It has taken me a good long while to calm down enough to rationally think about this question. I was truly surprised and amazed that the Supreme Court overturned Texas' law concerning sodomy. I counted this as a victory for all who would be free, whether they wish to indulge or not. I was, therefore, appalled when almost immediately following the decision, certain far-right parties began to float the idea of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
You see, I'm a pretty average straight white guy. I have fairly narrow, traditional tastes when it comes to sexuality. And having been through a divorce, I fail to see why anyone would want to get married at all. Homosexual sex of any kind has a bit of a "Yuck" factor, as far as I'm concerned. I must mention, however, that I just don't understand the hatred so many heterosexual men have for homosexual men. I always figured that the more of them, the better; less competition, you see...and I could use the help.
But that's just it, isn't it? My tastes aren't your tastes, nor should they be. I don't particularly care for Chunky Monkey ice cream either, but who really cares? I'm only one person, only able to judge what I want from life. Why should I want my predilections to rule the masses?
So long as you doing your thing doesn't actively harm me, I shouldn't have anything to say about it. I just plain old don't care what crazy sex acts happen in your bedroom (or on the kitchen table for that matter), so long as everyone involved consents to being involved and it doesn't involve children (because they, by definition cannot consent) or animals(same as kids...that's scary). It is none of my business. As long as I'm not one of the people directly involved, why should I care?
I figure this works for pretty much all behaviors, not just sex, and including in who you decide to marry. I wouldn't want to marry a man, but then again, I wouldn't want to marry another woman either. I only need to be taught a lesson once.
A conglomeration of very strange folk I refer to as the Right have, however, definite opinions on what should go on in your bedroom, preferably in the missionary position. (Sorry, couldn't help but poke fun...they'd be so amusing if they weren't pure evil.) The Right argues from MORALITY, as distinguished from morality. You see, in my mind, as well as in the minds of our Founding Fathers, morality is a code of behavior that is good for society as a whole and for individuals within that society in particular. MORALITY, on the other hand, comes out of one of various ancient religious texts, all of which are, of course, usually at odds with one another on any salient point. To further muddy the waters of MORALITY, it gets to be interpreted by priests, human beings with a political agenda. Witness the Bible's (King James Version) prohibition against homosexuality:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13
This is the one and only specific prohibition against homosexuality in the bible, folks. I've searched the whole rambling thing for another, and can't find it.(1) Morever, does it strike anyone else from this passage that lesbians come off scot-free? Note that there has to be at least two men involved in this formulation. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist, you're going to have to accept that lesbians are apparently OK in the eyes of your Lord God.
The state, however ineptly, should try to function from morality (the cause of the common good) rather than MORALITY. In fact, in the old Hobbes/Locke formulation that so influenced our Founding Fathers, the state's ONLY purpose is this common good, without which, the social compact (read contract) between Government and Governed, is null and void. The use of heroin isn't illegal just because it is "wrong" or even because of a high "Yuck" factor. It is banned because the social costs of the behavior are demonstrably higher than the costs we as a society are willing to bear. If one makes arguments about legislating essentially moral choices, they must be based either on violation of individual rights, or social cost.
Obviously a gay marriage causes no violation of rights. Only two people are concerned, and they've both consented to what is essentially a civil legal contract. So long as both are over the age of consent, no rights are violated.
So what other "common good" argument could be mustered?
Now it seems disingenuous, to say the least, for the Right to argue that there is a social cost to gay marriage. Aren't these the same people who have been telling us that marriage is the way out of poverty and despair? If marriage is an intrinsically stabilizing force, where is the harm in stabilizing gay couples as well as straight ones? It's not like these people are going to say "Well, I'm gay, but I'd better find a (man/woman) to marry!" Without the recourse of marriage, they're just going to "live in sin."(2)
Passing any law against gay marriage is a serious breach of morality and the public trust. Laws are meant to apply to everyone equally. Denying some couples certain legal standings and protections based only on their sexual orientation (which can no longer be held as criminal, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003) is a clear violation of that principle.
I guess you could brand me as a liberal. In these dark times, I suppose I am. But this is a largely conservative, fringing on libertarian argument. Its base is that the government shouldn't be making laws that do not serve the public good. The only compelling reason to ban gay marriage is that certain people find it offensive. If our government is to dictate matters of fashion and personal taste, can we have a constitutional ban on Old Navy advertisements too?
Footnotes
1. I know that some of you Christian types are going to whine about Sodom. But here's the hypothetical you should pose about that story. Instead of showing up as (multiple) men, God shows up as (multiple) women. Do you think that God have been OK with being gang-raped? Do you really think the Lord God of Hosts incarnations would spread it for the crowd? If so, did the Lord God incarnations "ask for it"? What, indeed were the Lord God incarnations wearing at the time of the attempted rape?
If your answer to this hypothetical is "yes" then I can't help you. Perhaps a competent psychotherapist can, but I can't. Don't worry about the costs; given your attitudes towards women, you'll probably get a free one during your incarceration for rape.
If you answered "no", or if the hypothetical made you feel slightly nauseous, or say the word "blasphemy" at least once, then this story is about crossing a line that has nothing to do with sexual identity or orientation. It is about the Sodomites wishing to "know" God just a little too well, without God's consent. No wonder He leveled the place. I'd be pissed too.
2. Note, however, that living in sin does not have a legally defensible definition. (I'm sure there are still blue laws against it, but there are blue laws against taking a bath on Sunday in at least one state.) Such laws, however, fall to little pieces when challenged (like the law against consensual sodomy).
Leave a comment