Bear With Me

Usually I don’t blog or even speak much about same-sex issues. Kari can more easily express her thoughts and frustrations, but I tend to bottle things up and really only unleash my thoughts, anger, hurt, etc. to Kari. However, with the momentous ruling that happened yesterday, I can’t help it. Yesterday, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional, which overturns the ban on same-sex marriage (in CA). Now, there are appeals and more fighting until the case will most likely be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court in a few years.

There are people who are ecstatic. I had such a feeling of relief and hope when I heard the ruling. And there are people who are angry. Take a look at any discussion board surrounding this issue and you will see people from both sides behaving very poorly.

I had to stop myself from reading the discussion posts because it was making me so upset. A few years ago, I would have been an opponent of same-sex marriage (yes, even though Kari and I were together) and I harbored many of the misunderstandings and ill feelings toward those that identified as LGBT. It was a long process of examining my own belief system, understanding how I came to believe those things, and forming what I believe now. Now, before you stop reading because you are one who disagrees with the ruling, please know that I am not trying to convince you about the morality of same-sex relationships in this blog. Rather, I am considering how I view the different arguments and what arguments I think the law should be based on. And I am willing to be wrong.

I have come to see the arguments against same-sex relationships in three categories: “It will harm society,” “It’s icky,” and “It’s against God.” Please hear me that I am not making fun of anyone who holds beliefs in any of these camps (I held beliefs in all 3), but rather I wish that people would take a look at their beliefs before they write comments on discussion boards or send money to anti-same-sex marriage campaigns, and, mostly, before they vote.

First, many of the “Society” arguments try to come from a logical or scientific standpoint. However, these are the ones that seem most illogical to me. I have heard things like, “It’s not natural.” Well, there are over a thousand species in the animal kingdom that exhibit homosexual behavior. However, this argument is silly to me anyways because I hope we don’t base the complexity of human relationships on what animals do. Most animals have many mates to have as much children as possible throughout their life – it’s natural. But we don’t encourage this behavior, at least not with marriage. Animals also naturally go to the bathroom in public, we don’t. To millions of people, loving someone of the same gender is as natural as breathing.

I’ve also read, “It will break up the traditional man and woman marriage” or “It will discount gender.” What? How? There is no foundation for these arguments. I think heterosexual marriage has already had many struggles (and successes) before any same-sex couple wanted to get married. And no one is discounting gender. I am not asking anyone to stop being a man or a woman.

I also read, and I’m not making this up, that granting marriage rights and, thus, health benefits to same-sex couples will drive up the cost of jeans. So, if this were true, would our society prefer to deny health care to a committed, hard-working couple so that the Levi’s are a few bucks cheaper? Could you say this out loud to an LGBT person you know? Could you say to someone in a committed relationship, “Your full-time job does not provide health insurance, but your partner’s job does. Everyone else gets married and gets to share in the health benefits. I would rather you go in debt or not receive medical care because I need more jeans.” Or say it to me. “Debbie, if you could not work because of Lupus, I would not want you to get on Kari’s health care because it might make my shopping trip more expensive. I would rather you miss out on life-saving treatment than pay a dollar more for designer jeans.” It sounds extreme, but it’s not my argument. I don’t think it makes sense – and I don’t think I know anyone who would say that.

Some other Society arguments I’ve heard: “Children will be confused,” “They want to make everyone gay,” “ It’s a slippery slope and next they will want to marry animals,” “They are all pedophiles and can’t be trusted,” “Same-sex couples can’t be monogamous anyways.”

I believe that most of the Harm to Society arguments are based on fear. Fear of our own financial and physical security. Fear our children will be gay. Fear someone will think that we are gay or question our masculinity/femininity. Fear of the unknown. There is no logical or research-based foundation for these arguments.

What’s tricky is that I think that the beliefs in each category often get intertwined and mistaken for each other, which makes considering the beliefs or even possibly changing that much harder. For example, the Icky group of arguments are basically those that show how we feel icky thinking about or simply seeing same-sex couples. I have heard these as expressed in many ways: “It’s just not right,” “It makes me uncomfortable,” “Why are they flaunting it?” “I don’t want my kids around it,” “It’s not normal,” “I can’t imagine them together,” “It’s not traditional.” Now, just because I am uncomfortable around something doesn’t mean it should necessarily be against the law. I am uncomfortable seeing extreme body piercings. Tongue piercings ick me out. But that doesn’t mean I have to hate, stereotype, or outlaw those with tongue piercings. I think the Icky group stems more from what we have or have not been exposed to. Our human nature drives us to define ourselves and our group, which often creates an “Other.” If we have not been around many LGBT people, it is much easier to see them as an Other and then heap on a whole lot of misconceptions. It's also hard when someone who we classified as Other is now trying to say that they are really the same as us. The same kind of feelings and separation has existed among the races throughout history, but is hopefully improving as we come to know each other and experience the rich diversity of people.

The Icky group often gets intertwined with the God group. I believe that this is dangerous because then tradition can get confused with morality. Don’t get me wrong, I love tradition. But just because another family doesn’t have turkey at Thanksgiving or hand out red envelopes with money or shave their legs doesn’t make them a second-class human. When Icky and God gets confused, instead of recognizing that maybe we should treat someone with respect and decency (and offer them the protection of the law), even though they are different than what we are used to, it can turn into “It’s not right because God says so and I’m not going to think about it anymore.”

However, I can understand the God group the most. I know what the Bible verses say and through my research and my own understanding, I may have a different interpretation than you. If anyone ever wants to discuss it, or just see what I’ve found, I will be happy to share. But I’m not going to beat it into anyone. Rather, I can understand the sincerity and conviction of those that are against same-sex marriage because they believe that God is against it. To me, these arguments make much more sense than the Society or Icky arguments. However, if you separate the God arguments from the Icky, then the thought is more like, “It’s not right because God says AND because God commands us to love, I am going to love you and serve you and pray about what God wants me to believe and do.” That’s a little different than the Icky way of not wanting to see someone in public or treating them like a disease “because God says so.”

But should faith determine law? Many of the arguments again start mixing tradition and faith here – the “Our country was founded under God” argument. But our nation was founded with religious freedom and freedom of many types, and not all founding fathers were Christian (nor did they all behave like God intends Christians to behave). The “under God” part in the Pledge was added in 1954. I am a Christian, but I think it can get real tricky to mix Church and State. I am thankful that many of our laws reflect the way that I believe that God would want us to behave – but the law certainly cannot capture the entirety of God.

Nor do most people try to make the law fit all of God. Right now, people just want their Biblical interpretation to fit with same-sex marriage laws. God has an exact commandment about not committing adultery. Is there a law against that? What about divorce? What about pre-marital sex? What about not going to church? What about dishonoring your parents? Where are all these laws? I think they are absent because tradition mixed with religion. Those in charge or with power or the dominant culture have traditionally committed adultery, gotten divorced, or skipped a Sunday. No laws were made against it – or they changed to allow it – and no rights were denied because less and less people were “icked” out by these traditionally accepted vices. (Of course I don’t even consider a same-sex relationship a vice or sin, but like I said, that’s a different discussion.) We don't deny rights or privileges to people who are considered traditionally normal in society, even if they do not conform to every word of the Bible. And tradition changes over time – like living with someone before marriage is way more accepted now than 50 years ago.

Also, don’t we tend to go to war with countries that mix religion and policy? If we don’t agree with their discrimination or denial of women’s rights or killing for their God, why would we allow these things for our God? Most people believe that racial and gender discrimination is wrong, so we don’t believe that anyone should do them for God... but that’s just our current tradition. In the past, people had slaves with the backing of the Bible and today, people discriminate and demean same-sex relationships with the backing of the Bible. My point is not whether same-sex relationships are right or wrong, but that religion should not determine policy.

So, I do not see a rational reason, either Societal, Icky, or God-based, to deny same-sex marriage. I do see a reason how denial of marriage and even just granting civil-unions is harmful. In a nutshell, lesser rights equal lesser status; a separate name, means separate status. A lack of equality means just that. Which means that people are able to justify hatred, discrimination, and slander. It means that people can use terms like gay synonymously with stupid to name-call. It means that I have to consider the backlash and even losing my job if parents find out about my relationship because I have no protection under the law. It means that I let the sales clerk selling me bathroom cabinets and the nurse at my doctor’s office refer to my “husband” because I was afraid of how I would be treated if they knew my ring was for a woman. It means that if I don’t hide my relationship, I am pushing an agenda. It means that LGBT teenagers are 3-4 times more likely to commit suicide.

Thank you, Judge Walker.