This has been in my craw for a while and I need to comment about it. Here is Massachusetts there is a battle to allow homosexuals to legal marry. The gay community seems to be after more than just the all the legal rights of marriage (a la civil union). They want the full title of marriage. If you don’t know the full story… In short the Supreme Judicial Court passed a ruling that the current state practice of not issuing marriage license to same-sex couples was a violation of the state constitution. This started a movement in the legislature to propose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Even an amendment that would allow for civil union ended in a deadlock. All polls of Massachusetts residents that I have seen show an even split between for and against same-sex marriage. States across the country and trying to take similar actions with local, pro same-sex marriage officials making taking action in their jurisdictions by issuing licenses based on loose interpretations in state law (as in the case of San Francisco, Oregon, and one city in upstate New York).
I pose the question, is same-sex marriage really harmful to society or are people just uncomfortable and threatened?
I have issue with non-elected offices (i.e. Supreme Court justices) issuing order with a potential tinge of moral commentary. Many times though this is the only course of action for an underrepresented group, such as in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Morality is derived from society and those elected to represent that society, the members of the legislature, should be the ones to issue policy in this area. President Bush is calling for an amendment to the U.S. constitution, saying that it is necessary to protect an institution that is vital, a foundation of human society, a right of every man and woman, and enduring.
If we treat marriage as a basic human right (leaving out gender for a moment), do we want to write a clause in the base doctrine of our government that would limit the rights of a minority? Turn the clock back about 100 years and you can find state laws that forbad interracial unions. At the time this was the popular opinion of the majority, but to my knowledge no state constitutions were amended to forbid this type of union. Today interracial marriage is more common and accepted.
I think what we are seeing is social evolution. Through out this history of the country the supremacy of the majority has been challenged. Each under represented group wants their rights and equal treatment. As is human nature this is taken as a threat and action is taken to maintain the power structure. At the same time however we are always fascinated by that which is other. Before a group is fully accepted elements of their distinctiveness will be accepted or copied. Look at the Black influence on American music. Jazz was imitated by Whites before the Black musicians were accepted for their art.
We are seeing a smilier trend with homosexuals. In the popular culture gay men are seen as being kind and aware of current trends in the fashion world. Television programs such as “Will and Grace” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” are enjoying much popularity to the point that they are parodied by programs such as “Straight Plan for the Gay Man.” The acceptance of homosexuality may be focused in certain centered around the country, but it is a group that is spread across the nation and will not simply go away.
This issue of same-sex marriage in an interesting one as it bring in new challenges to social norms. Previous groups have challenged traditional power structures, woman’s and black suffrage, emancipation of the slaves that were specific to one group. But not with homosexuality we face a more fundamental challenge. With women and blacks for example, their identify is clear. You are born with dark skin or you are born a woman. In short you do not choose to be a member of that group, but you can choose to associate with that group. If people don’t know your association they might still assume it based on your appearance. It is not clear yet whether homosexuality is a matter of nature or choice (a subject of another debate), but if a person is of that orientation that do not have to appear to me a member of that group. Do you know what a Methodist looks like? How about a jewish man who is not waring a yarmulke? Taking homosexuality as a choice for the sake of argument it does have some ramifications. The person choosing that lifestyle is leading one that is considered “unnatural” by many, even going as far as to call it a sin. You can deny someone a choice if it causes real harm to another. Does homosexuality really harm anyone? By “harm” I don’t mean threaten.
I think that we are also seeing a change in the definition of marriage. The idea of marriage as changed over the centuries. It was always been meant for procreation, but the duties and expectations have changed. People get married now with no intent of having children, they just want to commit to each other. Marriage has also always been an economic or political institution. The idea of romantic love as the motivation for marriage is actually a fairly recent trend. At one time marriage was for life. Now it seems that this is not the case at least in the USA (last time I heard the divorce rate was around 50%). Except for the fact that marriage is accepted to be between a man a woman. I would contest that the definition is fluid and that the last point is being challenged.
It has been said that the family is the basic unit of society and that the strong marriage is the glue for the family. The commitment of the man and the woman to each other and the love for their offspring is what pushes forward and maintains the stability of the society. The homosexual couples that I have know who have children love them, care for them, and raise them with a set of moral values that I would be comfortable raising my own children with (when ever I have children to raise, might be a while in care my mother reads this). Is same-sex marriage a threat to the institution of marriage and thus to society? Can we blame same-sex marriages for the increasing divorce rate? Perhaps there are some other problems that need to be addressed in our society.
This issue is not going away and is not a nexus for the perceived breakdown and decay of the moral fabric of our society. Gays and Lesbians are real people who have chosen a lifestyle and by all objective measures is not damaging to anyone. They don’t have an agenda to recruit people to their way of life (try telling the Mormons that they can’t send their Elders door to door), they just want to be recognized. Perhaps it is time in this country that we separate religious and civil marriage and separate other sources of morality while we are at it. We are a very diverse nation, ever changing. That is the way it is supposed to be. At least we are discussing this all in a peaceful and civil manner, a riot would just be unfashionable.
