At Long Last, My Gay Marriage Debate Post

I've written this post in my head probably fifty times.  Over the years, I've debated and commiserated with friends on the subject of gay marriage, and I've listened much, much more to other people discussing it. Here is my conclusion:

There is not a single logical reason I have yet heard to be against gay marriage in America.

I have found it impossible to apply a purely logical argument to this issue and come out against gay marriage. Here is what I've been hearing, and my thoughts:

"Marriage is a church institution, not a civic one"
That may be true...in some other country.  In America, we are discussing the LEGAL ability to marry which is, by definition, a civic issue.  For example, I am married legally and am recognized as married by both legal and religious entities.  I can check "married" on every form I have to fill out, including my taxes.  I have never, since being married, had the status of my marriage questioned by anyone. I did not get married in a church or by a religious official, so by this argument, I shouldn't be married at all.  What people who say this really mean is that they would like to use their religion as the basis for the rest of their views in this debate. Once you take that away from them by establishing that you are, in fact, discussing a legal status in a country which allows for a plurality of religions without being tied to one, they are unable to quote the bible at you or talk about God's great design, which really hurts many of their other arguments. Another often misleading argument along this vein is that if gay marriage is legalized, churches which oppose gay marriage will be "forced" to perform these marriages. This is also not true. Because of the separation of church and state, churches cannot be forced to perform religious rites for anyone that they don't want to.

"Gay marriage will deteriorate the sanctity of marriage in this country"
 Ignoring the word "sanctity," which is addressed above, this argument always makes me laugh because I have never seen the people who picket against gay marriage picketing against, say, Las Vegas wedding chapels. I have yet to hear, throughout the entire gay marriage debate, a single news story about "Defense of Marriage" folks introducing a bill to require a waiting period to get a marriage license, for example, or to modify divorce laws.  It seems that these folks think heterosexuals should be free to treat marriage as whatever they want, but gay people should respect its "sanctity." (I acknowledge that there are MANY people out there trying to support stronger marriage by offering counseling and pre-marriage training for couples, and I think you're doing a great job!)
For a full earfull of the state of heterosexual marriage in our country today, take a listen to Bruno Mars' song "Marry You" which includes such choice, respectful lines as "shots of Patron and [the wedding's] on, girl" and "if we wake up and you wanna break up that's cool."  To date, the passing of pro- or anti-gay marriage laws have yet to have a single effect on my heterosexual marriage. I feel neither more secure in my marriage nor less secure because my next door neighbors may or may not have the right to marry.  Respect for marriage is something you have to teach people at the individual level, you can't legislate respect.

"Marriage is about having children"
When I applied for my marriage license, I was not asked by the county courthouse if I planned to have children. I also did not have to subject myself to any fertility testing to make sure I could.  This argument actually makes me feel bad for all the people who, for whatever reason, are married and are physically unable, financially insecure, or do not have any desire to have children. Do the people who argue this point plan to force all of those groups to adopt? I haven't seen that legislation yet, so I'm guessing they don't really mean it.

"I'm not ok with homosexuals marrying, but I'm ok with Civil Unions."
Interesting attempt at a middle-ground.  Why are you ok with one but not the other? Is it for the reasons above? Do you not feel that civil unions are your own attempt at a "separate but equal" state, and did we not already establish in 1954 with Brown v Board of Education, that "separate but equal" is not, in fact, equal? Again, I'll use my own marriage as an example. I am married, but I did not go to a church and the ceremony was performed by a justice of the peace. How is this different than your idea of a civil union? Are you going to make me say that I was "civil unioned" just because you don't like that I got married by a JP?  When you meet a couple and someone says "let me introduce my wife" do you question them on their marriage ceremony before you acknowledge that they are, in fact, married and not in a civil union? This seems terribly pedantic and I can't imagine many people in society being willing to submit to such questioning in casual conversation.


But, my dear, pro-gay marriage friends, I have a bone to pick with you, too. You are also guilty of dragging the debate into realms which are not germane to the discussion of gay marriage. Here's my least favorite of all:


"It's about love. And allowing people to love whomever they want"
No, it's not. You are perfectly capable of being in love with whomever you want, hell, you can even be in love with whatever you want. Love is a feeling, you see, and not a legally recognized state, and certainly is not subject to any jurisdiction. We are discussing the legal state of marriage and the accompanying legal privileges that flow from it.  The fact is, people marry for a lot of reasons. Sure, love is one of them, and it has certainly been put on a pedestal in our modern American society, but people also marry for money, security, because their parents told them to, to get a green card, to raise their social profile, to throw a big party, to gain status, to stop being lonely, to get lots of presents, etc. etc. You don't have to prove that you're in love to get married, and I don't know how you would go about that if you did. 

To say that marriage is about love is also to say that as soon as you don't feel like you're in love anymore, you shouldn't still be married. I blame this logic for breaking up as many marriages as infidelity. I don't know any couples that have passed the 10 year mark that would say they always felt in love. Other emotions kick in when love occasionally takes a break. They feel loyalty, or respect, or something else entirely, and they work through it until they feel the love again (or don't).


I'm happy to continue to discuss this issue with anyone who wishes to leave calm and rational comments. I'm particularly interested to hear other arguments against gay marriage that I might have missed, or other things that drive you crazy about either side's arguments.  What do you think?