I've been reading some of the articles about the San Francisco gay marriages lately, and the arguments both for and against because I think it's important to look at both sides of any issue before coming to a conclusion (although I'm sure everyone who knows me knows what my conclusion is), and I found this statement on a message board. The person was replying to another poster's assertion that true Christians could not support gay marriage if they believed in the Bible.
"I don't cherry-pick phrases out of the Bible to help me hate anyone."
Seriously. This is one thing I've come across in talking to people who are religious more often than not. This idea that because some guy 2500 years ago decided that something was not acceptable
based on the social and cultural norms of his time, that means everyone
living today has to go along with it? And more than that, use this thousands-year old historical document to advocate hate? That seems rather...antithetical to the basic struture of Christianity to me.
Basically, marriage is a civil institution. That's why you can get married by a justice of the peace and not a minister if you like. Marriage is not a religious institution. It isn't. So why should it be governed by the "feelings" of the moral majority? And I say feelings deliberately, because if it's not the "well, it says so in the Bible" argument, it's the, "well, it just feels wrong" argument. What about people who are atheists? Or Jews? Or Muslims? Or whatever? They're obviously not participating in marriage as the same religious institution that Christians are, but it's acceptable because of the gender of the parties involved?
Another argument that comes up is the "tradition of marriage." See, marriage has
always been between a man and a woman, and thus it should remain. Except that that's not true. There were civil unions roughly equating to marriage (joint custody of property, joint taxation, etc.) that took place between same sex couples in ancient Rome and Greece, in Britain during the Middle Ages, even in Catholic churches after marriage was made a religious union in 1215, and in Africa continuing to this day. There
is not a historical basis for marriage being only the union between a man and a woman, so that argument doesn't fly, either.
Marriage is only real if the couple can reproduce? I've read that argument quite a bit lately. Because it's, apparently, all about making babies. What about couples that cannot conceive, for whatever medical reason? Is their marriage less "real?" What about couples that can't afford to have children? Simply don't want to have children? And I'm talking het couples here. Are their marriages less valid because they're not reproducing? What does breeding have to do with marriage, seriously? That is, again, assuming that most children throughout history have been born in monogamous relationships "sanctified" through marriage. Polygamy and even polyandry were and are common enough to rule that idea invalid, and that's just discussing het marriage. Bottom line, though, the argument that a married couple should be able to have children used to dispute gay marriage will inevitably become obsolete soon enough, when technologies developed for cloning make it possible for the chromosomes of two same sex people to be combined in a host egg cell, and gay couples will be able to have children that are genetically theirs.
Bottom line for me, I guess, is that it really does come down to a question of civil liberties, of civil rights. The laws forbidding gay marriages are unconstitutional. That is why there's talk of making a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; not because they want to cement the fact it's not going to happen, but to validate it in the first place. Laws banning gay marriage are just as unconstitutional as the laws on segregation, slavery, and voting rights. They're laws based on cultural and social norms, and peoples' "feelings," not based on the constitution. And as such, regardless what the moral majority may think, may feel, they're simply inexcusable.
I'd like to conclude this already fairly long post with a compare-and-contrast exercise. Let's look at Britney Spears's latest marriage. Hooked up with an old friend in Vegas, may or may not have been drunk, high, or both, but still managed to swing in and grab a marriage certificate. Got married in their jeans and t-shirts. Oops. Not only are they no longer married, in the eyes of the state, they never were! Annulled and done with. But this is okay, this is protected by all the laws governing marriage both state and federal. Now, let's look at a hypothetical gay couple. They've been together five years, they are committed, and they want to be together for the rest of their lives. All they want is to make their union recognized in a civic sense, for whatever reason. They can't. Now, why are these marriages either acceptable or not not because of the actual quality of the relationship, but just because of the genders of those involved? Does that make any sense? Which relationship really hurts the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage?