ShareThisIs legalized gay marriage inevitable? Supporters hail New York's new law authorizing gay marriage as a turning point in the national debate. Even President Obama, a gay marriage opponent, has suggested his views on the topic are "evolving."
But only six states and the District of Columbia allow such unions-and voters in 28 other states have passed amendments to their constitutions that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
Will more states allow gay marriage? Should they? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.
JOEL MATHIS
Is gay marriage inevitable? No-- it wasn't even inevitable in liberal New York, which rejected a similar bill just a few years ago. Passing the new law took years of persistence, patience, and coalition building among disparate groups. Even more work will be needed as the debate shifts to other venues.
But New York's new law potentially opens a door in other states -- although that door might not be completely opened for many years.
How? Because thousands of gay men and women will soon be eligible to marry under New York law. They'll form families and raise children -- and in some cases, they'll visit families in Kansas or move to new jobs in Colorado. Their new neighbors will see how normal they are. And they'll be hard-pressed to find any evidence that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage in any way.
Those relationships will pave the way for gay marriage. They did in New York. Gov. Andrew Cuomo pursued the new law at the insistence of his girlfriend, whose brother is gay. Several state senators also reportedly supported the bill because of gay men and women in their own families.
I went to the New York City gay pride parade on Sunday, two days after the bill passed. It was a great celebration, and a huge spectacle: a brigade of gay police officers, a sharp-sounding gay marching band, Gov. Cuomo and a band of other politicians. In the midst of the throng, two men -- Mike McDonald and Joey Infante -- walked together, each carrying a rainbow flag. They have been together 31 years. I was moved.
Plenty of committed heterosexual couples flame out before they make it a single decade, never mind three. The commitment of McDonald and Infante -- and thousands of similar couples across America -- is just as deserving of the government's recognition and support.
BEN BOYCHUK
New York's legislature took a vote, but the question of gay marriage is far from settled. Unfortunately, reasonable debate on the subject now appears to be impossible.
Millions of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be free to live as they please -- a huge generational shift -- but that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman. Marriage serves a vital social purpose of creating stable families. Raising children is perhaps the most important function of marriage (but not the only one). Not just any two parents will do.
A state law -- or a court decision -- won't change those people's minds. But to supporters of this radical concept of "marriage," none of that matters and no good faith disagreement is possible. It's just bigotry.
Fact is, marriage is already in deep trouble in this country. High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have ruined countless lives and torn apart entire communities. Redefining marriage doesn't strengthen the traditional institution so much as signal its irrelevance.
Don't believe for a moment this is simply a matter of "equality." As same-sex marriage becomes routine, it won't be long before other groups demand legal recognition of their own peculiar relationships.
The argument is already well underway. A website called BeyondMarriage.org -- established in 2006 by "a diverse group of nearly 20 LGBT and queer activists" -- asserts: "Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others."
And get ready for an onslaught of indoctrination and litigation. New York's feckless Republicans say their law is more enlightened than most because churches will not be compelled to perform weddings that offend their doctrines. But the weight of our anti-discrimination laws leans strongly the other way.
In the absence of persuasion, what's left is coercion. The New York law's flimsy religious exemptions will fall within the decade. And marriage as a bedrock institution will be even weaker than it is today. Count on it.
(Ben Boychuk (bboychuk@manhattan-institute.org) is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Joel Mathis (joelmmathis@gmail.com) is a writer and blogger in Philadelphia.)
REDBLUEAMERICA
