Breaking with its past practice, the Sunday New York Times this month began featuring same-sex couples among the brides and grooms on its wedding pages. For the record, some other newspapers had done so previously, including several published by the Community Newspaper Company, one of whose papers you are reading now. For the Times, at least, a newspaper boasting international impact and previously rather stuffy in its values, this new policy reflects a notable change of attitude.
In telling about the relationship between Daniel Gross and Steven Goldstein, the Times writer gives us many facts about the two men who the previous evening had exchanged “Jewish vows” before their main ceremony the next day.
The writer injects additional human interest details. For example, when Gross’s mother first heard him tell of being in love with another man, all she could say was a distressful “oy.” But since then, both she and her husband have come to support their son’s choice of partner.
The writer refers to the arrangement between the two men as a “partnership” and a “civil union.” In describing the union of two women, a week later, the Times calls their celebration a “commitment ceremony.” Since no state, not even Vermont, is willing to use the term “marriage” for couples of the same gender, the newspaper does not use the term.
My reason for taking note here of this notable change in journalistic practice is to raise the question of change in social attitudes in the lives of us older people. Most of us grew up with a clear set of values, strongly held by the society around us. But to live long, we discover, is to experience startling departures from these values and to be challenged to adapt to views quite different from our own.
Many of us elders are amazed that people say and do things unthinkable when we were young or even middle aged. Some of us are shocked and scandalized when we see our values rejected or even subjected to ridicule. But, contrary to stereotypes of older people, we also show ourselves quite capable of adapting to some views different from our own and even accepting them with more or less enthusiasm.
My own attitude toward the recognition of love relationships among gay and lesbian couples has changed. Though I grew up in, and still belong to, a faith community that teaches the sinfulness of sexual activity among people of the same gender, I now welcome the commitment of these couples to one another. My bias is to favor love and fidelity wherever they are to be found.
Thus I would rejoice with gay and lesbian friends at their coming together to celebrate a lifetime union. I would hope and pray for their fidelity to one another and be prepared to support them when they face obstacles.
In addition to acceptance of homosexual unions, I also stand strongly in favor of granting to these couples the same civil rights that married people enjoy. I want them to have health insurance, visiting privileges at hospitals, and whatever else will protect their well-being and enhance their fidelity.
However, my acceptance would not extend to calling their union a marriage. My willingness to adapt my values stops short of that change, and I would not want civil authority to allow the term “marriage” for partnerships, however solemnly affirmed, between couples of the same gender.
To me, marriage is by definition a commitment between a woman and a man. It has a unique character making it different from every other relationship. The coming together of male and female in a relationship intended to be permanent and usually looking toward the birth and upbringing of children has a uniqueness about it that should not be diluted.
To make this claim is not to say anything bad about gay and lesbian unions. Nor is it to quibble about words. Both the word “marriage” and the institution it describes have had a long and complex history. It is not clear that “marriage” could accommodate a whole new meaning.
Thus, in early old age, I am quite willing to modify some values about sexuality that I held dearly when younger. But I have my limits. To me, it is important to retain the convictions that remain central to our personality and basic view of the world. Willingness to accept any and all positions simply because they are new would suggest a loss of personhood. To a large extent, after all, we are our convictions.
The views expressed here will probably please hardly anyone. As often happens, I find myself in the uncomfortable middle. Some readers will judge me a confirmed heretic, while others will think me wishy-washy.
But wisdom does not come automatically even to us advanced in years. On some of life’s most important issues, I continue to grope for clarity. In my 75th year, I am still struggling for the truth about my own life and that of the world.
Richard Griffin