The recent referendum in Missouri reminds us why we need a judicial branch in this country to protect the minority from the majority.  What follows is a treatise in support of gay marriage.  Those of you who are familiar with my writings on the subject elsewhere will have heard a lot of this before, but I've never actually addressed it on my blog, so now is as good a time as any…

I believe that discussing Gay Marriage is largely pointless.  Neither side is going to convince the other side.  This argument cannot be won.  Thus what I am about to write is pointless, but it will make a good blog entry so, what the heck.

Those who will argue for banning same-sex marriage do so from religious intolerance/homophobia and nothing else.  Any purported “evidence” put forth by the family research council or other conservative wingnut organizations is irrelevant.

If you're going to form an opinion and then go looking for evidence which supports your opinion, you're approaching the problem backward.  The idea is to look at all the evidence and then form the opinion.  Forming the opinion first and then seeking the evidence for it is patently unscientific, and science would appreciate it if you would stop dragging it into the argument.  It's also dishonest, since you started out from the position of being against same-sex marriage… it's not as if the evidence convinced you, so why should you present it to me as if it would convince me?

So first of all, just be honest.  “I don't like gay people.”  “Homosexuality is wrong.”  “Gay marriage is against my religion and nature.”  If that's what you feel, then say it.  Say what you really believe, for that is the truth, not all this other subterfuge that gets added on to try and hide the fact that you're against gay marriage because of fear or hate.

I say fear and hate as opposed to religion because it is possible to be both religious and tolerant.  I am an atheist.  One of my best friends is what I would describe as a devout Jew, though I couldn't tell you exactly what branch of Judaism he follows.  He's a very decent person, and he keeps kosher.  Therefore from his perspective, it's wrong to eat a ham and cheese sandwich.  But my very good friend would never, ever, not in a million years try and tell me that I couldn't have a ham and cheese sandwich, try to pass laws against the same, and would not, even if I were a Jew of the exact same sect as he.  This is because he recognizes that the reach of his personal religion extends no further than his own person.  Period.

Thus he recognizes that the “it's wrong” assessment can only apply to actions that he himself takes.  In essence, he is cognizant of the distinction between “it's wrong” and “it's wrong for me“.

And thus, we return to gay marriage.  Gay marriage isn't wrong.  It's wrong for you.  If it is the case that:

1. you think homosexuality is an abomination, and
2. you can't stand the thought of gay sex acts, and
3. you think gay marriage is an oxymoron

Then I strongly advise you to:

1. not engage in homosexual behavior,
2. not think about gay sex acts, and
3. not marry a gay person.

In all likelihood, you weren't planning on doing any of those things anyway, right?  So what then, exactly, is the problem?  Nobody is asking you to enter into a gay marriage, or teach your children that they can enter into gay marriage… so the problem would be… what?   Thou shalt not suffer a fag to live, or something?

Gay couple X are in love and wish to be married so they can enjoy all the protections and benefits that any other married couple can enjoy.  As someone who is not homosexual, and who finds the idea of homosexual intercourse repellant, I gladly endorse couple X and wish them luck and happiness in their relationship.  I can't relate to homosexuality, but I can certainly relate to LOVE.

If they're mutually consenting adults in love, under what guise of decency could I possibly deny them the right to the same civil union I enjoy?  The answer to that is none.  There is no guise for that denial, and those of you who attempt to dress in such guise would be advised to put on a bathrobe because it is completely transparent.

Missouri's referendum is disgusting, and it will not stand.  It may take 10 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, but the day will come when gay marriage is a recognized civil construct in across this nation.  The day is coming, no matter how much you rail against it (the homo-free future is a pipe dream).  Years from now people who live in that age will look back on this one with the same mix of perplexity and disgust that we look back on the eras of institutionalized race and gender inequalities.  The white shame of today will be replaced by the hetero shame of tomorrow.

What a waste.

There are so many more important issues in the world today, and yet a bunch of hateful, fearful, bigots are going to muster themselves to tell two people who are in love (love every bit as real as any you've ever experienced) that they cannot marry each other.  In 50 years or so, when gay marriage is 100% legal, where will that couple be?  Why should their happiness have been tossed on the bonfire set by the hatemongers to no useful purpose since the act would ultimately be legalized?

Recognizing gay marriage is the right thing to do.

Since frankly, the opponents of gay marriage haven't been saying anything particularly stellar or insightful thus far, let's run down the standard litany and get it over with now.  I'm not pulling these arguments out of my butt… I've heard them all before.  They are all groundless, and ultimately have as their origin the same unimpressive fear and hatred.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.

   Homosexuality is natural and occurs regularly throughout nature.  Marriage is unnatural.  So is clothing, eyeglasses, bicycles, ice cream, foot powder, tattoos, CD players, nylon, and sporks.  We don't have laws against any of those things (or didn't until people started making laws against gay marriage).  Homosexuality is unnatural for you.  Don't practice it.

 

2. Homosexuality is against the laws of God

   The laws of your God, as you have been taught them, perhaps.  But this is not a theocracy, and you don't get to extend the laws of your religion to people of other faiths.  It's your faith, you follow it.  We have a separation of church and state in this country precisely for that reason.

 

3. If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow incestuous, polygamous/polyandrous, bestial, and other bizarre forms of marriage.

   Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious, and disengenuous, so STFU.  You know damn well that the issue on the table is gay marriage and nothing else.  Putting scary things on the table with it in an effort to frighten people into seeing things your way is the mark of a contemptible liar.  It does not follow that if we allow same-sex marriage that we have to allow anything else.
    

   1. Polyandry and polygamy are entirely different sorts of arrangements for which we have no analogue in our legal system, a discussion of them would be interesting, but it is not this discussion.

    

   2. Bestial marriages involve at least one entity with very limited rights and no ability to sign a marriage license… again no analogue.

    

   3. Incestuous marriages could be either heterosexual or same-sex so they hardly serve as a recommendation on either side of the argument.

   So just shut up with the slippery slope nonsense.  It's BS, and everybody knows it's BS, including you.

 

4. It's my right to vote to ban gay marriage in a referendum.

   Had you lived over a hundred years ago, it would also be your right to enslave other humans and beat them when they didn't follow your orders.  That doesn't make it the right thing to do.  By all means exercise your rights.

 

5. Judges shouldn't be legislating this from the bench, the appropriate solution was to do exactly what Missouri did, put it up for public referendum.

   And again, over a hundred years ago, if you had put up a public referendum in the deep south (the economy of which largely depended on a workforce that didn't have to be paid) the public would have voted to keep their slaves.  Big surprise.  The majority (or even the minority in power) is only interested in what is best for itself.  History has shown that, repeatedly, it has been the courts that have overturned discriminatory laws, sometimes against the will of the (racist) people who voted those laws in.

   Unfair laws get overturned; it is generally the courts that overturn them; this is the natural way of things in the United States.  Enjoy discriminatory laws while you have them.  Their days are numbered as surely as the sky is blue.  This is one of the reasons our nation is such a great one…

 

6. Marriage is a religious issue… if we have separation of church and state, then the state can't say it's okay for gay people to marry… that is only something a church can say.

   Well, besides the fact that several churches already perform same sex marriages, this misses the point.  Gay people aren't demanding the right to be married by a church.  They simply want to be married (i.e. in the civil sense, thusly enjoying the protections and benefits our country offers people who enter into civil marriage.)  If a gay couple wants to be married by a baptist church, I wish them luck and suggest they wear body armor.  But since the objections to such a union are only the result of religious intolerance, hatred, or fear, then the government has no grounds upon which to deny them the right to the same civil contract that a hetero couple can enjoy

 

7. “Gay” isn't a race, thus denying gays the right to “marry” isn't racism.  Thus there is no way a law defining even civil marriage as between a man and a woman can be overturned on those grounds. Furthermore it is an insult to minority races to compare this issue to their struggle for equality.

   The US government disagrees with you.  Homosexuality is not a race but “sexual preference” is a recognized protected class in the US legal code, along with “creed”, “race”, “gender”, “marital status”, “parental status”, “physically impaired”, “mentally impaired”, and a host of other protected classes, numbering I think 14 in all.  Our legal system makes clear that discrimination against ANY of these protected classes is a violation of US law.  No one protected class is deemed “more protected” than any other.

   Denying a marriage license to a gay couple because of they are a gay couple is therefore discrimination.  Therefore we are passing laws that break other laws.  The courts are where this mess will be cleaned up.  Stay tuned.

 

8. If we allow gays to marry my kids will grow up thinking it's okay to be gay and it's okay for gays to marry.  Think of the children!

   Good.  We'd like your kids to grow up not hating people because they are different.  Prejudice and discrimination do nothing but impede our nation's progress and our maturation as a species.  Less hate is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Besides, you know full well that you will communicate your values to your children to the best of your abilities.  In all likelihood, they'll grow up with the same values as you.

 

9. The definition of marriage hasn't changed in thousands of years?  Who are we to change it now?

   Prior to all this hubbabaloo, it's arguable that the definition of marriage didn't actually include the 1 man 1 woman clause.  Adding it in response to gay people trying to marry is in fact, changing the definition of marriage.

   Some would take issue with that stance, but that's okay, because the definition of marriage has demonstrably changed countless times over the history of mankind and has many flavors and variants.  In some countries (including certain sects here in America) polygamous marriage is acceptable.  70 years ago, in much of our nation, an interracial marriage was illegal.  Clearly, the definition has been changed multiple times.  Arranged marriage.  Common-law marriage.  And so on.  And so on.

 

10. Why can't gay people just have civil unions?  Why does it have to be “marriage”?

    Are we actually going to argue about something as stupid and unimportant as a word?  What's in a name?

    Well at least in this case, a lot, actually.  Our legal system recognizes “marriage” as a civil contract that a couple can enter into.  The word “marriage” has worked its way deeply into our legal system as the name of this civil contract.  The license you receive to become joined in the eyes of the law is called a “Marriage License”.

    In the religious sense, only the deity you worship can grant you the right to marry.  This isn't about religious marriage, so the use of the word should be moot.  If I cohabitate with a woman for 7 years, I am married to her in the eyes of the state, without any religious ceremony taking place.  And yet there's no push to ban common-law marriages, or force them to be called something else.  If you're going to set aside a group of civil marriages and insist (simply for religious reasons — which by the way automatically makes it a violation of the separation of church and state) that they be called “civil unions” instead of “marriages”, then every single law and legal document and practice of the land needs to be modified to include “or civil union” after every mention of the word “marriage”

    Ultimately this will provide a vehicle for intolerant lawmakers to oppress gay people by “accidentally” forgetting to include “or civil union” on certain documents.  Our history has shown there is no such thing as “separate but equal”.  If you're going to hand out marriage licenses to heterosexuals, you've got to hand the exact same licenses out to homosexuals too.

 

11. But what if gay couples have kids?  Surely that's not a good environment for kids to grow up in!  Think of the children!

    What if they do?  Many gay couples already have kids, and in several states it is legal for gay couples to adopt.  Whether or not it is a bad environment is up for debate.  According to the American Psychological Association, and several other respected (non-activist) organizations, there's no lasting harmful effect in being raised by a same-sex couple.  It doesn't make the child more likely to turn out gay or unbalanced in some way.

    But for the sake of argument, let's assume there was a measurable impact on the children of gay marriages… imagine that statistically more of them are retarded or whatever.  Does that mean we should (a) deny gay marriage or (b) deny gay parenthood?  We don't deny two mentally impaired persons the right to marry and have a baby.  We don't deny two convicted felons who have served their sentences the right to marry and have a baby.  Surely those environments are probably less hospitable to children, but we allow them.  Why should they be preferrable to a stable two-parent home where both parents are the same gender?  Heck we don't deny a single parent the right to have a baby.  Is a single parent somehow better than two of the same sex?  As a basic principle, our society doesn't practice eugenics or intrusive marriage management for heteros.  There's no legitimate reason therefore to practice it for gays.

 

12. Gay marriages are invalid because there is no way they can produce children.  Why should they be accorded the benefits of a normal marriage which can produce children?

    Irrelevant.  There are countless hetero marriages that produce no children by choice or due to a physical disability.  We don't deny those marriages, why deny gay marriages?

 

13. Listen, black people don't choose to be black, so laws preventing someone from marrying based on race clearly are discriminatory.  I fail to see why I have to subsidize through tax dollars a lifestyle choice that I don't personally agree with.

    The debate as to whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant.
     

    • If you choose to drive a hybrid car instead of an SUV, our legal system extends benefits to you.
       
    • If you choose to marry someone as poor as you are as opposed to someone regularly featured in Forbes Magazine, our legal system extends benefits to you.
       
    • If you choose to defend this great nation in military service, our legal system extends benefits to you.
       
    • If you choose to have six kids, our legal system extends benefits to you.
       

    No you can't choose your race.  But you can choose your religion… people convert all the time, and yet we defend freedom of religion.  Our society respects the rights of the individual and self-determination.

    As far as the tax money goes, you are paying the government for benefits that are extended to all citizens, once you pay it, it isn't your money anymore.  We subsidize Jewish, Baptist, and countless-other-ist marriages.  Are you an atheist?  No?  Does your government grant you the right to withhold tax money that would go to benefit atheist marriages?  No.  This is a non-argument.

    All that said, it is clear enough from the science that homosexuality is not a conscious choice in any event, even if it is not determined entirely by genetics.  It's not as if someone wakes up one morning and says, “Gee I think I'll be gay.”  I've known a number of gay people over the years and none of them has ever said to me that they chose to be gay.

 

14. What about the harmful effects to society of homosexuality?  AIDS?  Other STDs?  Moral decline?

    Let's say you deny a gay couple the right to marry.  Are they going to stop having sex as a result?   No.  Are they going to stop being gay?  No.  So what was the point of this argument then?

    Besides the riskier sex acts that gay people engage in are not inherently gay acts.  Plenty of heterosexual married couples engage in fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, and anal intercourse.  It's the act itself that is risky, not the genders of the people performing it.

 

15. Only a very tiny segment of the population is gay.  Going to all this trouble for them is a waste of time and resources.  We can't bend over backwards and cowtow for every little group that comes along and demands some right or another.  I could form my own church with me as the only member and demand benefits from the government otherwise.

    The upper estimate of the percentage of the US population that is homosexual is 10%, and the lowest estimate is 3%.  The actual number probably falls somewhere in between… say 5%, which would be 1 person in every 20.  That is an enourmous group of people!  (About 14 million, based on 2003 figures.)  We're not talking about a group of 5 guys hanging out behind the shed here.  To put that in perspective, the portion of the American population that is Jewish is also 5%.  Should we start denying rights to Jews based on the size of their group?

 

16. If you're not gay, how do you know homosexual love is real love?  What if it isn't?  What if they are just looking to get the bennies and don't really love each other?  If that's true, homosexual marriage would not be real marriage.

    Civil marriage is a social recognition of a loving union between two people, but our legal system does not require that you be in love with the person you are marrying.  Therefore, even if gay love was somehow “lesser” in devotion (which is kind of a pointless argument anyway, as if it could be measured), this would be irrelevant to the question of allowing gay marriage.

    We allow heteros to marry whether or not they are in love, therefore there is no reason to apply such a restriction to gay couples.

    That aside, every gay couple I've ever known seemed to be genuinely in love to my untrained eye.

In conclusion, it amazes me that people who are not gay think this is any of their business.  Newsflash: it ain't.  If two ladies in Poughkeepsie get hitched it doesn't affect you one iota unless you are one of them.  That people would be so presumptuous as to think that they have some right to deny a loving couple marriage based on the genders involved astonishes and, frankly, disgusts me.

For the love of Pete, let the homosexuals marry already so we can move on to something important which affects us all, like, oh I don't know… Terrorism?  Racism?  Abortion?  Gun rights?  Education?  Healthcare?  The environment?  Commerce?  Tax reform?  Political Reform?  Corporate welfare?  Human trafficking?  Drugs?  Renewable energy?  Cancer?  Heart disease?  Iraq?  Afghanistan?  Taiwan?  China?  Space exploration?  Media conglomeration? The price of gasoline?

Peace?