Gay Marriage: Why It's Not a Big Deal

"The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage."-- Pam Belluck

Throughout history, there have been three topics deemed unacceptable for discussion in polite company: religion, politics, and sex. These days, people talk about pretty much everything-and few things get a group as riled up as a discussion of gay marriage. As a married mother of two, my stance on the issue is a 'live and let live' philosophy. When pushed, though, I tend to fall into the role of advocate-in favor of same-sex unions. I see no reason to infringe upon the rights of others, especially since the same rights are guaranteed to other citizens.

Since the early 1960s gay marriage has been prevalent in the media, courts, and conversations, not only in America, but around the world. Canada, a country that does not have citizenship or residency requirements for marriage, legalized same-sex marriages across the entire country. Same-sex marriages are also recognized nation-wide in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa. Other countries, namely Israel, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles, choose to uphold same-sex unions conducted abroad.

Incidentally, the laws of all of these countries may have some effect on legislation in the United States. As of 2004, Massachusetts grants same-sex marriages; however, these unions are not federally recognized. The states of Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey California, and New Hampshire have created legal unions which bestow similar rights as marriage, but are not legally called 'marriage.' Other states, including Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon, and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples, granting them some rights guaranteed to heterosexual married couples. Some twenty-six states have outright banned same-sex marriages or legal unions, and many of these do not recognize such unions contracted in other states. Forty-three states define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, even in states where same-sex civil unions are allowed.

President Bush's statement on this issue in 2006 is a fallacy in itself; he stated that "government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interest of all." He continued the fallacy by saying heterosexual marriages provide safety for children and are 'a pillar of society' (Globe). This correlates with Benson's editorial cartoon in saying hetero-only marriage is as much a pillar of American society as slavery, male-only voting, and separate but equal schooling (Benson, see appendix). In Reverend Howard Moody's article on the subject, he argues that Bush has every right to make this statement in his capacity of a Christian and a member of his Methodist church, "but as the President of the United States and leader of all Americans, believers and unbelievers, he is wrong" (Moody 94). In this respect, Moody shows how the role we play in society can affect our answer on some difficult and controversial questions-and how it should not. By using his religious beliefs to support his stance on gay marriage, George W. Bush uses his religious beliefs to back our government. Such support is unconstitutional by most interpretations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

Although his thought process is flawed, in some ways, Bush is exactly right. Marriage is an important union which provides familial, financial, and emotional security. As Stoddard points out, marriage, whether a religious or civil union, 'triggers a universe of rights, privileges, and presumptions' (Stoddard 30). Under the laws Bush advocates, such rights would forever denied to gay and lesbian couples, a fact depicted explicitly in Tom Tole's 2004 editorial cartoon. He shows 'The Bush Memorial' with the phrase "The Bill of Denied Rights: Equal rights under law shall be prohibited to homosexual American citizens, forever" (Toles). The depiction of Bush as diminutive version of the vast Lincoln Monument correlates Tole's cartoon to that of Benson. The President who led to the abolishment of slavery and the first steps toward racial equality is immortalized in a colossal twenty foot tall marble statue, while, according to Benson, Bush's memorial after his blatant denial of rights would be significantly smaller.

Many opposers to the illegalization of gay marriage take issue with this denial of rights. Several celebrities have openly criticized the government's restriction of same-sex marriage, including Brad Pitt and Cristina Aguilera. Pitt refuses to marry long-time girlfriend and mother of his children until all people who wish to marry are allowed to do so, while Aguilera expressed contempt that friend Lance Bass could not marry his partner, Reichen Lehmkuhl. Married people have the right to their spouse's estate, even when there is no will. Group insurance and pension programs from the spouse's employer are also available to both parties of a married couple. There are also tax advantages, and spouses cannot be obliged to testify against one another in legal matters. In 1967, the United States Supreme court stated that marriage is 'one of the basic civil rights of man' and declared the freedom to marry is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' (Stoddard 30).

According to the Declaration of Independence, this pursuit is 'endowed by [our] Creator' as one of our 'unalienable rights.' The next passage states that 'to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed' (Jefferson 16). What will the United States government do when the 1.5 million gay and lesbian citizens of our country refuse to consent to this arrant degradation of their rights? The American Anthropological Association released its statement regarding its position on the ban of same-sex marriage, based on their research (Brumfiel).

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Depending on the standpoint taken and the evidence used by an author, the issue of gay marriage can be defended as a claim of value or as a claim of policy. Claims of value, in regards to same-sex marriage, will attempt to prove heterosexual unions are more desirable from a moral, and often religious, standpoint. Claims of policy will approach the issue from a political or social standpoint, offering solutions to a legal or social problem. Reverend Moody combines these tactics, and even utilizes fallacies to his advantage, in order to make his point.

In his opening paragraph, Moody tells the reader he has been a clergyman for at least thirty years. This gives him two authorities, one being the archetypal wise older male, the other being his status as a Reverend. He also states his views on marriage, which are, as he admits, not in favor of marriage of any kind. At first, he gives himself authority, then removes himself from it. It is as if he is telling his audience that he is not to be considered as a Reverend or the archetype, but as one man with an opinion and his own beliefs. He brings up a centuries old debate, a distinctly American problem-the separation of church and state. His standpoint is that the dispute over gay marriage is less about the legitimacy of love between members of the same sex, and more about the associations of church and state, how they define marriage, and how the two definitions diverge. He appeals to traditional values by using examples from Christianity, Judaism, and Western civilization.

For some, especially in the United States where 1/5 of the Christian population claims to be Baptist, Moody's status as an ordained Baptist minister is especially poignant. The Baptist denomination is congregational, meaning the church members, including the church officers-the reverend or preacher and the deacons-- decide their standpoint on issues such as homosexuality and gay marriage. While the majority of Baptists (and other Christian denominations) are unequivocally opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality in general, there are some liberal groups within many denominations, including Baptists, who are more accepting of same-sex church members. These facts become important in understanding the rest of Moody's argument.

In the opinion of Reverend Moody, much like the other authors discussed here, the choice to get married is an individual freedom-and should not be a right which may be given or denied by a government. He asserts that if marriage were indeed an institution that is perfect as it is, the divorce rate would not be over 50 percent, there would not be an abundance of loveless marriages entered into out of convenience or due to pressure from outside parties, because of pregnancy, or as a way of obliging the church.

Perhaps it is because of this that Reverend Moody so strongly advocates a greater divide between church and state on this issue of marriage. He gives the example of an unnamed Catholic priest who defied his church's stand on the subject in saying: "We can bless a dog, we can bless a boat, but we can't say a prayer over two people who love each other. You don't have to call it marriage, you can call it a deep and abiding friendship, but you can bless it" (Moody 94). In this way, the liberal religious community defies the civil laws of the government under which they live. Similar to the practice of civil disobedience of leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., clergymen and women are engaging in 'religious disobedience.'

All these editorials, including the editorial cartoons, make the same point, albeit in different manners. In my opinion, Reverend Moody's article is the most persuasive due to his skillful use of fallacies and examples. While the cartoons utilize visual techniques of argument, it is not as effective as the information given in the written articles. Even the weakest editorial, from the Boston Globe, used humor, which, like the cartoons, gets the attention of readers who would not otherwise read the editorial. The degree of persuasiveness depends on the reader in the case of all the editorials and cartoons-especially since the issue dealt with in all of them is a particularly difficult one to persuade people away from their original belief.

Works Cited

Benson, Steve. Bigotry Under Law.Arizona Republic. 2004.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. "Media Release:Statement on Marriage and the Family." Arlington, Virgina: American Anthropological Association, 2004.

"Gay marriage, so what?" Boston Globe 6 June 2006.

Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." Rottenberg, Annette T., and Donna Haisty Winchell. The Structure of Argument. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. 16-19.

Moody, Howard. "Gay Marriage Shows Why We Need to Separate Church and State." Rottenberg, Annette T. and Donna Haisy Winchell. The Structure of Argument. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. 92-97.

Stoddard, Thomas B. "Gay Marriages: Should They Be Legalized?" Barnet, Sylvan and Hugo Bedau. Contemporary & Classic Arguments. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. 29-31.

Toles, Tom. The Bush Memorial.The Washington Post. 2004.