The Social Conservatives' Misguided War on Gay Marriage

When the midterm election campaign season started heating up last summer, social conservatives started a completely coincidental, yet timely push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Right-wing Republican senators like Bill Frist and Rick Santorum dragged the issue to the top of the Senate's agenda, in an attempt to excite the Republican party's disillusioned supporters enough to actually show up and vote for them in November. Having failed to rally any support from their traditional supporters on important issues like the Iraq war, immigration, social security, and foreign oil dependence, Frist and Co. decided the best way to fire up the base was to zero in on a far more pressing issue: fags tying the knot.

The conservative stance

Their argument was (and remains) simple: Marriage, traditionally between a man and a woman, is the most basic institution of social order and stability in our society, and this institution must be protected and preserved. Gay marriage is a threat to traditional American values, and its allowance would undercut the country's social foundation and encourage "non-traditional lifestyles," resulting in a future generation with no sense of morality (unlike the current adult generation, whose moral values are uniformly pristine, as evidenced by the spotless records of Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove ... ).

Said Frist, "For thousands of years, marriage - the union between a man and a woman - has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society ... We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended." Added Santorum, "I think that marriage is such an important thing, and families are such an important thing for a society, that it needs to be enshrined in a very, very unique way." So unique, apparently, that only the 90-plus percent of American adults that are straight should be allowed to partake in it. Oh, the novelty.

Baseless arguments

It is admirable that Frist, Santorum, and their socially conservative colleagues care enough America's social fabric to deem the preservation of "family values" more important than court-sanctioned torture and terrorism, but the case against homosexual matrimony is flawed. Proponents of strictly male-female marriage argue that if gays are allowed to wed, this will lead to the development of "non-traditional families" (gay couples with children), which harms the kids in these situations because they will be embarrassed by their parents' sexuality and be subjected to ridicule from their peers. Also, conservatives claim, growing up with same-sex parents will stunt kids' coeducational growth, and they will lag behind peers with unisex parents in interacting with both of the sexes.

Both of these assertions are unfounded. The only reason that a child of a homosexual couple might be the victim of mistreatment at school and in public is because so many kids in America are told by their insecure, homophobic parents that gays are perverted walking freak shows. The acceptance of gay marriage would go a long way toward phasing out the anti-gay mentality that is passed down by so many parents to their impressionable offspring. The first large generation children adopted by gay spouses could very well endure some bullying and harassment, but soon enough, as gay parenting enters the mainstream, gay prejudice will become less acceptable, and eventually decried by the majority of sensible Americans.

The argument that children with gay parents won't learn to deal with both sexes is also naïve. Millions of kids currently are raised in single-parent homes, and unless the parent is a hermaphrodite, a single-parent home is also a single-sex one. And the biggest problem facing children in this situation - being left alone for long periods while mom (or dad) works - would not so easily apply to children with gay parents, as at least one of them would likely be home in the afternoon after school.

As stability in the home goes, therefore, a child may very well be better off living with two homosexual parents than a single heterosexual one. If the Right really wants to protect the traditional American family, maybe it should try identifying and solving whatever problems cause half of contemporary marriages to end in divorce and leave countless children hanging out to dry while their parents fight traumatizing custody battles.

There is absolutely no justification for thinking that two gay men or women are, due to their sexual preference, incapable of raising a child. Unless good parenting involves the child observing a mom-and-pop demonstration of vaginal intercourse ("Now, son, this next position is called 'The Spider Monkey'... Are you paying attention?") it shouldn't make a bit of difference if the alpha male in the house is really a female. And good old-fashioned heterosexuality itself is no indicator of solid child-rearing skills. Over two million children were physically abused by their straight parents in 2004. How could homosexuals be any worse at parenting? Do gays hit harder, or something?

Fighting for faith

The most determined attacks on gay marriage come from the leaders of religious groups. Evangelist Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, described homosexuals as "self absorbed narcissists willing to destroy any institution." Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out vehemently against non-traditional wedlock, saying that "true love is only that which comes from the union of a man and a woman," an institution which is "severely threatened" by gay marriage. "Couples made up of homosexuals claim similar rights to those reserved to husband and wife; they even claim the right to adoption," said Benedict. "The help of the law to form these unusual couples goes hand in hand with the help to divorce and repudiate [marriage]." Apparently, there is an inverse relationship between gay marriage and straight divorce, and Benedict has conducted a scientific study that proves this. I can't wait to read his research paper in the next issue of Science magazine.

Faith-based organizations like the Catholic Church and the Christian Coalition are free to espouse whatever social ideals they please, but their opinions are inherently based on an interpretation of divine law, not constitutional legality. Therefore, the arguments they put forth are not valid when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. It is true that marriages have traditionally been formalized churches. However, marriage is a legal union in the United States, not a religious one. Married couples are subject to different rules and procedures regarding taxes, adoptions, and general financial arrangements than non-married people. Denying homosexuals the legal and financial perks of marriage on religious grounds is a violation of the separation of church and state. Private religious groups that perform weddings certainly have a right to refuse to wed gay couples, but the government does not.

But doesn't America want "traditional marriage" protected?

The last case against homosexual matrimony concerns popular sentiment. If as many as 70 percent of American citizens support the preservation of marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, social conservatives say, shouldn't this be interpreted as a mandate against homosexual marriage, and doesn't the government have a responsibility to amend the Constitution to reflect the peoples' wishes? Short answer: Fuck, no. There are many opinions shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans that are nevertheless illegal to institutionalize. Certainly at least 70 percent of the people in this country don't like the Ku Klux Klan holding anti-Semitic demonstrations in Jewish neighborhoods, but banning them violates the First Amendment.

And I am sure that at least 99 percent of the population opposes NAMBLA's stance on man-boy sex, but that doesn't mean the group is not allowed to publicly promote its platform. Clearly, there is a precedent that public opinion should hold little or no sway over what is and is not permissible in this country. Want to change this? Pass an Amendment making every U.S. citizen a member of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Tim Hardaway is just as qualified to interpret the Constitution as David Souter.

The fight over gay marriage is just the latest speed bump on the way to social equality in this country. Every time a new civil rights issue such as this is raised, there are those who oppose extending the rights in question to the affected group. The Confederate States of America opposed the emancipation of slaves. Large numbers of men opposed women's suffrage in the early 1900s. Racists in the 1960s opposed legal equality for blacks. See a pattern? Every time, the opposition loses, and the United States is a better place for it. Political and religious conservatives can speak out against gay marriage all they want, but their bigoted, self-righteous posturing is only delaying the inevitable. The day will soon come when gay couples everywhere tie the knot right around Rick Santorum's. And he'll see that he can still breathe just fine.

Of course, he won't be a Senator when it happens. That, I believe, is something worth preserving.