Marriage Equality

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.