Gay Marriage: Myths, Truths, and Propaganda

Recently in my following of Change.org's Gay Rights section I came across a reference to an article KTKZ's website by Michael Medved entitled "Gay Marriage Myths and Truths"[1]. Thinking maybe for once a writer took to reading what the facts are about gay marriage, the reason why so many people gay and straight are fighting for it, I read the article. I was dismayed to find it to be yet another propaganda riddled article written by a right wing anti-gay writer. So the following is a rebuttal to his article.

Mr. Medved states this as a following myth "1. 'Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage.'" Then goes on a accuse the statement of being "the worst example of journalistic malpractice in recent years." And then he goes on to state that Proposition 8 doesn't restrict the actions of private citizens, but instead "the proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private public processes by calling such a relationship a marriage." He says Prop.8 was merely redefining of marriage within the state of California.

This is all well and good, except in his very first accusation of mythos, he creates a new myth of his own. The state of California dubbed gay marriage legal prior to the institutionalization of Prop. 8. Which means that the "redefinition" of the term marriage is a direct violation of previously established rights afforded to homosexual couples. Not only that he doesn't recognize the zeitgeist in which Prop. 8 was promoted; blatantly ignoring the fallacious and libelous statements used by promoters of Prop. 8 which directly demeaned homosexuality. So myth one: Prop. 8 was strictly a redefinition of marriage. It was far more than that, it was an enactment that attempted to legalize discrimination based almost completely on religious idealisms.

Myth 2: Medved again completely misses the point with his second supposed myth "Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment."

He says that Prop. 8 doesn't mention sexuality but strictly defines relationships. Even having the arrogance to say "a gay male and straight male would face exactly the same option in marriage-free to choose any woman who is not already married or a blood relative. The fact that the gay man won't want to marry any of the women available to him doesn't change the fact that he and his straight neighbor face precisely the same opportunities and restrictions in their marital choices."

While in a very conservative mind this is equality, in a broader view it's not. A straight man and a straight woman who love for each other can get married. But a gay man and a gay man can't even though they love each other in the same way? The law and this argument ignores the validity of the emotional attraction and relies heavily on traditional concepts of what love is. This argument is nearly identical to that of white supremacists during the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, when the black rights movement was in full swing. Proponents of white supremacy who wanted segregation often argued "black men can marry black women just as freely as white men can marry white women, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry interracially."

Number 3 is a hoot ""Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that "same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples." (This language appears verbatim in the judge's decision)"

Medved then says this as his truth "Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn't based on the notion that opposite sex couples are "better," but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively. Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. This is based on the universal, common sense assumption that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father..."

First off the flowery language hear is rhetoric that essentially says exactly the same thing as the cited "mythos" in his article. Basically, broken down, while he wants you believe that the opposition isn't about being better, he blatantly states that "they are more consequential" meaning relevant, useful, valid. Then he jumps the line and goes into child rearing. While laws in states are designed to insure the rights of parents, they're hardly take the job of fitting children to their biological parents~ considering the fact that 4 out of 10 adopted children lived with their biological parents before being adopted (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?id=13)

And only 69% of adopted children live with married couples, there is lacking support for the claim that children are always better off with their biological parents, or better off with both parents. Interestingly the number of kids in foster care has more or less remained the same since 2002 ranging near and around 500,000 at any given time. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends02-08.pdf)

However this aside, married straight couples offer little to nothing that gay couples don't also offer.

This brings me to the second part of his argument for number 3. "Traditional opposite sex marriage generally produces a situation where both birth parents will participate in parenting - and this shared responsibility even survives divorce in most cases. There is no chance--none-that a same sex marriage can produce a child who will be raised by both birth parents. This doesn't make that same sex marriage hateful or immoral, but it does make it somewhat less desirable and less significant for society."

Traditional marriage hasn't existed for many years in the US. If it did, women would have no rights, men would have complete control including the ability to rape the wife, beat their children and put them to work for no money. We'd see little to no marriage and frankly half the rights gained and progress made since the Victorian Age wouldn't exist.

We have a 50% plus divorce rate in the US where the average length of a marriage is eight years. With around 70% of those who do divorce ending in single parenthood without contact of the non-custody parent.

More importantly, however, is his statement that it's impossible for a gay couple to ever produce a child who'd be raised by both birth parents. This is completely false. I know of two separate gay couples (two gay men and two lesbian women) who become impregnated by the gay men giving their semen for artificial insemination to the lesbian couple. Both couples are active parents and the two children they have, have four parents.

Medved however seems to have a lacking understanding of social dynamics. His fourth myth is most interesting because it is the least mythical of them all.

"4. "Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages."" In what way could gay marriage affect straight marriage you might ask, I certainly was asking.

Here it is "The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn't damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself." In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman...The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical-that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner. Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing, at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children."

Really? First off many civilizations including Japan, many Native American societies all shared the use of gay marriage. Talk about poor understanding of civilization development to make such a poor overgeneralization. However one might think his comment of separating marriage from childbearing to be a logical argument, as I've already pointed out marriage is no longer required for childbearing. One in four parents in the US are single parents. With the high divorce rate and nearly half a million of children in the care of child services this argument is so debunked it's not funny.

Here is one I want you to really think about: "5. "Denying marriage rights to same sex couples is the equivalent of denying marriage rights to inter-racial couples before 1967."

TRUTH: The old and hateful laws barring interracial marriage directly discriminated against individuals based on their race-a discrimination explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The language of the Constitution never mentions (or even hints at) similar protection for sexual orientation. Before Loving v. Virginia struck down the evil anti-miscegenation laws, such legislation treated a black man and a white man completely differently: the African-American couldn't marry a white woman, but the white guy could. As noted above, under Proposition 8 a lesbian woman got exactly the same marriage options as a heterosexual woman; there was no potential mate that the straight woman could choose, but the gay woman couldn't."

As I've already pointed out, because of the sexual attraction difference between a gay male and straight male, the act of providing for one's rights (the straight male) and saying the gay male has the same rights when he has no attraction to the opposite sex is the direct act of treating two people differently with a veil of equality. The proponents of the black discrimination of the 60s is no different than the discrimination being applied now.

Yet he talks about the constitution. It makes me wonder if he even bothered to read the constitution, because while sexuality was not considered specifically, the 14^th amendment assures equality in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property. Marriage is an establishment of property for one, two in the pursuit of life and liberty (freedom) gays are going to be attracted to each other just as straights to the opposing sex.

The very basis of the strike down of Prop. 8 is it's violation of the 14^th amendment.

"6. "Any gay marriage ban is an invasion of privacy."

TRUTH: Actually, opposition to gay marriage involves the defense of privacy from governmental intrusion, not any sort of intimate assault. The drive to mandate gay marriage demands a vast expansion of governmental involvement into same sex relationships - relationships in which the right bureaucratic policy would be strict neutrality. Proposition 8 mandated no change in private relationships and only an alteration in public policy."

This one makes me laugh, the government has invaded the process of marriage for decades now. To argue that the entire point of Prop. 8 is to avoid governmental involvement and defend privacy is ludicrous. Simply put, if this were the case, Prop. 8 would have said "the government has no right to define what marriage is and shouldn't be taxing or recognizing marriage." Then anyone could define marriage as they so pleased and this argument would cease to exist. However, Prop. 8 as Medved so adequately quoted "' "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'" Is a direct statement of a governmental body establishing what marriage is which is a direct incursion upon the privacy of marriage and provincial construction of social acceptance. There in, Prop. 8 is a direct invasion of privacy.

Lastly, number 7, is so dismaying that Medved would be so engulfed by stupidity to think as he has, that he'd go onto the topic of oppression.

"7. "Governmental recognition for gay marriage is necessary to end oppression of gay people."

TRUTH: All Studies and surveys indicate that gay people in America hardly constitute an oppressed minority; on average, they enjoy higher levels of education and income than the heterosexual majority. Even in the federal trial just concluded, the plaintiffs' attorneys presented abundant evidence of the remarkable success and eminence of homosexual couples in the United States. The undeniable fact that gay people have achieved these personal and communal victories even without gay marriage, is an indication that the traditionally privileged position for heterosexual marriage hasn't blocked homosexuals from successful participation in every aspect of American life.

With Judge Walker's decision, the debate about re-defining marriage will once again intensify as the case works its way through the system to the Supreme Court of the United States. No effort at logical argument can halt the hysterical distortions that erupt periodically on both sides but the integrity of public discourse requires at least an honest attempt to clear away mistakes, irrational claims and outright smears."

While it is true that openly gay people tend to exhibit a greater level of happiness and tend to express that level of happiness willingly, this fact does not account for the multitude of "closeted" gays who face discrimination every day. What more, while openly gay people have achieved a great deal of success in gaining respect, gay children in schools, and gay people in communities face discrimination every single day.

"Students' Experiences
In its 2005 National School Climate Survey, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found:

75% of students heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten (89%) reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" -- meaning "stupid" or "worthless" -- frequently or often.

Over a third (37.8%) of students experienced physical harassment at school based on sexual orientation and more than a quarter (26%) based on their gender expression.

Nearly one-fifth (17.6%) of students had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth (11.8%) because of their gender expression.

LGBTQ students were five times more likely to report having skipped school in the last month because of safety concerns than the general population of students.

LGBTQ students who experience more frequent physical harassment were more likely to report they did not plan to go to college. Overall, LGBTQ students were twice as likely as the general population of students to report they were not planning to pursue any post-secondary education.

The average GPA for LGBTQ students who were frequently physically harassed was half a grade lower than that of LGBTQ students experiencing less harassment."

(http://www.tolerance.org/activity/anti-gay-discrimination-schools)

The fact is, approval of gay marriage would send a signal socially that homosexuality is acceptable and even the government is able, willing, and staunchly accepting of homosexuality. It would a huge step in stripping away and reducing the overall discrimination and oppression of gay people in our society.

Michael Medved, you're an ignorant person, who has failed to do his research, failed to provide evidence for your claims in your article, and frankly you lack the understanding of the situation to be writing anything on the matter of gay rights, gay marriage, or gay oppression.

I dare you to go into a sports bar and say "I'm gay". If you do it and not get one comment that is negative, maybe I'll consider your article again, if you do, then shut up.

[1]http://www.ktkz.com/column.aspx?id=cf909a53-a857-43d3-aab3-f7c470c4c5fc