To Marry or Not To Marry

Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to marry legally. We are fighting for the chance to enjoy the 1100 plus rights awarded to our straight counterparts when they utter those words, "I Do." The obstacle standing in our way is religious bigotry along with lies and smear campaigns put forth to paint homosexuals as sexual deviants who only want to push an agenda which include converting your children and trampling your rights to freedom of religion. This could be further from the truth.



To start with, the main argument put forth against gay marriage is the institution of marriage itself. We are told the institution of marriage consists of the union between one man and one woman. We are led to believe this union is essential to the furthering of the human race, in other words, for procreation. In looking back throughout history, marriage has also been defined by other "norms." In ancient times, including biblical times, marriage was a pre-arranged business deal between two families to secure their standing in a social caste system. Wives were betrothed for a sum of money, property or other means to gain power and persuasion amongst the ruling class. Additionally, polygamous relationships were the norm as was the marriage between barely pubescent girls to adult men. Typically, these marriages were all within the same race and mixing races was not permitted, until the mid 20th century. The 1900's saw marriage evolve radically when the definition changed to not only include mixed races but to outlaw polygamous marriages and those marriages between younger teenaged girls and adult men. In regards to the whole argument about procreation, this is a non issue. Otherwise, marriages resulting in no offspring would be null and void. Furthermore, in talking about barren couples, the science of in vitro or other means to artificially create a baby should fly directly in the face of any religious dogma. The whole notion of creating something obviously meant to not be seems to not cause even a ripple among the religious crowd.



Religius groups also mean to cause a diversion to the whole marriage debate by bringing innocent children into the picture. They maintain that by allowing gay marriage, schools will be forced to teach homosexuality as part of the school curriculum. This is not the case. Besides, homosexuality is already taught somewhat in school in the area of human sexuality. Next, these groups claim that ALL homosexuals are pushing an agenda which include converting innocent children to the gay lifestyle. This is an outright lie and is carried out with the intent to play on people's fear. To protect your child is every parent's main concern and when you present a homosexual as a predator you are creating an atmosphere where the parent has no choice but to side with the liars. In addition to preying on innocent children, some of the opponents also bring their own religion into play by saying the heads of their church will be forced to perform marriage rites to gays and lesbians in order to comply with their tax exempt status. For myself, I can not see forcing a minister or priest to marry me and my partner against their will or belief. I would seek out someone who would have no problem in performing this rite. Again, I believe fear plays a role in this angle as well. People's beliefs are so intrinsic to who they are that any affront against them is an assault on them and again, when attacked, who wouldn't protect themselves?

So we have seen how the "definition" of marriage has changed throughout history. We have seen how fear tactics have been deployed to divert attention from the issue at hand. Finally, I want to address the separation of church and state. A friend of mine has repeatedly pointed out to me that the idea of separation of church and state is not outlined anywhere in our founding documents. To understand this concept we have to explore the motives of our founding fathers and interpret, just like we do the bible, their actions. All we have to do is look at a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. In this letter he stresses the importance of government not intervening in any matter related to a religious institution. While I think we can all agree that the first Americans were deeply religious, I think we can also agree that they were fleeing England to avoid persecution for their religious beliefs. This is why we have freedom of religion and furthermore, this is why we have no National religion. Otherwise, atheists should not be allowed to get married as well as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or any other non-Christian. If we are going to rule by religion, then let's examine divorce rates, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births and adultery. If we aren't going to allow gays and lesbians to get married because of religious dogma then we shouldn't allow the many other transgressions against the sacred institution of marriage. To take it a step further, the government should really get out of the marriage business and stop offering "special" rights to heterosexuals simply because they choose to get married.

In conclusion, I want to point out the absurdity of voting on the rights of a minority by a majority. While majority rule is the backbone of our Democratic society, it does not reach so far as to oppress a minority group and strip them of their equal rights as outlined by the Constitution. If the old adage about history repeating itself is true, we are definitely on the upswing. With State Supreme Court decisions being overturned by majority vote at the polls, it should stand to reason that eventually this will not be the case. Like all Civil Right movements within the last century, it has been the Supreme Court that has had to step in and go against popular opinion and do the right thing. We just have to hope this will happen soon.