Two Sundays ago, the face of a friend known to me since her college days, some 35 years ago, appeared among the wedding announcements of the New York Times. Helen Cooksey was announcing her marriage to Susan Love, after their taking advantage of the short official-wedding gap opened by the Mayor of San Francisco in February. Both physicians who are based in Los Angeles and parents of a daughter now grown up, these two women obviously felt intense happiness at having their bond legally recognized.

Their joy reminded me of that felt by hundreds of other lesbian and gay couples in that place and in several other American cities. I was particularly struck by those first in line in San Francisco – Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79 – who have been partners for 51 years. Such longevity in love ought to impress everyone.

A look at recent polls reveals, however, that 60 percent of Americans over age 65 oppose the legalization of gay marriage. This contrasts with a scant 23 percent of those under age 30 who stand against.  

Does this mean that a great many elders are taking a kill-joy attitude toward fellow members of our national community who have discovered a personal love that has stood many tests of time and has continued to bring them fulfillment?  Are older people hard of hearts as well as (sometimes) arteries? Is it that they are simply old, stuck in their ways, and unable to change? Or do they have something significant to bring to the debate?

In searching for answers to these questions, I have not simply talked to some of my age peers but have tried to untangle what may be part of their underlying mentality. The issues that polls never get deep enough to analyze are those that may play an important part here.

Many, if not most, of those over 65 must surely find some pleasure in what others see as good fortune for themselves. Is it not likely that others feel the way I do, namely joy at others having the benefits of being bound to others in love and fidelity?

Elders in good physical and mental health are certainly open to change. Their ability to transform behavior and attitudes has been documented sufficiently to chase this stereotype.

That a large percentage of those who oppose gay marriage do, at the same time, support civil rights and widespread benefits for those entering sexual unions attests to their openness. Endorsing civil unions represents a major transformation of mentality for many people who never heard of such arrangements until quite recently.

Still, many advocates of civil unions refuse to accept legal marriage of same- gendered people. I would point to three separate considerations that might be moving those over 65 to opt against gay marriage. If advocates wish to change elders’ views, I would suggest taking these issues seriously.

First, to people growing up in homes shaped or influenced by classical culture, the naming of things makes a difference. Older adults, even if not highly schooled, have lived their whole lives in a mental framework that values things by their names. Literature, philosophy, and theology that have had such an impact on our lives, at least indirectly, have taught us to distinguish among things that are different.

In this view of reality, the word marriage does not apply to gay unions. Marriage means the coming together in a permanent sexual bond between people of different genders. For these “classical” thinkers, another kind of union –  –  however desirable in itself –  –  requires another name.

Secondly, there are large numbers of Catholics in Massachusetts, and the teaching of their church makes gay marriage problematic. You can believe (as I do) that the Catholic Church stands in bad need of a new approach to sexuality, but it does not have one yet. Furthermore, Catholics have the sense of belonging to a worldwide church, one that is unlikely to adopt a position that runs counter to the culture of other nations.

Finally, not a few older people may feel that society is moving too fast on this issue. After all, even the well-informed may not have heard of the legalization of gay marriage as a possibility until very recent months. People need time to think about it. Those who have reached seventy or eighty know from experience that history is full of unintended consequences. A decision of this magnitude should not be taken in haste; it deserves ongoing analysis and reflection.

These oppositional views are not those of all elderly people. As we have seen, some of the couples married in San Francisco are far from young. But the views of more skeptical or conservative elders should not be seen simply as an expression of blind prejudice. If we are to proceed in amity as a society, they should be accorded the same presumption of good faith that is owed to the proponents of gay marriage.

Richard Griffin