IN DEFENSE OF GAY MARRIAGE/CIVIL UNION
Stop Discrimination Now
The debacle in Iraq has muted -- or, to the new presidential hopefuls, mooted -- discussion of gay marriage. The subject has been broached but once, by Gwen Ifill during the vice presidential debate; President Bush's pusillanimous push to amend the constitution to prevent legal same-sex weddings has, thankfully, failed; a state amendment in Louisiana was nixed by an astute judge.
Still, this is a subject that should not be swept under the rug (or pushed back in the closet, if you will). Not when a significant number of Americans are being routinely discriminated against because of a sexual preference that is as innate to them -- and therefore as unchangeable -- as skin color, ethnicity or gender -- all three of which are protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
* * *
My Libertarian brother-in-law says that marriage should be a religio-spiritual event and never a legal one, that the government should have no truck over any marriage, gay or otherwise. And he's right -- in theory.
As it stands, however, there are benefits associated with marriage that lesbians and gays cannot legally enjoy. John Edwards touched on some of them during the debate: the right to visit your spouse in hospital; the right to make funeral arrangements for your spouse; the right to not pay inheritance tax after your spouse dies; and so forth. It's easier for straight married couples to do things like buy a house, adopt a child, get family coverage under an employer's health insurance plan.
This, friends, is discriminatory. It's not fair. And it has to stop.
Whether you call it a marriage or a civil union -- you say tomaeto, I say tomahto -- lesbians and gays must be afforded the same civil liberties as everyone else. This is not about semantics. It's about equal rights.
* * *
These people who oppose gay marriage or civil union ("GMCU") are the same people who opposed interracial marriage not so long ago. Motivated by hatred and fear, they seek to illegitimize and denigrate a relationship which repulses their obdurate and prudish sensibilities. They project their personal discomfort with the idea of two men having sex, say, onto a loving union which is none of their business.
Look, Jim Bob, just because GMCUs exist doesn't mean you have to marry a guy. Or maybe that temptation is what you're so afraid of?
To his credit, Dick Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, did not condemn gay marriage during the debate. His boss, alas, bashes GMCUs, at least publicly. Bush's small-minded amendment push was a political appeal to his Christian base, who view homosexuality as abhorrent. If you ask them why they think this, of course, they'll tell you the Bible forbids it and give you the song-and-dance about Sodom and Gomorrah.
* * *
Let's look, then, at this passage, from the book of Genesis, which concerns a Sodomite named Lot. Here's what happens: some rowdy men happen upon Lot's house in Sodom; presumably they want to have anal sex with Lot's male guests. Lot begs them not to. He insists that they have sex with his virgin daughters instead. The men refuse to do so (Lot's daughters, most likely, were no lookers).
Because Lot was so quick to whore out his daughters, the Lord rewards him by leading him away from Sodom. Then He destroys the entire city, and Gomorrah too, for good measure. Lot's wife looks back at the apocalyptic ruin and turns into a pillar of salt. This leaves a homeless Lot with his two still-virginal daughters.
Said daughters find it terrible that Lot has no male children. So they get him drunk and have sex with him -- this is their dad, remember -- and become pregnant. They bear him sons, and they all live happily ever after, with the Lord's blessing.
This is the story. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
What this means is that, according to the Bible, homosexuality is bad, but whoring out your daughers and incest are both good. Call me crazy, but this to me suggests a skewed sense of right and wrong. If anything, this is one of those Biblical passages that should not be looked to for moral guidance. Like the many passages on how to treat slaves. Or women.
There is, furthermore, ample evidence in the Gospels that Jesus himself preferred the company of men. I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say, the theological reasoning for homophobia is specious at best. This doesn't stop "Born Again" preachers from deriding homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.
Choice?
Look, Reverend Redneck, it takes an amazing amount of courage and fortitude to admit to being gay. It's a difficult, often lonely life. Gay-bashing is the rule in our homophobic society, even in the more liberal urban centers. Is there any other group in America that Bush could so brazenly condemn, without fear of reprisal?
To condemn homosexuality is un-Christian. To suggest that anyone would choose to be gay is ignorant. To preach against homosexuality is hateful, and will, if there is a just and benevolent God, damn these so-called holy men to the fiery hell they allude to in so many of their sanctimonious sermons.
(Interestingly, sexual preference, which is unchangeable, is not protected under Title VII, but religion, which is very changeable, is. Some documents, I suppose, should be amended).
* * *
Another phrase you hear in the anti-GMCU argument is "the sanctity of marriage." To this I say, give it a rest. The divorce rate in this country is more than fifty percent. And there are plenty of dysfunctional marriages that should be broken up that endure, for a variety of reasons.
Marriage, traditionally, was a way for girls to be honorably deflowered and children to be "legitimate". Nowadays, nobody cares about virgins and bastards. Marriage is about one thing: love.
If you are against GMCUs, you're in effect denying that lesbians and gays can love as deeply as their straight counterparts. You're like that blockheaded Pope who insisted that the sun revolved around the earth, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. Galileo recanted, but he was right the first time. Eppur si muove.
* * *
And the sooner we legitimize GMCUs, the better. In Holland, gay couples adopt children so often that the stereotypical Amsterdam gay couple is of two guys with little ones in tow. We could, and should, encourage the same thing here.
The idea of gay couples raising children makes many people uncomfortable, I realize. "Think of all the abuse the kids will take at school, having gay parents," and so forth. You know what? There are a lot of unwanted kids in this country, living in orphanages, in foster homes, as wards of the state. I don't have the statistics, but it's a higher number than it should be.
Orphanages are hotbeds of child abuse, molestation, rape, gang violence. Children are better off there than with two loving parents? Give me a break. Any child is better off being teased at recess by some ignoramus (and who isn't anyway?) than raped by a foundry worker.
If this offends you, it should. Bad things happen to children; if these bad things can be mitigated by the country embracing GMCUs, let us open our arms.
I respect that people have political differences. There are even one or two Republicans that I admire. But this issue transcends politics. This is about equal rights. This is about protecting an oft-maligned group of people who most need our legal protection.
The mindset of those who oppose GMCUs is the mindset of the Taliban. The last thing we need in this country is more hate.
—Greg Olear
Editor, LARGEREGO
October 12, 2004
Editor, LARGEREGO
October 12, 2004
"We are a nation in danger." |