After the Rainbow . . .

I spent the weekend listening, eavesdropping, more or less, on "the conversation" taking place in social media, primarily Facebook. I heard sentiment ("Isn't that fabulous!"), sarcasm ("This just in: next week the Supreme Court will be redefining 'Tuesday'"), melodrama ("That'll do, SCOTUS, that'll do"), hyperbole ("and Rome fell"), and lament ("a bit queasy--so sad to see how fast we are degenerating"). There was the predictable fawning (over Obama and Biden jogging through the White House carrying rainbow flags and Justice Kennedy's "beautiful" closing paragraph), but there were also long, personal, often eloquent statements. Not surprisingly, there were dismissals and un-friendings. One person said she had been reported to Facebook for posting pictures of flamboyantly-dressed gay people.

Following one thread, I was particularly touched by the posting of a man named Joseph Sciambra, an ex-gay porn star who has become a Catholic. I would go so far as to say Mr. Sciambra's comments impacted me more than anything I read all weekend. He obviously deeply loves his former friends, while at the same time wanting to offer them hope and freedom in Christ. Here is his blog. I think I will follow him and try to learn from him.

The appearance of the rainbow on users' profiles by means of the Celebrate Pride tool provided by Facebook gradually distinguished those who celebrated the decision from those who didn't (at least, that's how it was perceived), once again validating my growing suspicion that social media is not about being social but being socialized. But I digress.

I haven't quite entered the fray. There was a (private) tussle with a relative over the question of narrow-mindedness, the relative claiming that it's narrow-minded to impose one view of marriage on the rest of us, I countering that it's arrogant to undo thousands of years of an understanding of marriage that is based in both the Judeo-Christian ethic and biology ("every single person arguing this issue was created by the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm"). 

This afternoon I dipped my toe into the discussion stream, responding to someone else's post. But I'm really not quite ready to articulate everything I'm thinking, especially on Facebook. I'm collecting articles, listening to both sides (sadly, this is one argument that seems to have no middle ground. One is either for gay marriage or against it), hoping mostly to figure out what I think and why I think it.

The funny thing about rainbows is, they're illusions, but not reality. Yes, I know, we're supposed to see a rainbow as symbolic, the end of a storm, with the sun emerging from the clouds, light refracting off water droplets creating the beautiful spectrum of color. The rainbow, I suppose, is the "beautiful closing paragraph" from Justice Kennedy, whose purple prose presents marriage as embodying "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family." 

But what if a rainbow didn't signify the end of a storm but rather a pause between storms? The sun peering through clouds doesn't mean there aren't more storms gathering. That's what I'm sensing. Gathering clouds. Some of the articles I'm reading, for instance, don't paint quite the rosy picture that Justice Kennedy described. Hanna Rosin in Slate, for example, writes that "in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships." Rosin cites a Gawker article by Stephen Thrasher, who in turn cites a study out of San Francisco State University which essentially concludes, as Thrasher puts it, that "not all gay unions are built on the straight model, particularly when it comes to the issue of monogamy." 

Were Justice Kennedy and his fellows snookered? Quite possibly. But now that Pandora's Box has been opened and gay marriage is the law of the land, as people (politicians, in particular) are wont to say, it will be interesting to see how things play out. The redefining of marriage from the standpoint of genders is what we conservatives are focusing on right now, along with concerns about fundamental freedoms (religion and speech). There are (or should be) concerns about children and children's rights. But beyond these, will we also begin to see marriage re-imagined as an institution, as defined and practiced by gay couples, if, indeed, these observations (linked below) are valid? The challenge in the next months and years will be whether or not we have the courage and honesty to confront and address these questions. 











For Further Reading

1. "The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous," by Hanna Rosin, Slate, June 26, 2013
2. "Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage," by Stephen W. Thrasher, Gawker, June 19, 2013.
3. "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret," by Scott James, New York Times, January 28, 2010).
4. "Relationship Characteristics and Motivations Behind Agreements Among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus" 
5. "The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy's Gay Marriage Ruling," by Jordan Weissman, Slate)