bigmacbear (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bigmacbear) wrote2003-06-21 11:17 am
bigmacbear) wrote2003-06-21 11:17 am
High Fidelity vs. Solid Monogamy: On Marriage in General and Gay Marriage In Particular
In the wake of the recent Ontario Supreme Court decisions regarding same-sex civil marriage, I thought I'd share my opinions on on marriage in general and gay marriage in particular, and what the ability to marry a man would mean to me.
First off, I'd like to make a distinction between fidelity and monogamy. Many people (and institutions such as churches) see monogamy and fidelity as one and the same, and likewise nonmonogamy and infidelity. It's kinda sorta right there in the traditional set of marriage vows: "forsaking all others". But is this necessarily the case for all marriages; in other words, is it an essential part of what it means to marry?
It would seem so to heterosexual couples of our parents' generation, given their examples to us. My parents have just celebrated their fifty-second wedding anniversary, and as far as anyone knows have been completely monogamous all those years. In contrast, I know of parents who have divorced over issues of nonmonogamy.
And yet there are couples who treat emotional fidelity as more to be valued than strict monogamy. I suppose you could use the Clintons (ex-President Bill and Senator Hillary) as an example of the latter, although some might question whether they remain married out of emotional fidelity or political expedience.
Finally, it is becoming increasingly popular for straight couples to defy previous norms and forgo marriage altogether, or at least to defer marriage even though the couple has had one or more children. The "shotgun wedding" is, one hopes, becoming a thing of the past.
Now what does all this have to do with gay marriage in particular? Well, from reading some of the examples and opinions that get dredged up every time the subject of monogamy vs. open relationships pops up on the Bears Mailing List, it seems that gay relationships are blessed, or cursed, with the same sorts of value judgements as heterosexual ones.
But until now, simply because marriage is so darned convenient and has been the expected norm for straight couples, the lack of access for gay and lesbian couples to civil marriage, much less sacramental marriage, has produced a range of experiences among gay couples that only incompletely mirror those of straight couples. In other words, we have never been allowed to marry one another until now, so we haven't been expected to behave as though we were married.
In my experience, open relationships seem to be the norm among gay men, with truly monogamous relationships falling into a strong second place. In an open relationship, monogamy takes a back seat to emotional fidelity. While this may not be as romantic as true monogamy, it relieves the partners of having to meet each other's complete sexual needs and desires, while not depriving them of the essential companionship that is the basis of the relationship. It makes up for the fact that oftentimes a couple of men will find each other emotionally and intellectually attracted but (more or less) sexually incompatible.
Open relationships have been made possible by the lack of normative constraints on gay relationships absent access to marriage; however, despite such constraints, it is now increasingly likely to find straight couples doing the same. With that in mind, should a couple (straight or gay, but I mostly have gay couples in mind) involved in an open relationship marry?
So long as the couple are free to make whatever accommodations within the essential relationship between them are necessary (Gary and I like to refer to this as "putting up with one another"), and care is taken that the couple agree on the expectations going into the marriage and tailor their vows accordingly, I don't see nonmonogamy in the context of an open relationship as an essential impediment to marriage. Most churches have a distinct problem with that idea. But so long as the civil government doesn't, I think we're OK.
One last observation: I hear incredible stories of the lengths and the depths to which people will go out of jealousy, whether purely sexual, emotional, or out of misplaced respect for the institution of marriage. I have never been a particularly jealous person, and frankly I don't understand jealousy in others. I think that colors a lot of what I've said here.
In sum, why shouldn't we marry, even if our notions of what marriage means to us don't quite square with our parents' notion of what marriage means (meant) to them?
(Oh, and why "solid" monogamy? Because Joan Rivers, in her persona of Heidi Abromowitz, when asked her opinion of monogamy, joked to the effect that her dining-room table was solid monogamy, and so were the chairs. ;-)
First off, I'd like to make a distinction between fidelity and monogamy. Many people (and institutions such as churches) see monogamy and fidelity as one and the same, and likewise nonmonogamy and infidelity. It's kinda sorta right there in the traditional set of marriage vows: "forsaking all others". But is this necessarily the case for all marriages; in other words, is it an essential part of what it means to marry?
It would seem so to heterosexual couples of our parents' generation, given their examples to us. My parents have just celebrated their fifty-second wedding anniversary, and as far as anyone knows have been completely monogamous all those years. In contrast, I know of parents who have divorced over issues of nonmonogamy.
And yet there are couples who treat emotional fidelity as more to be valued than strict monogamy. I suppose you could use the Clintons (ex-President Bill and Senator Hillary) as an example of the latter, although some might question whether they remain married out of emotional fidelity or political expedience.
Finally, it is becoming increasingly popular for straight couples to defy previous norms and forgo marriage altogether, or at least to defer marriage even though the couple has had one or more children. The "shotgun wedding" is, one hopes, becoming a thing of the past.
Now what does all this have to do with gay marriage in particular? Well, from reading some of the examples and opinions that get dredged up every time the subject of monogamy vs. open relationships pops up on the Bears Mailing List, it seems that gay relationships are blessed, or cursed, with the same sorts of value judgements as heterosexual ones.
But until now, simply because marriage is so darned convenient and has been the expected norm for straight couples, the lack of access for gay and lesbian couples to civil marriage, much less sacramental marriage, has produced a range of experiences among gay couples that only incompletely mirror those of straight couples. In other words, we have never been allowed to marry one another until now, so we haven't been expected to behave as though we were married.
In my experience, open relationships seem to be the norm among gay men, with truly monogamous relationships falling into a strong second place. In an open relationship, monogamy takes a back seat to emotional fidelity. While this may not be as romantic as true monogamy, it relieves the partners of having to meet each other's complete sexual needs and desires, while not depriving them of the essential companionship that is the basis of the relationship. It makes up for the fact that oftentimes a couple of men will find each other emotionally and intellectually attracted but (more or less) sexually incompatible.
Open relationships have been made possible by the lack of normative constraints on gay relationships absent access to marriage; however, despite such constraints, it is now increasingly likely to find straight couples doing the same. With that in mind, should a couple (straight or gay, but I mostly have gay couples in mind) involved in an open relationship marry?
So long as the couple are free to make whatever accommodations within the essential relationship between them are necessary (Gary and I like to refer to this as "putting up with one another"), and care is taken that the couple agree on the expectations going into the marriage and tailor their vows accordingly, I don't see nonmonogamy in the context of an open relationship as an essential impediment to marriage. Most churches have a distinct problem with that idea. But so long as the civil government doesn't, I think we're OK.
One last observation: I hear incredible stories of the lengths and the depths to which people will go out of jealousy, whether purely sexual, emotional, or out of misplaced respect for the institution of marriage. I have never been a particularly jealous person, and frankly I don't understand jealousy in others. I think that colors a lot of what I've said here.
In sum, why shouldn't we marry, even if our notions of what marriage means to us don't quite square with our parents' notion of what marriage means (meant) to them?
(Oh, and why "solid" monogamy? Because Joan Rivers, in her persona of Heidi Abromowitz, when asked her opinion of monogamy, joked to the effect that her dining-room table was solid monogamy, and so were the chairs. ;-)