Gay Marriage - No room for gays in heaven? Today, Bush held a news conference in which he said the White House was looking at ways to make gay marriage illegal. A few days ago, the Vatican restated its opposition to gay marriage as well as Vermont-style civil unions. A recent CNN/Gallup poll claims that the recent decision in Canada to legalize gay marriages as well as the Supreme Court decision overturning Texas' sodomy law has resulted in a backlash in the US, turning public sentiment against homosexuals and legal recognition of homosexual unions. Republican senator Marilyn Musgrove has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
After examining several conservative websites opposing gay marriage, the overwhelming complaint seems to be that allowing it would 'disintegrate the sanctity of marriage' and that this is harmful to children. The Alliance for Marriage website makes the following assertions:
"The institution of marriage is so central to the well being of both children and our society..."
"The Federal Marriage Amendment will keep the American people in charge of the definition of marriage in the United States."
The website expounds at length that the amendment must be passed to avoid upsetting the status quo, using phrases like "time-honored understanding" and referring to years of case history upholding marriage as a union between male and female.
These arguments are weak.
Argument 1: Limiting marriage to male/female is central to the wellbeing of our children.
Studies like the one conducted by doctors of psychology Suzanne M. Johnson and Elizabeth O'Connor show that this is not true. Most valid studies have found neither a greater likelihood of maladjustment or homosexuality among children of gays. Johnson and O'Connor's study even concluded that gays were significantly less likely than heteorsexuals to physically discipline their children, something studies show impairs a child's self-esteem.
Studies like Judith Wallerstein's indicate that divorce has a significant negative effect on children, and yet no one has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. Perhaps this is because so many heterosexuals get divorced that accepting divorce's harms would imbue them with guilt and undermine their sense of being ideal parents.
Divorce results in an increased number of single-parent households and children in these households are more likely to live beneath the federal poverty level. Further, a mother's new boyfriend or new husband is the most likely perpetrator of physical or sexual abuse against her children. If we are truly concerned about protecting children, we should examine our divorce laws.
Anyway, a ban on gay marriage does not ban gays from having children, so the whole argument is a smokescreen for the real issue.
Argument 2: American people must remain in charge of the definition of marriage.
Gay Americans are "American people," not aliens from another planet. The vice president's daughter and conservative Phyllis Schlafly's son are gay Americans, which proves that any heterosexual parent, no matter how far right, may end up raising a gay American.
As Americans, gays should be allowed to participate in defining marriage for America instead of leaving the definition solely to Judeo-Christians.
Argument 3: We must preserve the status quo and marriage as it is currently understood.
This argument has no backbone because it does not tell us why. Marriage in the US is forever being redefined. Once, it was legal for parents to force their daughters, some as young as 12 or 13, to marry men who by today's standards would be jailed as pedophiles.
It was also illegal for a long time for whites to marry blacks or Native Americans and for women to initiate divorce. Marriage has not had a static definition in the US and years of tradition and history do not make something automatically correct. Slavery was legal in the US for over two hundred years and yet it was an abomination that only the most backward individual would support today.
Another problem with this argument is that heterosexual white males with Judeo-Christian ethics established the status quo. In parts of Africa and among Muslims, the status quo allows plural marriage, something contrary to Judeo-Christian sensibilities and thus illegal in the US.
Consider that for over a century in this country, women were not allowed to vote. Men believed women lacked the intellect required for such important decisions. It was also the status quo for men only to serve on juries and as elected officials or attend prestigious universities. As the dominant majority, these white men established a status quo that took the strength and efforts of some very great women to change. Contrary to doomsday predictions, the country did not go to hell once women were allowed to participate in politics.
Nor will the country and morality go to hell if gays are allowed to marry or at the very least have 'civil unions.' Indeed, if the government afforded gay unions legitimacy, gays might be less likely to stray outside their relationship and work harder to fix unions that aren't working instead of abandoning them. Then again, that hasn't worked for heterosexuals.
What recognizing gay unions will do is provide more security for the children of homosexuals. It would allow them to collect social security if the non-biological parent died. It would prevent disgruntled or greedy relatives from fighting a surviving gay partner for his/her dead lover's possessions. It would allow gays to share a name and to feel like a normal couple in America.
And that's the crux of the problem for the conservative and very Christian right. They aren't truly afraid that it will hurt them or their marriages. How could it? Instead, they are angry that gays might be perceived as normal, instead of those evil deviants the right wingers say they are. In his speech today, Bush said (to paraphrase) "I don't believe in gay marriage, but we should be accepting of gays, because we are all sinners." In other words, he called being gay a SIN.
That's the heart of this matter, but the right knows that their chances of garnering public acceptance for something as serious as a constitutional amendment improves if they can convince people that their way of life is being threatened. This works far better than simply admitting that they think homosexuals are sinners, outside of God's realm and underserving of something like marriage that is sacrosanct and within God's realm--a realm that they don't want to share with gays.
6:46:43 PM 
|
