Gay Marriage Solution: Tolerance
I have to clarify some definitions before I start. When people speak about being for or against gay "marriage" they actually mean: marriage license. And a marriage license is a contract.
A little bit of history first. Marriage contracts were first contracts between two families. Typically for land or other promises between the marriage of kin. In the 16th century the Catholic Church became the way to validate marriages. This was the first state sanctioned marriages, based on the fact that the Catholic Church at the time was very powerful, politically.
The problem came in when the government started taking over the marriage validation business in the 1800s. Since then there has been a range of groups that were not allowed to marry whites: blacks being the most common. At the time, some of the same arguments were used that are used today in the spread of anti-gay marriage propaganda.
What are the objections to gay marriage? I've heard a number of arguments about this and I would like to comment on them.
It attacks the sanctity of marriage:
This is a spiritual question, and the default people throw out. But what does it mean? It seems clear by using the word "sanctity" it states that god is not pleased with the decision of the homosexual couples. But as Jesus said in James 4:12, "So who are you to judge your neighbor?" And words like that ring true. Who are you to judge who can be in love with another person, for how long and in what way? Isn't god's love supposed to be in the good of people, and treating another in a committed relationship sounds like something god would support.
But a state contract shouldn't be about religious beliefs, and the minute it is, one should stop themselves and realize the mistake that is being made. If homosexual couples want to get married in a Christian church, their only choice--that I know of--is the United Church of Christ. But this isn't about making a private institution "marry" homosexual couples, it is about creating a stable home in the eyes of the state and sharing the benefits that go along with that particular status. Be it fiscal or legal benefits.
Call gay marriage "civil unions" and heterosexual marriage "marriage":
Calling one "civil unions" and another "marriage" is fine in conversation, but in a lawyer's world this is the place to drive a wedge. If you don't believe that statement, it has already begun. One argument states that you can get all legal benefits by multiple contracts, but this costs thousands of dollars and a lot of legal benefits cannot be given as a contract. Such as: the benefit to get medical information or to be by their side in the case of an emergency.
It would be much better at the state level to call them both "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to conversation and religious ceremonies. And this would have to be done on all states, so legal issues do not ensue when moving to another state.
Marriage is for procreation, put a gay couple in a room, and no matter how hard they try, they cannot have a natural baby:
This is a true statement, and one that can cause quite a bit of grief in a debate. The problem is the statement is completely biased and straw man argument circling around the issue. By this definition of marriage the heterosexual couples who cannot have a baby "no matter how hard they try" would also not qualify for the term marriage.
Allowing gay marriage would have to also allow for marriage of children, animals or multiple wives:
This argument is by far the most outlandish but it has come up so many times that I have to address it. First the easiest: children and animals. Both cannot enter into a lawful contract. Children could with the co-sign of a guardian but the law is very clear about the "interest of the child" and will protect children from this outlandish contract.
As for "multiple wives", it is a contract and if all parties agree and condone the practice then there should be no reason to stop it. Even if one doesn't agree with the practice. What needs to be careful are the abusive relationships that occur in such a household.
The solution: Tolerance.
The solution seems straightforward and easy to me: stop playing semantics with words and allow homosexuals to enter into a marriage license/contract. No different wording, no different names and no different benefits. You hear advertisement of "freedoms being taken away" if homosexuals are allowed to marry, but these are false words only meant to scare the most casual observer. If you really think about who's liberty is being taken away it is the people who cannot walk into a court house and profess their love for one another by entering the same contract like any heterosexuals.
With a stable loving home, this would open the door to adoption, surrogate mother or sperm donation as viable ways to procreate and would allow for the proper legal benefits that married couples may take for granted: domestic dispute and the ability to adopt.
Advertisement
Agreed! On a different web site I had to present the same arguments for same-sex marriage to a different audience.
The argument goes it is against my religion. I say but we live in polytheistic society and people throughout the history of the United States married for sundry reasons; one of which had to do with property. I am re-reading Dark Bargain by Lawrence Goldstone (which has nothing to do with gay marriage) but I noticed something about the framers as the gathered in Philadelphia to re-draft the Articles of Confederation. The author notes that 18th century Philadelphia was rather cosmopolitan when it came to religion. He says there were "Quakers, German Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Native Americans and a small thriving Jewish community." Along with this polytheistic mix in cosmopolitan Philadelphia during this crucial moment in American history, the city drafted a set of laws that came close to outlawing slavery within it borders because it was the temporary capitol of the United States. Being the temporary capitol of the new country meant the foreign dignitaries often visited the city of Brotherly Love. It would have been embarrassing for United States to show this side of itself.
I digress:
Tolerance is a two-way street.
Another argument I encountered was that "gay marriage" is mostly a white middle class thing. I believe opponents of gay marriage see it this way because the the gay marriage movement has failed to include--until the recent past-- people of color (within their community, gay couples of color) in their effort to secure this civil right. The gay marriage movement also has to engage minority communities by letting opponents see them or show up for causes that the non-gay, non-white community support. If gays and lesbians even show that they are listening to the concerns, they might make-up some ground among communities of color. What it boils down to is coalition building and some good fashion shoe leather.
June 10, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink