In Defense of Gay Marriage Part I

President Obama cannot seem to make up his mind on the gay rights issue. Having campaigned on a platform that included pro-gay marriage sentiments, since coming into office Obama has upheld the military’s right to “don’t ask, don’t tell” as well as refuse to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). Recently, however, Obama has backpedaled on the issue again, moving closer to his campaign’s support of gay rights and is challenging Congress to repeal DoMA.

As someone who considers himself to be center-right on the political spectrum it is surprising for many people to find how fervently I support gay marriage and equal rights for gays. There are a myriad of reasons for this, including having many oppressed gay friends, but I think one of the most prevalent and important reasons I support gay marriage is very simply: I have yet to hear of any real arguments against it that make much to any sense given the Constitution, founding principles of our nation, current American political culture and logical reasoning. As such, I would like to list out some of the common (typically bad) arguments against gay marriage as well as some that I found that are perhaps the best reasons I have heard (though their soundness is still questionable). I have posted the arguments in full, so as to avoid any criticism of picking and choosing which to defend against. Therefore, this is a bit long, which is why it is posted in multiple parts.

10 arguments (and my rebuttals) from the website, No Gay Marriage :

1. The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (v. 29-31, NIV).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

I agree that fractured families are bad for children. The effects of a single-parent home on the development of a child is well documented to be very negative versus that of a child growing up in a two-parent family. But this is not the fault of gay marriage, it is the fault of divorce. Divorce, by definition, is the number one threat to marriage.

These descriptions of “six or eight ‘grandparents’” and a world where “little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street” are things that already happen in single parent families. They have no basis on the gay rights issue as the ability of gay couples (some of whom already have children) to solidify their relationship in marriage would increase stability and help alleviate this problems, not worsen them.

As far as the bible quote goes, I am always hesitant to engage in religious debates as any such argument is impossible to prove wrong or right because, as they say, even the devil can quote scripture. So allow me to do so:

And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40).

Love is to be held above all else. I know I love my neighbor enough to allow them to marry the person that they love. Do you?

2. The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.”

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

This is one of your typical slippery-slope arguments. “Well, if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow polygamy, and if we allow that, then we’ll have to allow people to marry their pets, and well, if we allow that, then I guess Jimmy will have to be allowed to marry his ’73 Camaro he loves so much.”

None of that really makes a whole lot of sense. Gay marriage advocates are asking that two adults with good legal standing and of sound mind be allowed to express their love in a marriage that has a legal standing. Lawrence v Texas was a case about sexual acts, not all of which were specific to gay couples (oral sex was typically recognized as being “sodomy”), it was not, as many claim, a purely gay rights case and has no bearing on polygamy.

As far as the Utah ALCU’s argument that it is the job of the state to “prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”, well here I will agree with you, that is not how it works. It would be the burden of the proponents of polygamy to show how it is beneficial and a right and the opponents to show why it is not. This is like how we show why gay marriage is a natural right that should be afforded to American citizens and you argue that it is not. Thankfully, you continue to do a very poor job.

The legal framework that you argue as the bedrock of marriage always included, up until the past century, limitations that prevented people from marrying for love (even as a man and a woman) if their union would be in violation of various social norms of the time, such as wealth, social status, race, nationality, etc. We look back on that period incredulously now, wondering how we could have been so short-sighted on the right of people to marry, and I guarantee that we will do the same in a few decades after we allow gay marriage.

3. An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.

After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

The gay marriage camp actually is generally in favor of keeping the states involved in marriage. That’s kind of a big purpose of this movement. I once again fail to understand how this increases divorce, gay marriage would stabilize relationships, not end them. The movement is trying to increase families, increase marriage and increase the love that we share; your conclusions on this are misguided at best.

4. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

Morals are impossible to argue. You say that homosexuality is immoral, I say that the continued denigration and second-class citizenship of homosexuals is immoral. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. Right?

Yes, I imagine that schools would have to acknowledge in their teaching that homosexual couplings exist. I have always been for teaching students the truth, I think that is a good way to run education. As long as it is presented in a sensible, neutral and appropriate manner, I see no problem with this. We did have to change our teaching programs to educate students that people of different races could marry, didn’t seem to do a whole lot of evil there.

5. From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

All heterosexual couples = good parents. All homosexual couples = bad parents. That seems to be the argument here. Adoption agencies and the courts that help facilitate the programs go through an extensive process of vetting for potential adoptive parents. If it is decided that a gay couple would not be good parents, then just the same as if they were straight, they would not get the children.

There are so many children out there in need of a loving home and family; who are we to deny a decent, hard working and loving couple the opportunity to adopt, raise and protect these unfortunate children solely because they love some one of the same gender?

Part II

Advertisement