There is a debate that is taking place across America about same-sex
marriage and whether or not it should be legal. What it comes down to is a
debate of logic and reason in favor, with dogma and fear against. On the side
of logic will be examples of equal marriage rights, legal rights as defined by
the foundation of the country, and the absurdity presented in the arguments
against. On the side of dogma will be clear examples of fear and religious
text.
At least ten other countries have legalized same-sex
marriage; the Netherlands, Belgium,
Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina (Armestre, May 9, 2012). Meanwhile the USA only has
it legal in eight states and the
District of Columbia (procon.org,
8/23/2012).
So it is not a matter of it being unprecedented, or even a matter of only a few
rebellious or dissident and uneducated areas that have passed laws to afford
equal rights. In fact almost all of these countries have a higher education
score than the US (OECD,
2009).
As to the states, four of the states where it is legal are in the top ten of
education with seven being in the top twenty-five (Ladner
& Lips, 2011).
So an argument could be made that it is actually a sign of better education
that leads to equality in marriage. This can probably be best argued in the US
because of the actual wording of some of our founding documents. In our
“Declaration of Independence” (Jefferson, 1776) it states clearly that all
men are created equal, and then goes on to illuminate the rights as life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not say that some men should
have rights, but others not so much, that some are more equal than others.
Another couple of ways to look at the issue is the past
issue of interracial marriage which only became legal in June 12, 1967 in the
“Loving v. Virginia (NPR,
2007).”
Many of the same arguments were used against allowing interracial couples the
right to marry, but the decision was that we could not bar them the right marry
and not bar other couples from marrying. Opponents at the time voiced the concern that
allowing interracial marriage would disrupt the foundation of marriage and
could lead to legalization of polygamy and bestiality. Similar upset was also
raised during the reign of terror under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early
fifties. The link between the hysteria is noted by David Moats (Moats, 2004) as he thinks about his
coverage of a Vermont town hall and the similarity to meetings from his
childhood about communism. In his article the talks about the fervor to prevent
talks being given at the university because of their communist nature and how
it correlated to the town hall meeting in Vermont as panic broke out over a
book in the library depicting a same-sex couple. Thus illustrating that
irrational fear was the basis of objection instead of any rational objection.
To summarize the fourteen pros given as per procon.com (procon.org,
8/23/2012)
there first of all that it is no one’s business. Next is the historical fact
that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage, there are many examples
of polygamy, concubines, and communal living. Then “The US Supreme Court
declared in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that
the ‘freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one
of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.’ (procon.org,
8/23/2012)”
There is the consideration that denying equal marriage rights stigmatizes
unfairly the LGBT community. The additional marriages can help the income of
communities and government through marriage licenses, taxes, and decreased
costs. It will also help adoptions and therefore help with the problem of the
growing number of unadopted wards of the state. Marriage provides both physical
and psychological benefits, therefore reducing healthcare costs. There is
anthropological studies that show a history of same-sex family relations
throughout the ages. It is also pointed out that marriage is a secular
institution even though it is often performed by religious institutions they
are only able to do so under the regulation of the government that deemed that
authority. There has been a study published that showed that same-sex marriage
has no impact upon divorce rates, abortion rates, or children born out of
wedlock. “Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage
in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate
declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its
constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its
divorce rate. (procon.org,
8/23/2012)”
Then in response to the argument that same-sex couples could not reproduce then
it reasons that couples that are infertile, or choose not to have children
should be denied marriage. Finally the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that
marriage was a basic civil right. (procon.org,
8/23/2012)
With all of this being admitted there are still many that
object to same-sex marriage. One of the most bought up arguments against
same-sex marriage is from various religious text, but in the United States, it
is primarily from the Holy Bible, specifically Leviticus. Leviticus which
“means ‘pertaining to Levites’; that is, the book contains the System of Laws,
administered by the Levitical Priesthood (Halley, 1965).” From this book of the Holy
Bible they use Leviticus 18: 22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
womankind: it is an abomination (King James, 1985).”
Then there are those that, as pointed out by Sam Schulman (Schulman, 2003), believe that allowing
same-sex marriage is a gateway to polygamy, polyandry, and polyamorism and
therefore a destruction of the institution of marriage. That this is somehow
the secret agenda of homosexuals. Which is a complete slippery slope argument.
Then there are those, as pointed out by Suzanna Walters (Walters,
2007),
that believe that homosexuals are not actually after the right to marry, but
instead want to cause such a storm of discussion and controversy that the
institution of marriage is abolished for all. Another version of the slippery
slope. Both being equally absurd. Overall these arguments use the veneer of
religion and the resulting dogma.
In the article put forth by procon.com (procon.org,
8/23/2012)
there were thirteen cons presented. Starting with the idea that the accepted
tradition is marriage is between a man and women with the purpose of having
children. Next is the fear that somehow it would heighten divorce rates. Then
the tired argument that it is a slippery slope into degeneration of the meaning
of marriage that will lead to incestuous relations, bestiality and polygamy.
The fall back argument that it is against sacred texts of many religions, which
are of dubious origin. That somehow allowing same-sex marriage will put a
burden on taxpayers. Another is that fear for the children that may be raised
in a household that has two committed parents that are not man and woman. It is
also put forth that it will allow the LGBT community to assimilate and lose its
vibrancy. An interesting argument is that marriage is a sexist and oppressive
convention that should be abolished for all, not just for same-sex couples. It
is also feared that it will lead to a greater acceptance of single parent
households. Then, despite the rulings of more than one court, marriage is not a
right. It is argued that it should not be allowed because it does not lead to
procreation. Then because the greatest protector of pedophiles, the catholic
church, has stated that marriage is a religious and not a secular rite, that
same-sex marriages should not be allowed. The final argument against was that
even though they have to accept interracial marriage as a civil right, they do
not feel that that same-sex marriage equates as a civil right.
As a counter to much of the argument made by the opponents
of same-sex marriage it is best to use their own language and source against
them. After all, do these same defenders of Leviticus offer animal sacrifice,
as called for throughout the book of Leviticus? Do they believe that if they so
much as touch an unclean animal, such as a pig, that they too become unclean,
or if they touch or speak with a person that is unclean that they immediately
as guilty and unclean as it states in Leviticus 5 (King James, 1985)? Do they keep a women
separate and consider her unclean after giving birth a week if the child is
male, and two weeks if the child is female as suggested in Leviticus 12 (King James, 1985)? Then there is Leviticus
20:10 calling for death of adulters (King James, 1985) there would be much fewer of
them if they believed and followed this one. And it goes on and on. If they are
going to claim to follow one, then it is only hypocrisy not to follow all. Yet
for some reason it seems to be alright to pick and choose which parts of the
bible that they wish to observe and follow based upon what is convenient for
them and helps justify their fears.
If one wanted to live by the words as put forth in
Leviticus, which one must if they want to accept part as law, then they must accept
all as law, then they would have to live their lives pretty much as Howard
Hughes did at the end of his live having absolutely no contact with the outside
world because invariably they would come in contact with something that was
unclean and have to go through purification or be just as unclean. Think about
it, if they go out in public how many things will they touch or come in contact
with that has been handled by another unclean. Then they will have the cooties
and be unclean passing the unclean cooties on to whomever they come in contact
with until they can be purified. Add on top of that how quickly they would find
themselves in jail for their animal sacrifice to perform the purifications,
then they really would be in cootie-ville. As an example of a simple thing, the
money that most of us use every day. It is true that most transactions can be
put on plastic or check, but there are still many places that still only accept
cash. Even if you get brand new bills how do you know who has handled that money
and if they are clean or unclean. If it isn’t new money… well let’s just say
that I have worked in places and seen places and people that handle the money
that may make one never want to handle cash again without a hazmat suit.
There are many examples of marriage equality throughout the
world, and those places have not fallen into ruin and moral decay. It has also
been shown that the precepts of the nation would have to be set aside for there
not to be equality laws. It has been pointed out the religious arguments
against equality laws, but it has also been pointed out the sheer absurdity and
hypocrisy of those arguments. It all comes down to fear for those that are
against. Logic and reason show clearly that there are no reasons besides fear
and biased use of dogma to not have equality.
References
Armestre,
P. (May 9, 2012). Countries where gay marriage is legal: Netherlands,
argentina & more - the daily beast Retrieved 8/28/2012, 2012, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-netherlands-argentina-more.html
Halley, H.
H. (1965). Halley's bible handbook (24th ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House.
Jefferson,
T. (1776). The declaration of independence Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012,
from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
King
James. (1985). Holy bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
Ladner, D.
M., & Lips, D. (2011). Report card on american education | ALEC –
american legislative exchange council Retrieved 9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/
Moats, D.
(2004). Fear itself: Meditations on gay marriage. The Virginia Quarterly
Review, 80(4), 186-195.
NPR.
(2007). Loving decision: 40 years of legal interracial unions : NPR Retrieved
9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047
OECD.
(2009). Educational score performance - country rankings Retrieved
9/1/2012, 2012, from http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html
procon.org.
(8/23/2012). Gay marriage ProCon.org Retrieved 8/28/2012, 2012, from http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Schulman,
S. (2003, Nov 2003). Gay marriage-and marriage. Commentary, 116, 35-40.
Walters,
S. D. (2007). Threat level lavender: The truthiness of gay marriage. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(20), B.12-B14.
