As I explained in the first part of this article, the religious arguments conservatives use to keep same-sex couples from enjoying the same marriage rights as heterosexual (or "opposite," according to Miss California USA Carrie Prejean) couples simply don’t hold water. Following are more of their points, followed by my counterpoints that show why they have the same-sex marriage issue all wrong:
.jpg)
Kelly Friend, left, and Tasha Vazquez wait to apply for a marriage license in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Point: Sex between people of the same gender is unnatural.
Counterpoint: If same-gender sex occurs in nature, then it is natural. And it does occur among many species of animals. In fact, scientists have discovered that same-gender sexual activity occurs most often at times when animals are struggling to survive in areas where they’re dealing with overpopulation and limited resources. Looks like animals are even smarter than humans when it comes to managing natural resources.
Point: Then we get to the ultimate lie, that marriage is primarily a religious issue.
Counterpoint: Marriage was, first and foremost, a legal arrangement between families involving--not love or personal relationships--but property. And the primary property in the transaction was the bride, who was given by the bride’s father to the groom’s family. Thus, the tradition that the father of the bride give her away to the groom--an archaic practice best left out of modern marriages, but that’s a personal choice that should be made by the bride and no one else. The second property issue in marriage was the issue: the children that came from the marriage union. They were important because the more children a family/tribe had, the greater their influence in the community/nation. Then there was the dowry, an archaic custom in which the bride’s father paid the groom and/or his family to take her off his hands. In some societies it was the other way around: The man purchased the wife from her family. Either way, money or property changed hands so that the bride could too. This is very much a legal matter, and it’s about time it was completely separated from religious control. The United States Congress should pass a law that would grant the same legal marriage rights--or whatever they want to call them--to all couples, no matter their gender makeup, then let each church decide whether they want to bless those unions, just as it’s done in so many European countries today.
Point: Marriage is a tradition that has not changed in 5000 years.
Counterpoint: Those who think marriage has always been hearts and flowers are dead wrong. The institution has long been in a state of flux as the rights of women and children have slowly come to be recognized and protected. Throughout history, traditions that are morally wrong--such as spouse and child abuse, discrimination, slavery, and war--have changed with our growth as a society, though we still have a long way to go in all these areas. The time has come to finally end one more form of bigotry by allowing any two people who love each other to enjoy the same rights and privileges now granted to "opposite" couples, whether money changes hands or they plan to have children, or none of the above.
Point: Gays and lesbians should be satisfied with civil unions.
Counterpoint: Civil unions, civil partnerships--whatever they’re called--only grant a handful of the more than 1400 legal rights and benefits given to straight married couples in the United States. Even marriages honored by individual states are not recognized in most of the other states, and many federal rights are not recognized for same-sex couples whose unions are fully blessed in the small number of states that allow gay marriage. The battle will not be over until everyone in the U.S. can marry whomever they choose and their relationship is recognized and honored in every state and county in the country.
Point: Gay marriage violates conservative values.
Counterpoint: Traditional conservatives focused on economic issues, rejecting the notion of delving into private issues. In fact, Barry Goldwater, the uber-conservative of the previous generation, believed government should stay out of the issues of abortion and gay marriage and churches should stay out of politics--as in the First Amendment tradition of separation of church and state.
Point: The current Miss California USA claims she meant "no offense" by declaring her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Counterpoint: Carrie Prejean can say all she wants about her belief in "opposite" marriage. But she is using her notoriety to make sure millions of same-sex couples in this country--their country too!--continue to be denied the same rights and privileges granted to her married "opposite" friends. In the end, her ongoing attempt to continue denying this basic civil right to millions of Americans is offensive!
Related articles:
Gay marriage: Why the right has got it all wrong (Part 1 of 2)
State's fundamentalist groups file to run referendum against 'everything but marriage' bill
For more info: Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Comments
Well done Debbie. You are a 100% correct.
Legal marriage granted by the state should be severed of any religious ties. A religious ceremony indicating marriage must be distinct and seperate from the legal marriage license.
Religious opinion, be it a minority or a majority, should have no bearing on the matter. One of the most profound ideals of this country is the separation of church and state, and freedom from religious oppression. It is high time we started to live up to those ideals.
peace
Final point: in free and fair elections--which have been held in 30 states across the USA--voters have spoken. They have approved constitutional ammendments which prohibit same-sex marriage.
Were all of these voters wrong? Were they all bigots? Or intellectual lightweights, as some in the MSM would have you believe? I don't think so.
Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton are all on record opposing same-sex marriage. Are all three politicians--the leading vote getters in last year's presidential contest--wrong on such a basic issue?
Those who continue to flail away on this issue seem to have a mentality that "we're right, the world is wrong!" I mean, let's get serious, people....take California. It's the largest state in the country, and some might argue the most liberal. In the best election cycle for liberals in half a century, California approved Proposition 8. Folks, just do the arithmetic. But I caution you, the numbers aren't pretty.
Obama carried California, by 61-37%, stomping McCain by 3.2 million votes. And in this watershed election, these same voters affirmed that marriage should be between one man, and one woman. So a HUGE chunk of Obama's 8.2 million votes also went in favor of Prop 8.
Of course...Obama is a courageous politician, who is anxious to help the disenfranchised. He would never chuck aside principle just to save his own political hide. So I'm sure you can get get him to change his mind, and enlist him in your cause. Otherwise...well, just give it a rest.
Thank you both for these insightful comments! Yes, trailrunner, insightful, because you have reminded me of one more point I neglected to include, which I will when I rerun both parts of this article in my next essay collection.
In fact, the history of our country is a saga of growing beyond the bigotry of the majority to the enlightenment that sprang from small minorities, such as slavery, Jim Crow, anti-Asian policies, etc. And since the debacle of Proposition 8, polls are beginning to show that more people in California have come to regret their failure to understand the true meaning of that odious law. It won't be long before the votes will begin to turn around.
I'm looking forward to that day!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!