The debate surrounding gay marriage continues at a heated pace. It’s ugly. It’s political. It’s religious. Those who oppose the idea simply aren’t thinking things through before they make their arguments.
When I first wrote The whole gay marriage thing back in February 2004, I was somewhat flippant in my remarks about the debate. In my mind, it was an open and shut case — the arguments against the idea were flimsy at best, so logic seemed to dictate that any true evaluation of the subject would lead all reasonable people to the conclusion that it should simply be allowed.
But nothing is ever that simple.
Those who oppose the idea do so on fundamental levels which are not subject to cursory examinations of the facts. In truth, opposition to the idea is so heavily entrenched in religious dogma and centuries-old practices and beliefs that they cannot be easily discarded.
So I decided to come back to the topic and perform a more thorough examination of the arguments. In my mind, it’s still quite simple to see the data and understand that opposing same-sex marriage is unreasonable, clearly discriminatory, and — dare I say — hypocritical. Having said that, however, I also understand the frame of mind and beliefs which make up the opposition, so it’s important for me to evaluate that point of view and show through facts that it is a non-sustainable argument.
Grab your history books, your King James version of the bible, a copy of the US Constitution, and your tolerance for my ramblings, and follow me through this in-depth evaluation of the gay marriage debate.
The whole gay marriage thing
I'm not an activist. Let's get that out of the way right now. I don't march in parades, there's no rainbow bumper sticker on my car, and I don't go to political rallies. Having said that, understand that I do believe in full and equal rights for everyone. But I'm going to lay aside my normal apathy toward the "gay agenda" and take a moment to voice my opinion on the whole gay marriage thing.
That gay marriage thing again
It is, for lack of a better description, a one-sided debate, and I get the final word.
In late February I wrote an off the cuff article giving my opinion on the debate surrounding gay marriage and my feelings about the idea of amending the Constitution as a method of preventing such marriages.
Since I posted that article, the debate has raged on in the press, political stumping grounds and court of public opinion. I have seen polls on the web slanted both for and against the idea. I have seen articles and news reports both for and against the idea. I have heard political activists and politicos arguing both for and against the idea.
Despite all of the spin and debate and name calling and pandering, I still have yet to hear a legitimate argument against gay marriage. There are those who try to make it sound like a non-religious reason, but they fail miserably. And all of this leads me back to my original question — can someone provide "a valid, cogent and consistent argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on either a religion that not all of us actually believe in or on sheer bigotry"?
Historical reference
As I mentioned previously, my first response to the gay marriage debate was off the cuff and somewhat flippant. After much discussion and debate with others, I realized my initial post had been too reactionary. I therefore wanted to redress that mistake by taking a more thorough, deliberate look at the subject. This is the first part of my continuing discussion of gay marriage — a view of the relevant historical information which can shed light on society's current impressions of and feelings about homosexuality. The historical context of homosexuality is important within the discussion of gay marriage since the points of view against the idea are rooted in the past.
Anti-miscegenation
I have already made the comparison between the anti-gay marriage movement and the anti-miscegenation laws of long ago. The anti-miscegenation laws made it illegal for people of different races to marry. These laws, long thought to be protective of genetic integrity and civilization as a whole, were struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967.
Protective of civilization? Gee, that sounds familiar.
Perhaps we should put the comparison in a slightly more personal light.
The bible
Throughout the debate on gay marriage I have found that the overwhelming majority of those opposed to the idea do so based on religious grounds. Some try to avoid the religious arguments by calling it a moral conviction, but this rings hollow when no one can provide a meaningful explanation of the moral arguments. I've already covered the dynamics of the religious arguments (non-biblical arguments, that is) in the historical reference material, so I suggest, for those who have not read it yet, that you start by understanding the church's changing attitude about homosexuality throughout history before delving into the biblical material in this post. It stands on its own in that, historically speaking, the church did not condemn homosexuality until the Inquisition — before which the church both practiced and accepted homosexuality even when it involved its own leadership.
But the religious arguments are generally based on the bible, yet those who so quickly throw scripture at the debate fail to understand (or do not care to admit) that the bible does not support their position. If it does, there are a great many things in life which become equally sinful and, therefore, wrong.
Now, I don't mind folks having religious convictions based on the bible, but don't pick and choose which things you will ignore because you are alright with them and which ones you won't because they make you uncomfortable. If you are going to use the bible as the basis for the argument, then you must accept the entire book and not just those portions which support a discriminatory point of view.
So grab your King James version of the bible and follow me through the scripture as I debunk the biblical arguments.
Civil rights
Regardless of what the selfish religious zealots may say, this is in fact a question of civil rights. And no steps forward in civil rights have ever been taken by a referendum. That is to say civil rights have never advanced in response to popular demand. If public consensus were needed to advance civil rights, all previous steps in this direction would have preserved the white- and male-only aspect of our culture from 100 years ago.
Marriage
Research by numerous scholars who have studied marriage, sexuality and kinship throughout US history supports the view that diverse types of families, including families built on same-sex partnerships, have existed across time, even as law and government have accorded some of those families unequal status. Laws and customs regulating marriage, as well as the US Constitution, have not been static, but have tended to increase the number of people entitled to claim the benefits and responsibilities of legal marriage. Because no evidence exists that a viable democracy depends upon defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it is troubling that those against gay marriage use that premise as the cornerstone of their argument.
Constitution
Despite what anyone may think or how strongly they feel about the idea of gay marriage, it is an abominable premise to think that amending the Constitution to reduce the rights of any class of people is an acceptable answer. The Constitution embodies and enshrines the principle of equal protection and due process under the law. To amend it in such a way is to violate those very principles and the spirit of our founding fathers.
Final thoughts
As I said at the beginning, it is, for lack of a better description, a one-sided debate, and I get the final word. Herein you will find that final word — the conclusion of my serial on the gay marriage debate, final thoughts forged in personal experience and based on emotions grounded in a sincere desire for equality.
The intention of my gay marriage series has been to evaluate the topic from many different perspectives, including those being used by the conservative movement to argue against the idea. Thus far, if you've been reading those entries, you've undoubtedly learned that the many arguments are false and misleading, including those based on the bible. I doubt these findings have swayed anyone in their resolve, but they do bring this forced culture war to the forefront of our minds in an attempt to make people think about the entire issue.
My discourse on the topic has been an attempt at objectivity, at least as much as one can be objective when one is the target of such blatant discrimination. I have approached the subject logically, discussing it in depth from the points of view used to argue against same-sex marriage, demonstrating in the course of those entries that the cultural, societal, political and religious undercurrents are indeed flawed — demonstrably so, in fact.
As my final thoughts on the subject, I will forgo the logical evaluation of the topic in lieu of addressing my own personal feelings, thereby following my near-objective analysis with a completely subjective summarization.
"But why another opinion piece about gay marriage?" you might be thinking. "Why can't they just be quiet and leave us alone about it?"
