In Defense Of Same-Sex Marriage

The arguments against same-sex marriage are of two kinds: the first pertains to the perceived sinful nature of the practice of homosexuality by most religions; the second has to do with the alleged adverse effects same-sex marriage would have on children. Neither case withstands even a modicum of scrutiny—a fact that suggests that the fundamental driving force behind the opposition to SSM is plain, crude, ugly bigotry, cloaked in a superficial moralism so as to lend legitimacy to a position which seeks to deny certain people a fundamental right.

The basis for the prohibition on homosexuality in Western culture has been the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 18:22 which states,

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable (an abomination).”

This passage is authoritatively cited, as if its tenets could possibly have any moral bearing on the lives of modern humankind. Anyone who is familiar with the book of Leviticus knows that its content is overly concerned with the proper ways to make offerings to the Lord, and female menstruation. A clear majority of the book’s instructions are not followed by even the most ardent of the faithful, as its commandments reek of the sort of antiquated paganistic ritual sacrifice that was commonplace during the time when humans knew very little about how the world works.

This same book of the Old Testament gives the following instruction in 19:19:

“Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

If the State’s legal codes were truly grounded in biblical precepts, how many poor farmers might be needlessly persecuted under such a régime? How many of us would have to burn our sinful hybrid garments and throw ourselves to the ground so that we may grovel and plead for forgiveness from the Lord for having committed such a gross violation of divine law? The prohibition against mixed fabric is even repeated in Deuteronomy 22:11, implying that it is an important commandment indeed. And yet, for all the apparent seriousness with which that diktat is promulgated, it is regularly ignored by Christians and Jews the world over. This blatant and shameless disregard for particular ecclesiastical laws would seem to indicate an inconsistent application of the Bible’s maxims, and thus, a porous foundation upon which to build a case for the exclusion of homosexuals from the institution of marriage. Biblical prohibition or sanction is hardly a justification for anything. Christians speak of “defending” marriage from SSM, but we do not hear them ruing the failed defense of slavery against the abolitionists. Slavery, like marriage, is an institution clearly justified throughout the Bible, and yet we ought to be hard-pressed to find a Christian or anyone else who would have us reinstitute that practice, despite its obvious approbation by the “Good” Book.

One could go on for days in this fashion, examining passages in the Bible that people of most faiths and cultures find depraved and an insult to humanity, even in America, which has a startling number of fundamentalist Christians. Hence, we must conclude that Americans are not moral because of the Bible, but rather they are moral in spite of the Bible. That the faithful adopt those biblical principles they find agreeable, and discard those they find contemptible or impractical, are clear indications that humans are capable of formulating their own moral codes without “divine” guidance. This is not to say that humans are perfect or incapable of transgression; but it is certainly within their capacity to devise norms conducive to social cohesion, as evidenced by the complete disregard for the majority of biblical commandments. To wit:

Exodus 21:20

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 22:18

Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

Leviticus 21:18-23

No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

And it is because of this disregard that the Bible-based opposition to SSM is wretched, disingenuous, poltroonish, in short a disgrace. These cherrypickers have adopted a convenient à la carte system of biblical morality that enables them shun a great deal of divine instruction while selectively invoking their preferred commandments at opportune places to demonstrate a faux moral superiority.

The second argument against SSM is a familiar refrain in American political and social life: The Children. In the United States, The Children have been invoked to try to stop everything from SSM to (counterintuitively) a government-run health care plan. Whenever someone says that we as a society need to think about The Children, what that person really means is that we ought to be thinking about him—specifically, his worldview and all of the prejudices and buffooneries that come with it. After all, “I hate fags,” however dearly held this conviction may be, cannot be presented as a serious argument. Thus, The Children are brought forth in a fraudulent attempt to put a noble face on an otherwise heinously ignoble mug.

During the run-up to last month’s vote in Maine on whether to allow SSM in that state, several anti-SSM commercials ran on radio and television, including this one:

There are a few lessons one could draw from this video, but the two that stand out are:

1. The chief function of marriage is procreation (“What’s marriage for?”)

2. The little girl is disadvantaged because she has two fathers

If, as this ad implies, marriage is for having kids, then we are forced to conclude that impotent men, barren women, and heterosexuals who do not desire children have no more business getting married than homosexuals. This seems like an odd conception of marriage.

The other implication here is that the girl in the ad is entitled to have a mother and a father. However, at this very moment, millions of American children are being reared by single parents, and only have mothers or fathers, but not both. Are these households automatically unfit for children to grow up in? Of course not. So what would be so inappropriate about a household with two fathers? It seems to me that in a given situation, two parents would be better than one. Apparently, the producers of this commercial would rather send this girl back to the orphanage where she presumably came from.

Continuing with The Children theme, here is another idiotic commercial from that campaign:

In other words, it’s best to shield The Children from the reality that there are in fact gay people, for as long as possible. That way when they’re older, they will be able to consider the question of gay rights the way god intended: with extreme ignorance and prejudice, and become, for all intents and purposes, just like the dunderheads in this commercial.

Kids should be taught the gays exist; and not only do they exist, but they’re people just like everybody else. And sometimes they even adopt kids who could use a good home because their heterosexual alcoholic mothers and their heterosexual abusive fathers are incapable of caring for them. The earlier children become acquainted with these facts and are taught that there is nothing wrong with gay people, the less likely they are to treat horribly those children who come from same-sex households.

Whatever the stated rationale for the opposition to SSM may be, ultimately the reason behind it is irrational bigotry and hatred. SSM has been legal in Massachusetts for five and a half years now, and contrary to the prognostications of doom for marriage in the state, the institution itself is alive and well, and has the lowest divorce rate in the country. There has been no collapse of the family. Married men and women are not leaving their spouses to go cavorting and sodomizing in Provincetown. There have been no calls for the legalization of polygamy or demands that people be able to marry donkeys, cats, and trees. To no one’s surprise, none of patently ludicrous predictions prophesied by the bigots have come true—an eventuality they were surely aware of; for nobody could be so dense as to believe that SSM would be a gateway to interspecies marriage. And if they were, it is a wonder that they have not yet died from sheer stupidity. No, most SSM opponents knew full well that nothing of the sort would happen, but they needed to cite “practical” social concerns to justify their absurd hatred of people whose lives they knew—and still know—nothing about.

Since opponents of SSM seek to deny millions of people a basic civil and social right, they are to be regarded with the utmost contempt. The excuse that their faith prohibits them from supporting such a measure is bogus. These people do not stone their children when they misbehave. They do not kill witches. They wear clothes made of two or more materials. And so on the subject of SSM, their religion is merely a convenient front for what is otherwise bald-faced bigotry.

- Max