True story: Last month, there was a writers panel in Sydney, that addressed the topic of marriage. Titled tongue-in-cheek as “Why get married when you can be happy,” some of the participants tipped their cards rather tellingly on what the marriage re-definition issue is really about.
The real winner of a quote comes from Masha Gessen, a “Russian-American journalist and editor of the Russian-language Snob magazine,” who shared this gem:
It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].
That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….
[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Amy Hall over at Stand to Reason sums up the quote thusly:
“I want all unions to be treated the same, but since we’re not the same, due to biological realities beyond our control, and since marriage can never work for the union and children I have, we need to drop marriage and come up with a new idea so we can all be the same under that new system.” Or even more succinctly stated, “You shouldn’t have marriage because we can’t have marriage.”
And Mark Shea foreshadows where this is really headed:
I don’t think I can agree strongly enough that a person who says this is a no-brainer. And read the rest. Sometimes the mask slips. This is about gaining the coercive power of the state to punish those who won’t pretend that homosex is not disordered. It will create four basic classes: those who successfully delude themselves that it is fine, those who unconvincingly lie to themselves that it is fine, those who lie to others that it is fine, and those who won’t lie and are punished for it.
The central lie is that this is all about a “private choice”. No. When you drag the state into it and make it punish those who will not subscribe to your view you are acting as publically as you possibly can. If you want to have a fake “wedding” with all your friends cheering you and affirming you in your okayness you can do that right now. What legalization means is that you will be able to call in the might of the state to punish those who know the wedding is a fake.