Dec 10, 2004  |  By: CHRIS CRAIN  | COMMENTS     

HAVE YOU EVER stopped to consider whether there’s some merit to the oft-repeated conservative claim that our desire to wed threatens the very institution of marriage?

Of course we all laugh at such claims because it seems preposterous to think that somehow gay couples marrying will weaken the matrimonial unions of heterosexual couples. Half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, but zero percent bite the dust because the gay couple down the street can finally tie the knot.

And yet there’s no question that the objection from conservatives is genuinely felt, and as proven by 13 states this year overwhelmingly passing constitutional gay marriage bans, the argument resonates with the general public.

In some ways, it is the refusal to allow gays to marry — and generally condemning our relationships — that is actually a more direct threat to at least some marriages.

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey is only one example of a closeted homosexual who entered into marriage with a woman in a bid to meet the heterosexual expectations of faith, family and society.

True respect for marriage — from conservatives and from those who are questioning their sexual orientation — precludes misusing the institution as a lab experiment to see if sexual orientation is malleable after all.

SOME SEEMINGLY BIZARRE evidence has been attached by conservatives to this idea that our relationships threaten the institution of marriage.

Since many European countries began allowing gays to marry, they claim, out-of-wedlock births have risen dramatically and the number of heterosexual marriages has declined. Even these conservatives can’t claim with a straight face that hetero Euro couples are thumbing their nose at marriage in record numbers simply because the gays have cheapened the institution.

So what explains these disturbing European trends? Marriage does, in fact, appear in decline in Western Europe, and if we truly respect the institution, we owe it to ourselves to make sure we’re not to blame.

Some of these trends have very long histories, dating back to the sexual revolution and the longer time most straight couples in Western society generally are taking before deciding to marry. But the bad news is that we should take some of the blame for marriage’s decline in popularity in Europe, and unless we’re very careful, we’ll risk the same fate here in the States.

In a number of Western European countries, most notably France, the public was not ready for full marriage equality for gay couples, so our advocates and allies pushed for something not unlike the civil unions enacted in Vermont.

But in the spirit of equality, these well-intentioned progressives opened up civil unions to heterosexual couples and they’ve signed up by the tens of thousands.

THE SAME PHENOMENON is already at work in the United States, but usually in the private sector and always around the availability of health insurance benefits.

Domestic partner benefits are now commonly available at many large corporations and from some local governments for their employees. Their original intention was to offer some recognition and assistance for long-term gay couples who cannot legally marry.

But as in Europe, well-meaning progressives have extended D.P. benefits in many cases to heterosexuals as well. And because most gay activists are left-leaning themselves, they have at times insisted that D.P. benefits be available without regard to the gender of the couple.

That may sound equal, but it really isn’t, and it represents a first and serious step in challenging the bedrock institution that we should agree with conservatives deserves our protection.

In every state but Massachusetts, heterosexual couples have the option to marry; gay couples do not. By allowing straight couples the option of D.P. benefits or registration with local governments, the imbalance is retained; they still have more choices than do gay couples.

More subversively to the institution of marriage, long-term straight couples contemplating marriage have one (or more) less reason(s) for tying the knot.
Since Massachusetts began marrying gay couples, a number of companies there have begun shutting down their domestic partner benefit programs, and they’re justified in doing so. With marriage now an available option for everyone, there’s no need for “marriage lite.”

FOR SOME, D.P. benefits represent an opportunity to expand health insurance coverage, which many would agree is a worthy policy goal. But undermining marriage is not ...