Gay Marriage

With the 2008 presidential race (read: ad campaign) in full swing, it was only a matter of time before the candidates delved into one of the most pressing considerations of our time. No, it's not the trampling of civil liberties by the Bush administration, or its flagrant, unconstitutional erosion of the separation of powers. Nor is it a discussion of the ramifications of concept of "preemptive war", which undermines the foundations of international justice (just as the denial of habeas corpus undermines the very idea of the rule of law). No, it's not healthcare, despite the fact that we, the supposedly richest and most powerful nation in the world, are ranked 37th world-wide by the World Health Organization in terms of the quality of care provided to our citizens. It's not the billions wasted (or outright lost) in Iraq, or the fact that wounded service men and women are being forced to give back their enlistment bonuses because their injuries (in the line of duty) keep them from returning to the fray, while civilian contractors, which the supposedly-soverign Iraqi government has found guilty of "deliberate murder" continue to operate with impunity (at pay rates far higher than any of our enlisted soldiers). It's not an investigation of the devolution of a possibility-filled democracy into an corporate-owned-and-run oligarchy (where the "best lack all conviction, while the worst / are full of passionate intensity"). No, it's something far more insidious, something which the candidates seem to believe has a far more devastating impact upon our society (given that it comes up every election year)...It's the issue of gay marriage.

On a recent episode of "Meet the Press"(transcript available here), Mike Huckabee, the man who wants to "take this nation back for Christ" (whatever that might mean...that's a subject for another blog), was pressed by Tim Russert regarding his thoughts on homosexuuality (which he has previously compared to "necrophilia". On being asked whether "people are born gay or choose to be gay?", Huckabee responded "I don't know whether people are born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice." I have to say, if you believe that we are free, rational beings, then Huckabee's statement (that the behavior one practices is a choice) is a trivial tautology-- "what I chose to do is what I chose to do". It does absolutely nothing to answer Russert's question (who, in the true spirit of American journalism, fails to call him on it); furthermore, it makes some of Huckabee's previous remarks on homosexuality morally or logically untenable. In an interview with Larry King in December, Huckabee said that a homosexual could "absolutely" have a place in his administration. If Huckabee truly believes that homosexuality is an immoral act akin to necrophilia, I wonder if he would also be open to having a corpse-fucker in his cabinet? ("Yeah, that Joe is one hell of a secretary of defense, just never let him bring a date to an event, or you'll be fumagating the place for days..."). The reality of the matter is, he is an Evangelical Christian who will say what he needs to during his campaign, but in reality views homosexuality as a sin who has repeatedly voiced the belief that somehow, allowing two men or two women to sanctify their love through marriage is a threat to marriage, the family, and civilization iteself.

That is a proposition I have never been able to wrap my head around. I have absolutely know issue with the fact that certain churches consider homosexuality a sin, and would refuse to perform a religious marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple; that is their perogative, their constitutional right. But marriage, in our society, is not simply a religious ceremony (akin to something like baptism). No, entering into a marriage has various legal (governmental) ramifications. The state can also, through a civil ceremony, marry two people, thus conveying upon them the same (from the point of view of the government) rights and responsibilities as those conferred upon a couple married in a church, synagogue, or mosque. The state does not perform baptisms because there is no legal differentiation (in the eyes of the state) between the "baptized" and the "unbaptized" (as there is with marriage). Given the fact that there marriage does have legal ramifications, and that the state may lawfully perform a marriage, it seems to me to be an indefensible injustice to deny that legal standing to two loving, committed adults, simply because they happen to be of the same gender.

Logically, I can see only two ways to rectify this injustice-- either marriage (like baptism) becomes something devoid of legal ramifications, and left solely to the discretion of the country's various religions; or, if marriage is to continue to carry with it legal ramifications, and the state is to retain the ability to join willing individuals in matrimony, then that right must exist for both heterosexual and homosexual adults. I simply cannot see any moral reason why a loving, homosexual couple should be denied the rights available to a loving, heterosexual couple.

There are those who will argue that changing the law to allow for homosexual marriages results in a change to the definition of marriage. This is inarguably true, just as it is true that any time a new criminal law is passed (or a previous law rescinded), the definition of "criminal" also changes. Language is not static-- it changes over time; new words are added, old words fall out of use. The meanings of words change over time-- e.g., just over half a century ago, a "computer" was a person-- one who computes. Now, that usage is almost unheard of. The fact that allowing two men or two women to marry alters the definition of the word "marriage" is not an argument about whether or not it is just.

In a sense, the issue of gay marriage, which rears its head every election year, is a valid point of discussion-- the inability for gays and lesbians to obtain the same legal status as heterosexual couples is an injustice which it is our moral duty to rectify. Unfortunately, that is not how the issue is used. Among the so-called "religious right", opposition to gay marriage is an essential part of any "electable" candidate's platform. Among Democratic candidates, it is an issue which is almost always side-stepped and avoided. This leaves us, the voters, in the position of choosing between those intent on allowing this injustice to contnue unabated, and those who are to cowardly to even address it.

The notion that allowing gays and lesbians to marry amounts to an "attack" on the "family" is something I simply cannot understand as anything other than baseless rhetoric thrown about by those who desire to push their private, religious beliefs into the public sphere-- which, if I remember my history correctly, was one of the things that this nation was founded to prevent.