Facing Same-Sex Marriage

            Every individual desires equality, especially here in the United States. Every one of us is human, we all love, and we all make decisions on what we believe is right for us. It is understandable that there are different beliefs of right and wrong and that everyone sets their own acceptance level based on their perception of that concept. Unfortunately, people on the left and on the right, ideologically speaking, have exploited the same-sex marriage debate in attempt to sway others in one direction or another. Nevertheless, same-sex marriage (SSM) is an issue that is being discussed, with regularity, around the world, as well as here in America. How ever someone may feel on the topic, some believe it is essential to look at the interesting similarities on both sides of the issue. Although some people find it morally unacceptable to allow same-sex marriage, others find it to be an equality issue that needs addressing. Therefore, leading society to the question, should same-sex marriage be legalized?

            Andrew Shead, a professor at the Moore Theological College of Australia, who specializes in the Old Testament, asserts that the Bible describes a consistent and unambiguous condemnation of all forms of homosexual activity, but “that what counts is not whether homosexuality happens in nature, or feels ‘natural', but whether it is God's will for humanity.” Shead goes on to explain, “Now that we have the correct values we can correctly interpret the meaning of the events and experiences which would otherwise remain ambiguous: if its cause is genetic, homosexuality must be considered a disorder […]. If its cause is environmental, homosexuality must be considered a dysfunction, and the sufferer a victim of circumstance” (2).  This viewpoint has been very common and until recently was considered a real dilemma with the backing of the psychological field. In fact, according to Kranz and Cusick, The American Psychiatric Association only removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual II, it's official catalog of mental and psychological problems, in 1973 (125). Homosexuality was considered an actual disease and/or dysfunction and many people still believe that remains true.

On the website, Matthiasmedia, Ross Allen maintains an opposition to SSM. He clearly has a set of values that does not allow for the acceptance of SSM. Allen starts his argument with, “When we go back to the basics of marriage in Genesis 1 and 2, we can see that, from God's perspective, marriage is intended to be an exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman” (2). If one is raised a particular way, it is clearly understandable that they could think this way as well. Mr. Ross further adds:A key argument used to justify their position [on SSM] is that the Bible is silent on the existence of ‘loving, faithful, monogamous' same-sex relationships. As far as I can tell, the Bible is also silent on the morality of chopping someone up into little pieces using a machete. Machetes don't get a mention in the Bible, but … the command to not commit murder [does]. (2)

Clearly, this strong statement is a difficult position to counter and in all honesty could be found acceptable by people on both sides of the issue. Although some would disagree, many people would perhaps concur with Mr. Allen's depiction of acceptable and unacceptable.

In addition to Christian organizations, there are also legal opposing views; if SSM is legalized then it is argued that it will lead to group marriages (polygamy), incestuous marriages, and  marriages between animals and humans, but let us just articulate on one of these, polygamy. Dr. Mohler, who has been recognized by such influential publications as Time Magazine and Christianity Today as a leader among American Evangelicals states:

           There is good reason to worry. The movement toward same-sex marriage will   surely lead to the legalization of other forms of “marriage” as well. The logic is undeniable, [and] is increasingly recognized by legal scholars and public policy experts. In reality if marriage can be redefined as anything other than the relationship between one man and one woman, it can mean virtually anything. As a matter of fact, a change in the understanding of gender related to marriage is, in a historical perspective, more significant than a change in number. (2)

 Some feel that people should stay within the realms of their own lives, and stop meddling in the lives of others, but is this consequential to the overall understanding, acceptance, or denial of SSM? As represented in the cartoon below, Mike Lester shows what is commonly thought of as “The Future of Marriage” if gay marriage is allowed.  It illustrates a line of people waiting to get married: two men, two women, a fork and a spoon, a woman and her dog, a man and his toaster, etcetera.  Although some may find this cartoon comical, there are those who believe this is, in fact, the future of marriage if SSM is legalized.

            There continues to be people who are opposed to SSM; however Scott Bidstrup, a free-lance writer and political activist who has been active in human rights issues since 1994, argues from a tolerant perspective. Bidstrup asserts that,
Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow I always thought that freedom of religion implied freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American Law, as was made clear by the intent of the  
First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791). (3)  
   He also goes on to describe, “If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument” (3).  Therefore, an opposition to SSM based on religious views, according to people like Bidstrup, should have no standing anywhere in the world, but especially here in the U.S., where our founding fathers explicitly foresaw issues of Church and State and did their best to prevent the merging of the two. Do people believe in Civil Rights? Bidstrup explains what he considers as hypocritical thinking:

Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera. Then you get to gay marriage. And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold. More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. (1)

Therefore, the thought left to consider is that people like Bidstrup believe that homosexuals do not deserve to be singled out or denied the basic right of marriage, and if one takes into consideration that in 1967 the “U.S. Supreme court overturned all state bans on interracial marriage, declaring that the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans” (“Marriage”), then perhaps one may be persuaded to at least keep an open mind about gay marriage. One may also ask another who is opposed to SSM to consider the following possibility. A man who has repeatedly abused women, maybe even raped and beat them, can easily go and get married if he finds the right woman to agree, yet two people who love each other and would die for one another, maybe have been together for most of their lives, are not allowed that same privilege because they are of the same sex.  Many consider the right to freedom of religion is a civil right that is being infringed upon here, and that the majority of uneasiness about SSM stems on religious morality.  Bidstrup points out, that in most states homosexuals cannot make medical decisions for their partners and hospitals are often times forced to go to families who may have been estranged because of conflicting morals, and if the family wishes, may exclude the partner from the hospital room, legally. It is not uncommon for such family members to make decisions based on their hostility with results consciously intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient (8).  Therefore, Bidstrup and others like him feel as though people who are opposed to SSM believe that homosexuals deserve equality just not when it comes to the institution of marriage.

It remains clear that both sides of the SSM issue have their reasons for believing as they do.  However it is not difficult to see what they have in common. People are a product of their environment, just as much as they are product of their genes. Controversy surrounding homosexuality still exists and will continue to exist, whether people assume homosexuals are born that way or that the behavior is learned. No matter what the case, the mass majority of people value life. Some homosexuals and heterosexuals even value relationships. They all want to be able to pass along their possessions and legacy to the ones they love and everyone, I believe, wants to be able to trust that if a medical emergency bares its ugly head, that they have the closest person, perhaps a partner, there to make the important decisions, if one becomes unable to do so. No one really wants to think about that possibility, but anyone, at any moment, unfortunately, can be put in that situation.

To advance on this critical issue, we could all learn from our children. For example, if you put an ethnic child and a white child in a room together and if neither one was taught that the other is unacceptable, they may be curious about the difference of skin color, but beyond that they would judge each other based on personality alone. They are not likely to dislike each other based on the difference of skin color. Suppose one changed this scenario around to include a homosexual, would the results be different? Prejudiced is a learned behavior, and would likely not exist if people did not fear what they did not understand. If one looks back at the editorial cartoon that I chose “the future of marriage,” it is also possible to see a certain amount of absurdity in the concept that if SSM is legalized this will lead to different types of marriage, such as marriages with the animals, and marriages with inanimate objects. This is a fairly common argument against the acceptance of gay marriage; however, it is also a slippery slope argument, as is the cartoon itself.

Homosexuals want to marry for a number of reasons. Not one of those reasons is about ruining the sanctity of marriage or the uncontrollable urge to marry a dog or a toaster. Homosexuals want equality and the ability to have the same legal benefits as heterosexuals. I heard on the radio (AM 1360), not too long ago, a caller said, “If you don't accept Same-Sex marriage than don't do it.” Which I believe says it all. Mary Mendola is quoted as saying, “Lesbian and homosexual couples are involved in marriages and committed relationships that are as meaningful and as valid as any heterosexual marriages sanctioned by a church or state. Churches and states do not sanction a relationship between two people. Couples themselves sanction their relationships.” When a heterosexual couple gets married, in most states, they automatically receive many benefits. They can receive tax benefits, estate planning benefits, which include exemptions from gift taxes, and obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for a spouse. There are also the government benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Disability. There also exists employment and medical benefits.  Obtaining medical insurance through a spouse's employer, taking family leave to care for an ill spouse and taking bereavement leave, in case of a family death, as well as, the ability to see a spouse in the hospital while in intensive care, when they need all of their loved ones the most, and making medical decisions if he or she should become unable to express their wishes for treatment (“Marriage Equality”). There are more legal benefits, but they are rather redundant. The point is marriage offers many benefits that gay couples cannot receive and hetero couples take for granted. Interestingly, in a recent U.S. census printed in The New York Times, “The share of households with married couples in the United States dipped to a historic low of 49.7 percent in 2005. More than 90 percent of the 612 countries surveyed had a decrease in households with married couples from 2000-2005” (Roberts). If one looks at marriage statistics around the world it should be fairly easy to discern that many heterosexuals do not believe in the sanctity of marriage, even among themselves. Thus, leading to the question, should heterosexuals have the right to try and deny someone, who does believe in a legally binding, life-long committed relationship to another person, regardless of gender, the right to marry?

Besides legal benefits, there are also concerns about whether or not to deny gay marriage is, in fact, an infringement on an individual's Civil Rights. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times even the majority. That is why constitutional government was established – to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. How many southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or allowing black adults the right to vote? Many men, in general, were upset that women won the right to vote and own property, and no longer had to live as property. Although, at first, these rights upset a large number of people because they did not agree that these people deserved these rights. Now, however, people look upon these issues as the ancient past and the accepted way of life.

Is there justification for not legalizing same-sex marriage? People are allowed to not agree with it, but because there is such thing as Civil Rights and equality, people then should consider legalizing SSM. Homosexuals are human, just as human as any other minority, and do not deserve to be discriminated against because they want to have a meaningful relationship with a person of the same sex, a right that heterosexuals take for granted. Look at the divorce rate, should the human race say that because the divorce rate is so high no one should get married? No, of course not, but these people, who oppose SSM, articulate that two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, can, just not with the benefits of a legal marriage.  Having a double standard for any person reeks of past racial inequality's we dealt with here in America not too long ago. Therefore, it is hoped by some that people of all walks of life will one day look back at the issue of SSM and see it as an ancient past as well. Marriage is not open to all loving consenting adults, the question that then remains is, should it be?

Works Cited

Allen, Ross. “What's Wrong With Same-Sex Marriage?” Matthiasmedia. June 2004. 23 October 2006. <http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/june04_Allen.html>.

Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives.” Sept 1996. 7 Apr 2006. <http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm>.

Kranz, Rachel, and Tim Cusick. Gay Rights. United States: Facts On File, 2000.

Lester, Mike. “The Future of Marriage.” Cartoon. The Rome News-Tribune. 5 May @005. 23 

October 2006. < http://caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={B5FCA9E3-A345-4A8B-9FBF-E552FB4811A2}>.

“Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples-A History.” Lambda Legal. 28 Apr. 2006    <http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/fact.html?record=1067>.

Mendola, Mary. The Mendola Report. New York: Crown Publishers, 1980.

Mohler, R. Albert. “Polygamy, Polyamory, and the Future of Marriage.” Commentary by R. Albert Mohler Jr. 10 Mar. 2006. 29 Apr. 2006. <http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2006-03-10 >

Roberts, Sam. “It's Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered.” The New York Times. 15 Oct. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006. <http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.dbpcosdcsg.co.san-diego.ca.us/iwsearch/we/InfoWebp_action=doc&p_docid=114C742CD4B187F8&p_docnum=4&p_queryname=2&p_product=

NYTB&p_theme=aggregated4&p_nbid=F46T4EJCMTE2MjUzNzQ3Ni4zMDQ3NzA6MToxNDoxNzAuMjEzLjEyOC4yMQ>.

Shead, Andrew. “Heather Has Two Mommies.” MatthiasMedia. 29 Apr. 2006. <http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/archives/hs_heathermommies.html>;.