Gay Marriage

Here's my take on the same-sex marriage debate. Despite what social conservatives say, marriage is a contract between individuals, not a structure for making and raising children.

How do I know this? Marriages are allowed where one spouse is infertile. Contraception is permitted among married couples. Single parenthood is not illegal. Divorce is legal, even when there are children involved. There is no requirement that married couples try to have children.

What is government's sole legitimate interest in marriage? Enforcing the contract. Does government get to dictate the sexes of people involved in other agreements and contracts? No.

There is nothing in the legalization of gay marriage that would require any church to perform marriages for gay couples. The two lesbians across the street being married does not devalue your marriage in any way.

The core of politicians' objections to gay marriage is, of course, religous in nature. Or, rather, SELECTIVELY religious in nature. Those willing to ban gay marriage (the same people who wanted to put gay people in prison for private, consensual, intimate behaviour) are, for instance, willing to ignore, and even participate in, other "abominations" in the Christian Bible, such as touching the skin of a pig. Are you reading this, Steve Largent? Can you say HYPOCRITE?

The heart of the matter is this -- government has no business saying Britney Spears' two-day marriage is a more legitimate relationship than a gay couple's twenty-year relationship. And that is what a marriage license does.

In many cases, a wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband in court. Rosie O'Donnell's partner Kelly was forced to testify against her. An estranged relative can be considered "next of kin" over a life partner in making medical decisions or funeral arrangements. Gay people pay into Social Security, yet are denied equal benefits.

The social conservatives point out that these things can be fixed legislatively without changing the definition of marriage judicially. In a perfect world, that would be true. But the same people who vigorously oppose gay marriage fight tooth and nail to keep domestic partner legislation from becoming law. They could have avoided this whole mess if along the way they had eliminated the secular, governmental advantages given to married couples and denied single people and those in domestic partnerships. But they didn't. And they're not about to. State representatives in Missouri, for example, decided that, along with banning gay marriages, they'd let voters ban civil unions too, just for good measure.

While the courtroom isn't the best place to settle this, we have to remember how many times in the 20th century the courts were used to strike down government-imposed discrimination. Take segregation, for example. Or interracial marriage.

[pause while the social conservatives spit out their coffee and say "But that's not the same thing! Race isn't a choice!"]

I don't even have to argue that homosexuality isn't a choice either. (Medical discoveries of different-shaped brain structures in gay people are evidence that it's not, by the way.) All I have to do is point out that while race isn't a choice, choosing to marry OUTSIDE your race IS a choice.

It's not about "special rights." It's about the government not dictating the sexes of people involved in the marital contract. Sexual discrimination, government tells us, IS wrong, after all.

Bush COULD have suggested a constitutional amendment to ban eminent domain, a true threat to American institutions. But he didn't.