|
|
|
Gay
Marriage
Gay
marriage has been skillfully used by clever 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 shunning the
well-documented stance Jesus took on wealth and greed and religious power).
And so gay marriage has been framed by conservatives
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 forgivenessagain.
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 one woman who are 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 separate 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 differences.
But this ideal exists only when both serve
as positive role modelswhich is often not the case. This is by far
the greatest threat to marriage and family, and one which 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 form the basis for their commitments, then they are
probably doing marriage more of a service than heterosexuals who fail.
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 heterosexual marriages, where the situation can
be intolerable for spouse and child. Should we deny these people the right
to marry as well?
We need to ask ourselves which 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 becomes twisted whenever
one portion of the population prohibits another from 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
|
|