Rights

In the interest of sparking something resembling controversy, today we shall discuss the idea of gay marriage. And by discuss, I mean that I will ramble on at length and you will have no input, other than what you yell at your computer screen. Deal? Sweet. Let’s begin. Easy part first.

My beliefs: Gay marriage should be allowed. (By marriage, I’m talking an institution with full and equal rights for gay couples that straight couples enjoy. That includes the title ‘marriage’. More on that later.) Additionally, I believe there is no reasonable basis on which to deny this right, in the terms of American civil rights. ‘All men created equal’ and all that jazz.

Simple enough, no?

The arguments against: This is the hardest part about this whole issue, which makes it so difficult to refute, or even understand. What are the arguments that people have against allowing gay marriage? Approximately half the country is opposed to the idea of gay marriage, so there must be some sort of obvious reason, right? Centrally, as far as I can tell (and I’ve done a whole lot of reading on this thing) the main thrust of the argument is that marriage is a sacred (religious or otherwise) institution that should not be degraded by allowing anyone other than a man and a woman engage in it. Example:

“Marriage is a religious institution reserved solely for a man and a woman.”

Or

“Marriage is one of the oldest institutions the world over, is the foundation of society, and has always been between a man and a woman.”

Supporting this argument are two other claims that attempt to bolster the correctness of this view of marriage. Namely: 1) that allowing gay people to be marry is a case of giving special rights to certain individuals and 2) that gay marriage is a fundamentally unsound union. Basically, the purpose of marriage is the creation of children and, by extension, children thrive best in two sex, two parent households.

My argument: Let’s start with the most important thing that people are missing, as I see it: The kind of marriage we are talking about here is in no way religious. We are talking about marriage as seen by the state and federal government, along with public institutions. Allowing gay marriage does not mean that churches will be forced to perform gay unions, or recognize them. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, whatever, their form of marriage will remain as it always has. The only thing that will change is that the public protections and benefits available to straight married couples will be available to gay ones. That is all. These sort of things include: hospital visitation rights, the ability to adopt the children of a spouse, health benefits for spouses, and inheritance rights.

Again: these rights are in no way religiously affiliated by the conventions of the United States. Right now, a 98 year old man who is a devout Satanist and in prison on a 40 year sentence can get married to a 18 year old agnostic girl he met for the first time today. They never have to live in the same house. The only stipulation (and only in some states) is that the marriage must be consummated. And that they be a man and a woman. Those two being met, every right of marriage is theirs. Religion is not a factor. That’s the whole idea behind civil marriage. They occur by the hundreds every day. Allowing gay marriage would simply make these civil marriages available to gay and lesbian couples. That’s it.

“So why not just set up ‘Civil unions’ and be done with it?”

Because that is shit. Seriously. We need a new name and a new set of rules and regulations for the exact thing that straight people have? No. The rules set up for civil marriage work as they should for straight people and will continue to do so for gay ones. There is no difference at all in a straight and a gay marriage. Two people, consenting adults, wish to form a bond publicly to profess their love and their commitment to each other and society as a whole. Two guys, two girls, or one of each, who cares? The result is the same. Love is love. Creating an underclass institution is patronizing and blatantly against the concept of equal rights for all people.

Whew.

After all that, the rest of the arguments sort of roll together. Marriage has not always been a singular institution between a man and a woman. Throughout time there have been variations on the form. Until the 1950’s, some states outlawed biracial marriages because they violated some tenant of marriage. The state of marriage is set up such that it is most beneficial to society.

Gay marriage in no way hurts anyone. There is no evidence at all that gay families are more likely to break up that straight ones, or that children of gay couples end up worse off than those of straight couples. No where is it said that marriage is created or reliant on procreation. Straight couples are free to have or not have as many kids as they want. Marriage is fundamental unit of stability that is supported by the government, not a child producing concept. Gay marriage will only add to this.

Whether or not you agree with homosexuality or not, you can’t deny civil rights to a group because of their lifestyle. You believe we’re all gonna burn in hell, that’s cool. No skin off me, I’ve made my peace. Your beliefs are your deal. But what we’re talking here are rights that should be available to all human beings. The right to live with the person you love and enjoy life with them like any other couple in America. To be able to create a family and have as normal a life as possible. To be able to see your husband in the hospital after an accident.

It seriously hurts to watch these sort of attacks go on. To have the President of the United States stand up and say that gay people should not be given the same rights as straight people because they don’t meet his standard of what a couple should be. Ugh. I don’t know what else exactly to say, except that I hope this Constitutional amendment thing dies in its tracks very, very soon.