27 May 2007 
A Proposal for Same-Sex Marriage 
The controversy surrounding same-sex marriage will only intensify as November 2008 presidential elections draw nearer. I happen to think that there are a few other laws we should get to first, laws posing much greater threats to humanity that need to be changed, but that is just a personal bias. As far as this writer knows, people aren’t being arrested over same-sex marriage. Don’t get me wrong--I do empathize with the large number of good people that feel passionately about the current problems surrounding same-sex marriage, and even more so the good people directly effected by it. This is about whether or not the government should recognize same-sex couples and allow them to legally marry in the same manner as heterosexual couples. This is not about morality – and I will tell you why it’s not. This is not about civil rights – and I will tell you why it’s not. All this brouhaha about protecting marriage, curing homosexuality, safeguarding children, morality, it’s all hype, and it’s really a shame so many people get sucked into it. The question—should homosexual marriage be legal—is being changed into so much more than just that simple question, for obvious reasons. Let me say this before I say anything else, I am not opposed to homosexuals being couples. I think there is no harm in two consenting adults participating in a relationship based on love, trust, and commitment. Even further, I am fine with a man or woman considering another man or woman as a wife, or husband, or partner, whatever makes them happy. I don’t think that someone who is a homosexual inherently deserves fewer privileges and civil rights than someone who is a heterosexual. 
It’s a shame I have to disclaim all this, but we have become a society that is so right or left, pro or con, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, I must do so to avoid being cast into a camp I really, really don’t want to be in. Early into my research for this piece, I found a frightening number of proponents for same-sex marriage speaking with a tone as vicious and harsh as many of the religious zealots that oppose same-sex marriage on grounds of morality. One such same-sex marriage proponent, a small town reporter named Jim Baron, stated bluntly that anyone considering civil unions as opposed to marriage is a bigot. This certainly caught me by surprise - I have spent a lot of time defending some of my own ideals against bigots - as did some of his other insults like, “childish… selfish, petty and small-minded (Pawtucket).” I really had to rethink my stance after reading Baron’s fanatical proclamations ¬¬¬¬⎯¬ the last thing I ever want to be is a bigot. 
No doubt the conversation is vicious right now, and most of the rancor is the product of what Aristotle would have called Ignoratio Elenchi, The term basically means an argument, that could be valid in itself, which distracts from the real subject or topic of discussion. The more modern term, red herring, is even more applicable. Red herrings are logical fallacies used deliberately to change the focus of the argument or debate. Imagine this social discussion of same sex marriage as a peaceful little mountain stream, and we are all just huddled at the bank, staring really hard and trying to focus on the bottom. Some of us are looking more intently than others, while some of us (like myself) are distracted by the occasional butterfly or dandelion. Some of us are so enthralled, so involved that we are kneeling at the bank, with our heads right above the surface, staring. A few are so involved; they have even taken to plunging their heads under water, trying for a better look. Then – all of a sudden – a big red fish the size of a football swims up stream, right in front of all of our eyes, distracting us all. We turn our heads and watch it swim up stream and out of sight. Some of us lose interest quickly and go back to staring at the stream. Others begin to frantically chase it, even diving into the water and hopelessly swimming after it. I see opponents and proponents for same-sex marriage lobbing red herrings into this discussion, and with any luck, I will take it upon myself to attempt to fish them out. Of course, some of it is unintentional, probably because people like to form opinions to issues whether or not they have the time, intellect, or resources to form one based on intellectual honesty. Regardless of the intentions behind them, red herrings need to be recognized and ignored. 
My solution, or answer, is nothing new - I simply propose that we revamp and implement civil unions into Federal law. This solution is equally fair to both sides; it does not redefine marriage, it does not prevent homosexual couples from receiving marriage benefits and legally recognized partnerships, and it does not blur the vital separation of church and state. 
One huge argument, redefining marriage, is really not even an argument we should be considering. When people talk about marriage the picture that comes to mind for all of us is the wedding, which is not a universal, uniform ceremony. Think of the vast differences between a traditional Mormon wedding, a traditional Jewish wedding, and any other wedding. What in the world are we redefining there? 
Marriage is basically two things. It is a ceremony, which obviously varies greatly dependent upon the participants. The second part, the part this whole “problem” really is about, is contract law. Let’s consider the biggest red herring of this whole debate – the religious and moral aspect of it all. To put it bluntly, many people abhor the simple act of homosexuality. To celebrate it in any way, except perhaps by means of Biblical justice (Leviticus 20:13 ) is simply out of the question for these people. That belief is almost entirely rooted in another belief - the belief that the creator of our universe and everything within it has also helped to author a very sacred and old text, a text that gives us many of the answers to life’s great mysteries – along with a barrage of rules we must live by. How ridiculous I find that belief, well that is for another time. The thing to remember: the great men, the God fearing men that founded this country knew well enough to separate church and state. In the United States, being married by a pastor, yogi, priest, bishop, cleric, rabbi, or God himself means very little to the government without an actual marriage license. In the same sense, to many people the tangible marriage license means very little to God or themselves compared to the marriage ceremony and whatever religious commitments they made along the way. 
Red Herring: Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is like when interracial marriage used to be outlawed. It’s a civil rights issue. 
This is a tough one to wrestle with, and you have to be extremely delicate. Here you have the emotional pulls of racism and tolerance for homosexuality – two topics most people don’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole. But putting an end to the ban on interracial marriage guaranteed that any man could marry any woman. To allow for same-sex marriage, the legal definition of marriage must literally be redefined to allow a man to marry a man, and must either eliminate the gender definitions for husband and wife or redefine those as well. Renowned author, editor and journalist H.L Mencken once said, “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Whether or not the belief is rational, the belief that marriage is a sacred and holy union between man and wife is real. It is not just an objection to same-sex marriage. 
I empathize with same-sex couples that genuinely want the rights, or “perks” married couples enjoy. I see no reason why they shouldn’t have rights of survivorship, insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights and so on. That is why I feel current civil unions between adult homosexual couples must be redefined, as well as implemented as state law. If you want to do something about it - come November 2008 go and vote. I won’t, I never do. It’s my way of making a statement about my general disgust for politics, so leave me to it. But seriously, vote for a president that supports lending the estimated 1,100 benefits given to couples that are married. I know that John Edwards is promising to extend all of those 1,100 rights to same-sex couples (NY Blade). Considering the Federal government won’t even recognize medical marijuana in the wake of a massive procession of scientific and medical evidence and statewide legalizations – let’s not hold our breath and wait for the Feds to recognize civil unions. We can easily pass them on the individual state level, live with and assess the outcome, and weigh the consequences. Down the road, if it is prudent, we seek to amend the Federal law. 
I would be naive to assert that civil unions passed in state law would equal things out. Currently, civil unions - recognized unions similar to marriage - are ignored by the Federal government via the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. My solution proposed a "revamp" of civil unions. This means the Federal government either recognizes civil unions in the way it recognizes marriage licenses, or it offers the estimated 1,100 marital benefits to civil unions in another way. In my opinion, the latter should be pretty simple. 
To reiterate again, marriage is not really about the ceremony. Sure, to the participants it is all about the ceremony, but to the government, and to society, marriage is an officially licensed union and quite honestly a legal contract. The terms are determined in court, often in divorce or prenuptial agreement. Modifying the terms of current marriage licenses is unnecessary when an equally beneficial civil union license granting the same rights as a marriage license can be obtained by same-sex couples. Let’s not worry about calling homosexual marriage heterosexual marriage, or calling marriage heterosexual. Let's leave the important part – the ceremony – to the couples, and the paperwork to the government and attorneys. 
As a country, we really need to reconsider the role religion plays in government. When despicable humans like Shirley Phelps Roper say on Fox News’ Channel Hannity & Colmes, “Thank God for 9-11” and other verbal atrocities in the sake of persecuting homosexuals under the guise of God, we really have to ask ourselves, do we want any religion in our government? I attended an event on May 22, 2007 sponsored by the online publication Truth Dig (www.truthdig.com) featuring Robert Scheer, Chris Hedges, and Sam Harris at UCLA’s Royce Hall. In this event, many opposing political and social views were presented. In response to Chris Hedges assertions that religion is necessary to civilization (Truth Dig), I cheered along with at least a thousand others as Harris expressed his great frustrations with a country that “acts like gay marriage is the great moral issue of our time.” I can see no legitimate argument for religious principles being implemented in matters of government, law, or education. Our forefathers – even though some were deeply religious (Lincoln) – knew well enough to separate church and state. Sam Harris puts it beautifully: “People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean, however, that accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong (Letter)” If any of us hope for a peaceful, happy future – besides one dependent upon Jesus returning to Earth as some kind of superhero, scorching those that didn’t heed his commandments – we must separate all religious ideals from all facets of government. 
My parents raised me on a quiet cul-de-sac in Castaic, California. It was a small street, and we knew every neighbor. Two houses to the left of ours, was Bill, Jody, and their daughter Heather. In their front yard, they had two small hills, like perfectly crafted bike jumps, with beautiful green grass. Every other house on the street seemed to have the simple, square, and flat plot of front lawn – nothing exciting in regards to bike riding and ten-year olds. When I would ride my bike in a loop around our cul-de-sac, I would make their lawn the first part of my lap, enjoying hitting the hills gaining speed, coasting down to the bottom of the hill and back around to gain momentum again. I may have left some tire marks on the grass in the process. When Bill came to my parents begging them to corral me, I was appalled. I loved riding my bike on his lawn, and I knew he knew how fun it was, and I couldn’t believe he wouldn’t allow me the right to this fun. For some reason, it seems like my wisdom was a little off at ten years old, and by God’s grace I have somehow managed to change my stance on riding my bike on Bill’s lawn. As my parents tried to teach me - by punishing me - I had no right to ride my bike on his front lawn. I had no concept of work, and I made no connection with slaving all day at work to pay for a house and laboring all Saturday morning over a front lawn. I was wrong, and I let my own selfish venture – riding my bike – make me feel like I was owed the right to ride on people’s front lawns. Think about marriage as the front lawn. Thomas Jefferson said every human, and certainly every American has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (MHR)” Let’s remember that in our discussions and attempts to resolve this problem we have with same-sex marriage, and try not to ride our bikes on anybody’s lawn. 

Works Cited 

Baron, Jim “Opponents of same-sex marriage display bigotry” The Pawtucket Times 13 May 2007. Accessed 20 May 2007  
BRENCKLE, LARA. "Church plans funeral protest ; Members will be near school during services for soldier: [FINAL Edition].The Patriot - News [Harrisburg, Pa.] 22 Dec. 2006, A01. ProQuest Newsstand. Accessed 26 May 2007  
Hedges, Chris “I Don’t Believe Atheists” Truth Dig Reports, 23 May 2007,http://www.truthdig.com 
Lynsen, Joshua “Clinton, Edwards, Obama outline gay stances - Documents show broad support, some reservations” 25 May 2007 The New York Blade. Accessed 26 May 2007 http://www.newyorkblade.com 
Roper, Shirley Phelps on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, Accessed 26 May 2007 
Lincoln, Abraham "The Gettysburg Address" The Mcgraw-Hill Reader, 9th edition. Mcgraw, 2006 
Jefferson, Thomas "Declaration of Independence" 

Leviticus 20:13 NKJV "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have a committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Tags: Same-Sex Marriage Gay Marriage Homosexuality Chastity

Bookmark: