NYT: Many successful gay unions reject vow of monogamy

Just when supporters of neutering marriage were gleeful over the Proposition 8 show trial in San Francisco, along comes this article in the New York Times which, though its author is probably unaware of it, has implications potentially very damaging to the whole case that neutered marriage proponents have been trying to make to the public. What's damaging is not the revelation that many gay couples do not stress fidelity and monogamy in their relationships. Some do, and even if it were true that most did not, this would still leave an opening for the "conservative case" for gay marriage that Jonathan Rauch and some others have made. No, what's potentially damaging is the revelation that "openness" may actually be beneficial to gay relationships, and that many of them contend that it strengthens their relationship.

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

“I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.

So how is this potentially damaging? Well, read on:

(Much more below the fold)

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Apparently many realize that talking too much about this is not wise right now:

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

Now, if this is true, I'm not criticizing it or saying it's immoral here. That is not my argument. The question, though, arises: Even if it is true for homosexual relationships, and if studies show this, does that mean that it is also true of heterosexual relationships?

And if it is not true for heterosexual relationships, but is true for homosexual ones, what is the implication thus for treating both as being in all ways equal, and calling both "marriage"?

The author simply assumes that if it's true for homosexual relationships, it therefore must be true for heterosexual ones as well, and quotes from a heterosexual couple who also claim that "openness" saved their marriage.

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

But I know of no studies that have ever shown that "open" heterosexual marriages last longer on average than monogamous ones. Does anyone? In fact, many indicate the opposite.

Now, suppose we legalize same-sex "marriage". I assume that it would still be considered best that we as a society encourage that which keeps all marriages together. (Or does anyone disagree?)

But if same-sex "marriages" are to be treated no differently than opposite-sex marriages, and if it turns out that what works best for keeping same-sex "marriages" together long-term is not the same thing which works for keeping opposite-sex marriages together long term, if we tried to encourage both, we could obviously not do so by treating them equally, could we?

Keep in mind that there is a natural reason for encouragement of monogamy in man-woman couples that does not exist with same-sex couples.

What would happen if we had to treat same-sex and opposite-sex relationships as equal when the encouragement of their long-term stability required treating them differently?

Would homosexual couples be held to, and encouraged to hold to, the heterosexual standard of monogamy?

It's interesting that of those who have come here to debate us on Opine, none to my knowledge have ever advocated that or said that they would encourage this.

Hence, instead, would the expectation of monogamy be further lowered for heterosexuals? And yes, I know it already has to a severe extent. I hope not to hear any of the "it's bad enough already, so why not make it worse" fallacy.

If we in fact have to treat homosexual and heterosexual unions in a way that is most beneficial to both of them, and if it turns out that that way is not the same for both of them, then the best way is to acknowledge that they are two different types of unions, and not to pretend that they are the same thing.

In any case, this question really needs to be addressed before the Proposition 8 case goes further in court. And further studied as well.