Is it possible to offer a serious, considered argument against gay marriage? Yes. Unfortunately, almost no one who argues against gay marriage does so - just about all such people are anti-gay bigots who don't appear interested or capable of constructing serious, fair, and honest arguments.

Pennsylvania For Marriage, a group working to ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania, has this to say about their intentions:

Q. If you’re interested in protecting marriage, why include Civil Unions, too?
A. The two are one and the same. Even those who are against same-sex marriage seem to like the sound of “civil unions”, which appear to be a reasonable compromise. In the eyes of the law, however, “civil unions”; would simply preserve the name “marriage”, while allowing the institution to be destroyed. Granting homosexual couples the legal rights of married couples, even if we don’t call it “marriage”, will result in the same social, religious, cultural and economic perils as same-sex marriage itself.

It’s not “marriage” that these anti-gay bigots are trying to defend, it’s the privileges traditionally according to heterosexuals that is their focus. Civil Unions would validate and recognize gay relationships as if they had some sort of justified social status. Civil Unions, like gay marriages, would treat gays as if they were citizens deserving of respect and consideration.

So it’s only natural that anti-gay bigots opposed to gay marriage are also opposed to Civil Unions.

Q. What’s the big deal about same-sex marriage?
A. If same-sex marriage were permitted, the definition of marriage would be lost entirely. Marriage would no longer be recognized as the crucial, indispensable building block of society, responsible for preparing future generations. Instead, marriage will be one option, no more or less beneficial or acceptable than cohabitation, single parenting, or homosexual households. The next generation would suffer most under this new policy. Our children’s psyches are not an acceptable subject for experimentation.

To call this response total and utter crap would be an understatement. Gays being married would not cause marriage to cease to be a building block of society. Gays getting married would not cause marriage to simply be “one option” of many, of no particular significance. Actually, that’s the sort of consequence we should expect from the creation of Civil Unions. It’s not gay marriage that threatens the institution of marriage, but alternatives to marriage — competition in the marketplace.

Irredeemably stupid responses like the above are inexplicable if we imagine that the authors are actually talking about gay marriage. On the other hand, if we consider that they are really talking about the preservation of traditional privileges for Christians, for men over women, and for heterosexuals over homosexuals, the apparent nonsense begins to make a little bit of sense.

The “definition” of marriage would be no more lost as a consequence of legalizing gay marriage than it was when divorce was legalized or women were permitted to own property. Straight men, however, would lose something — just as they did all the other times marriage was changed. It’s no wonder that they oppose changes now just as they did in the past.

Q. What does this have to do with religious liberty?
A. Under a court ruling which standardizes same-sex marriage, churches and synagogues could face legal pressure to perform such marriages. Those who refuse could lose their tax-exempt status, lest the government be seen to be “underwriting discrimination”. Pastors or rabbis, indeed, anyone who claims that homosexuality is morally wrong, could face legal ramifications. We have already seen this effect in Canada, where teaching these religious moral truths is considered “hate speech,” and is punishable by up to two years in prison.

You mean, like churches and synagogues are currently pressured to perform marriages for people who are otherwise prohibited from being married there: people outside that faith, people who aren’t members of that congregation, divorced people, inter-faith couples, interracial couples, etc? There aren’t serious pressures in any of these contexts, so why would there be any more pressure for gay couples? Pressure of some sort can’t be avoided, but there is no legal issue here. The authors of the above response probably know this, which would mean that they are deliberately misleading and misinforming readers.

Q. Isn’t this about civil rights?
A. No. There is no constitutional right to marry whomever you please. Marriage is a contract extended to those who qualify.

The authors probably know that marriage has been held to be a fundamental right, despite not being mentioned in the Constitution. As a fundamental right, the burden is entirely on the government to demonstrate that banning a particular sort of marriage is absolutely necessary. The authors of the above definitely don’t offer anything close to such a demonstration — they can’t even offer a document that is completely factual and honest.

Then again, this doesn’t make them any worse than all the other anti-gay bigots who write about how awful gay marriage is. There are a few sober, serious arguments against legalizing gay marriage, but you won’t find any of them on Pennsylvania for Marriage — a site which should be renamed Pennsylvania for Homophobia and Bigotry.

 

Read More:

• Gay Rights, Gay Marriage
• Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
• Catholicism & Homosexuality