Gay Marriage: A Research paper by Beth Woodson, 2004.
Martin Luther
King, Jr., in the face of distorted racist logic, declared his dream. He
dreamed that one day his children and the children of his white brothers
and sisters would be able to walk hand in hand in equality. His speech on
the Capitol Mall in Washington D.C. touched the hearts of many. In 1987,
600,000 gays and lesbians stood where King had once stood and declared to
the nation a similar dream of their own: that one day heterosexuals and homosexuals
would likewise walk together in equality (Ridinger 573). But gays and lesbians
are usually not considered equal and these inequalities manifest themselves
in many forms. The most authoritative inequalities are manifested in anti-gay
legislation that perpetuates social discrimination and even increases anti-gay
hate crimes (Berrill). The most compelling gay and lesbian rights debate
is taking place right now: Gay marriage.
The debate of gay marriage is not a simple one; there
are many sides to the issue. One view is that gay marriage should be legalized
nationally. The second is that gay marriage should not be legalized but civil
unions should be legal in order to give them an equal alternative that would
afford gays and lesbians the same rights as marriage. Some of those rights
would include legal benefits such as tax cuts to families and medical visitation
rights when only family members are allowed to see the patient to name a few.
The third opinion that some hold is that the institution of marriage should
be thrown away altogether. The fourth stance is that neither gay marriage
nor civil unions should be afforded gay and lesbian couples and that legal
unions should be exclusively heterosexual. The issues that lie underneath
our culture's attitudes towards gay marriage are several fold and I plan to
discuss many of these issues in order to better understand the roots of pro-gay
marriage and anti-gay marriage perspectives. Throughout this process I will
explain my perspective in relation to a variety of arguments within the gay
marriage debate.
Gay marriage should be legalized because gay and lesbian
couples deserve equal status expressed by the government’s validation of their
unions and the legal benefits granted therein. Although my position is pro
gay marriage, if it is not yet attainable, I support civil unions that grant
the same legal rights that heterosexual marriage presents.
In order to understand the present debate on gay marriage,
we must first look at the legislation and the Supreme Court cases that have
directly affected the gay rights movement and social consciousness leading
up to date.
On September 21, 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was
signed into law by President Clinton. That Act did two things. It amended
the Full Faith and Credit Clause so that states that do not already prohibit
same sex marriages would not be required to honor same-sex marriages performed
in other states. Second, it "defended" marriage by defining marriage for federal
purposes as involving one man and one woman (Corvino 341).
The motivation behind the Defense of Marriage Act was
the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin. In that case, the court
concluded that a same sex marriage bar would be an unconstitutional form of
sex discrimination unless the state could demonstrate a compelling interest
served by prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although widely publicized, this
type of case calling for gay marriage rights was not new. These kinds of cases
surfaced in 1970s. Previous cases, however, concluded that marriage is by
definition between a man and a woman. The reasoning followed that if same-sex
marriage is definitionally impossible, then gays and lesbians are not being
denied a fundamental right to marry when same-sex unions are not legally
recognized (Calhoun 107).
In addition to the definitional argument against gay
marriage, courts have traditionally assumed that sodomy is an act belonging
to the class “homosexual". This idea has led courts to conclude that if it
is constitutional to prohibit homosexual sodomy, it is similarly constitutional
to impose additional restrictions on members of this class, including the
prohibition of same-sex marriage. As a result of this reasoning, equal protection
arguments claiming that marriage bars discriminate against gays and lesbians
have been unsuccessful. What distinguished the Baehr v. Lewin case was the
court's willingness to consider the equal protection argument that same-sex
marriage bars discriminate on the basis of sex (Calhoun 107).
Great progress has been made towards the realization
of gay marriage rights in recent years. This means that many more people
agree that gays should enjoy equal rights than ever before. In 2000, Vermont
became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between
gay and lesbian couples, giving them the same legal benefits as heterosexual
marriage. In 2003, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that
sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. The two men charged in the case,
John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were fined $200 each and they spent one night
in jail for a misdemeanor sex charge when police forced their way into their
apartment and saw them having anal sex in 1998. Justice Anthony Kennedy,
who presided in the case, wrote that homosexuals, "are entitled to respect
for their private lives" and that states "cannot demean their existence or
control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime… Liberty
presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression,
and certain intimate conduct” (Cohen). This case had great impact on the
quest for gay marriage because it recognized that "certain intimate conduct"
is a matter of individual freedom and not to be restricted by the government.
These freedoms, as recognized in the case of Lawrence versus Texas, call
into question the reasoning behind the discriminatory laws excluding homosexual
couples from the institution of marriage.
In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marriage violates the state constitution.
The Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations
conferred by civil marriage” to homosexual couples was unconstitutional because
it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class
citizens.” On May 17 2004, Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages. This
ruling was followed by strong opposition (Cohen).
In response to recent advancements of the gay rights
movement, opponents of gay and lesbian marriage have begun pushing a federal
constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide. The
federal amendment failed to gain the needed two thirds majority to pass it
into being when it came up for votes in both the House and Senate. Several
states have voted and approved amendments that ban gay marriage. Meanwhile,
the gay rights movement continues to gain momentum and as Belgium, the Netherlands
and Canada have all decided to legalize gay and lesbian unions (Cohen).
The American Psychological Association, in response to
anti-gay legislation, declares that, "psychological research and association
policy are not consistent with legislation proposed at the federal and state
levels that would amend the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, respectively,
to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples" (Greene). The Association views
the the gay marriage debate as an issue of equality and civil rights. They
endorse the gay rights movement in calling for equality among heterosexuals
and homosexuals in the form of support for homosexual adoption, anti discriminatory
laws, and the legalization of gay marriage. The Association's approval of
gay marriage reflects a growing body of research in this field asserting that
homosexual behavior and relationships are healthy (Greene).
When Anti-gay legislation is passed into law, it does not merely
serve to "protect" heterosexual exclusivity, it also increases anti-gay violence.
It is a message to those who hate that the government shares their homophobia.
"Clearly, anti-gay bias crimes can be particularly vicious and are becoming
more pervasive across the country as the number of states directly targeted
by anti-gay ballot initiatives and legislative actions increases. If anti-gay
legislation passes, police and prosecutors will be forced to cope with one
hand tied behind their backs" (Berrill). If the government helps to set the
example that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against, it could
help trim down the large numbers of gays and lesbians committing suicide,
hate crime homicides and the number of middle school boys who are being beat
bloody while called a "faggot". Reducing hate crimes by reducing discriminatory
laws is a type of social good that is often ignored by those who speak of
social good in defense of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual union.
Why should we have the institution of marriage at all?
On the moral argument of marriage, as described by Cheshire Calhoun, author
of Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet, marriage is about
the emotional and spiritual unity of two people. Such unity requires monogamy,
long term-commitment, and sexual fidelity. It is both unity of companionship
and an economic unity of mutual support. The stability of a relationship based
on long-term commitment provides a nurturing environment for children. Understood
morally, marriage is the normative ideal of how sex, companionship, economics,
and child rearing should be organized (Calhoun 112). This positive moral
concept of marriage justifies that it be regulated by the state because marriage
is a basic personal and social good; the state has the obligation to promote
valued ways of living.
So who should be afforded the right to marry and who should
not? Calhoun illustrates that, "being fit for marriage is intimately bound
up with our cultural conception of what it means to be a citizen." This is
because, "marriage is culturally conceived as playing a uniquely foundational
role in sustaining civil society. As a result, only those who are fit to enter
marital and family life deserve full civic status." The prohibition of gay
marriage, "encode(s) and enforce(s) the view that lesbians and gays are inessential
citizens because they are unable to participate in the foundational social
institution. Marriage bars thus play a critical role in displacing gays and
lesbians" (Calhoun 112).
On the argument against all types of marriage, feminist
writer Julia Brosnan argues that the nuclear family is rooted in both heterosexual
and patriarchal traditions that originally served to facilitate the oppression
of women and children for male benefit. The patriarchal traditions of marriage
include male inheritance lineage, male ownership of a woman and his children
as property and the guarantee of female domestic and child rearing labor (Brosnan
2). From a lesbian feminist perspective, Brosnan explains that, "just as
feminists revealed what the family has done to women and children, now is
the time to hear what it has done to lesbians and gays" (Brosnan 5). The
patriarchal ideas rooted in marriage are the reasons that some groups are
against the institution of marriage for all sexual orientations. Although
most feminists believe that the legalization of gay marriage will promote
equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, some are against the institution
altogether. George P. Smith, professor of law at the Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C. also argues against gay marriage by contending that,
"the desire to marry in the lesbian and gay community is an attempt to mimic
the worst of mainstream society, an effort to fit into an inherently problematic
institution that betrays the promise of both lesbian and gay liberation and
radical feminism" (Smith 30). This logic seems to ignore the fact that our
conceptions of institutions can change, and they have proven that ability.
Moreover, refusing to participate in an institution that holds a heterosexual
norm, may continue to emphasize a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals
and difference often translates into ideas of inequality. Homosexuals’ inability
to marry has also contributed, "to the discrimination they experience because
of the belief that they are promiscuous sexual deviants" (Smith 30). The
nuclear family itself, because of its heterosexual tradition and surrounding
political, social, and economic forces, makes its homosexual members feel
second rate. Not only are these the same forces that discriminate against
homosexuals in regards to the legal and social recognition of their relationships,
they are also what drives "one in five lesbian and gay teenagers to attempt
suicide" (Brosnan 2).
One argument for gay marriage that is often ignored by
its opponents is that it promotes the happiness and well-being of homosexuals.
Many homosexuals are in committed relationships that they want to dignify
with an official, legally beneficial union. Surveys show that, "between 40%
and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved
in a committed relationship" (Greene).
Because there have been many studies showing a higher
rate of suicide among gays and lesbians, some researchers have been quick
to attribute higher rates of mental illness to homosexuality itself: "Homosexuality
is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and
early adulthood.. but also later in life" (Diggs 6). It is misleading to conclude
that homosexuality itself results in higher rates of mental illness. For
the purpose of good scientific research, one must consider any other possible
forces influencing the outcome. If a young boy goes to school one day and
is beat up by a group of his male peers because they know he is gay, is his
depression a direct result of his sexual orientation? The attitudes he faces
and has to deal with probably had everything to do with it.
Lesbian and gay subordination has devastating effects
on the gay community. This subordination includes the exclusion of homosexuals
from marriage. This subordination is best understood as the displacement of
gay and lesbian identities to the outside of civil society and denying a
place for them in public and private spheres. Gay and lesbian identities are,
"displaced from workplaces, streets, the military, markets, schools and other
public places by requiring gay men and lesbians to adopt pseudonymous heterosexual
identities as a condition of access to those public spaces" (Calhoun 106).
This displacement amounts to the reservation of these public spheres as exclusively
heterosexual. The continuation of institutions such as heterosexual-only
marriage amounts to the reservation of exclusive heterosexual entitlement
and perpetuates a discriminatory mentality into future generations.
One argument for same-sex marriage is practical. Marriage grants
a number of material benefits such as dental and health insurance, pension
benefits, income tax breaks, and spousal social security. It also provides
spouses protection against third parties’ (grandparents and sperm donors)
claims to child custody and visitation rights as well as rights to give proxy
consent and inheritance rights. Marriage also gives spouses the right to facilitate
their partnerships
by giving spouses immigration preference and a right to conjugal visits
(Calhoun 108). This means that if a couple in which one partner's citizenship
is based in Australia and the other partner's citizenship is American, the
American spouse could sponsor the immigration of the other on the basis of
their marriage. For some who oppose gay marriage but empathize with the gay
rights movement, civil unions are a solution that grants these equitable
legal benefits while at the same time "protecting the sanctity of marriage".
While many gays and lesbians see the acceptance of same-sex civil unions
as progress, some members of the gay community feel that separate unions
for homosexuals and heterosexuals equates separate, unequal classes. Several
protesters voiced this perception by holding up signs in front of the White
House that read “Civil Unions = Sitting on the Back of the Bus," (Roberts)
likening civil unions to legally imposed racial segregation laws.
AIDS is a devastating disease that some gay
marriage opponents point to as proof that homosexuality is bad for society.
Some people blame homosexuals for AIDS because the first known case of AIDS
was a homosexual man and for a while, it's victims were mainly among those
in the homosexual community. Soon it became an increasingly heterosexual problem.
The idea that AIDS is the "gay disease" seems to be a convenient perception
that feeds an already established prejudice. As K. B. Napier, a writer for
Bible Theology Ministries, clearly states in his Essay, "The Blasphemy of
Gay Christians, so called", "Homosexuals brought the scourge of AIDS to the
peoples of the West (and maybe the whole world).. The etiology of AIDS
is completely the fault of homosexuals." (Napier)
In response, I ask: What about all of the other sexually transmitted diseases
that have emerged? If they originated in heterosexuals, does that mean that
heterosexuals as a whole are bad and their sexual orientation should be discouraged
and their unions therefore prohibited? No, of course not. The culprit here
is promiscuity, not sexual orientation, and promiscuous sex can be better
controlled by educating people on the dangers of unprotected sex and encouraging
monogamy. Marriage encourages monogamy and monogamy helps reduce the spread
of sexually transmitted diseases. By denying a percentage of the population
the right and encouragement to marry, gay marriage remains an unused tool
in the fight against STDs and AIDS.
One common, controversial argument against gay marriage is
based on passages in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. While there
are many Christians who support gay marriage, there are also many who strongly
oppose it. For those Christians who oppose gay marriage, their reasoning is
commonly rooted in the belief that homosexuality is a sin and should not be
encouraged. For example, Steve Keohane, the author of several essays on a
Christian website, addresses the issue of gay marriage as a violation of biblical
teaching. Keohane argues that by performing gay marriages, priests are, "marrying
homosexuals in defiance of God's design and holy Word" (Keohane). "Holy Word"
is a reference to the Bible and Keohane cites several biblical passages in
his essay to support his claim including this verse from the Old Testament:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Jeffrey
136). Keohane also quotes the New Testament as justification for his position
and it gives a similar message:
".. God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural
intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed
shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty
for their error" (Jeffrey 1299).
Walter Wink, a Professor of Biblical interpretation in New York, offers
a helpful insight into these anti-gay passages. Wink informs that in Biblical
times, before any scientific understanding of ovulation, eggs and reproductive
biology, the Hebrews regarded male semen as the substance of life. It was
assumed that a woman merely provided the incubating space. "Male homosexual
acts or male masturbation was considered tantamount to abortion or murder.
(Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously
regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country
in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such
values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through
overpopulation" (Wink).
In examining these anti-gay passages from both the Old
and New Testaments, one must also consider that Keohane and others who cite
them as justification for their opposition to gay marriage, often conveniently
overlook and discredit other instructions in the Bible that few Christians
consider binding. Along with the condemnation of homosexuals, Leviticus also
endorses slavery:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from among the nations around you;
from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some temporary residents living
among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become
your property" (Jeffrey 147).
This passage and several others that similarly encourage slavery were used
in the past by American slave owners to justify their practice. After much
debate and fighting, Americans came to realize that slavery is an extremely
cruel and unjust practice and that Biblical verses cannot be used to justify
oppression and slavery. The Old Testament also cruelly instructs that rape
victims must marry their attackers:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged
to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's
father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated
her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Jeffrey 227).
In Exodus, the Bible also states that anyone who loans money to a
man, they should, "charge him no interest" (Jeffrey 94). The reference here
is to those who lend money and charge interest for the loan. Does this mean
that the Bank of America should close its doors? Modern Christian teachings
relieve us of our confusion by explaining that economic conditions in biblical
times were much different then and because conditions have changed, this passage
is commonly overlooked because it is irrelevant to our modern economy (McBrien
1020).
When the bible is read literally and out of its historical context, several
passages recommend and prohibit a number of practices that are blatantly out
of date with our culture. For example, the bible says that, "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live" (Jeffrey 93). This verse caused a lot of trouble in
the past when supposed "witches" were burned and drowned unjustly. The Bible
also instructs the menstruating woman: "She must not touch anything sacred
or go into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over." (Jeffrey
128). The Bible also states that if a woman fails to prove her virginity at
the time of matrimony, "the men of her town shall stone her to death" (Jeffrey
227). Obviously, modern Christians do not agree with these practices nor
do our laws reflect it.
After considering these cruel and discriminatory verses, how
can one argue against gay marriage using the moral authority of Biblical passages
that condemn homosexual activity while choosing to ignore a variety of similarly
inhumane, sexist and racist passages encouraging slavery, the murder of witches,
and stoning? The answer that many Christians will give is that the bible
has to be interpreted according to its historical context. Why then are the
passages condemning homosexuality singled out by gay marriage opponents and
not read within the same historical context afforded to other verses?
Almost all scholars agree that homosexual relations in
biblical times were very different from the homosexuals who want to be married
today. Homosexual relationships were often an integral part of pagan practices
in biblical times and many Christians then were opposed to paganism itself.
Homosexuality in Greece often involved very young boys and older men. This
homosexual behavior was widely accepted in Greece. Sex was used as a means
for a man to express his maleness. By dominating and penetrating a young boy,
the older man asserted his masculinity. If these were the homosexual relations
that biblical authors were rejecting when they wrote down their condemnations,
and such relations are no longer typical or accepted, then these passages
no longer apply to modern American homosexual behavior (Corvino 14). For
someone to adhere to all of the biblical passages without question, one would
be at odds with popular culture by keeping slaves, hunting witches, and stoning
non-virgins. In our modern society that values religious freedom, biblical
passages alone should not be used to impose laws on the religiously diverse
American people.
There are a lot of people who argue that homosexual relationships
are wrong and should not be encouraged by the state because it is a relationship
incapable of procreation and they use this argument as grounds to ban legally
beneficial same sex unions (Corvino 6). My counter argument to this view is
to point out its meaninglessness by comparing this view to heterosexual unions
that do not produce children. Based on the argument that homosexuals do not
procreate and therefore should not be allowed to marry, does that mean that
post menopausal women should be barred from marriage? I do not think that
men and women over 70 should be kept from a union that would fulfill their
lives and bring them emotional and financial support. Likewise, I think homosexuals
deserve the same legally recognized unions that elderly couples are granted.
Steven Waldman, a journalist for MSNBC news agrees that, "if sex without
the possibility of creating life is wrong, then religious leaders would have
to go back to warring against masturbation. And what about sex among the
infertile?" (Waldman). If sexual activity without procreation is the real
issue when it is used as an argument against gay marriage, then heterosexual
instances that cannot procreate should be equally alarming. So in considering
the argument that is for procreation and against gay unions, we must realize
that we currently accept many forms of sexual activity that does not produce
children and, "We've been into the non-procreative sex thing for some time
now" (Waldman). Unless the argument based on procreation does not also include
all of the other examples I have given involving sexual activity, I suspect
that there is more hiding behind the mask of this argument.
Some people oppose gay marriage because they feel that
allowing it would encourage more homosexual couples to become parents and
create families. They fear that homosexual parents are not fit to raise children.
But studies conducted by the American Psychiatric Association have shown that
gay and lesbian parents, "are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide
healthy and supportive environments for their children", and, "parenting effectiveness
and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children
is unrelated to parental sexual orientation" (Greene). Furthermore, the APA
reassures that no scientific studies have been conducted that support the
fear that children of gay and lesbian parents are sexually abused by adults,
isolated in gay and lesbian communities, or ostracized by peers (Greene).
The prosperity of the parents' relationship is crucial to a child's well-being
and recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian parents tend to "report
satisfaction with their relationship" (Greene).
There are still others who claim that heterosexual marriage
is the basis of order in our society and that tampering with it will result
in a serious decay of our moral and social order. The American Psychological
Association refutes this claim. The APA has declared that, "anthropological
research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures
and through time, provide[s] no support whatsoever for the view that either
civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively
heterosexual institution" (Greene).
Evangelical Christian Jimmy Swaggart,
gives an alarming insight into the extreme homophobia that some people feel
concerning gay marriage: "I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this
utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've
never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and
plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God
he died" (Prout). The audience responded with applause to Swaggart’s hateful
remarks. Swaggart's expression of personal disgust exposes the hiding core
of some people's opposition to gay marriage. Ironically, in 1987, Jimmy Swaggart
was arrested when he was caught with a prostitute (Prout). Needless to say,
his hypocritical actions obviously make him a very poor spokesman for an
argument based on his beliefs when he violates the moral, Biblical code that
he claims to believe in while threatening to kill.
The homophobia behind some anti-gay marriage perspectives has
a devastating effect on gays and lesbians and it is sadly expressed by this
gay man's biography: "All the years of name-calling had taken their toll:
I hated myself. Why, I began to ask myself over and over, do I want to live
any longer? Why do I want to go through any more of this? I contemplated suicide.
Over and over I'd go through the scenarios: Take all the pills in the medicine
cabinet. Jump off the Staten Island Ferry into the harbor. Run into oncoming
traffic. Slit my
wrists" (Signorile 31). The American Psychological Association states that,
“the evidence clearly supports the position that the social stigma, prejudice,
discrimination, and violence associated with not having a heterosexual orientation
and the hostile and stressful social environments created thereby, adversely
affect the psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals." Based on the evidence that anti-gay laws contribute
to our society's homophobia which very negatively affect homosexuals, the
APA concludes that, "it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples
legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights,
and privileges" (Greene).
The idea of gays in the military stirred up a lot of
homophobia in the 1950s and homosexuals were barred from service as they
are similarly being barred now from marriage. The government declared them
"deviants" and "terrorists" who posed, "a threat to national security" (Calhoun
102). Obviously, gay men exist in the military now under the more recent
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and, thankfully, have not abused their military
service to recklessly "terrorize" our national security with their homosexuality
or stereotypical interests in fashion and the culinary arts. Homosexuals
pose no more of a "threat" to the institution of marriage than they do to
our national security.
Anti-gay marriage legislation has a very negative effect
on gay and lesbian people. A 38 year old gay man reacting to anti-gay legislation
reports, "(I) Have felt like crying-started crying at work.. have started
prozac antidepressant. Stopped taking the paper, have stopped watching the
news on TV, have stopped listening to the radio (NPR)" (Russell 117-118).
A 25 year old woman says "I don't understand all the hate and I don't like
being an object of hate. Its scary. It makes me more depressed about the world"
(Russell 118). A 27 year old gay man says "When the amendment passed, I was
angry, hurt and fearful for my future. I knew I couldn't run since I knew
the Amendment would follow me wherever I would go. I felt very closed-in since
everyone now knew I
was gay and they knew my disappointment. I felt on-stage, under pressure,
and wondering why and who of my friends, co-workers and family members voted
against me. I took it very personally" (Russell 121).
Heterosexism is a term that was created to describe the
discrimination of homosexuals. Heterosexism can be compared to racism. Racism
fueled laws prohibiting different races from marrying. Likewise, heterosexism
now prohibits gay marriage. Just as bars to interracial marriage were based
on the idea that there are two distinct races whose differences must be preserved,
so same-sex marriage bars are rooted in the idea that there are two distinct
genders and sexual orientations whose differences must be preserved" (Calhoun
116). Just as the ideology of racial difference is the linchpin of white supremacy,
so the ideology of gender difference (and sexual orientation difference) is
the linchpin of male supremacy (and heterosexual supremacy)" (Calhoun 116).
Some people continue to argue against gay marriage because
they claim that homosexuality is "not natural", even though researchers have
found this to be false. If "natural" is defined as something that occurs
in nature, then the argument is flawed. Homosexual activity and homosexual
relationships do occur in nature. This fact is supported by, "numerous studies-including
Anne Perkins's study of "gay" sheep and George and Molly Hunt's study of "lesbian"
seagulls", and these studies show that, "some animals do form pair-bonds"
(Corvino 5). The use of the idea of "naturalness" as justification for an
argument against homosexual unions is doubly flawed because many of the things
that we value in our own lives are unnatural in some sense: Clothing, houses,
cars, artificial sugar, and life saving medicine (Corvino 4). All of these
things are unnatural in the sense that they do not occur in nature but many
of us use these things everyday and naturalness does not seem to be a big
issue.
Another reason someone may say that homosexual relationships
are unnatural is because most of the population pursues heterosexual relationships
and the logic is that what is unusual is therefore unnatural (Corvino 4).
But is it logical to say that what is unusual is wrong? Relatively few people
play the harp, write with their left hand or have a lama, yet none of these
activities are immoral or wrong simply because it is unusual. So the statistical
frequency of an activity alone does not determine its positivity or negativity.
Yet another meaning of unnatural refers to that which
goes against a genital organ's principal purpose. But many of our organs have
multiple purposes and functions. A mouth can be used for speaking, eating,
licking stamps, smiling, kissing a woman, or kissing a man. It seems illogical
to claim that licking stamps with your mouth is using that part of your body
in an unnatural manner and to use this claim to argue that it is wrong. Likewise,
just because sexual organs can be used to procreate does not mean that they
should not be used for other purposes. Many couples, both heterosexual and
homosexual, would agree that their sex organs are used in their relationship
to express love, give pleasure and to enhance their relationship even when
procreation is not the goal. As Dr. John Corvino states, "unless opponents
of homosexuality are prepared to condemn heterosexual couples who use contraception
or individuals who masturbate, they must abandon this version of the naturalness
argument" (Corvino 6). Even the Roman Catholic church, while forbidding contraception
and masturbation, agrees that sexual pleasure is a good enough reason for
sex even when procreation is impossible. The church concedes to sex during
pregnancy and sex between married sterile partners.
There are even more definitions of what constitutes as
natural. Some people feel that homosexual relationships and the sex that the
two partake in, is disgusting. This is what some opponents of gay marriage
feel and they may express it by saying that it is unnatural. There are plenty
of things that disgust many people but they are morally neutral. For instance,
cleaning a toilet, vomiting, handling snakes, and eating worms are all things
that many people find disgusting but they are not considered morally wrong.
For centuries, most people felt that interracial relationships were disgusting
but this does not prove that interracial marriage is wrong or morally corrupt.
Corvino , declares that the “naturalness” argument, “at least in its most
common forms, is no longer on rhetorical flourish than on philosophical cogency.
At best it expresses an aesthetic judgment, not a moral judgment" (Corvino
7). Anthropology has shown that homosexuality is a natural variation among
humans. Gays and lesbians' existence has been recognized by anthropologists
in generation after generation, in every culture in the world even despite
strong societal prohibitions (Sandfort 83).
One common argument threatens that if homosexual marriages
are legalized then what will stop polygamous unions, bestial unions or pedophiles
from marrying the young (Diggs 9)? Of course, this is a scary proposition
that frightens many people into opposing gay marriage for fear of opening
the "Pandora's box" guarded by marriage laws. One must step back and remember
that this same argument was used by opponents of interracial marriage in the
1960s when the Supreme Court decided that it was wrong to bar interracial
couples from marriage (Merdoch 520). In the case of bestiality, animals cannot
repeat marriage vows so there is a major fundamental problem there. In the
case of pedophiliac unions, there are age limits on marriage that are separate
from the arguments that gay marriage activists are using and the age limit
laws show no sign of wavering.
If you think about it, many sizable changes that present themselves
to our society, are met with controversy, debate and irritation. My grandfather
will tell you that we should never have gone to the moon and god did not want
us to. All of the elderly people I know can remember when interracial marriages
were a heated subject and many people thought it was an abomination for two
different races to have a relationship, let alone be married. If you think
about it, most people do not like major change when they are comfortable with
the way things
are. Same-sex marriage seems to contain that same threat of change that
makes many people uncomfortable. But this does not mean that the change itself
is wrong.
In the past century, we have seen a number of changes in regards
to civil rights. And no change towards equality has been met without controversy.
We have seen slavery abolished with controversy. We have seen the women's
liberation fight for women's rights through controversy. We have seen interracial
marriage laws change towards equality and overcome controversy. The gay rights
movement is now asking for equality for gays and lesbians throughout America
and again, the controversy is here. Gays and lesbians are everywhere. They
are educators, mayors, bus drivers, musicians, Christians, Hindus, agnostics,
psychologists, sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters.
Discriminatory laws that attempt to define which unions are
"sacred" and which are not, have no place in a government that values the
separation of church and state and religious freedom. We must keep our value
of tolerance. I hope that we can overcome the discriminatory laws and sentiments
of our time as this new civil rights issue presents itself. As a nation of
free people, it is our duty to look after our own, all of our own, not just
the majority.
|
Bibliography
Berrill, Kevin. "Organizing Against Violence: Under Attack". Nov. 8 2004.
<http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/FTR/org_viol.html>.
Brosnan, Julia. Lesbians Talk Detonating the Nuclear Family. London: Scarlet
Press: 1996.
Calhoun, Cheshire. Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet:
Lesbian and Gay Displacement. New York: Oxford University Press: 2000.
Cohen, Andrew. "Sodomy Ruling's Ripple Effect". June 26 2003. Nov. 1 2004.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/news/opinion/courtwatch/main560593.shtml>
Corvino, John. Same Sex. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc:
1997.
Diggs, John R. "The Health Risks of Gay Sex". 2002. Oct. 20 1004. <http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf>.
Elsis, Mark. "Zero Population Growth Will Occur Somewhere Between 2020 to
2029". May 1 2000. Nov 6 2004. <http://www.overpopulation.net/>.
Greene, Lori Valencia. "APA Briefing Sheet on Same-Sex Families and Relationships".
June 2004. Nov. 7 2004. < http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/lgbfamilybrf604.html>.
Jeffrey, R. Grant. NIV Prophecy Marked Reference Study Bible. Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House: 1998.
McBrien, Richard P., Catholicism. SanFrancisco: Harper & Row: 1981.
Merdoch, Joyce. Courting Justice. New York: Basic Books:2001.
Prout, Jan. "Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart Threatens to Kill Gays". Sept 20
2004. Nov 7 2004. <http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/092004swaggart.htm>.
Ridinger, Robert B. Speaking for Our Lives: Historic Speeches and Rhetoric
for Gay and Lesbian Rights. New York: Harrington Park Press: 2004.
Roberts, John. "Gay Marriage Fight Heats Up." Feb 11 2004. Nov 6 2004. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/11/national/main599776.shtml>.
Sandfort, Theo. Lesbian and Gay Studies. London: Sage Publications: 2000.
Signorile, Michelangelo. Queer In America. Madison, Wisconsin: The University
of Wisconsin Press: 2003.
Smith, George P. Family Values and the New Society: Dilemmas of the 21st
Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers: 1998.
Waldman, Steven. "A Common Missed Conception". Nov 19 2003. Nov 7 2004.
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2091413>.
|
|
