Thursday, March 4, 2004

Ragged Edge: Gay Marriage, a moderate perspective

The topic of gay marriage is divisive, emotional and freighted with bigotry (on both sides of the issue).

Further, I'm not convinced this is the best time to hold this particular national debate. I mean, what's the hurry?

But, since Rev. Dan Darby took up one corner of the debate last week ("Gay marriage: a Christian perspective"), I'll stake out another.

First of all, I'm just parochial enough that the whole idea of gay marriage leaves me a bit uneasy. However, I learned at my parents' knee that it is my place to neither condemn nor condone cultural differences and personal choices. It's not our place to judge personal behavior.

My parents (a preacher and a teacher) preached tolerance to (and sometimes at) my brothers and me so I grew up with an appreciation for and recognition of personal differences.

While I'm not convinced that we should mainstream gay marriage, I'm very distressed at the idea that we would consider amending our Constitution to discriminate against certain of our citizens simply because some of us are uneasy - or downright hostile - about certain lifestyles.

There are so many facets to a marriage: love, commitment, affection, devotion, sharing of experiences, mutual support, sharing of financial obligations, etc. It seems to me that the State only has an interest in one of those things - the sharing of financial obligations, specifically to provide for children.

The document that the State uses to formalize a relationship between two people is simply a legal contract. Its purpose is to delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved. From a purely civil perspective, a marriage license is no different from any other legally binding contract.

What this contract does not do is sanctify, edify or in any other way make this relationship holy. The State cannot sanctify a marriage. We reserve that to God and His terrestrial representatives.

Frankly, I'm not sure we really want to walk down a path that ends with State being able to tell an adult with whom he (or she) can or cannot enter into a legal contract.

Aside from mutual support (in all its permutations), the primary purpose of a marriage (both civil and Biblical) is to provide for children. Since gays and lesbians are able to adopt children, the State should allow them to enter into a contract that provides for the support of those children. Indeed, they should probably be obligated to enter into such a contract.

I know, I know ... the Bible says certain things regarding marriage and those who are adamantly opposed to this idea can ferret out chapter and verse to support their contention that gay marriage is unholy, disgusting, unnatural and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.

The simple fact is, you can look in the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - and find justification for all sorts of things our society no longer condones including several forms of polygamy, the execution of women who have lost their virginity out of wedlock, the murder of children who tease old men and several passages that grant men permission to keep mistresses ... as many mistresses as they can afford.

However, you cannot turn to the New Testament and find a verse where Jesus taught we should judge other people. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Never mind that our secular government shouldn't meddle in religion - and vice versa. Never mind that our secular government should be able to find room for all sorts of cultural, choice and religious lifestyles. Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage are no more relevant to our secular society than Biblical exhortations to murder girls who lose their virginity before they get married.

This country was founded on certain principals, among them that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to allow the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the few who are simply trying to live that American Dream? Aren't all of our citizens entitled to a life free from bigotry and religious persecution?

(Look it up: when a class of people are subjected to unfair treatment, it's persecution. When that persecution is justified because of religious beliefs, it's "religious persecution.")

I've known a few - a very few - openly gay men and women. I can't say that I can call more than a bare handful of those friends. However, none of them are ogres bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country. They are simply people - sinners like the rest of us - who want to be accepted for who and what they are.

It's okay to be uneasy about all this and to question how best to protect our society from too-rapid change.

But it is just plain wrong to allow our Constitution to be sullied with words of hate, fear and discrimination.

This column was published March 4, 2004 by The Cameron Herald and was part of a package of personal columns which won a First Place from the Texas Press Association.