Gay Person Is Boycotting Straight Weddings Because He's a Tendentious Dope

A blog about politics, sports, media, stuff
May 24 2011 2:40 PM

Gay Person Is Boycotting Straight Weddings Because He's a Tendentious Dope

Writer Rich Benjamin took to the New York Times opinion pages this past weekend to declare that he is "boycotting all heterosexual weddings," even though he is "not a gay-rights activist." (Why not?) In response to a suspiciously pat-sounding phone call from a newly engaged former college roommate, Benjamin wrote:

How utterly absurd to celebrate an institution that I am banned from in most of the country. It puzzles me, truth be told, that wedding invitations deluge me. Does a vegan frequent summer pig roasts? Do devout evangelicals crash couple-swapping parties? Do undocumented immigrants march in Minuteman rallies?
Advertisement

Maybe if Benjamin were a gay-rights activist, he'd recognize the problem with comparing homosexuality to a self-chosen ideological identity like veganism. It's an old problem, and sort of an important one, especially on the subject of same-sex marriage.

Even well-meaning heterosexuals often describe their own nuptials in deeply personal terms, above and beyond politics, but tend to dismiss same-sex marriage as a political cause, and gay people’s desire to marry as political maneuvering.

What many straight people consistently forget is that same-sex couples aren’t demanding marriage to make a political statement or to accrue "special rights." When I ask my gay friends why they wish to marry, they don’t mention tax benefits. They seek marriage for the same personal reasons that straight people do: to share life’s triumphs and trials with their beloved, to start a family, to have the ability to protect that family, and to celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.

This is not even a straw man; it's some loose straw the writer is throwing in the air while yelling "Look at that man!" Who are these many straight people Benjamin claims to be describing? That same-sex couples want to marry for love, rather than as a political statement, is a commonplace among straight liberals. (Oddly enough, they, too, have gay friends they can talk to.)

This coming September will mark nine years since the Times itself—as good a proxy for well-meaning heterosexuals as anyone could hope to find—changed "Weddings" to "Weddings/Celebrations" and started printing same-sex couples' announcements. At the time, executive editor Howell Raines said that same-sex commitment ceremonies were "celebrations important to many of our readers, their families and their friends." The Times also wrote that same-sex couples' applications for published announcements would be judged the same way male-female couples were, by "the newsworthiness and accomplishments of the couples and their families."

Gay marriage is winning, in concept. Even Focus on the Family president CEO Jim Daly just said so, in an interview with Marvin Olasky:

We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that.

So what is the point of this weird little time capsule of unfocused grievance? If you want to blame heterosexuals for something, don't blame them for not believing in homosexual love. Blame them for not doing enough to support it.

There's no sense in pretending that the arc of justice bends anywhere but toward two groom figurines on a wedding cake. The question is why the arc is still so long. The good opinion of well-meaning people has not yet repealed the Defense of Marriage Act, or gotten 41 states to drop their bans on gay marriage.

Instead of a blanket boycott, try asking your straight friend if he'll have the wedding in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Vermont, or Iowa. Some of those places are lovely in June. Go, bring a date, dance. See how many people assume you're doing it to lobby for a tax break. Why be more unreasonable than the law is?

 

TODAY IN SLATE

Doublex

Crying Rape

False rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem.

Scotland Is Just the Beginning. Expect More Political Earthquakes in Europe.

No, New York Times, Shonda Rhimes Is Not an “Angry Black Woman” 

Brow Beat
Sept. 19 2014 1:39 PM Shonda Rhimes Is Not an “Angry Black Woman,” New York Times. Neither Are Her Characters.

The Music Industry Is Ignoring Some of the Best Black Women Singing R&B

How Will You Carry Around Your Huge New iPhone? Apple Pants!

Medical Examiner

The Most Terrifying Thing About Ebola 

The disease threatens humanity by preying on humanity.

Television

The Other Huxtable Effect

Thirty years ago, The Cosby Show gave us one of TV’s great feminists.

Lifetime Didn’t Find the Steubenville Rape Case Dramatic Enough. So They Added a Little Self-Immolation.

Why Men Can Never Remember Anything

The XX Factor
Sept. 19 2014 1:11 PM Why Men Can Never Remember Anything
  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 19 2014 5:19 PM Washington’s Acting Roles
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 19 2014 3:24 PM Why Innovators Hate MBAs
  Life
Inside Higher Ed
Sept. 19 2014 1:34 PM Empty Seats, Fewer Donors? College football isn’t attracting the audience it used to.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 19 2014 4:58 PM Steubenville Gets the Lifetime Treatment (And a Cheerleader Erupts Into Flames)
  Slate Plus
Slate Picks
Sept. 19 2014 12:00 PM What Happened at Slate This Week? The Slatest editor tells us to read well-informed skepticism, media criticism, and more.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 19 2014 4:48 PM You Should Be Listening to Sbtrkt
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 19 2014 5:03 PM White House Chief Information Officer Will Run U.S. Ebola Response
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 19 2014 5:09 PM Did America Get Fat by Drinking Diet Soda?   A high-profile study points the finger at artificial sweeteners.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 18 2014 11:42 AM Grandmaster Clash One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.