Gay Marriage

Gay marriage has been skillfully used by extremists on the right as an issue to rally people behind a wider, unrelated agenda. In many respects, they are the ones who pulled it into the limelight just to make it a controversy. There was never a liberal outcry for gay marriage. Public interest of this topic is a relatively new and artificially created phenomenon.
     It has been successful to a point. Conservative strategists knew that liberals would not take an aggressive stance in denying a significant portion of Americans their right to the pursuit of happiness. They also knew that they could quote the bible for support, charging up their fundamental Christian base (even while contradicting the well-documented stance Jesus took on wealth and greed and religious power).
     And so gay marriage has been framed as another political controversy that emotionally distracts attention from issues that strongly effect the well-being of our nation and our people.
     The topic has merit of course. It is unfortunate that undercurrents of homophobia have to muddy the waters of debate, but we have seen the likes before, with racial prejudice and anti-Semitism. Like racists and anti-Semites in previous civil rights debates, reasonable Americans will eventually win out, and the prejudice against homosexuals will wane into acceptance. There are politicians and religious leaders who will have to ask for public forgiveness-again.
     Some claim that their opinion on homosexuality is not based on prejudice, but on the sanctity of marriage, or on the bible. They fear that the institution of marriage will be irreparably damaged if gays were allowed to wed. Taking them on their word, Seeds for Thought is willing to discuss the issue.
     Historically, marriage has been limited to the commitment between one man and one woman. In some cultures, polygamy was allowed, but that is a separate issue. While some see marriage as a religious topic, ancient Rome made it very much a secular issue, as the pagan Emperor Augustus actively encouraged Romans to marry and have children and raise them to be good citizens.
     That gay marriage was not included is not surprising. For much of history, homosexuals had to hide their orientation for fear of persecution. Only now, in the growing light of social and mainstream religious tolerance, and a respect for American freedom does the topic seriously arise.
     Conservatives are correct to say that marriage is the moral cornerstone of our society. The basic family unit of wife, husband and children is as close to Nature's ideal as possible. But there are unspoken assumptions that lie at the heart of this truth. The ideal family unit is qualitatively more than one man and one woman in commitment, raising children. To reduce the debate to this superficial equation misses the point entirely and shows how misleading political strategy can be.
     Traditional marriage works when you have one man and woman who in a loving and committed relationship, who do not abuse each other, and are good parents to their children. This is so important that the rest of the argument pales in comparison. A divorce rate exceeding 50% points to the undeniable fallibility of the right's simplistic argument.
     Traditional marriage certainly offers one major component to raising children that gay marriage cannot. It models both gender roles in a give-and-take situation. The mother models the female perspective, while the father models the male. This is important to a child's growing understanding of the world and related gender requirements.
     But this ideal exists only when both serve as represent positive role models—which is often not the case. This is by far the greatest threat to marriage and family, and one we hear very little of. In comparison, when two women or two men love each other and make personal commitments, how does that hurt anyone? If love and fidelity is the basis for their commitments, then they are probably doing marriage more of a service than heterosexuals who get married for different reasons.
     My wife and I attended a lesbian commitment ceremony once. It was one of the most pleasant ceremonies I had ever seen. The couple's happiness was obvious and sincere. I remember thinking, how could anyone deny them this?
Homosexuality does not produce children. On the surface of that statement, the argument about positive role models representing both genders has little meaning.
But there are gay couples who, through adoption or previous marriages, find themselves responsible for parental roles.
     That the ideal of two gender parenting cannot exist here is obvious (although other roles models can serve this purpose).
     However, reality shows us that this ideal does not exist in many families, where the situation can be intolerable for spouse and child. Compassion's logic tells us to deny all those people the right to marry as well.
     We need to ask ourselves hich is worse? A gay couple who so want children that they are willingly to take the time to bring them up properly? Or a heterosexual family where the father is distant, or abusive, or alcoholic? Or the mother is neglectful, or controlling or a drug abuser? Anyone familiar with social service problems will tell you which is more of a threat to the well-being of society.
     As far as the civil rights' prospective is concerned, the freedom espoused by Americanism seems twisted whenever one portion of the population prohibits another enjoying what they enjoy. This is especially ugly when selected biblical references are used as an excuse to oppress people, or call them names, or deny them rights.
     In a way, homosexuality has become the religious scapegoat of our times. People feel righteous when they persecute someone else's sins, even though the bible says that we are all sinners. What we refuse to understand, for some strange reason, is that we are condemning ourselves when we do this. Jesus said, unequivocally that we should not judge others, or we ourselves will be judged (Matthew 7: 1). Indeed, this is the essence of Christian morality, something which the liberal movement has tried (often unsuccessfully) to follow. The right has often derided liberalism for following that very path! It also seems that they have few qualms about throwing the first stone, not only at homosexuals, but at those who defend them by adhering to the moral teachings of Christ!
     Homosexuals are people, just like the rest of us. Some are good and some bad. They want to be happy, just like we all do.
     They work with us. They pass us on the street. Chances are you have a gay friend and don't even know it. Many work in the field of caring for others, which is commendable.
     Would allowing gay people to get married result in a shift in the marriage paradigm?
     Of course it will. It opens up the blessings and responsibilities of marriage to other people who are banned from them today.
     When you think of it though, the shift really doesn't change anything about marriage for heterosexuals. I can't see how it would effect my marriage or yours in any way at all. If it adds an element of loving commitment and responsibility to the gay community, so much for the better.
     I would like to end this by pointing out that all the glib "Adam and Steve" slogans, self-righteous snickering and hell-fire speeches by preachers who have no claim to infallibility do not contribute to anything meaningful to the dialog. They merely deepen the resentments that our country suffers from today, and puts our destiny in the hands of those who would rule rather than serve the American people.

Return