Common arguments against gay marriage need to be dispelled
(Last updated: 04/27/09 7:17pm)Since the 2009 Miss USA pageant, there has been a surge of pundits jumping at the chance to subjugate gays. Due to this egregious attempt to bastardize, and subsequently isolate, the gay community, it is incumbent upon gays to address several topics. Homosexuals in America, eager to quell the Christian radicalism masked as conservatism, need first to perform a self-evaluation.
In a page straight out of “the gay Godfather,” Harvey Milk’s playbook, a mass coming out is necessary for gays to gain civil equality. In our totality, the numerics would mandate legislative change. For all of the so-called conservatives that strongly oppose the union of two individuals that are in love in an attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage and extinguish radicalism, you are in grave danger of becoming the radicals.
In a December 2008 Newsweek poll, 55 percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships. With more than 50 percent of the country now in support of civil unions for gays and lesbians, and a clear trend toward an increasingly secular America, it is not only those in opposition to gay marriage that are in danger of bearing the mark of intolerance and bigotry, it is more explicitly the “Christian” party these new American radicals hide behind.
I believe it is necessary to dispel some of the common arguments used by the American right to legislatively discriminate against homosexuals:
1. Allowing gay marriage would mean redefining marriage.
A notion ideologically beaten into American children is the value of honesty. And part in parcel with that “American honesty” is the idea that is incumbent upon us to admit the mistakes that we as citizens have made. The last three centuries of American history were plagued with civil intolerance and sexism. And at least one of them (the 20th) was laden with apologies for the injustices we have committed. Fortuitously for the pro-gay marriage argument, one of these American mistakes was anti-miscegenation laws. While a horrible injustice and flagrant disregard of constitutional and human rights, the right for blacks and whites to intermarry was prohibited in some states until 1967. We as Americans redefined marriage in the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, stating American values (as they pertained to marriage legislation) were now racially blind. This being not the first overhaul of marriage legislation, but certainly the most significant, should silence the views of conservatives that marriage laws are stagnant.
U.S. News & World Report stated in December of 2008 that according to exit polls, 70 percent of African Americans said they voted yes on Proposition 8. As a result, I pose the question: How can 70 percent of black voters now oppose the same rights they fought so fervently to reflexively posses? Are we as Americans so shortsighted that we cannot, or choose not, to remember the disenchanted, isolated feeling legislative prejudice creates?
2. Gay marriage violates biblical bylaws laid forth by Christianity.
For those who believe this second argument to be true, I believe that one phrase completely negates this misconception: Separation of church and state. This constitutional legal parlance is highly effective at mitigating biblical references.
I have written this partially to vent and partially to be one homosexual man who has put into writing his sentiments on the unconstitutional direction the United States has chosen to continue following. I say this to all gays who believe gay marriage doesn’t pertain to them or is unimportant: I used to be one of you. I believed I would never get married, which may be my future, or may not be. What I say to you is this, it is not about whether you as an individual choose to legally bind yourself to that man or woman with whom you are in love.
It is solely about making you and your children, should you, dare I say it, adopt with your partner, an equal, legal citizen of the country in which you reside and pay taxes.
We as homosexuals, if we do not actively support gay marriage, are more damaging to the gay movement then the conservatives I previously mentioned. Our apathy translates to heterosexual America as a flighty, disorganized and subsequently, less threatening group. We must band together for constitutionality, equality and that piece of the American pursuit of happiness we’ve all been promised.
Ryan Garrison
economics and Spanish sophomore
Originally Published: 04/27/09 7:16pm
Mark
04/27/09 8:12pmMr. Garrison,
Homosexuality is a sin, m’kay?
Republican Who doesn't care
04/27/09 8:42pmAs a Republican I should be avidly against gat marriage. As an alumnus of MSUâs public policy program I find myself realizing that social issues are really irrelevant to the administration and efficient functioning of our government. Gay marriage, particularly, has little or no effect on the function of our current system. Socially conservative Republicans often argue three points against gay marriage.
...View full comment »
Another Republican who doesn't care
04/27/09 8:59pmI agree, most of the reason i am conservative is because i do not like the government butting into our lives. Just as i would not want the gov. to come into my home and tell me what i can and can’t do, i certainly would not want them to do that to another fellow american. These people aren’t hurting anyone, just let em’ do what they want…..even if its gross.
Abigail
04/27/09 9:58pmAdd me to the list of conservatives that are for gay marriage. I think there are bigger issues at hand in this country to worry about than being concerned what goes on in people’s bedrooms.
It's not that 'easy'
04/27/09 11:18pmFirst of all, I do not oppose gay marriage, and am therefore in support of gay marriage. In other words, it is not my, or the government’s, place to dictate what marriage is on the basis of a majority religion.
I also love Mr. Garrison’s rhetoric of spelling out, and by doing this ultimately mocking and delegitimizing, common ‘conservative’ arguments against gay marriage.
...View full comment »
Here's my Motto
04/28/09 12:56amBe as gay as you want, just keep your tools away from mine.
Elton John
04/28/09 7:28amSweet bejesus .. didn’t you hear me?
CIVIL UNIONS — OK. In UK. For years.
GAY MARRIAGE — a fight to the death.
All this ridiculous arguing over one word.
blah
04/28/09 8:14amI’m glad to hear there are conservatives out there that could really not care if gays were allowed to marry. Most of us hetero people may find it nasty, but hey, I bet gays find our sex lives disgusting too. I’m not going to march for their rights, but I’ll support it and vote that way.
Ed T
04/28/09 8:27amHow about this:
The GOVERNMENT grants couples (hetero or homo) a CIVIL UNION, which gives them the standard legal rights of a married couple.
The couple’s RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY grants them a MARRIAGE. If a gay couple belongs to a religious community that recognizes gay marriage, fine. If not, they’re out of luck (unless they defect to another denomination).
Bottom line: “Marriage,” like baptism or confirmation, should be viewed as a religious concept that should be conferred by a religious body. It’s none of the government’s business.
Ali
04/28/09 9:01am“ How can 70 percent of black voters now oppose the same rights ..”
You are out of your bloody mind. Voting rights are NOT the same as forcing African-American churches to conduct homosexual marriages.
Just try to go into an African-American church and demand they marry you and your boyfriend. Just out some life insurance first — you’ll need it. A lot of it.
Duh
04/28/09 9:16amRyan,
You say, “For those who believe this second argument to be true, I believe that one phrase completely negates this misconception: Separation of church and state. This constitutional legal parlance is highly effective at mitigating biblical references.”
I challenge you to find “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.
04/28/09 9:25amThis whole ‘Black people passed prop 8’ line is utter bullshit. Not only do the statistics show that that was not the fact, the LBGT groups did not work with the African-American groups, including churches. In cases where the LBGT groups have worked closely with Black groups and churches, there has been a very positive response from the Black community.
The line is an infantile attempt to drive a wedge between ‘the Gays’ and ‘the Blacks’ — please do not buy into it. It is a troll.
Jason
04/28/09 9:29amduh-
What a brilliant argument, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically create something, it doesn’t exist. Your strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution is fine, but there are a lot of legal scholars who disagree with that so you don’t just win an argument by imposing your form of Constitutional interpretation.
Alex
04/28/09 9:39amTry as you wish, you will not untangle the religious impact on our code of laws. The authors of the Constitution were highly religious men, albeit of different denominations, and much of our laws are based in Christian law. It is true that we are moving towards a more secular system, but to cry separation of church and state on an issue that is very much at odds with the mainstream thinking in our country is foolish.
The comparison with allowing blacks to marry is a stretch.
...View full comment »
^^^ Read a book
04/28/09 10:39amMany of the founders did not like religion especially Christianity, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Duh
04/28/09 10:44amJason,
It’s not an interpretation, nor am I trying to win an argument. Ryan is the one who stated that the Constitution mitigates biblical references, and I am challenging him to back up his claim of “sepration of church and state” with a real evaluation of the Constitution rather than just throwing out the played-out phrase, “separation of church and state”.
the revolting blob
04/28/09 11:01amAlex,
Should infertile people be allowed to marry? What about people who just don’t want kids? Because if you’re saying that there is a biological basis to marriage (ie, mating), then they should absolutely be excluded. So you pretty much either have to take that stand or shut the hell up. (Also, as the next comment implied, Thomas Jefferson and others were Deists, which makes Unitarianism look like Opus Dei).
Ali, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
...View full comment »
Jason
04/28/09 11:57amDuh,
...It isn’t a played out phrase, it’s actually a pretty standard part of Constitutional jurisprudence. Thomas Jefferson was the first to refer to a “wall” and the language was subsequently adopted in several Supreme Court opinions dating back more than a hundred years. It has become used more frequently but I think that has as much to do with an increase in religious and cultural diversity as it does some sort of new fangled Constitutional interpretation.
View full comment »
JLT
04/28/09 1:48pmI completely agree with Ed T. The concept of marriage has it’s roots and remains in the religious theater. Therefore, if your denomination or church wants to recognize a gay union, then so be it. All the government can do is recognize a civil union, gay or straight. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
dewey
04/28/09 3:07pmOh I get it now! Jefferson’s Wall isn’t the same one Pink Floyd was singing about. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Todd
04/28/09 3:25pm1. The comparison to Loving v Virginia is moot. One cannot choose to be black.
2. This “mass coming out” and “numerics” doesn’t quite jibe when all we’ve ever heard is the 10 percent figure. Doesn’t sound like a mandate.
Me
04/28/09 3:37pm“Separation of church” and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. It was meant to reassure the church that government would not interfere with the practice of religion. But over the years this simple phrase has been misconstrued to mean that church won’t interfere with government. I honestly don’t care if gay people are married.
...View full comment »
Haha
04/28/09 4:38pm“1. The comparison to Loving v Virginia is moot. One cannot choose to be black.”
And you think people choose to be gay? How stupid are you, exactly?
Nuts & Bolts (no pun intended)
04/28/09 4:51pmreal argument against gay marriage
Burden of proof is on proponent of changing existing law. the proof needed here is empirical data showing (1) gay marriage will not harm society as a whole and (2) gay marriage will not harm children as family law, namely marriage, is designed to promote “the best interest of children”. These are the two overarching public policies behind marriage & family law.
...View full comment »
Bleh
04/28/09 9:49pmIncidentally, many churches today still refuse (as is their legal right) to perform interracial marriages on moral grounds.
Hmm...
04/28/09 10:00pmOkay, yes, let’s assume that one chooses to be gay. One also chooses to be Jewish. Many of us will agree (behind closed doors, of course) that Jews, like gays, are whiny, gross, and weird. Yet no one would EVER let us keep them from marrying!
Why not? They clearly chose to be Jewish!
Tim
04/29/09 9:29amNuts and Bolts
Any other Constitutional law you want to make up?
Ooops
04/29/09 6:03pmOh, sorry I read the headling wrong. I thought it said “Common arguments against gay marriage must be MISSPELLED” Lost interest whan I got it right. I’ll go back to renaming my fruits and vegatables…ask me for an apple and you’ll never no what you’ll get!
Bleed Green
04/29/09 8:02pm@Nuts+Bolts
Since you cut and pasted the same argument from the last letter about same-sex marriage, I’ve cut and pasted my own:
Was there a similar litmus test (”[show](1) gay marriage will not harm society as a whole and (2) gay marriage will not harm children as family law, namely marriage, is designed to promote ‘the best interest of children’”) for allowing interracial marriage?
...View full comment »
LB from Spiral
04/30/09 11:11amBleed-
those were bad, bad rebutal arguments to N&B. you’re making the guy’s case. stop speaking for gays if you are going to make it worse. you do it frequently here.
Bleed Green
04/30/09 3:54pmLB-
I don’t claim to “speak for gays,” but I do stand by my post.