillation", or "shocking the monkey" (wasn't that a cool Gabriel song against cruel animal experimentation?).
For your point to be valid, "the gays" would have to be incredibly well organized, in order to mount this coordinated "attack", wouldn't they? Do they all have a club, with membership cards? Maybe a site, such as "www.destroy-marriage.gay"?
Also, marriage is by no means sweeping the gay community, as far as I can tell. Not all gays and lesbians are jumping immediately into the institution. But when they do, isn't this the opposite of "titillation"? Isn't gay marriage close to the epitome of humdrum, of integration into traditional society?
Many thanks again to all, for taking the time to comment here.
Many people no longer value the idea of "traditional marriage," and the Iowa Supreme Court made it clear that they have no use for a tradition that can't be defined in specific governmental "goals" and "objectives." But what we call "tradition" is an innate sense, that you rightly identify, that there is a special relationship between male and female that does not exist with other kinds of pairings.
Having mentally disposed of traditional marriage, many now advocate "renewable contracts" rather than what we now know as marriage. Marriage in that context would be more like leasing a car, which in your analysis would be of great benefit to the male since he would be tempted to trade in the old model on a newer one.
For those folks continued marriage depends not on a vow but on the continuance of emotional and sexual attraction. In such a view of marriage an outburst such as what Louise unleases toward her husband Max in the movie Network would make no sense:
" . . . Because this isn't just some convention weekend with your secretary, is it? Or some broad you picked up after three belts of booze. This is your great winter romance, isn't it?, your last roar of passion before you sink into your emeritus years. Is that what's left for me? Is that my share? She gets the great winter passion, and I get the dotage? Am I supposed to sit at home knitting and purling till you slink back like a penitent drunk? I'm your wife, damn it! If you can't work up a winter passion for me, then the least I require is respect and allegiance! I'm hurt! Don't you understand that? I'm hurt badly!"
Sorry Louise, the contract is up. Get over it.
I've told this story and people have asked sadly, about my aunt, "why would she keep someone who wanted to leave? What's the point?" To them, the Iowa court definition of marriage -- a lease based on emotional and sexual attraction -- is marriage.
Incidentally, after she died, her husband married his mistress. But by golly, they had to wait twenty years.
I'd maybe ease off the Rush and Hannity comparison, though. Neither of them could have written this piece. I disagree with Nancy, but she's no bomb-thrower, I don't detect any ill will, and she puts words together in an elegant way that kept us reading to the end. True?
I will light a candle for them - on both sides of that equation - both the women you characterize and the men; such desperation and vulnerability (for the women) and endless pursuit of the elusive beauty which will always dwindle (for the men) deserve intervention from the divine. God knows the law won't save them.
I don't think there is a "conspiracy" for that, but one of the common strategies in the promotion of gay marriage is the denigration of what is commonly called "traditional" marriage -- and anyone who supports it.
In just the pages of Open Salon I've heard it argued that "traditional" marriage has nothing traditional about it. Marriage is often described in such awful terms that one wonders why gays and lesbians would even be interested in it, given its "oppression" and "sexism." For others, marriage is literally "nothing more than a contract." One gay professor on OS recently related his advice to his students that they must avoid thinking that marriage is either a "virtue" or an "obligation." He notes that "I admonished gently, not to marginalize those in the broad and diverse queer world who feel called to make other arrangements and other choices for their sexual and romantic lives." In other words for him, making a lifetime commitment "until death do us part" is no more morally praiseworthy than just having a good fuck or a series of one night stands. Under that view I have to wonder what it is about marriage that would warrant any kind of "celebration." Celebration of what?
And then there's the "M" word -- monogamy. For many in the gay community monogamy is simply an option, no better or worse than non-monogamy. I used to be surprised by this common gay attitude toward monogamy, but after a number of discussions of the topic on OS nothing surprises me any more.
And this brings us to the point of what exactly "we the people" are really being asked to approve of by the supporters of gay marriage. We must accept not merely gay marriage, but an entirely different and unprecedented view of marriage -- that what we thought was traditional marriage isn't, that it's a contract and not a very good one at that, that there's nothing sacred or moral about it, and that marriage no longer entails or even implies monogamy.
Those of us who don't agree with this are "bigots" or "religious fanatics," as one OS member calls us in a recent post. No, our job is simply to accept this new view of marriage as dictated to us by a self-appointed elite before whose great wisdom the rest of us must bow.
One OS post is quite clear about this: "The one’s we needed to convince are so abysmally educated that they can hardly even read a newspaper. To simply dismiss the merely uneducated as ignorant bigots is to insult their humanity and sell them short. 'From those to whom more is given more is expected’ goes the wise old saw and it’s our job to educate them."
Yes, the new modern missionaries have to educate us ignorant primitives. You could call it the Gay Man's Burden.
So for us ignorant rubes and bigots and fanatics, what's not to like? Everything, really, which is precisely why we must not be allowed to vote on the issue. The same OS member is brutally honest about this: "It is ALL about the courts -- get in and make the right court appointments."
I don't make this shit up. You can't make it up. These are fairly representative things that people on OS say about gay marriage and its opponents, and I take them seriously.
until the 20th century, men did not wear wedding rings. this fetish began in earnest with the first world war, when wives suddenly realized that their contract was pretty unequal if only one party was expected not to cheat. the wedding ring actually derives from a roman custom, where slaves had to wear rings so that other citizens knew which property was taken.
wives adopted the same practice for the same reason.
we might ask ourselves what we're defending when we defend the notion of traditional marriage. i will not defend a custom, born out of slavery, where there could be liberty.
the freedom to marry is the freedom i celebrated for myself as a wife when my husband and i chose each other. i would stand between no couple who has decided to be together freely, especially not because i thought it looked weird. i cannot help that your idea of marriage is so shallow and fraught with concerns about your own identity. i appreciate your honesty, but this is a sickening rationale for excusing bigotry in the law.
My point is that support for gay marriage typically comes with an entire package of other beliefs. In that context the validity of non-monogamous relationships is not a "standalone" belief but one part of the whole, supporting and supported by all the rest.
To have a law enforcing monogamy would simply push the argument to another level. It would be "bigoted" against non-monogamous couples. It would exclude them, marginalize them. Because with the new way of thinking the central principle is that the desires of the individual must reign supreme, and "society" can do nothing but look on in silence.
incandescent: "I know of straight couples with 'open relationships'..."
Yes, there are "swingers," but as far as I know they are very much in the minority. They are the exception that proves the rule. I don't even know any swingers, though I used to patronize the coffee cart of a young lady who, when not selling coffee drinks, was a dominatrix in a BDSM club, so she reported. But she made a hell of a good mocha.
incandescent: "I know of married couples who cheat on each other."
But that's almost always considered to be a personal and moral failure. Very few hetero couples incorporate adultery as a normal and desirable feature of their relationships.
incandescent: "I've read your writings before on this and I think you would very much like to believe that "gay" relationships are somehow very different than straight ones."
In many (but not all) cases, yes. That's based on what I have read where gays talk about their own relationships. Again, it's consistent with the idea that the desires of individuals are primary, and that the rest of us have to butt out.
And frankly, I'm happy to butt out, and in "real life" I really don't care a whit what people do in their own homes. If Fred and Steve (and Albert and Frank) move in next door, that's great, and I'll give them blueberries out of my garden. But when (or if) I'm asked to cast a vote for gay marriage, then I think I have a right to consider what it is that I'm actually being asked to approve.
I think there's some truth to this point - but I'm not hearing it from gay people who would like to have the right to marry.
On the contrary, the pro- same-sex marriage voices I hear among gay people are not denigrating marriage at all. They're aspiring to it. They are asking for the same right to a good (if flawed) institution that can represent something very fine and lifelong.
The voices I hear most often denigrating traditional marriage as a tactic in arguing in favor of gay marriage are those of pissed off married/divorced/whatever straight people.
My husband and I have a non-traditional relationship; should we not have been allowed to marry?
And you mention "the truth of what marriage is" - that would be the truth according to whom, exactly?
This sort of smug, exclusionary rhetoric bothers me to no end.
Two small points: "if I fell in love with a same-sex partner," I would want the right to marry. ... I agree, that is very possible. Human nature is human nature, and human beings are built to want to take pride in themselves and to crave approval for their actions. That's why I say that much of the force for gay marriage comes from a deep basic boredom. Why does the issue spark so much comment, even here? Why aren't we as fascinated, say, by Steve Blevin's recent post on Haydn? All this still doesn't change what marriage is: at its crudest, a promise from a man to a woman that he will stay with her while she ages into infertility and he does not -- "while girls are growing up in neighboring fields."
A second small point. Surely, if a man may marry a man via judicial fiat, then marriage may also expand to include more than two people. Or, surely it could expand to include brother and sister, or adult and child. There can be no logical reason against these "rights," unless the left (yes, them) wants to wade into a sea of hypocrisy, or courageously deny all taboos. Which, in the long run, might not prove a good thing.
That's not true. In my partner and mine's case, I am the younger (less financially stable) one and have been our whole partnership. However, I am no longer young enough in my partner's eyes, and she yearns for someone even younger and more sexually exciting, since she hates the idea of getting old. Legal marriage probably would not have kept us together any longer than the marriage we do have, but there would be more financial repercussions- ie, I would be getting alimony as opposed to what I will be getting now, which is nothing.
It's an interesting concept, but even gays and bis are effected by their partner's middle age wanderings. We just don't end up so excellently coiffed when our shelf date is up.
You were quite right, however, to point out that marriage of course has long involved alliances and exchanges of property. In my essay I had written of marriage as it mostly is now, as a love match only. Thank you for the correction.
As for middle-aged "gays and bis" also getting tired of each other and moving on, that still does not speak to what marriage is. It remains a man's promise to confine the gift of his virility to one woman, even after she cannot use it, forever. There's both an earthiness and a mysticism here that goes beyond "rights" and goes beyond simple shared human emotions.
Again, thanks to all for taking the time and trouble to comment.
But I'm tired of all these logical arguments. Love is good. Two people love each other, want to get married, good on 'em. Tell me where to bring the Champagne.
Ms. Yos, you write in your comment: "It remains a man's promise to confine the gift of his virility to one woman, even after she cannot use it, forever. There's both an earthiness and a mysticism here that goes beyond "rights" and goes beyond simple shared human emotions."
So now law enters the province of mysticism?????
I'm all for mysticism, but seriously - if that's really the argument, I'm almost at a loss for words.
You're describing your definition of marriage. However, that description does not fit everyone. What about people who don't or can't have children, for example? Children do not make a marriage successful. Love is a good start, but it's probably a matter of extreme will that keeps it together. So, your logic, which is only correct in your mind, can only apply to the tiny sphere of your house and perhaps, your lawn.
More importantly, you're advocating inequality under the law in a country where we are not supposed to do that. Obviously, we have not fully realized this equality yet, but that intent needs to occur to protect us all, basically, from each other. Perhaps if you go back to your argument and substitute 'slavery' for marriage, 'freeing slaves' for gay marriage, and 'black people' for those who are gay ... that might help you see the point a bit more closely.