Several years ago, I was asked to appear on the Larry King Show to discuss the legalization of gay marriage. I don’t know why they chose me exactly, except that I was a straight person who would vote PRO. In any case, I spoke to a gay friend of mine before going on the program, and he gave me the strongest argument I had heard yet for why gay people should be allowed to be married:
“All these years, they’ve harped on us because we don’t live a ‘traditional’ lifestyle,” he said. “Now we want to do the most traditional thing in the world, and they won’t let us!” That sealed the deal for me.
A few years later, I was having lunch with a friend of mine who had mentioned that she opposed the right of gays to marry. She is the widow of a famous mayor in a large American city. She had worked years in an effort, ultimately successful, to have the city’s airport renamed in her husband’s honor.
“My last ditch appeal, the one that finally put us over the top,” she said, “was when I asked a bunch of women in the city, ‘Would it really affect your life one way or the other, whether or not the airport was renamed after my husband?’” These women’s realization that in fact it would not is what caused a tipping point in favor of the city’s willingness to rename the airport.
I looked at her when she told me that story, and said, “Well, isn’t it the same thing with gay marriage? If a gay or lesbian couple get married, will that really affect your life one bit?”
I could see the light bulb go on over her head. That day, she said I had changed her position on the legalization of gay marriage. We haven’t spoken about it since, so I can only assume that she remained convinced.
And that, for me, is why I support the right of gay people to get married. I’m a believer in individual liberty — the right of anyone to do anything they damn well please in this country, as long as it doesn’t hurt or threaten anyone else. Gay people should be able to get married in America not because they are gay, but because they are American. The idea that we would pass a law to specifically limit the rights of any group of Americans is totally preposterous — and if it’s considered legal to do so now, I’m enough of a believer in this country and a student of its history to have faith that one day, in some court — even if it proves to be the highest in the land — such abject rejection of our fundamental right to freedom will be struck down once and for all.
Defense of marriage? If someone were to argue that a heterosexual marriage needs defense against gay marriage, I would think that if anything, a straight marriage might need to be defended against a gay single person who is out and about and looking just a little too attractive! It’s those gay single people who can be a threat to a straight marriage! So I’d say, “Let them get married already, so they’ll stop going after our husbands and wives! Damn it, let them get their own!”
That’s not exactly the argument I would use in front of the Supreme Court, mind you, but it might be a good one for any bigot with a sense of humor. And at a time like this, when mean-spiritedness seeks scape goats like a heat-seeking missile, a little levity can be helpful. It can lighten the load when the road is long, and this road will stretch for as long as it takes. For every road, no matter how many detours, always lands at last at Truth. And in the United States of America, Truth and Liberty are one.
posted November 9, 2008 at 11:16 pm
As a devote Christian and as a liberal, I still protest the idea that the definition of Marriage be changed in any fashion. Never in the history has marriage been anything other than a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.
What the homosexual community wants is what Orwell called “goodspeak” and nothing more than that. This has nothing to due with right under law. Civil Unions are in place to cover the legal right they are entitled to, it has to do solely with forcing others to accept their lifestyle A NORMAL and RIGHTEOUS. It would force churches, schools and parents to teach their children beliefs that are in contradiction to the tenant of their faiths. It would in effect require Churches to practice rituals that the Scriptures tell us are wrong in the eyes of God.
I consider myself to be progressive but that does not mean that I must forfeit my Faith in the Word of God to accommodate those who choose to disregard God’s Word.
Here in California, a very liberal state, the people have spoken once again that we do not accept that we have to defy our Faith to appease a vocal minority just because their feelings are hurt.
posted November 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm
If you look back in history, marriage didn’t really originate from the Christian religion. It was adopted by Christians, but was already in place in societies before the forming of Christianity. Do the Christian thing to do, and share.
posted November 10, 2008 at 12:36 am
“It would force churches, schools and parents to teach their children beliefs that are in contradiction to the tenant of their faiths. It would in effect require Churches to practice rituals that the Scriptures tell us are wrong in the eyes of God.”
This is the kind of entirely false claim that was made by the proponents of Prop 8 in the first place. Not only is it completely false, it’s also completely absurd to assume that it’s even remotely the case.
Christian churches are not forced to preach about Judaism, or Islam. Public schools are not forced to teach ANY religion, and it is the law that they don’t, out of respect of those exact religions. Parents aren’t even forced to teach their children that other races are equal.
And just as in those cases, no one would be forced to preach or teach homosexuality. To say that granting homosexuals the right to marry would somehow breakdown the tenants of religion is utterly ridiculous. It is the law of the land that church and state be separated. Not only is that law in place to protect the people from being ruled by a religion that is not their own, it is in place to protect the rights of the religious to practice their own faith.
To make an outright effort to place new laws into the constitution specifically to please one’s religion is not only socially, but morally irresponsible. And such is the case with Proposition 8. A severe attack has been made by religious organizations against the law of separation of church and state; the very same law that gives them the right to practice their faith.
As the quote goes, the right to swing your fist ends where the other man’s nose begins. In other words, an individuals rights end when they choose to deny those same rights to others. Prop 8 is a direct punch in the face of the other man. The very same rights that have been used to act freely have been used to deny the rights of other individuals to do the same. That is a mockery of the principles of the United States of America, and a mockery of us all as human beings.
posted November 10, 2008 at 1:42 am
You are wrong scruffy. In America at one time marriage was between defined as being between a white man and a white woman, in Ireland it was at one time between a Catholic man and a Catholic woman. And Devout Traditional Christians like yourself hid your bigotry behind the Bible, in the exact same way, saying the same thing about sanctity and protecting children. Shameful, really.
posted November 10, 2008 at 2:09 am
Scruffy,
So marriage is only between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation? Does that mean that infertile heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples that simply do not want to have children do not have valid marriages? I am a heterosexual male who eventually wants to marry a woman, but I am unsure if I want to have children or not. Should I not be allowed to get married if I decide I do not want children? I’ve always thought there was more to marriage than simply having children, such as love and companionship.
Marriage has existed in a variety of forms since the beginning of time-not just the Adam and Eve-style one man, one woman paradigm. At least 33% of the world practices polygamy today, and it is common in certain cultures in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. And polygamy has been around for thousands of years-there are many examples of polygamists in the Bible, including many of the Bible’s greatest heroes (Jacob, King David, King Solomon, etc.). And there are at least eight different types of marriage in the Bible, including polygamy, levirate marriage (a woman marrying her deceased husband’s brother, as in the story of Onan), a woman marrying her rapist, Hebrew men marrying prisoners of war, a polygamous man having concubines, etc. According to the Bible, God blessed and sanctioned each of these alternate marriage forms. Not that that necessarily means God’s down with gay marriage, but that does make you think a little about the difference between our modern society and that of the ancient Hebrews. Still, it is historically, culturally, anthropologically, sociologically, and biblically incorrect to say that marriage has only ever been between one man and one woman.
posted November 10, 2008 at 3:15 am
And same-sex marriage is not once mentioned in the Bible.
posted November 10, 2008 at 3:41 am
For anyone interested, here is a great article about how our idea of ‘traditional marriage’ is actually relatively modern: http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm?page=1
posted November 10, 2008 at 9:59 am
It would in effect require Churches to practice rituals that the Scriptures tell us are wrong in the eyes of God.
That is a lie, plain and simple. This is the problem with much of the debate over civil rights for LGBT individuals – the people who stand against civil rights are all too willing to lie in order to scare people into voting their way.
Please tell me something: If I’m a straight person who’s been divorced (which is my right under the law), and want to marry another woman, can I walk into a Roman Catholic church and demand that I be married there? No. They’ll tell me “we don’t recognize those marriages.” And they’re allowed to not recognize them, just as any church is free to recognize or not recognize any marriage they want.
In a country with equal civil rights for all, churches would not be required to perform any ritual for anyone; they would simply be required to continue to exist in a country with equal civil rights for all.
You know, I haven’t heard a single anti-civil-rights person answer this question: Which legally-recognized civil right of straight peoples’ is violated by recognizing the right of LGBT individuals to marry?
posted December 10, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I’m late to this discussion. Sorry.
But I’m even sorrier that Scruffy, a self-professed Christian has chosen to bear false witness: “Never in the history has marriage been anything other than a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.”
This is so false as to be laughable. Most Biblical marriages were between one man and several women (sometimes sisters, sometimes slaves). And as for the “for the purposes of procreation”, pardon me while I spill my lunch, but in the hundreds of heterosexual weddings I have attended, not once was that alleged “purpose” ever raised. No one asked either party in the myriad couples if they were capable of procreating, if they wanted to procreate, if they intended to procreate. It has NEVER been a requirement. Otherwise, Prince Charles would not have been allowed to “marry” Camilla Parker Bowles Windsor Bono – well beyond child-bearing years (and admitted, known adulterers to boot!). Talk about yer selective fundamentalism.
“What the homosexual community wants …”
Since you are not a homosexual, please do not presume to speak for us, Scruffy. What we want is equality – that’s it – equal treatment before the law. Nothing more, less or other than the exact same rights, privileges and obligations as you. It’s supposed to be guaranteed in the Constitution.
“This has nothing to due with right under law.”
Actually, it does. Stop bearing false witness. It’s a sin, remember?
“Civil Unions are in place to cover the legal right they are entitled to”
There are what, 4 States with Civil Unions? And even they do NOT bestow the 1,176 FEDERAL rights and benefits of marriage. And the 3 States in which same-sex marriage exists likewise do not bestow them either. Many other States have either passed laws or changed their Constitutions to PREVENT ANY ‘benefits of marriage or any instituion resenbling marriage (i.e. civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.). What you typed, Scruffy, is a lie.
“it has to do solely with forcing others to accept their lifestyle”
That’s laughable. People like you never will “accept” us. It has to do with having the government recognize our relationships equally with yours. Again, equal treatment before the law. (Hint: it’s in the Constitution.)
“It would force churches, schools and parents to teach their children beliefs that are in contradiction to the tenant of their faiths. It would in effect require Churches to practice rituals that the Scriptures tell us are wrong in the eyes of God.”
posted December 10, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Now that we’ve taken care of that nonsense, I wish to thank Marianne for approaching this topic in light of liberty instead of “rights”. (For those who insist there’s no right for gays to marry in the Constitution, you need to be reminded that there’s no “right to marry” for heterosexuals, either.)
America prides itself on being the “land of the free” (not the land of people, some of whom have rights others don’t have). The great documents talk about the rights to liberty. And to the pursuit of happiness.
Could someone please explain why those rights are being denied to gay citizens?
America also prides itself on offering freedom of religion, but it denies those religions that would perform same-sex marriages the right to perform their own rites. Could someone explain that dichotomy to me?
posted April 7, 2009 at 1:15 am
“For a man to lay with another man as with a woman is an abomination before the Lord.” That is one of at least four verses in the Bible that calls homosexuality a sin.
He also told the woman at the well to “Go and sin no more.”
Also, The Bible tells us to Love the person – Hate the sin. In other words we are to love the person that practices homosexuality, but we are to hate the sin.mn6hsc