Below I will seek to spell out the reasons why each of nine arguments for defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not work. It just does not make sense to argue the case for any of the following:
1. The term "marriage" should not be allowed for same-sex couples because marriage is a holy institution.
2. Civil unions are equal and available to gays.
3. The definition of marriage needs to be restored to its previous definition.
4. Churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.
5. Marriage to animals is the next step in a progression toward moral chaos
6. Procreation is the reason for marriage
7. Using another word for domestic partnerships does not hurt same-sex couples.
8. Same-sex behavior is deviant and should not be glorified.
9. Children will be forced to think about sexuality and sexual behavior before they are developmentally ready.
Here is why:
1: Argument: Marriage is a holy union; gay and lesbian marriage is against the Bible. It is only the term "marriage" to which we object.
Counter-argument: Yes, religious marriage is absolutely a holy union, but only to the religion in which it is performed. Hindu marriage is a holy Hindu union, but has nothing to do with the Christian Bible or Jewish Torah. Yet, it is perfectly accepted in our society, even though Hindus worship multiple gods, which is also contrary to the one God of the Christian Bible, the very God in whom we "trust" on currency, and under whom this country was founded. Should there be another word for their marriage? There is nothing holy about my marriage; my husband and I were married outdoors by a bankruptcy judge. Our marriage is entirely civil, and is still fully recognized by our community and every U.S. civic institution. Should there be another word for our marriage? My church, Unitarian Universalism, among other religious institutions, has been performing gay marriages for decades. Here is an example of a religious version of marriage that is no longer recognized by the state.
Like the words "art", and "love", the word "marriage" has multiple meanings. It connotes a Christian holy union, a Jewish holy union, a Buddhist holy union, a Hindu holy union, holy unions associated with the multiple smaller religions around the world, and courthouse ceremonies, as well as other civil unions between two consenting adults.
It is my understanding that in most of Europe a couple is first married by the state, then may exercise their option to have a religious ceremony. This sensible process underscores the basic difference between these two definitions of marriage; the civil and the religious.
2. Argument: Gays and lesbians have all the rights and privileges of anyone else through civil unions.
Counter-argument: Not so. There are multiple ways in which many kinds of civil unions and domestic partnerships are unequal in rights afforded to married couples, including the fact that federal tax law does not recognize domestic partnerships, so there is no option to file a joint tax return to be allowed those tax savings. Many more reasons are outlined on http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm .
I would like to add one detail, that when filling out a broad range of other forms, such as medical forms, loan application forms, etc., in the course of normal life, one is asked to select from, "single" "married" or "divorced". It is either necessary to essentially lie on these forms if you are in a domestic partnership, or leave the section blank, which would single you out as gay or lesbian. Gays and lesbians would also be singled out if forms everywhere were changed to include "domestic partnership" as an option. The only purpose of this choice would be to single people out as gay or lesbian; institutions do not need to know this for any other purpose. It's just an issue of semantics - of language we choose to use.
3. Argument: The definition of marriage has been the same for millennia: why should we change it now?
Counter-argument: While I have no good argument for gay marriage being allowed in previous eras (not to say that such an argument isn't out there), where it comes to our country and state: it is Prop 8 proponents who have changed the definition of state-sanctioned marriage from its time-honored union "between consenting adults".
4. Argument: Churches will soon be forced to perform gay marriages.
Counter-argument: I can fully understand this concern, as seemingly every other civil rights issue has been vigorously enforced in public institutions everywhere. However, again: this is not a religious question, it's a civil question. A church is a private institution, not a public one (unless it receives public funds, which is a whole other debate), and is allowed to be as hateful and exclusionary as it wants to be. I personally think that children should not be allowed in such environments, and that some day the state might seek to remove them from institutions that might profess their hatred toward some of them (the gay and lesbian ones), but maybe that's way off the deep end. Anyway, perhaps the sort of conclusion as I have extrapolated it is the reason for the fear.
5. Argument: Marriages to animals are next.
Counter-argument: An animal cannot be part of an agreement between "consenting adults", because it cannot consent.
6. The purpose of marriage is procreation. Because gays and lesbians cannot naturally procreate together, their marriages should not be sanctioned by the state.
Counter argument: This argument was made to me by my mother, who remarried after menopause. ...sigh...... I suppose that there should be another word for people who marry with no intention of having children. Or who are infertile. Perhaps people discovered to be infertile should be made to get divorced and then perhaps get a civil union? Pardon my sarcasm, but this does get tiring.
If people would just stop substituting their own consciences for those of clergy and TV personalities that fill their minds with these justifications, the truth would be allowed to surface.
7. Argument: As straight people, this is "our" word - they can't use it. Let them have their own word for marriage. It does not hurt them.
Counter-argument: Yes it does. One could argue that requiring Jews in Germany to wear stars of David on their arms did not hurt them. It hurt by singling them out, simultaneously de-humanizing them, which opened the door to a progression of ever more violent acts toward them. Jews have their own word for divorce, "get", and many are fine using it because it came from them. But, if society insisted that they not be able to use the word "get" because there is a pre-established definition of it by another religion, and instead imposed another word on them alone, people everywhere would be up in arms. Same if they were made to use a word other than "marriage". It would be dehumanizing, which is always the first step toward violence in every form and degree.
Besides, claiming ownership of a particular word is unbelievably juvenile. I seem to remember something like that going on at the playground in fifth grade.
8. Argument: Gay and lesbian "behavior" is a choice to engage in sexual deviancy and/or is, at best, an illness; an affliction. It should not be glorified in the public sphere by being elevated to a social norm through the sanctity of marriage.
Counter-argument: Well, this gets to a major issue of the issue: do you believe that sexuality is a choice? According to a television documentary aired recently on twins in the womb, medical science has recently discovered that the cause of sexual preference might be associated with hormone levels afforded to a fetus at a critical developmental period. Similarly, conditions in the womb are responsible for certain medical afflictions, as well. So, it seems that homosexuality is not a choice (as evidenced by countless sources - I encourage everyone to research this fact online, using non-religious sources where possible). If homosexuality is, in fact, an affliction, like a handicap, isn't it up to us NOT to discriminate?
As John Stewart, among others, has pointed out, homosexuality is not a choice. But religion is.
9. Argument: Our children will be forced in public schools to listen to stories about gay and lesbian people, and my child is not of an age to think about sex.
Counter-argument: This gets to another basic premise that people have, that I think really needs to be shaken: that gays and lesbians are first and foremost sexual, and to explain that men and women are in a committed relationship to someone from the same-gender, it is necessary to explain graphic sexual practices to that child. Why? Learning in school about two men or women who marry is no different from learning about a heterosexual couple who marries. No description of sex necessary, whatsoever. Sure, sexual attraction is generally the first step toward a committed relationship, but it is by far the dominant force in many relationships, (and even less so in marriages! Take it from a married woman!)
I don't particularly see schools teaching in depth about gay marriage. But, the law of the land is bound to be discussed, I suppose, at some point or another (briefly, though, I'm sure). My feeling is that if you really want your child sequestered away from discussion any particular kind of marriage, whether it be gay, lesbian, or multi-racial, you need to send your child to private school.
The only logical - although misguided - reason for a person to vote yes on Prop 8, would be discomfort with the existence and prevalence of homosexual people in our midst has led us to vote emotionally. That we may be familiar with some gay and/or lesbian people, their presence in our society interferes with our version of our ideal lives. Perhaps, just as thinking about our parents having sex made us uncomfortable, since "homosexuality" brings about adolescent-style questions about how such sexual acts might work, thinking about gay or lesbian people doing the same makes us uncomfortable as well. We would prefer that this issue would just go away, or that at least we could exhibit some measure of control over it. At worst, this discomfort, combined with an individual's insecurity, can lead to bona fide hate.
It is my sincere hope that we can open our collective hearts toward love and compassion for those who are different from ourselves. My heart broke on November 5, 2008 for all those children and teens who were in the closet, about to come out, or, who have just come out. It is not worth the cost to our inner consciences and overall well-being to bully a minority over the use of a simple word.
