Gay marriage: one straight guy's view

We hear a lot lately about attacks on the “institution of marriage." Bloviating politicians promise to “defend” it from this perilous onslaught. Groups emerge with names like “Protect Marriage Illinois,” and senators take to the floor with dark predictions of a “world without marriage.” With all this talk of fighting for marriage, I have to ask: has someone proposed banning it? Is there a movement to outlaw straight marriage? Because I have to say, that sounds like a bad idea. I’d definitely be against that. I hope my beautiful wife would, too.

See, the thing is, I like being married to my wife. I like that when I decided to spend all my remaining days with the one I love, the law of the land allowed me to do so. I take comfort in knowing that if I’m in lying in a hospital someday, unable to speak for myself, my best friend and life partner will be allowed to make decisions for me. I appreciate the way my employer provides her with insurance, just for being married to me. And, of course, I really like the way the IRS rewards us for living in this committed arrangement. I’m able to enjoy these benefits for one reason: I was born with a disposition to be sexually drawn to the opposite sex.

In truth, of course, no one is threatening to take my marriage away. There is, however a growing movement to extend this basic civil right to all citizens, regardless of orientation. Opponents of this cause know they have to frame the issue dishonestly to win any support at all. Thus the negative, reactionary effort to keep certain people from enjoying a right is sold as a positive issue. Rhetoric and actions that can only be described accurately as anti-gay and anti-equal rights become "pro marriage" and "pro family."

Are these folks really “fighting for marriage?” Of course not. When was the last time you heard one of these “defenders” of marriage calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce? Or how about a law to increase the penalties for deadbeat parents? Or, if marriage is for the purpose of biologically continuing human existence, why don’t we hear calls to ban sterile or post-menopausal people from marrying? The answer is that these people are not actually interested in defending marriage from any actual threats. They are interested in attacking people they do not like.

These people are terrified. For years, they have successfully stereotyped homosexuals as godless, immoral, unpatriotic, and promiscuous. Now the gays want to attend church, raise children, serve proudly in the military, and get married. We have long heard that the gays don’t share mainstream America’s values. Lord, if these values aren’t mainstream, what are?

The fundamentalists dominating the gay marriage debate like to frame the issue as a religious one. Liberals scoff at this notion—arguing that the issue at hand is civil rights, plain and simple—but I tell you this: the left has it wrong on this point. Marriage equality is definitely a religious issue. Almost every opponent of gay marriage is so because of his or her religious beliefs. These people fight against gay marriage because they believe being gay is a sin, so they fight against gay people. It is important to recognize this because we live in a country where our freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed.

In our great nation, you are free to believe being gay is a sin, and that gay marriage is wrong. You are also free to attend a church that refuses to perform such ceremonies. I, on the other hand, am free to hold a different religious belief, and to worship with a welcoming and affirming congregation that celebrates love between all committed adults (which, in fact, I do). Yet another citizen is free to get married down at the courthouse, without the blessing of any church. The government is constitutionally forbidden from forcing me and my church to subscribe the beliefs held by you and yours. And neither one of us can force the courthouse couple to play by our rules.

There are still churches in our country that refuse to celebrate interracial marriages, and their right to practice this faith is constitutionally protected. But the government, of course, can no longer restrict marriage based on race. In the United States, we have citizens who believe it is wrong to eat pork, or beef, or any meat at all on Fridays. Some Americans don’t believe in working on the Sabbath, be it Saturday or Sunday. Some believe it is wrong for a woman to cut her hair short, wear pants, or speak in church. Yet I hear of no plans for a Constitutional amendment to ban bacon or Sunday afternoon football games. Basing the law that governs all citizens on the religious restrictions of some is profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to everything for which our country stands.

We do not choose our sexuality, as some ludicrously claim. I certainly don’t remember choosing to develop an interest in girls as a young man. To this day, I don’t think I could choose to go the other way for all the cash in Sam Brownback’s bank account. (A side note to anyone with gay feelings who’s forcing themselves into a straight relationship: You’re being incredibly cruel to someone for whom you profess to care very deeply; and you’re heading for overwhelming heartbreak.) Amending our Constitution to single out a group of people—identifiable only by an involuntary characteristic—and deny them a specific right is the beginning of the end. It’s the slipperiest of slopes.

Allowing others the right to a marriage will not nullify yours or mine. No straighties will be forced into gay marriages. Don’t believe in it? Fine. Don’t do it. But let your fellow citizens make up their own minds, and keep the government out of it.

This is one straight guy who will stand up and fight for marriage. For everyone.