The most common argument to support the legal defining of marriage as a union between a male and female is that of tradition. As marriage has always been characterized this way, so should it always be, claim its supporters. This argument assumes that a male and a female create the most stable union that society can design, thus producing the most efficient standard for “the family.” But such logic can lead us down a slippery slope in no time.
When we legitimize acts through the justification of tradition we can find our society in some precarious places. If we look at history, we can see where tradition got us in some trouble. For example, should we still enslave African-Americans because we did at one time? Should we only allow land-owning white males to vote? Should we drop nuclear weapons on countries to bring finality to a war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I think not. Clearly, tradition alone should never validate law or action. The purpose of history’s transgressions is to inform current societies not to duplicate such mistakes.
Another argument made for the discrimination of homosexuals is that of religion. One could say that my religious beliefs inform me to be a part of a society that only tolerates different-sex marriages. Well, clearly, the First Amendment denies the incorporation of religious beliefs into state law. Moreover, if we were to define law via religion, how would we choose which religious ethos would act as its source? Even more confounding is the fact that many times Christians are the first to justify their discrimination through their beliefs, but nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say “Oppress thy homosexual.”
On the contrary, Jesus continually fraternized with society’s outcasts: the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the lepers, and even a despicable Samaritan. Jesus intentionally disassociated himself with society’s powerful, elite and corrupt. Jesus would never support a measure that gives privilege to one group and not another. Instead, Jesus promoted the love of enemy and neighbor.
The final argument made to support homophobic legislation is that of family values. Off the bat, this logic is about as solid as tradition, because everyone has their relative concept of such values. Additionally, how can one argue that two loving, caring, responsible parents do not fit the definition of marriage (and the tangible benefits that it entitles them to receive) simply because of their sexual orientation? When one makes this argument on the grounds of tradition, it strikes me as discrimination wrapped in the cloak of faulty logic.
To deny law-abiding citizens the union of marriage is discrimination rooted in homophobia. To deny a gay couple such privilege is to deny them their civil rights—rights explicitly guaranteed within the Bill of Rights.
By Andy Miracle
kinfolk_yonder@yahoo.com
Andy Miracle is a full-time substitute teacher at Western Albemarle High School currently pursuing nonprofit advocacy work. Get it off your chest!
C-VILLE welcomes Opinionated submissions from readers. Send queries to opinion@c-ville.com.