Wedge Issue With Teeth - Same-Sex Marriage

Our political system is chock full of wedge issues, things that politicians and the media trump up to be a big deal in order to distract the voting public from real issues like the oil war in the Middle East and our economy in a tailspin. One such wedge issue, and the topic of this column, is same-sex marriage. This particular wedge issue should be an open and shut non-issue, but instead it has a sharp point and a serrated edge. It is a matter that could impact the rights of citizens of this country. The California Supreme Court legalized it in May. A proposed amendment to California's state constitution banning it will appear on the ballot in November, and it has a vast base of support. Talk of a similar amendment to the US Constitution has been circulating for years in Washington.

Why do we find it necessary to limit the rights of anyone? I can understand locking up murderers and rapists and restricting their rights. It has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt in our fine criminal justice system that they are not fit to run loose in regular society. [The criminal justice system is a topic for another column, and you can be sure you'll hear about that soon enough in this very “blog.”] But what has the gay population as a whole done that can justify restricting their rights?

The answer is simple: they went against the very word of the Almighty. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination,” says Leviticus 18:22. Some translations use the word “detestable,” and another even goes so far as to say “God hates that.” Naturally, it is the Christian lobby that is taking the lead on banning gay marriage. Funny thing is, Christianity views the Old Testament as a historical narrative, but the Word that they follow comes from the New Testament, with lines such as: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). I would think “the world” includes homosexuals, and that even they might receive this “everlasting life.”

Focus on the Family, one of the biggest organizations mobilizing against same-sex marriage, uses this as the intro to their web page about the issue:

Marriage is a sacred, legal, and social union ordained by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. Focus on the Family holds this institution in the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex "marriage" or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship. History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of marriage as it has always been understood: a life-long union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.

In an article posted on the Focus on the Family web site entitled Defending Marriage: Answering the Tough Questions, Glenn T. Stanton, Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family, states that “homosexuality is not a civil right.” Why not? No answer. In fact, Focus on the Family and other similar groups do a pretty good job of not answering the tough questions. The answers they give pretty much refer to God and the Bible or they re-state the position that it is impossible to raise a child in a same-sex household. “No society needs homosexual coupling. In fact, too much of it would be harmful to society and that is why natural marriage and same-sex coupling cannot be considered socially equal,” according to the esteemed Mr. Glenn T. Stanton. Compelling examples are difficult to find on the Focus on the Family website.

One question I have is this: How would a homosexual couple becoming legally married, receiving the legal and financial protections associated with marriage, and living happily ever after affect your life? If you're a gay couple, the answer should be obvious. If you're me, which I am, the answer is – not at all really. And when I get married and have children, the answer will still be – not at all really. So why are groups like Focus on the Family spending so much time, money and effort to fight against extending an institution so that it might include everybody, especially when it doesn't affect those who are not part of the gay community at all really? They argue that it's for the children, that a same-sex couple couldn't properly raise a child. First, why is it any of their business? Second, not all same-sex couples intend to raise children. And third, Charles Manson and Ted Bundy didn't have gay parents.

There's supposed to be a separation of church and state here. The government leaves the church alone to practice their First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and the church lets the government handle the paperwork. Marriage as a sacrament, an announcement of love before God and the world, is in the purview of the church, if you want it to be. Marriage as power-of-attorney, inheritance rights, and community property is a paperwork issue that is none of the churches' business. If a church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples, it doesn't have to. The First Amendment guarantees that right. And I'm pretty sure a same-sex couple would rather get married somewhere that would accept and encourage their union, not in a church where the entire process is a fight. But when a gay man's partner of sixty years dies, is there any reason he can't sign the forms and keep the house?

Links:
Equality for All

Focus on the Family