Some Emotions about Gay Marriage

I am bothered by gay marriage.

I have been really passionate about it for a long while now. Perhaps for the past 10 years. I was aware that gay people weren't able to marry and then happily moved back to Boston just months before Massachusetts legalized it in 2004. I worked on the campaign to save it when the opportunity to overturn it was offered to the voters of Massachusetts in 2006. I celebrated when that failed. I mourned when Californians lost the right in 2008 and I cheered for Iowa. I most recently mourned again about Maine.

I am not gay. I am not married. I would like to be married someday: I believe strongly in the idea of it. I don't want children, so for me, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I believe in the separation of church and state - more than our government does, I think. I don't understand why the word "God" is on our money or why our President has to say "So help me God" when he is sworn in. I understand why the government chose to regulate something that is actually a religious institution; economics, inheritance, decision-making rights, etc. require it.

I think we made a mistake though. By adopting the word "marriage" when enacting laws, we chose a word that has different connotations for everyone. Instead of choosing a secular word, we went with the religious one. Now we're stuck with it. I have to go get a marriage license, even if I don't intend to be "married" in the religious sense; in a religious ceremony or in the eyes of a religious being. My religion is allowed to regulate who it marries based on their own rules, even if these are in opposition to laws of the government because marriage is a religious institution first (example: I cannot marry in the Catholic Church if I don't intend to have children; I cannot marry in the Catholic Church if I am divorced - neither of these restrictions are of concern to the U.S. government and I cannot "sue" the Church to force them to marry me.)

So now, we have semantics. Some hide behind reasoning that relies only on the definition (or connotation) of a word. Marriage. Those who "believe" that marriage is between one man and one woman choose that as their reason for why gay people should be denied equal legal partnership rights. They do not see any reason to have to have a more developed reason than that. It is what they believe and it is what is true and right and then, for them, the discussion is over.

Recently, I was caught by surprise by someone who I thought was in support of gay marriage who clarified that actually he isn't. He is for "civil unions" for gay people, but not marriage. I was floored. What? I asked why. I got the above answer largely based on semantics.

But it got worse. He offered up that gay people are fighting a losing battle they will never win and they should choose some alternative to fight for. If I was floored the first time, I was astounded at this. I asked if black people should've given up the civil rights fight early on, since it was clear they couldn't win and should've come up with some alternative form of equality to try for instead. This was declared to be a completely different argument. No, it isn't. It's exactly the same.

I offered up that women should definitely just have realized that college/university is for men. Women should've asked for some other type of educational system instead. Again, this was denied as anything remotely resembling the gay marriage argument.

I think the reason this person claims those other examples aren't the same is because then he is committing an "ism" with his gay marriage stand. Because if someone was or is against the racial civil rights movement, that makes them racist. If someone was or is against women going to college/university/work they are sexist. Clearly.

But if someone is against gay people marrying, they somehow don't have to be homophobic. They can just have it "be my opinion" or they can reach into some non-secular doctrine and support it that way. It's cowardly.

Heterosexual people are not at risk of anything by gay people having equal marriage rights. The same way that by a black person having equal rights to me, I as a white person cannot lose mine. Family values are not at further risk by gay marriage. Family values are already at risk enough by the behavior of heterosexual people. There's no way it can get worse.

Before writing this post, I read a number of essays on the topic, mostly from the "no gay marriage" side of the fence. I wanted to see if there was anything I was missing. Was there a compelling argument that I might actually agree with? Unsurprisingly, no. It was all the same either religious or fear-based bullshit I've heard before. Not one compelling argument.

Someone said to me recently that conservatives argue with facts and liberals argue with emotions, and this is why conservatives are so much more successful and logical. In the moment, I retorted something along the lines of being fine with that if it meant that I exhibit care for other human beings.

Another friend clarified further, though. She said conservatives believe they have facts because they form beliefs based on faith or economics or something they care about and they stay true to those beliefs regardless of circumstance. Liberals think openly, fluidly, and are always looking for a better answer. Conservatives see that as weak and flip-floppy and as an inability to make up our minds and therefore name it as emotion. This makes SO much sense to me. I already knew why I think conservatives are idiots - who would settle on a belief and then stay there regardless of evidence? But now I know why they think I'm an idiot. Who would take so many things into consideration and change their mind or wait for more info before forming an opinion?

I am so proud of the way I develop opinions. I am so proud of my openness and my ability to always see the next thing around the corner as a potential help to fix a problem. I am proud of my desire to help whoever needs it in whatever way I can; perhaps in a way I haven't even thought of yet. I have no need or desire to develop a set of "facts" and then hide behind them. I have no need to be afraid that by others receiving a bigger piece of "the pie" (or even a first piece of "the pie") that my piece might get smaller. I'll still have a piece.

Gay people deserve the exact same civil rights for partnership as heterosexual people. The U.S. government should not choose this group to back off on simply because religion is involved - because it isn't. We shouldn't be voting on this. Seriously - if men had voted on women's right to vote? I think we all know what the outcome would've been. If we had voted on the desegregation of schools? Yeah, that too. We need a Supreme Court case or a federal statute or something that stops all this nonsense and just grants rights to Americans, the same way we've been doing for a while now. Why have we changed the game?

In our history, we have had affirmative action to ensure people of color were, in practice, afforded the rights the government gave them legally. We had to enact a law to give girls equality in sports programs and we still have athletic directors who begrudgingly create the girls rugby team under Title IX in order to get funding for the boys team (and the Winter Olympics still have one sport that does not allow women to compete and that's being fought now since it goes against Canadian law where the winter Olympics, including ski jumping, will happen in 2010). We have yet to adopt the damn ERA, which was introduced in 1923 and ran out in 1982 and failed to be ratified.

I ask for those hiding behind semantics and fear to own your cowardice and just stop. Think for a moment if you, for some reason, couldn't have all the rights you are currently allowed by our government - supposedly one of the best and the most free in the world. Think for a moment whether there really is a threat to you.

Support your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, your co-workers, your service providers and strangers. Because even if you think you don't know any gay people - you do. Perhaps they are just not telling you who they are because you've been so clear about how you think of them. As lesser than you.