Gay Marriage

One issue that I am certain is going to come back up during this presidential election year is that of gay marriage, with all kinds of ballot initiatives appearing, designed to "protect the sanctity of marriage", especially in key states that Republicans are depending on to win the presidency. This cynical ploy seemed to work well in 2004, when droves of people felt spurred to vote, not because of the crucial presidential contest that year, but rather because they somehow felt threatened by same-sex marriages becoming legal. So what is the big deal about gay marriage anyway?

For those believers of faiths whose scriptures disapprove of homosexuality, anything that would tend to bestow legitimacy on that lifestyle is going to be seen as a kind of abomination. And as far I am concerned, they are welcome to entertain their own beliefs on this subject. But it is quite another matter altogether to make the claim that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage, especially when half of all marriages (heterosexual) end in divorce! It would seem to me that if those who wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage were serious about their principles, then they would first concentrate on making divorce much more difficult. But that would then be making restrictions on heterosexuals, wouldn't it? And after all, it's those "other people" who need restraint, right?! Plus, I have trouble picturing any divorce proceeding in which one or both of the parties claims that the marriage was ruined because some gays elsewhere were allowed to marry! And yet, this is the sort of reasoning (if you want to call it that) that seems to resonate with many people.

Another reason some are opposed to gay marriage is that they are afraid and repulsed by gay and lesbian couples being able to display the fact of their relationships with each other legitimately in public the way heterosexual couples currently do. One argument is that openly gay behavior would attract others to somehow become gay. This is the "recruitment" argument, implying that gay people are a kind of "army" that deliberately recruits new members. Well, I am in my fifties, and I can only say that, in my personal experience, I have known a few gay people, none of whom ever even remotely attempted to sway me toward their lifestyle. And if someone did, then so what? Don't I have the freedom and authority to politely and respectfully say "no"?!

So, I guess you may have already discerned that I don't see how allowing committed same-sex couples to commit their lives to each other in a solemn marriage ceremony and be recognized within the general society as a married couple is a bad thing. I'm sure that religious folk can point to this passage or that in their scriptures to "prove" what a bad idea that is. But I would also point out that scripture has been commonly used in the past to justify discrimination (and even enslavement) against other demographic groups. The widespread anti-Semitism in Europe that culminated in six million deaths of Jews under Hitler this past century was founded in centuries of church-sanctioned doctrine blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. In America during the years of slavery, black slaves were not permitted to marry. And then were judged to be living in sin because of this! More recently, in the early 1980's, when the emerging AIDS epidemic became public knowledge, homosexuals were often openly portrayed in the media as being ravenously promiscuous. The fact that many heterosexuals are ravenously promiscuous didn't seem to be relevant to the discussion, for some reason.

I think that much of the opposition to gay marriage is a backhanded pride issue. By that, I mean that many opponents see gays as "them", not "us", and aren't we so proud of ourselves that we aren't "them"! I think each of us has enough to worry about the "planks" in our own eyes without worrying about the "specks" in others'!