This
week featured two happenings in the drive to legalize same-sex marriage in the
United States. First, the Supreme Court
finally heard cases concerning the constitutionality marriage restrictions and
second, Facebook was hit by a wave of profile picture changes to a red equals
sign. One of those matters a great deal,
one hardly matters at all. I’ll let you
decide which is which. My distaste for
internet activism aside, same-sex marriage is the topic of the hour and I would
be amiss if I did not add my two cents.
Debates over the morality of
same-sex marriage can certainly happen on a person-to-person level, mostly on
the basis of religion. But then such
conversations can also be applied to drinking alcohol, gambling, and watching
rated-R movies. Once applied to a political/legal
setting, however, the case against same-sex marriage disappears entirely. Unfortunately (or is it fortunate?), I have
not been able to find a same-sex marriage opponent to lay out their argument
against it, so I have to rely on what I have heard in the past.
The
stupidest argument against same-sex marriage is that marriage is defined as a
union between a man and a woman. Please.
A frequent assertion by some
conservative commentators is that allowing same-sex couples to get married will
destroy the “sanctity of marriage.” This
sanctity, however, has never existed and never will. Divorce and affair statistics aside, although
they do serve as proof that if such sanctity did exist in the past it has been
thoroughly annihilated, there is nothing inherently sacred about marriage. Marriages performed in churches or other
places of worship under the umbrella of a religion? Sure, those can loosely be defined as
sacred. But, legally speaking, there is
no difference between a marriage conducted by a justice of the peace and one
conducted by the Archbishop of New York.
Getting to the fun stuff, there is
the assertion that Christianity prohibits same-sex marriage. This is explicitly laid out in some Leviticus
passage which die-hards enjoy throwing out, but in the New Testament there are
only three verses which refer to homosexuality (exactly none of which are
spoken by Jesus). This argument exists
in the personal realm, but falters immediately upon arrival on the political
stage.
The very first thing in the Bill of
Rights is the explicit statement that Congress cannot establish a national
religion. Congress can no more install
the Ten Commandments in the legal code than it can enact Sharia law. Biblical positions on homosexuality simply
cannot be used as national legislation.
To my knowledge, nearly every state has a similar prohibition in their
constitutions. Conceding that, some
same-sex marriage opponents assert that our nation was founded on Christian
principles and because of that, laws resembling such values are
permissible. The personal beliefs of our
Founders absolutely cannot inform contemporary political policy. After all, many of the more prominent
Founders (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Henry, Hancock, and Franklin)
owned slaves. If the fact that these
figures were Christian should inherently make same-sex marriage illegal, then I
guess the Civil War didn’t serve much of a purpose. Perhaps our nation was founded on Christian
values, but it was also founded on the backs of slaves. We should not forget that fact.
It is the opinion of some that
same-sex couples already enjoy all the rights as heterosexual couples and the
debate is merely a name matter. Take it
away, Chief Justice John Roberts!
“Same-sex couples have every other right. It’s just about a label in this case.” You see, same-sex and opposite-sex couples
are equal. Sure, they have separate
names, but they are equal. Wait a
second, that sounds familiar…oh, right! “Separate
but equal” was used by the Court to justify segregation in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896); a ruling which was later overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education (1954).
It is nearly inconceivable that the
Court could find bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, but you never know
what will happen. Overall, there can
hardly be any legal justification for prohibiting such unions in their fullest
forms. Those Christians who oppose it
will not be satisfied, but there is little cause for them to erupt in fury. Nobody is going to force them to marry
members of the same sex, and there will (very likely) not be laws which force
ministers who oppose the unions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Legal opposition to same-sex marriage has
always been smoke and mirrors, but hopefully this clears the air, so to speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment