Focused on Adam and Steve

Gay marriage.

The US Supreme Court is taking their crack at it this week, so why not me?  Here's my take.

I was probably about six or seven years old the day I had my first argument about gay marriage.  It was with Christian Clancy, a kid who lived down the block from me.  I don't remember what started it or how precisely we got there but the essence of it was that he was trying to tell me that if he wanted to marry a boy when he grew up he could, whereas I was insistent that he absolutely could not. 

Then he threw the dad card. 

"Boys cannot marry boys, Christian!"  "Yes they can -- my dad said so."  End of argument.  Even at that young age, I knew that I was never going to win an argument once the dad card was thrown.  I mean, what do you do, call the kid's father a liar?  To what end?  Fisticuffs were frequent enough amongst the kids of Lawrence Street without bringing parents into it -- the surest route to escalation.  So we dropped it and it's actually pretty remarkable that I even remember the incident.

Yet here we, as a nation, are -- damned-near 40 years later, still having the same argument.

Now, my six year-old argument had nothing to do with equality or legality or anything of the sort.  My logic was simply that that's not how things worked.  While I'm sure Christian wasn't on any kind of a social crusade either, from what I can recall of his parents, they were all about peace and love and inclusion and such, and his comments were probably more about '70's acceptance of personal lifestyle choices -- kind of a 'be who you want to be' mentality -- than any actual opinion on gay rights.  I mean, we were little kids.

Fast forward to today and I am a 43 year-old heterosexual, divorced Catholic with friends both gay and straight.  Obviously my thoughts on gay marriage are affected by all of those criteria.

First and foremost, I believe a clear distinction need be made when having this conversation, between the civil, legal institution of marriage and marriage as recognized by a religious organization.  According to the Church of which I have been a lifelong member, I have never been married, as my wedding did not happen inside a church.  Now, if you ask the State of Texas, they most certainly will say that I was, in fact, married, for seven very misguided months in 1992.  Personally, I do not feel as though I have ever been married, as the sacrament in the Catholic Church I did not receive is far more important to me than the three-minutes my pregnant girlfriend and I spent in front of a judge, in his office, on a Tuesday afternoon.  However, that civil process -- that legal contract into which I entered on that day is exactly that with which the gay marriage debate is concerned.

No one is asking any religious organization to recognize same-sex marriage nor, in my opinion, should they.  The question of gay marriage is strictly a civil, legal, secular one.  As such, I can find absolutely no reason why same sex marriage should not be legalized.

I know the common arguments: allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to a degradation of the sanctity of marriage; it is tantamount to the condoning of illegal activity; it will "normalize" abhorrent behavior.  Let's look at those.   

There is no "sanctity" of marriage in its secular context.  Webster's defines sanctity as, "The state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly."  Now, when speaking about marriage within the confines of many religious faiths, this is absolutely something you'd be aiming for.  That's simply not the case when speaking of the civil institution of marriage though.  In its secular context, a marriage is simply a contract between two people.  That contract -- and the ability to legally enter into it -- is all homosexuals are asking for.

Now, if you want to substitute something like, "integrity" in the place of, "sanctity", well, you're still backing the wrong horse.  With over half of all marriages failing, the proliferation of "no fault" states and a virtual elimination of all stigma associated with divorce, I think it's safe to say heterosexuals have done more damage to "traditional marriage" than any homosexual can do.

As to the argument that, since sodomy is illegal in a number of states, legalizing gay marriage will be akin to approving of illegal activity -- if you are of this opinion, you've clearly not read any of the laws you cite.  By this logic, no one -- gay or straight -- in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia or Washington D.C., who also plan on engaging in oral sex with their spouse should be allowed to marry.  It's illegal in those states.  It's also illegal in Virginia to have sex with the lights on and in at least five states to do it in any position other than missionary.  Oh, and in Georgia, you and wifey better not have "toys".  That's a fucking felony!  (Pun unintentional).

The takeaway?  Unless you and your spouse only have sex in the dark, missionary-style, you're probably breaking at least one of the laws upon which you are basing your anti-gay marriage argument.

The other main argument against same-sex marriage is that it will take abhorrent behavior and make it "normal".  You mean like when they let white folk marry "coloreds"?  C'mon.  That's the weakest argument of them all.  It's not like making gay marriage legal will encourage straight people to become gay and marry.  If it were truly nurture over nature, how do you explain the very existence of homosexuals?  If heterosexuality is the "normal" state and two heterosexual people raise a child, how can he be nurtured into homosexuality?  That makes no sense.

This last argument is the one where the lines between folks' religious beliefs and a debate about a civil status get most blurred.   Allowing that bleed-thru is a terrible mistake because the fight for marriage equality is not about changing people's morals.  It is about allowing for some very basic, yet vitally important legal rights.  Among them:

-  The ability to make end-of-life decisions.
-  Estate and Inheritance rights
-  The legal protections afforded spouses with regard to court testimony
-  Insurance and tax benefits of marriage

This is, of course, a very small list but I want to focus on the first item and lay out a scenario.  Having worked as a chaplain, I know this is an absolutely realistic scenario in the State of Texas and imagine it's not an exception in that regard in many others.

Joe and Bob have been together for 25 years, in a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship.  Joe's family never accepted his homosexuality and sadly, he has not spoken with his family for over 20 years.  Joe has cancer.  He and Bob have discussed his end-of-life decisions at great length and Joe has decided he wants no extraordinary measures taken to preserve life should it come to that.  In fact, Joe has completed an advance directive, or "living will", that says just that. 

Joe's condition worsens and he is admitted to the hospital.  It doesn't look like he will make it.  Bob calls Joe's sister Mary, telling her of Joe's status.  Mary flies to Dallas, to be at her brother's bedside, having not seen him in two decades.  She immediately orders Bob removed from the room.  Not being a family member, not being in any way legally related to Joe, Bob's gotta go.  A few minutes later, Joe codes.  Mary tells hospital staff to take all possible measures to keep Joe alive -- in express conflict with not only his wishes but also his advance directive.  Being the closest blood relative, the hospital is compelled to do as she asks.  Joe suffers for another week before finally dying.  Bob does not see him for that entire week and a woman Joe had not spoken to for 20 years was able to completely override everything Joe had discussed with his life partner of 25 years.

This is not some ridiculously exaggerated example.  This is exactly what happens to people every day. 

Opposing same sex marriage is supporting stories like this.  Opposing same sex marriage is supporting the preventing of people to leave their loved one their estate.  Opposing same sex marriage is supporting withholding basic legal rights from an entire class of society.

And it's fucking wrong. 

I don't care what god you pray to.  No one is asking your church, synagogue, temple or mosque to condone same sex marriage. 

Your government absolutely should though.