Semantics Aside

Here we go again, another case of "ring around the rosie" with the horrifying issue of gay marriage.

Here's my very concise argument to the people who don't want to let it happen: seriously, go take the stick out of your rear, sit down, and meditate on things for a minute.

Let's go over the arguments, shall we?

1) Gay marriage is an assault on our traditional values, the sanctity of marriage, and the sacred institution of the family!

Answer: No it's not. I want Bible verses, please. Please show me exactly where it says that "No man shall enter into the covenant of marriage with another man, nor shall a woman enter into the covenant of marriage with another woman. It is forbidden and this sin shalt not stand in My presence." If you can find a verse very close to that, then I'll laugh at you and say, "So what?" Times change.

The "sanctity" of marriage? Please. People get married, divorced, have children, become abused, neglected, and commit adultery all the time in "sanctified heterosexual marriages." How many times do you actually hear of homosexual partners cheating on each other? It happens, just like in heterosexual marriages. That's the whole point. They're no different. Marriages between heterosexual couples are anything but sanctified. Marriage can be a wonderful, beautiful experience between two people who are in love and wish to share lives (and if you are so inclined to believe, eternity) together. Believe me, I have nothing against the so-called institution of marriage as it stands now. I hope to be involved in such a relationship myself. However, I cannot abide by people who claim that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow "holy" and "sanctified" when it is broken and needs serious correction before it could truly be called by those adjectives. Fix the problems with your own sexual orientation before you go meddling in the affairs of other people's.

Also, the institution of the family has changed over the years. No longer is a family simply considered "mother, father, kids." Parents die, get divorced, get remarried, etc. etc. etc. Families come in many shapes and sizes now. Some people are raised by grandparents, others by aunts and uncles, others by not just their parents but their grandparents and their aunts and uncles as well. Some people grow up in foster homes, orphanages, with adoptive parents. How are these things the "traditional" family? A family really consists of a group of people who love each other, are willing to sacrifice for each other, and share a bond closer than that of friendship. Just because you have a mother and/or father doesn't mean you're close to them. Just because you're linked by genes doesn't make them family. Consequently, people who aren't of your genetic make-up can be closer to you than your biological kin could ever be. What defines the family then? And who says that two men or two women could not properly raise a child? There is no prerequisite that says you HAVE to be a heterogendered couple to properly raise a child, otherwise, you've messed it up. Single parents can raise children just fine (my mother and uncle are good examples of children raised by a single parent). So if a single parent can raise a child just fine, then why not let two people do it? They'll give the child the attention they deserve, they love they need, and the nourishment required. Besides, all the adoption agencies and foster homes are complaining that they are overcrowded and could use more couples to get into the adoption business. So if the need is so great, then why exclude people who genuinely want to do what's best for a child? The answer: simple prejudice and simple-mindedness.

2) In California, at least, homosexual couples are already given protection under civil unions. They only want the name "marriage" applied to them.

If civil unions are the same thing as marriages, then it's a matter of semantics. So why not just let them call it marriage? Let's look to some things, shall we? Marriage is a religious institution that has been secularized by the United States government for purposes of taxation benefits as well as insurance and retirement benefits. Essentially, marriage is one big benefits package. If you look at marriage as a religious institution, as many religious groups do and will when making their argument in argument 1), then under the Constitution of this country, Congress (and if Congress can't, then no state government can) cannot bar the free practice of religion. Therefore, I would argue to you that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. But since marriage in the United States is not a religious institution, but rather a secular one, then I would bring up Brown vs. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas of the early 1950s. This brought up the whole idea of the "separate but equal" issue. While the case proved that the institutions that were involved in the Brown vs. BoE case were not equal, I think the same principle can be applied here to the whole Civil Union vs. Marriage debate. The two institutions of civil union and marriage are defined as "separate but equal." Essentially they offer the same things (at least when it comes to benefits from the State of California). But in the era of racism and segregation that proliferated the Southern United States from the 1860s to the 1960s (and even until today in some parts) can we argue that this whole civil union thing is just another way of legal segregation. It's California's own Jim Crow Laws in effect. We don't want to give homosexuals the right to marry, so let's just let them have this completely separate institution called "civil unions" that will allow them to gain benefits, but keep them out of our churches. Grow up.

My mom, who actually instituted argument 2) at the dinner table last night, actually had a really good idea to solve this whole problem. Let's just get rid of marriage as a secular institution. Let's just call all state "marriages" civil unions from now on. If you want to get married, you'll go into a church and they can perform the lavish ceremony that you want and it will be all religious (and to each church their own), but you'll sign a "Civil Union License" instead of a "Marriage License." That way, marriage will stay where it belongs, in the churches, and the government will be neutral and equal to all its citizens (as it should be). What would be so wrong with that? I would like to see anyone argue that point effectively without entering into an endless stream of religious psychobabble that is completely inadmissible in a secular argument. It's not up to the government to keep your religious tenants safe, it's up to the government to keep all religions safe (as long as they are not harming people, private property, or the Constitution).

3) Gay marriage will lead to bestiality and all kinds of other evil activities!

Yes, that's what they said about interracial marriages 50 years ago. Again, grow up. Besides, if you're worried about bestiality, you can deny marriage rights to an animal. They are not citizens of the United States, so they don't deserve equal protection under the law as we do.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I'm only picking this church out because I have been a member of it and have had some experience with this faith), as is customary, issed a statement stating that members needed to vote for the upcoming amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage as it is necessary to "preserve the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family." I will argue that this statement is both unnecessary and hypocritical. We only need to make the case for my argument against the "sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family" in Part 1 of this two-part note. The hypocritical part is where I shall make a new argument.

The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith to give a definitive standard of what the Mormons (the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been known as) believe. All in all there are 13 Articles of Faith. The one I would like to draw everyone's attention to is Article 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If this Article is supposed to be one of the pillars of the LDS Church's beliefs, then why are they contradicting it by asking their members to deny the right of people to worship God in their own way? Isn't marriage a religious institution that is afforded to the race of men by God to establish the institution that we now know as the "family?" Well, if a church's definition of God's Will is different then theirs, then are they not worshiping "how, where, or what they may?" Perhaps the Article, like the Second Amendment of the Constitution, was very vague. Perhaps it really intended to say, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may; except in the case of gay marriage, which would lead to the dissolution of the family and the collapse of all modern civilization, in which case the aforementioned Article of Faith is to be suspended until the abhoration of gay marriage is abolished." I might draw the ire of some of my LDS friends, but one cannot deny the fact that this is a contradiction of principle. One cannot say that they allow men to worship God how, where, and what they may while imposing restrictions upon them when they want to worship in a manner different from them.

To all religions, I say let your own religion dictate whether or not you are willing to marry homosexual couples in your church and allow the government to remain neutral on the subject and grant equal protection to all its citizens under the law.