On Love, Sex & Marriage

This is a heady time in gay history.  As you know, just yesterday New York joined the ranks of other progressive states (and Iowa) in legalizing gay marriage.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is effectively abolished.  Gay rights activists have renewed energy aimed at overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, and I fully expect to see it brought down within my own lifetime.  And if you put your stock in polls, some poll somewhere has said more than half of Americans support equal civil rights for gays (I personally hate polls, and in the interest of my detest I have declined to indicate where that statistic came from…maybe I made it up…but I guarantee there is a poll that says it).

I have been asked by no less than ten friends and coworkers if I was going to get married…to which I responded “Again?  Why would I want to do that.” with some degree of astonishment and horror.  Don’t get me wrong – my views on marriage do not match my father’s in any way, who once told me, and I quote: “Marriage is an institution.  And who wants to live in an institution.”  Child of divorce…bet you could have guessed that one.

Actually, Peter and I are both children of divorce, and at times I am surprised we ended up married (legally performed in Chicopee, Massachusetts in September, 2008). When I first met Peter, the very idea of marriage was anathema to him.  His family story is his to tell, but let’s just say he didn’t grow up with Cleavers.  My parents divorce was fairly brutal, with plenty of emotional scars to go around.  And of course, when we met seven years ago it wasn’t legal at all in the United States for gays to get married, so the conversation was something of a non-starter. 

Around the time we started to investigate adoption, I began to think about the power of the word marriage, and the meaning it conveyed not only to the couple, but to the community at large.  Marriage has a sense of maturity and permanence associated with it, ironic given the rate of divorce in the US (another poll I could quote…but I’ll pass).  Anyway, one night over a particularly bland Indian dinner (hard to find good ethnic food in the suburbs, to be discussed in a future post) Peter and I discussed it and he agreed…yes reader…just like that he said, “Okay, let’s get married.”  Not super romantic, but you get what you get and you don’t get upset.

The wedding itself was a rather ho hum affair.  In order to get married, I had to agree that we wouldn’t throw a party or invite anyone (which resulted in my mother not speaking to me for nearly a month), but I was young, and I wanted to get married, so I agreed.  We hired a Justice of the Peace, bounded off to the town hall in Chicopee, Mass, and bada bing bada boom, we were husband and husband.

Speaking of the word husband…I do love how confused people look when I refer to Peter as my husband.  At the doctor’s office, supermarket, even at work…people kind of take a step back to process it.  But I digress.

So, as we all rejoice in New York’s decision (or as some of us rejoice…and others foretell the end of the world and other sorts of doom and destruction), I have been fascinated by the way the media has covered this landmark in gay history.  

In addition to stories on just married couples, WNYC covered two other sides of the New York gay marriage legislation last Friday (Many Same-Sex Couples Avoid Gay Marriages Over Legal, Personal Concerns): gay people who don’t want to get married…and gay people who still can’t get married (because their partner is not a US citizen and the New York legislation does not impact federal immigration law).  I am lucky Peter has a green card (he is a French citizen) otherwise we could be in the same position.

The other news angle that has fascinated me is about the impact that gay marriage may/can/will have on straight marriage (i.e. will gay attitudes toward monogamy erode the sexual fidelity that is the bedrock of most straight marriages).  There was a great article about this in both the New York Times (Married with Infidelities) and in The Advocate (Monogamish).  Both articles refer heavily to sex columnist Dan Savage, also known for his work on the “It Get’s Better Campaign”.  Dan coined the word “monogamish” to refer to his partner Terry – they are primarily monogamous, but have had a handful of (approved) extramarital flings.  In his mind, the flings should not undermine the strength of a marriage which should be about more than sexual fidelity.  I encourage you to check out the articles.  Monogamy is one of those topics that fascinate me.  Of course, as I read these articles my only question was…who has the time??????

As I look at the ring on my finger now (and the gross…and permanent…indentation it has made on my hand) I am honestly ecstatic that my children will grow up in a world where the possibility of marriage exists for both gay and straight couples.  Whether my daughter chooses to take advantage of it will be up to her, but she will know that her Daddy and Papa benefitted from living at a time when civil rights for gay people took a massive step forward.  The meaning of marriage may change, but the underlying idea that it is a union of shared responsibilities is an important part of what makes our society function.