Homosexuality is as old as history - assuming, of course, you take the scholarly view that true history began with Herodotus, and not the conservative Christian view that history began with Adam and Eve. But that's the problem. The differences of opinion in this dispute lie so deep that it's almost as if same-sex marriage is a secondary issue to these beliefs.
1. LEARN SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE
Most people's response to the question, "Should gays and lesbians be allowed to marry in the same way that straight couples do?" is visceral and automatic. If you believe that God created the universe some six-thousand years ago, and laid down His absolute moral law in the pages of the Holy Bible, then your parties are probably pretty boring, and you regard marriage by definition as a sacred union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. If, on the other hand, you believe the universe is billions of years old, that human beings have an extremely intimate genetic relationship with chimpanzees, and that moral laws are constructed socially rather than supernaturally, you probably smoked dope in college, and you don't much care what marriage is or who does it.
In fact, there are a lot of people who really aren't much interested. This debate doesn't inspire the sort of blood-soaked radicalism that you get in the fight over abortion, for example. The combatants in the same-sex marriage controversy are, in the near corner (in rainbow-striped boxers), gay and lesbian activists, and, in the far corner (mouthing a quick prayer), Christian right-wingers, with each side drawing its support from its respective end of the political spectrum. Toss in a few lawyers fascinated by the constitutional issues, and you have the makings of a lukewarm crowd at best. This issue is, however, a significant and interesting one, since it forms part of the continuing evolution of mainstream values in Western society. A lot has changed.
The variety of sexual mores through the centuries is amazing. The founders of Western civilization, the ancient Greeks, who gave us Plato and Aristotle and who were every bit as sophisticated and self-aware as we BMW-driving, Deepak-Chopra-reading moderns, sometimes practiced man-boy homosexuality. (We have no record of when they finally got it right.) In the Marche district of medieval France, it's said that a bride-to-be on her way to the church traditionally had sex with every man she met on the way. The Mormons, like Jacob and King Solomon, had a thing for polygamy. The age of consent in the nineteenth century was usually around ten years old. And interracial marriage remained illegal in thirteen U.S. states until 1967. Even by 1990, only ten states had passed laws saying a man can't rape his own wife.
Same-sex marriage is not now legal in any jurisdiction in the United States, nor in any country in the world for that matter. But it's closer to becoming a reality than ever before. Various cities and states have enacted "domestic partner" laws, which, while not conferring the official status of marriage on a same-sex couple, provide them with a few of the same benefits. Furthermore, the Vermont Supreme Court recently declared that "the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." This landmark case (Baker v. State of Vermont, 1999) will compel state legislators to provide same-sex couples wishing to unite under the law with all of the benefits of marriage, if not the actual title of "marriage." Under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, a same-sex couple "certified" in Vermont might challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which gives states the right to ignore such unions licensed elsewhere.
The battle continues, and the future is uncertain. Should gay couples have the right to be legally married? Here's what the two sides have to say.
2. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
"Homosexuality is morally wrong."
The Argument: The practice of homosexuality is a violation of the religious faith American society is based on. We have a responsibility to be sympathetic to our fellow human beings, but extending to homosexual couples the special privileges of the traditional family would undermine the sanctity of the family.
The Response: There is such in a thing in the United States as the separation of Church and State. America is not based on one particular faith, nor on a single moral code, but on a plurality of creeds. Your feelings as a member of a particular religious community notwithstanding, you have a responsibility as a citizen to support the extension of the same civil rights you yourself enjoy to everyone equally. Race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation must not affect the even application of civil rights. Homosexuality is not morally wrong, but even if you believe it is, you must not oppose the right of any person to claim equal privileges under the law.
"The suggestion that homosexuals can be 'married' is absurd, since marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman."
The Argument: Calling a union between two gay people "marriage" devalues the word. What is special about marriage, and beneficial to society, ceases to be special and beneficial to society if the idea of marriage becomes so diluted as to include just about anything.
The Response: There has never been any fixed, traditional definition of marriage. The idea of marriage is constantly changing according to the changing needs of society. The world we live in today is very different from the world of a hundred or fifty years ago and our institutions must be altered to reflect these changes. There is no evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would be harmful to society.
"Under the doctrine of the separation of Church and State, the government should not force millions of religious people to accept a new definition of 'marriage.'"
The Argument: Legalized same-sex marriage violates freedom of religion, since those who believe deeply that homosexuality is immoral, and that same-sex marriage is wrong, would be forced by the government to accept these "marriages."
The Response: Civil recognition of a union between two people is separate from religious recognition. Marriage licenses can be issued without a religious ceremony, and those who are opposed to same-sex marriage would be no more forced to accept it morally than they are forced to accept homosexuality itself.
"The institution of heterosexual marriage serves a social purpose, and that purpose is to foster a stable community and a good environment for bringing up children."
The Argument: Committed, monogamous relationships between men and women - marriages, in other words - are the foundation of the nation's health, peace, and security. At a time when we are faced with high rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, and rampant STDs, any action taken to undermine the sacrament of marriage is likely to further erode our communities.
The Response: There is no evidence to suggest that social problems are caused by gay lifestyles any more than they are caused by so-called "traditional" lifestyles. Same-sex couples are as likely as straight couples to live healthy, happy, well-adjusted lives, and to provide a good environment in which to raise children. Though they cannot procreate themselves, gays and lesbians could adopt and raise children just as well as straight couples. Furthermore, same-sex couples have just as much right to happiness as straight couples who choose to marry but are unable or unwilling to have children.
3. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE
"Same-sex couples deserve exactly the same benefits and protections under the law as everyone else."
The Argument: Just as the Supreme Court struck down laws preventing interracial marriage in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), the laws currently preventing gay couples from enjoying the legal status of marriage must also be struck down. This is not merely an argument of semantics over the term "marriage," but a civil rights issue.
The Response: No homosexual couple can claim a right to marriage, if marriage is, by definition, the joining of two people of opposite sex. Furthermore, the reason that certain benefits and privileges for married people are ingrained in the law is that society has a stake in supporting families. Society cannot survive without heterosexual couples and their offspring, while it can get along fine without homosexual couples. Even if gay marriage were not immoral, it would be unnecessary. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the court did not redefine the institution of marriage itself, so it is false reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and the illegality of so-called "same-sex marriage."
"Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a genetic predisposition."
The Argument: The latest scientific evidence strongly suggests that homosexuality is predetermined by one's genetic makeup. Those who oppose same-sex marriage cannot do so on the basis that being gay or straight is an option. It is simply bigotry to deny a loving couple the opportunity to get married, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners.
The Response: The scientific evidence pushed by gay-rights activists is spurious. There is no proof that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and the institution of marriage is not a necessary component of that choice.
"Domestic partnership benefits, or anything short of full marriage, constitute a form of discriminatory apartheid, because of the special conditions attached to them."
The Argument: The relatively weak privileges bestowed through domestic partnership benefits are, for instance, not portable to other states and nations. They thus constitute an obvious second-class status. Even a domestic partnership status which conferred all the benefits of marriage (such as the one being considered by the Vermont legislature), but under a different name, wouldn't work, because of the many hundreds of federal and state laws which refer specifically to "marriage".
The Response: There is no popular mandate for same-sex marriage, so it is unfortunate that court decisions are forcing politicians to craft laws the people clearly do not want. If legislators are compelled to grant certain benefits to same-sex couples, the least they can do on behalf of their constituents is to protect the integrity of the term "marriage" by denying it to these couples.
