July 30, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing
By DAN SAVAGE

Seattle

THERE were community meetings in Seattle on Wednesday. Some of the couples
who had sued to overturn Washington's ban on same-sex marriage, a case they
lost
before the state's Supreme Court earlier that day, were going to appear. Gay
and straight elected officials who support "marriage equality" were going
to make speeches. I probably should have been there too.

But I had a previous engagement.

The Seattle Mariners were playing the Toronto Blue Jays at Safeco Field. My
8-year-old son - adopted at birth by my boyfriend and me - loves the M's
almost
as much as he hates the way a breaking news story can keep me late at work.
He would never have forgiven me for skipping the game.

I didn't feel too bad about missing the meetings. Washington's high court
rejected same-sex marriage for much the same reason the New York Court of
Appeals
did earlier this month. The speeches in Seattle would no doubt be similar to
those made in New York, and I didn't need to hear them again.

Basically, both courts found that marriage is like a box of Trix: It's for
kids.

In New York, the court ruled in effect that irresponsible heterosexuals
often have children by accident - we gay couples, in contrast, cannot get
drunk
and adopt in one night - so the state can reserve marriage rights for
heterosexuals in order to coerce them into taking care of their offspring.
Without
the promise of gift registries and rehearsal dinners, it seems, many more
newborns in New York would be found in trash cans.

At least the New York court acknowledged that many same-sex couples have
children. Washington's judges went out of their way to make ours disappear,
finding
that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,
essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of
children
by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the
children's biological parents." Children, the decision continues, "tend to
thrive
in families consisting of a father, mother and their biological children.''

A concurring opinion gave the knife a few leisurely twists: due to the
"binary biological nature of marriage," it read, only opposite-sex couples
are capable
of "responsible child rearing."

These stunning statements fly in the face of the evidence about gay and
lesbian parents presented to the court. Similar evidence persuaded the high
court
in Arkansas to overturn that state's ban on gay and lesbian foster parents.

What the New York and Washington opinions share - besides a willful
disregard for equal protection clauses in both state Constitutions - is a
heartless
lack of concern for the rights of the hundreds of thousands of children
being raised by same-sex couples.

Even if gay couples who adopt are more stable, as New York found, don't
their children need the security and protections that the court believes
marriage
affords children? And even if heterosexual sex is essential to the survival
of the human race (a point I'm willing to concede), it's hard to see how
preventing
gay couples from marrying increases heterosexual activity. ("Keep breeding,
heterosexuals," the Washington State Supreme Court in effect shouted, "To
bed!
To bed! To bed!") Both courts have found that my son's parents have no right
to marry, but what of my son's right to have married parents?

A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled,
essentially, that making my child's life less secure somehow makes the life
of a child
with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making
heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable.
And the courts
seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children
at all - or once they've had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them -
unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the
religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking "special rights."

Even if you believe that marriage plays a special role in the lives of
heterosexuals with children (another point I'm happy to concede), can it not
play
a similar role in the lives of homosexual couples, whether they're parents
or not? Marriage, after all, is not reserved for couples with children.
(Perhaps
it will be soon, if courts keep heading in this direction.)

When my widowed grandfather remarried in his 60's, he wasn't seeking to
further the well-being of his children, who were grown and out of the house.
He
was seeking the security, companionship and legal rights that marriage
provides. The survival of humankind was the furthest thing from his mind.

These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a
silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between heterosexual
sex
and human reproduction are the best arguments opponents of same-sex marriage
can muster, I can't help but feel that our side must be winning. Insulting
heterosexuals and discriminating against children with same-sex parents may
score the other side a few runs, but these strategies won't win the game.

So I'm confident that one day my son will live in a country that allows his
parents to marry. His parents are already married, as far as he's concerned,
as my boyfriend and I tied the knot in Canada more than a year and a half
ago. We recognize, even if the courts do not, that it's in his best interest
for us to be married.

And while Wednesday was a dark day, the M's beat the Blue Jays 7 to 4, so it
wasn't a total loss.

Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly.

Posted by Miriam V.