When the gay marriage debate hit the Senate floor again a couple weeks ago, I posted a piece on my blog, called
Fun With the Threat to Marriage.
I don't get a lot of comments on my blog, but I received a couple for this particular post. I'd like to share one with my fellow kossacks. There's a lot here, and it's not particularly enlightening, but it's hopefully entertaining.
More on the flip:
Here's my original post:
Activist judges are attacking the traditional definition of marriage by allowing homosexuals to get married. Marriage is one man and one woman. We must protect marriage by passing a constitutional amendment that prohibits gay marriage.
The above statements, while simplistic, represent the entirety of the argument in favor of President Bush and the Republican Party's renewed push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
First of all, the fact that this is even being discussed is sickening. So please know that I'm writing this knee-deep in my own puke.
Here's what I wrote back in 2004 about a Michigan ballot proposal to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage:
I've been waiting, and have seen no valid . . . scientific evidence that gay marriage affects anything, other than the two people getting married. Specifically, what is it about homosexual marriage that "threatens" marriage between a man and a woman? Or anything else?
I'm still waiting.
There are, in fact, a lot of threats to marriage, but first it is worth pointing out that I'm operating here under the assumption that the best foundation for sound public policy is verifiable, unbiased evidence.
On to the threats: the fact that wages have been stagnant since 1970, while the cost of many basic human needs has skyrocketed, is inflicting real harm on married couples, especially poor and working class folks. The primary reason for divorce in America is financial trouble, followed by a failure to communicate about financial trouble. When it becomes necessary for both to work in order to make ends meet, and work increasingly longer hours, it creates a real barrier for communication and personal and mutual growth.
Well, we can do quite a few things to help these couples: apply a sane and fair tax on the wealthy and on corporations, close a few tax loopholes, and use that revenue to provide universal health care. That will relieve a great deal of stress for most married couples and families.
We could also protect the right to organize unions, which is the best way to raise wages in a manner that meets the needs of workers (rather than imposed from above), and also guarantees equal wages for equal work. Given that we've now got universal health care [if my first suggestion is followed] we've also removed the thorny issue of health care and prescription drug coverage from the bargaining table. Not too bad, and another big help to working families.
Our national infrastructure is crumbling, and our national energy policy is unsustainable, dangerous, and archaic. Let's get the hell out of Iraq (and Latin America, while we're at it) and use the money we'll save to launch a massive public works program (infrastructure, housing, transportation) rooted in sustainable energy production. It will create thousands, perhaps millinos of well-paying jobs, and concurrently relieve working families of sudden spikes in energy costs.
On top of that, we could also actively encourage a cultural revolution wherein we liberate ourselves further from traditional, restrictive, and sadistic concepts of gender and sex. That would be a huge help.
We could do other things too, if we prefer to ignore the root causes of social problems. How about making pre-nuptial areements illegal? A pre-nup is basically a statement on the part of both parties that they regard the marriage as possibly temporary. We could also get hardcore, and criminalize divorce. You're getting a divorce? 20 years in prison. That would make the divorce rate plummet, I bet. Nothing would do more to save marriage than to make divorce illegal.
Wait a minute. I just realized I'm off on the wrong track with this; if you listen closely, it is clear that the proponents of this amendment aren't trying to save marriage, but the definition of marriage. So marriage is defined as one man and one woman, and that's the way it's always been. Got it. Marriage therefore is not defined by love. It is not defined by commitment, by loyalty, or passion. We know of no evidence that homosexuals are incapable of these qualities and values. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Marriage, therefore, is defined by biology.
It follows that the only possible purpose of marriage is procreation. If that is the case, then to save traditional marriage (as the propenents define it), we should criminalize all marriages that do not result in procreation, or where the couple refuses forced adoption of a determined number of children.
Women of the world rejoice, you have been returned to your proper social and economic function: breeder.
Yes, I'm aware that I am now ranting. Hold on, I've got one more. This debate is simply oozing with fear. If homosexuals are a threat, which clearly they are (man, this is so surreal), then the solution is clear: we've got to eliminate homosexuality.
Certain "Christian" organizations and individuals claim they can utitlize therapy to make gay people straight, or at least convince them to become celibate. Succeed, and Christ will love you, but right now you're grossing him out. But how do we stop homosexuality at the source?
We must examine where homosexuals come from. As there is no evidence that homosexuality is learned behavior, a logical place to look is the parents. Well, my goodness . . . it turns out that the vast majority of homsexuals were born of heterosexual parents.! Indeed, many homosexuals care for sick and elderly parents who are heterosexual, have siblings and other family members who are heterosexual, and have children of their own who are heterosexual. My God, here we are worried about the negative influence of gay folks on straight folks, and they've been right here under our noses the whole time!
We must conclude, therefore, that heterosexual families are veritable breeding grounds for homosexuals. Thus the best way to eliminate homosexuality, and the resultant threats to "traditional" marriage, is to eliminate heterosexual marriage and breeding.
All right, now I'm just having fun. But I'm still puking.
Here is the comment, from a gentleman who calls himself "Scia." His blog is called Know Thy Facts Not Thy Neighbors:
Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?
Introducing same-sex marriages into our society is social suicide dressed up as a civil right. How will society benefit from such a radical redefinition of the institute of marriage? It will lead to "love" as being the ONLY reason to marry someone. Will that in turn make it legal to "marry" your mother or father or your sister or brother?
Why do we need to open the door to other kinds of relationships in order to please the homosexual community? Homosexuals are depending on the heterosexual community to protect them because heterosexuals feel that the gay community is being attacked and are therefore the "minority". Why should we declassify a subgroup of people in order to make them a part of a minority group? When will this minority group become the majority and therefore redefine what a family is as is best explained by a comment by Michelangelo Signorile, an outright gay activist:
(Same-sex marriage offers)... "a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture..." Michelangelo Signorile, "I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO," OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32.
Now, I know this comment doesn't merit much of a response, but I'm bored and the love of my life is on a plane to Vegas. So I went off:
Scia:
You began with a question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?
This is confusing, to say the least. The issue, at least as originally addressed in the relevant post, is how it affects marriage, or the traditional definition of marriage. By expanding it to the larger, indeed, vast, realm of "humanity," one must first define one's terms. As you do not bother to define "humanity" in your comment, I feel justified in ignoring your question, especially since in addition to not defining your terms, you also don't bother to answer your own question. I don't blame you, given its phrasing, but it makes your comment unintelligible. Especially since homosexuality has been a historical constant in "humanity" since our earliest records of human beings. Still, I will attempt to address a couple of your points.
First, your comment about "opening the door to other kinds of relationships" speaks volumes about where you believe homosexuality belongs in our society - it should be hidden or criminalized. I make this observation based on your comment as well as the content of your blog. I will simply say that it is your right to believe this, and leave it at that. To even enter a debate about such a despicable idea is to lose one's humanity, and I refuse to do so.
You write: "Homosexuals are depending on the heterosexual community to protect them because heterosexuals feel that the gay community is being attacked and are therefore the 'minority'."
I find this argument interesting, as a central concern of the framers of the U.S. Constitution happened to be protection of minority rights. But specifically, homosexuals do not appear to be depending on anyone. They are not hiding in the background, letting others speak for them. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to this struggle for equality can see that homosexuals themselves are in the forefront, and have been for decades.
Do they have heterosexual supporters? Of course. Blacks fighting for equal rights have white supporters. Women fighting for equal rights have male supporters (nowhere near enough, to our shame). The same can be said for any group of people disenfranchised or repressed throughout history. It appears that your specific concern here is not that homosexuals are fighting for equality under the law, but that many heterosexuals have recognized this discrimination for what it is, and are acting accordingly, in the spirit of "an injury to one is an injury to all."
The rest of that particular paragraph is incomprehensible. Moving on.
Your earlier slippery-slope argument, that recognizing same-sex marriage/partnerships would lead to you being able to marry your mother, is just tired. You would get a D- in Logic 101 with such an argument. No modern scientist or sociologist with even a shred of intellectual honesty would equate a romantic relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex with a child's love for his mother.
Ironically, that statement validates my contention that opponents of same-sex marriage want marriage to be defined solely by biology. Again, if biology is the only basis for marriage, then there can be no other purpose for marriage than procreation. Try pushing that line of thinking in public, and see how far you get.
Of course, marriage has always been restricted in America, and I don't think anyone can argue that there are some restrictions that make perfect sense. Assuming you are an adult, you should not be allowed to marry a 10-year-old boy or girl. I am sure I don't have to explain why.
But many legal restrictions on marriage have been eliminated throughout our history. As our understanding of human rights evolves, certain limitations on those rights cease to be morally justifiable. Your argument demonstrates that you know little of the history; here are some examples:
We used to define marriage as between a man and his chattel - married women were considered the property of their husbands (with no rights other than those their husband was willing to allow them) and certain elements of that horrid arrangement remained until quite recently. Based on what has been written in your blog, I feel safe in assuming that this is the kind of "traditional" marriage to which you'd like to return.
Marriage was also restricted by ethnicity. During slavery we did not recognize marriage between slaves, because slave-owners wanted the "freedom" to buy, sell, and breed slaves without the inconvenience of legal recognition of slave marriages. Later, marriage was restricted to same-race couples; many states outlawed interracial marriage, and it wasn't until the late 1960s that the Supreme Court killed that restriction.
Did we "open the door" to interracial marriage to please blacks, or liberal whites? No, we recognized that these and other restrictions on marriage were impossible to justify as our understanding of human rights expanded and evolved, much to our credit and to the improvement of our society as a whole.
Here is my challenge to you: present unbiased, scientific, verifiable evidence that same-sex marriage inflicts real harm on anything or anyone, including the children raised by such couples. Your own personal prejudice or religious bias is not evidence, nor is a random comment from one activist (which, if you would read it carefully, does not validate your argument). I'll save you the time, and tell you that you won't find it, but please go ahead and try.
Until then, enjoy looking at life through a straw, and please refrain from further cluttering my comments section with bigotry or blind adherence to tradition.
Well, that was fun. Time for a drink. Negro Modelo with lime, anyone?