Same Sex Marriage

What is at the base of the debate over same-sex marriage? In the June 19, 2005 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto described a period of time he spent with a group of anti-gay-marriage activists in Maryland. He came away with the conviction that the activists were motivated by their belief that homosexuality is evil rather than by the effects such marriages could have upon society. The activists were convinced that homosexuality is a disease and that it is spreading. Such beliefs are primarily religious, based upon biblical injunctions against homosexuality.

There seems to be a growing trend around the world to recognize the rights of gay people to enter into marriage. Canada recently passed a law allowing same-sex marriages. Such unions are also permitted in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Denmark Norway, Sweden, and Iceland give marital rights to gay couples under laws providing for “registered partnerships.” In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that laws forbidding same-sex marriage were contrary to the state’s constitution. Since then, gay couples have been getting married in Massachusetts. Other states are moving to allow such marriages, and some states are passing laws allowing “civil unions” for same-sex couples. Meanwhile, a number of states, including Ohio, have passed laws and constitutional amendments declaring that marriage can be only between a man and a woman.

Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that such marriages do not in any way harm or affect heterosexual marriage. They claim that many homosexuals form long-term loving unions just like married straight couples. The problem is that after many years in a monogamous relationship, a gay couple has acquired very few legal rights. Men and women who marry acquire certain rights including rights to inheritance, real property, joint income tax returns, social security benefits, medical benefits, homestead protection, support, alimony, and many others. Gay partners seek not only the property benefits of marriage but also the symbolic recognition of their relationship.

Although anti-gay-marriage activists are motivated primarily by religious convictions, they assert that marriage is the bedrock of a sound society and claim that same-sex marriage will make heterosexual marriage collapse. If the argument was valid the state would have a “compelling interest” in preventing same-sex marriage. In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support such an argument.

Anti-gay-marriage activists point to a study done by conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz in which he claimed that the laws permitting “registered partnerships” had brought about the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia. In fact, Kurtz was mistaken. In Denmark, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century, but it turned around in the 1980s. After the “registered partnership” law was passed in 1989, the marriage rate continued to climb. Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970s. The marriage rates for Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the “registered partnership” laws were passed.

Opponents of gay marriage claim that such marriages cause harm to children. In the case of Baehr v. Miike, the Circuit Court of Hawaii found that there was no such harm and invalidated a law forbidding gay marriage. (The Baehr decision later became moot when the Hawaii legislature passed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but the findings of the case are worth consideration.) Both sides in the case presented experts on the effect of same-sex marriage on children. Curiously, the experts for both sides testified that children raised in gay homes suffered no problems different from children of heterosexual parents. Moreover, the children raised by gay couples did not become gay as a result of their parents’ sexual identity. The psychological wellbeing of the children was far more dependent on the love, stability, protection, and support of their families than on the sex of the parents. Many studies have supported the findings of the Hawaii Court.

So we come to the real argument of the anti-gay-marriage activists. They say that homosexuality is a “perversion” and that it is forbidden by the Bible. They argue that homosexuality is a “choice” and that it is sinful. They maintain that homosexuality is a disease that can be passed on to others and that it is infecting our society. They oppose gay marriage because they oppose gays. It is a shame that anti-gay-marriage activists practice such cruelty in the name of religion. Homosexuality is not evil and is not a disease.

It would be insulting to gay people to get into a long discussion about the causes of sexual preference. Regardless of the causes, gays are American citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. If we were to follow Biblical injunctions, it would appear to be okay for the state to execute gays on account of their homosexuality. We live in a more civilized world than that. Homosexuality does not harm heterosexuals. Many of our leading Americans are gay. Gays do not choose their sexual preference any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Intelligent people know, and many studies have confirmed, that sexual preference is something you are born with, not a choice. Why would somebody choose homosexuality over heterosexuality when we live in a world where gays are still objects of discrimination?

Prior to the 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage was forbidden in Virginia and fifteen other states. The opponents of mixed-race marriages raised many of the arguments that are made against same-sex marriage. They claimed that allowing such marriages would destroy the institution of marriage in America, would mongrelize and harm children, and that such marriages were immoral and forbidden by the Bible. The Supreme Court declared that laws against interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Thank God! Where would we be without Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter, Colin Powell, and the many other great Americans of mixed race? Perhaps we should take a close look at ourselves and see if we want to progress as a good, decent, and tolerant country or revert to the kind of bigotry that existed before Loving v. Virginia.