There are three major reasons why the debate over same-sex marriage makes no sense, regardless of which side of the argument one is on; they are the reasons why the entire discussion has been twisted beyond all rational reasoning and has become a complete sham. There is no universally acceptable solution to the debate because both sides in this fight – those who want same-sex marriage accepted and those who are against it – are concealing major flaws in their arguments.
Faith-based objection to same-sex marriage is an illusion. Although there are differing accounts of how the tradition of marriage came about, it clearly predates all modern religious institutions. Marriage was not created by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or followers of any other contemporary faith. The earliest accounts of unions between one man and one woman date back to over 2000 years before the birth of Christ. Although the institution of marriage is honored in most modern faiths, none can claim it exclusively. Whilst it is true that the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam – the three faiths which, collectively, encompass the vast majority of human society – all recognize marriage as being a union between men and women, each of these faiths also accepted arranged marriages and polygamy. At least in the modern Christian world, the idea of arranged marriages is largely rejected. Most people see marriage as a voluntary union between two consenting adults; the idea that parents would force their children into marriages of convenience against their will is almost universally rejected in the Christian world.
Whilst Christians reject same-sex marriage by arguing that homosexuality is a sin, they are also prone to quoting a “biblical” definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Whilst the Bible does not specifically advocate arranged marriages, it also does not reject the practice and there are accounts of arranged marriages in the Bible. The fact that the majority of Christians, today, reject the practice of arranged marriage demonstrates that, when it suites them, they are willing to accept deviations from the biblical traditions of marriage. Polygamy is another issue which demonstrates this double-standard; the practice of a man having more than one wife is accepted in the bible, yet rejected in modern Christian countries.
Whilst the gay community could make the argument that its fight for the acceptance of gay marriage is based upon the ideals of equality, tolerance and diversity, the relentless – and even vicious – attacks, by gay activists, upon anyone who disapproves of them clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in such ideals. If the gay community was truly devoted to tolerance, then it would tolerate the will of the majority in those states where residents have firmly rejected the idea of legalizing gay marriage. Instead, as happened in California and now in Utah, gay activists have shown their intolerance and contempt for the democratic process by having courts overturn the majority will. These same activists claim to champion diversity, but accept no diversity of opinion, when it comes to sexuality or marriage. In a truly diverse society, it would be accepted that there are those who disapprove of homosexual sex, as well as same-sex marriage.
More hypocritical than gays who campaign for same-sex marriage, however, are those who are not, themselves, gay, but have politicized the issue or campaign for same-sex marriage because it clearly makes them feel better about themselves. The political Left has taken up the banner of equal rights for the LGBT community for the same reasons they pretend to care about the rights of women or minorities; they have always practiced a “divide and conquer” strategy; they deliberately foster a victim culture among minority groups. Ironically, those left-wingers who promote same-sex marriage – the same people who claim to be defenders of the black and Hispanic communities – routinely ignore the fact that same-sex marriage is largely disapproved of in both the black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, the Progressive left – alleged champions of women’s rights and gay rights – has allied itself with Islamist fundamentalism; the most obvious manifestation of which is the close ties between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamists, however, fiercely promote the repression of both women and gays. Every woman, every gay man, every lesbian and every transgender person should be asking why the very people who pretend to be fighting on their behalf are working hand-in-hand with those who advocate the stoning to death of gays, the legally accepted rape of women and the general persecution of all those who do not conform to their strict, quasi-religious rules.
There is no place for gays in Islamic society; there is no place for educated, independent women in Islamic society. Why then, are the very people who pretend to fight for women’s rights and gay rights also supporting Islamic fundamentalist organizations who do not recognize those rights? The answer is quite simple and very obvious: Progressives are using women and the LGBT community in the same way that they use the black community; as mere pawns in their power-play.
The modern Christian argument against same-sex marriage makes little sense; no more so than the pretense that this debate is a struggle for gay rights. The main reason, however, why the same-sex marriage debate is a joke is that marriage itself has legal status, which it should never have had. There is no reason whatever why government should be involved in marriage. The federal government of the United States has no constitutional right to define marriage; which is why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is completely unconstitutional. Those who claim to be defenders of the Constitution but, at the same time, argue that DOMA should be defended and enforced are displaying remarkable hypocrisy. Why should government have the power to lay down rules about who can and cannot marry? Why should marriage have any legal status whatever? Marriage is a bond between individuals which requires no legal recognition. Legally recognized marriage now has implications for taxation, immigration, inheritance, insurance and parental responsibility; all of these, however, can be untangled by the rewriting or repeal of existing laws. Marriage should be neither legal nor illegal – at least at the federal level. State legislators, with the consent of the people, can pass laws which recognize or reject certain unions; one has to ask, however, what the real point of such laws are. All legal implications of marriage – between one or more people of either sex – should be a matter of private arrangement. Legally binding contracts can still protect the rights and responsibilities of partners in any relationship without government guideleines.
Human interaction should not be dictated by government; nor should it be dictated by religion or used as a political weapon. Each of these three facets of the same-sex marriage debate is a red herring. Consenting adults should be able to form whatever domestic partnerships they deem appropriate. Neither politics nor religion have a legitimate role. Similarly, whether one approves or disapproves of same-sex marriage, it should not be a federal issue. If one lives in a state where the legislature or Governor has decided to legally define marriage, perhaps one should be asking why, rather than trying to litigate personal human relationships.
Editorial by Graham J Noble