A Marriage Proposal

   With the recent parliamentary coup in the New York State Senate, throwing gay-marriage legislation into limbo in the Empire State, and the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Proposition 8 in that state, we need to be looking ahead towards future battles over gay and lesbian rights.  Same-sex marriage is merely the most visible of the issues facing us, and looking at what is really going on behind all the rhetoric on both sides of the debate, can shine new light on more effective strategies.  Gay marriage has been decried by its opponents as everything from an unreasonable accommodation of unacceptable sexual behavior, to, a disaster for small businesses.  As Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele puts it, “Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for.  How do I pay for that?” 

    I think it might be instructive to take a look at some of these arguments against gay marriage, in light of the fact that other countries, notably Spain and Canada, seem to have gotten along just fine with legal gay marriage, without falling off the edge of Western civilization.  Oh my!  Let’s dive right in:

“Marriage is between a man and a woman.  Anything else is unacceptable, deviant, and antisocial, and flies in the face of God”

     New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. (D-Bronx) is perhaps the most homophobic elected official in New York State history.  Based on this argument, Diaz has organized and led anti-gay-marriage marches and rallies, most recently in protest of a pro-gay marriage rally held May 17 in Midtown Manhattan, by Broadway Impact.  In light of his mission to preach hatred, (Diaz is also a Pentecostal minister) from both his pulpit and the public stage, perhaps Diaz needs to be reminded that freedom of religion as defined by the First Amendment also includes freedom from religion.  Marriage, which is a civil contract sanctioned by the state, should be free from attempts by the Church to define its parameters, or who is eligible for marriage.  Opponents of gay marriage treat the issue as somehow above the separation of Church and State which for 233 years has kept our country from becoming a theocracy.  They look upon gay marriage as the unholiest of unions, destined to tear the moral fabric of society apart.  “God forbid”, they intone, “if  we ever degenerate into accepting the idea that two men, or two women, might ever want to live and love and support each other unto old age and death.  If gays and lesbians are allowed to live as healthy, productive, nurturing couples, well, my goodness, they might appear to be more like…us (gasp!)”.  Not to mention, of course, the immediate mental-health benefit that would derive from social acceptance of the LGBT community on an equal footing with straights in matrimony. 

    Society has, for centuries, demonized and attacked gays and lesbians to the point where their ability to make social connections and form relationships is irreparably fractured.   Predictably, this has led to sometimes severe self-esteem issues for young gays and lesbians, out of which emerge a host of other negative life issues, such as drug use, high-risk sexual behaviors, and high suicide rates.  Legalizing gay marriage in the United States would go a long way towards addressing the devastating toll social stigmatization of gays has exacted.  Providing the opportunity for gays and lesbians to participate in marriage (and thus have a meaningful relationship with a partner, with the real promise of permanency) would yield immeasurable social benefits for all.  Among these are longer, healthier lives for gay couples, an enhanced sense of self-worth for gays and lesbians overall, who would enjoy the knowledge that they are no longer a separated class of Americans, and the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence, which defines “the pursuit of happiness” as an “inalienable right”.  What finer “pursuit of happiness” can there be, than to make a life with the person you love most dearly in the world?  This is what, essentially, the opponents of gay marriage seek to deny us, and any argument based on “morality” or “religious belief”, surely must not consider that denying one’s fellows the right to such a life and love is wrong. 

    To say that only straight men and women should experience the joys and challenges of marriage, is to overturn decades of civil-rights progress.  Do we, as a society, prideful of the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, really wish to ignore our history?  Not too long ago, for example, it was seen as “immoral”, “deviant”, and “against God’s will” for people of different races to marry each other.  It wasn’t until the landmark Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, that “anti-miscegenation” laws were overturned as unconstitutional.  The parallels between the gay marriage issue and the Jim Crow laws forbidding interracial marriage are too clear to ignore.  It’s astonishing to me that in the early 21^st century, our society is still willing to exclude some of its members because they love each other in a way some don’t (or refuse to) understand.  The Jim Crow laws were a cruel attempt at social control, denying gays the right to marry is no less vicious.  Those who assert that marriage is only the province of a “socially acceptable ‘norm’” would do well to recall that socially acceptable groups have varied from era to era and culture to culture.   Social policy based on fear and hatred inevitably leads to things like the horrors of World War II.  Make no mistake about it, excluding gays and lesbians from the right to marry, is hate-based social policy.

“Legalizing gay marriage would condone the choice of an unhealthy, inappropriate lifestyle.”

    This very old argument—that being gay is a “choice” which should not be rewarded with the right to marry—has resurfaced again as an ostensibly “valid” talking point.  Taking the end of this statement first, that being gay or lesbian is a “lifestyle”, first, as if sexual orientation were akin to being an outdoorsman or a vegetarian, is absurd on its face.  So is the idea that this “lifestyle” is a choice.  There is a substantial and growing body of academic research into the biological origins of homosexuality, which bear out the fact that gayness is something we’re born with, rather than something we choose later in life.  From Harvard Medical School professor Simon Le Vay’s studies on hypothalamic brain development in gay vs. straight males, to gay-sibling studies conducted by Northwestern University, the scientific evidence is plain.  What is “unhealthy” in this argument against gay marriage, is the notion that gay and lesbian behavior is something that is fundamentally wrong and shouldn’t be “condoned” by legalizing same-sex marriage. 

    Moreover, who, in their right mind, would choose to join a class of people that, historically, have suffered the grossest abuse and violence of their societies?   I cannot fathom the logic behind the assertion that we, as LGBT people, choose to be something many of us spend a good deal of our lives hiding, denying, or killing ourselves over.   Rather it is clear that choose only to come to terms, somehow, with the deeper nature of who we are, and to seek love, comfort, intimacy, and support of those like us.  We ought not to be cast out for pursuing this most basic human need.  By whose lights are we to be judged “inappropriate”?  Isn’t it more “inappropriate” to attack people because you hate, fear, or just don’t understand them?  The case for gay marriage is at the heart of this question.  Are its opponents militating against gay marriage because of a real danger to society, or, more likely, because of a real threat to their own bigotry and ignorance?  To paraphrase Reginald Kauffman, “this is sober truth”.  Whenever we seek to justify our own inability to grow and understand those who may not conform to our rigid way of thinking, we inevitably project our ignorance and fear onto the thing we feel threatened by.   This “sober truth” has repeated itself throughout human history, and it is long past time for this to stop.  The fact that otherwise intelligent, well-educated people are embracing the rhetoric of exclusion, instead of using reason and common sense, tells me that the light of learning has, on the topic of gay marriage, escaped them.

“Why can’t gays and lesbians just accept civil unions?  Why must it be ‘marriage’?”

    This well-worn canard overlooks the fact that “civil unions” are a halfway measure, a legal construction which confers few of the legal benefits and privileges of actual marriage, while simultaneously continuing the separation of gays and lesbians from straight society.  In addition, “civil unions” are specific only to the states which enact them, and these have no legal status outside of those states, or in the rest of the world.  A straight couple married in the United States can travel anywhere on Earth and they will be recognized as husband and wife, no matter what country they are in.  This is because marriage is jus gentium, a legal term which means that [straight] marriages are recognized by all countries under a universal principle, regardless of where the original marriage was performed.  Not so “Civil unions”, or, for that matter, gay marriages in the few states here that authorize them.  In fact, the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), is largely an end run around Article IV, Section I, of our Constitution.  That’s the “Full Faith And Credit” part of our living Constitution, and it reads, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

   In other words, the Constitution imposes on every state the duty to respect the laws of every other state, even if such laws don’t exist in a certain state.  This is why extradition works between our states, because even if murder is legal in State “A”, if I run there, having killed someone in State “B” (where murder is illegal), if I’m caught in State “A”, they will allow State “B” to come and get me for trial, because State “A” must respect and give recognition to the laws of State “B”.   However, DOMA allows states to ignore this essential portion of our Constitution.  This means that although (at this writing) gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, other states are not required to recognize marriages of gay couples done in those states!  So, if our Constitution compels recognition of a state law you don’t like, you can get Congress to pass an Act that bypasses it?  Hate-based legislation, indeed! 

    “Civil unions” are another example of hate-based laws masquerading as appeasement to the LGBT community.  Surprisingly, even President Obama supports “civil unions” over gay marriage.  I’m not sure why he feels this is a viable alternative, lacking as it is in universal recognition and parity with “traditional” marriage.  Only real marriage confers permanency, legal protections attaching to succession of estate rights, spousal privacy, healthcare proxy rights (the ability to have your spouse make healthcare decisions for you when you can’t), the legitimacy of gay couples as a family unit, and the right of married couples to pursue litigation in their own behalf.  There are many other legal rights and privileges which are reserved solely for marriage, as opposed to “civil unions”.  For gays and lesbians to accept “civil unions” would be tantamount to accepting their perceived inferiority to straight society.  Yes, it must be “marriage”, because to accept anything less is to abjectly retreat before the harsh forces of bigotry, and this the LGBT community must not do.

“I’m a business owner.  I can’t afford to pay out health and other benefits for the spouses of my gay employees.”

    As noted earlier, this sticky wicket was used by RNC chairman Michael Steele as justification for denying gays the right to marry.  Let’s examine that statement.  The premise is that suddenly being forced to pay out benefits for spouses that, yesterday, weren’t eligible for them, might prove prohibitively expensive for corporate America, particularly small businesses (those with fewer than 600 employees).  If we accept that somewhere around 10% of the US population is LGBT (the usual figure quoted by the US Census Bureau), and further imagine that all of the adult, employable LGBT population is working, then, 10% of each company’s employees would be LGBT.  Being generous, let’s imagine half of them get married and apply for spousal benefit coverage from their employer. In a “small business” of exactly 600 employees, that’s 30 people.  That’s hardly enough to drive the business into Chapter 11 by itself.  I might well imagine the effect on a company’s balance sheet if all of its (straight) single employees were to suddenly marry and demand spousal benefits.  Businesses know how to absorb unexpected new costs, that’s part of the game.

    This argument against gay marriage is, at best, specious, because it assumes gay people are numerous enough to become prohibitively expensive to American business, were they to start getting married.  We’re not.  Steele and others of his ilk most assuredly are aware of this, and are raising the cost argument, again, out of nothing more than fear and bigotry.  I think the exact opposite is true regarding spousal benefits in employment.  The knowledge that a gay or lesbian employee can provide for their spouse through their job, brings peace of mind.  It pays dividends to the employer through better-motivated employees, as a useful recruitment tool, and as a sign that the employer is committed to the well-being of its workers, which translates to reduced workforce turnover and longer “institutional memory”. 

“If gay marriage is legalized, won’t gays sue churches who refuse to marry them?  I don’t want gays attacking my religion.”

    God defend me from the depredations of people with lots of power and little minds.  Gays and lesbians have been attacked by religious institutions as agents of the Devil for thousands of years.  In all of that time, history records not one attempt by the LGBT community to silence the church.  On or near the entrances of most American houses of worship are the words “all are welcome.”  Just those three words, not “all are welcome, unless you’re gay, lesbian, Black, Hispanic, Chinese, from the planet Mars, or any other group we don’t like.”  It’s a far cry from the Golden Rule (which you can find in just about all of the world’s religions, in some form or other).  Yet, as countless gays and lesbians can attest, after trying to assimilate into churches and having their self-worth squashed into the ground by them, those caveats and conditions, are the sad reality.

    I seriously doubt any gay couple will seek to join themselves in matrimony at any institution which does not want them.  It is also highly unlikely that any lawsuits will follow, attempting to force a house of worship to perform a sacred ritual against its will.  The separation of church and state guaranteed to us by our laws will also keep the courts off the pulpit, so to speak.  It is far more plausible that those gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage will find gay-accepting and affirming places of worship for their unions.  I expect that many gay marriages, once legalized, will be performed by judges, ship captains, and others with no religious affiliation.  Far from seeing an “attack” on any particular religion or denomination, for refusing to do gay marriages, I think those anti-gay institutions will merely be bypassed.  Rather than being a repudiation of God’s will, I hope that one day, the presence of gays and lesbians in our world, and their marriages, will be seen as yet another example of God’s great wisdom in creating diversity in all things, humanity included.

    This, then, is my “marriage proposal”: it is my most fervent wish that all who read this article and agree, as I do, that gay marriage is a thing whose time is long overdue, take steps to make it happen.  It’s not enough to put this issue on the ballot, as history teaches us that when the rights of minorities are put to a popular vote, the minorities don’t do well. Our elected leaders need to be reminded that their duty is to us, and to our living Constitution, not to their own fears and prejudices.  We need to collectively speak out for our place at the American table, and say by our words, votes, and actions that marriage is only one of many rights denied us, which we will be denied no longer.  If we are to achieve equality and recognition as human beings in our society, it will begin and end with us.  As San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk urged us, “walk not in fear, but with pride”. 

Nathan James is an author of gay literature and activist, writing and speaking publicly on causes which move his spirit.  A lifelong resident of New York City, Mr. James can be reached at nathanjames95@gmail.com.  Visit his blog page at www.authornathan.blogspot.com 

Source Notes:

Biological Origins Of Homosexuality: A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Me”, S. Le Vay, Ph. D.,  Science, 1991

What Makes People Gay?, Swidey, et. al., Boston Globe, 8/14/2005

Gender Non-Conformity And Homosexuality In Siblings, A. Sanders, M.D., Northwestern University, 2006

Senator Diaz’ anti-gay activities: personal observation and contemporary accounts in The New York Times, New York Daily News, and the Office Of Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Michael Steele’s comments against gay marriage: Associated Press, 5/16/09

President Obama’s support of “Civil Unions” vs. gay marriage: Open Letter To The LGBT Community, Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign, 7/08

Statement Of Robert Gibbs, Presidential Press Secretary, numerous public briefings, The New York Times