Keeping It Civil In the Gay Marriage Debate

Same sex marriage...o.k, that's about as much as I can say on the subject without getting someone angry! Well, I'm not going to take a position on the issue of same sex marriage in this blog entry (even though I have one), but I am going to take a position on civil discourse on the issue. And I'll start by being blunt: many supporters of same sex marriage use downright despicable tactics in trying to forward their agenda, and that's what I will be addressing.

Those who express a view that is against gay marriage (I will use same sex and gay marriage interchangeably) do so for a variety of reasons, which I don't want to get into too much right now. But regardless of the reason expressed by a particular gay marriage opponent to support his position, I have noticed that some, and often the most vocal, pro-gay marriage advocates lash out at the anti-gay marriage people with venomous accusations of bigotry and homophobia. Now I agree that there certainly is bigotry out there against gay people, and I definitely find such bigotry to be vile. But I don't believe that most support for traditional marriage (I'll also refer to this as man-woman unions) is based in bigotry against gay people. Also, I never cared much for the term homophobia (not all people who disagree with the morality of homosexual behavior are afraid of homosexuals), but the term has come to mean the equivalent of racism in racial matters. Again, there are those who express anti-gay attitudes, but not all those against gay marriage are homophobes, or anti-gay, as I prefer to call it.

This comparison between the treatment of gays and the treatment of minority races is what really bothers me. Here is where I must express my disdain for the attitude shown by some gay marriage proponents toward those who are for keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman unions. First of all, gay people were never loaded on to slave ships, forced into brutal bondage, kept as property, and subjected to degrading segregation for hundreds of years in the United States, as blacks were. I would argue that nothing that the U.S. has ever done even approaches the shamefulness of slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, gay people have been subjected to unfair treatment and unjust laws in many cases in America, and, thankfully, many of these injustices have been and are being corrected; but the comparison between the struggles of gay people and the history of the injustice towards blacks in American history is obscene.

I have also heard the argument that denying marriage rights to homosexuals is similar to laws that once existed in the U.S. denying whites and blacks the ability to marry in many states. O.k., now, deep breath, because this is the argument that really angers me. Laws denying blacks and whites the right to marry were UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the 14th Amendment guarantees that equal protection of the laws can not be denied citizens because of their race. Such laws were also IMMORAL. No religious or philosophical tradition (maybe Nazism is an exception!) ever prohibited different races from marrying. Countries or states that have enacted such bigoted laws did so by departing from their founding and most cherished traditions, not by embracing them. Finally, such laws were based on STUPIDITY. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a black person and a white person. NO DIFFERENCE. NO DIFFERENCE. Arguing that skin color should determine how people are treated is as meaningless as arguing that height or shoe size should matter in how people are treated. Laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying would be akin to laws prohibiting those born in the summer from marrying those born in the winter, or those born east of Iowa from marrying those born west of Iowa.

On the other hand, men and women are profoundly different from one another, and these differences are appropriately recognized in public policy and law. We have men's restrooms and women's restrooms, but, thank God, no more white restrooms and black restrooms. We have boy scouts and girl scouts, but no black scouts and white scouts. Men and women have very different physiques and brains, each offering different strengths and limitations. Most cogent arguments that I have heard against same-sex marriage address the real differences that exist between men and women, which are not in any way comparable to the nonexistent differences between blacks and whites. If men and women are intrinsically and fundamentally different from one another, then the arguments some make against gay marriage make sense, whether you agree with them or not. In other words, a union between a man and a woman is a very different thing from a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. To deny this is to deny the obvious differences between the sexes.

Now, in light of this, I believe it is still reasonable for one to argue for same-sex marriage. But I also feel it is absurd to simply dismiss those who are against gay marriage as being bigots, homophobes, or the equivalent of racists. Such tactics are used simply to shut down discussion. How does one argue with charges of bigotry and homophobia? These names are flung at people who are for traditional marriage to shut them up, to intimidate them, and to reduce them to the level of fascists. Last time I checked, such intimidation is a fascist trait, and has no place in civil discourse.