Gay Marriage- Civil Right or Abomination?

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

– Martin Luther King

There's a whole big deal going on in the news lately about gay marriage. As a Libertarian, I have mixed feelings.

I don't like it when judges try to legislate from the bench. I also don't like it when people like G.W. Bush try to monkey with the Constitution just to pander to their political base. I tend to see it as a civil rights issue, and on that basis I'm for it. Even if most people are against it, the state has no right to deny gays the right to marry, anymore than they have the right to deny two people of different races the right to marry. In fact, that's how the government started the practice of issuing marriage licenses– to prevent interracial marriages. It's been said before, but it bears saying again: Democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Some people say that the comparison to the ban on interracial marriage is not valid because the purpose of banning interracial marriage was to keep blacks and other minorities down. I don't buy that. Back when they banned interracial marriage, non-whites were seen as less than whites. Some would even say subhuman. They were not thought of as being capable of competing with and rising to the level of whites. The purpose of banning interracial marriage was to keep the white race "pure"- to protect it. Like heterosexual marriage is being "protected" now.

No one is saying that any religious faith would be required to sanction gay marriage. I know there are people who are afraid of this. They're also worried that there would be non-governmental pressure to accept gay marriage. If their beloved institutions can't stand their ground in the face of public opinion, they get what they deserve.

If they're worried about religious organizations facing discrimination lawsuits, that points out a big problem with our legal system– we have a "sue-happy" system. We need a "loser pays" system to bring an end to frivolous lawsuits, (but that's a topic for another essay). It's no reason to deny people equal treatment under the law.

I've heard people say that if we sanction gay marriage we'd, have to start teaching about gay sex in sex education classes, (I think we're already doing that). That points out a big problem with public education. Why teach kids about sex when we can't even teach them to read, write and do basic math? Because government has screwed up education so much, and because "the winners write the history books," I'm for the separation of State and School, (but that is also a topic for another essay).

I don't understand the people who say that allowing gay marriages will damage the institution of marriage in this country. Do they think gays would settle for heterosexual marriages if they can't marry someone of their own sex? Do they think that heterosexual couples will break up so guys can run off and marry their bowling buddies? Will wives dump their husbands to marry their..? Oh, you get the picture.

When they argue that marriage is not just for the two people who get married, but for the children they will raise, I have to laugh. Would they deny marriage licenses to women past menopause or men who've had vasectomies? Would they fine couples who choose not to bring children into this world? Don't they know that gays can, and do, adopt children or that lesbians can get sperm donors?

There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Having gay parents may or may not be the "perfect" thing for kids, but the fact is the law allows gays to be parents. That probably will not change, even if the Religious Right wants it to. Isn't it a "good" thing for the kids to be raised in a stable family, headed by two adults who are committed to each other, (and legally obligated to each other and any children they have), by marriage?

I know of a few lesbian couples who either adopted children or actually gave birth to them. If a gay couple breaks up, and the children have only one legal parent, the non-legal parent has no rights where the children are concerned. This could be very traumatic for the children. It could also mean no child support from the departed partner.

One of the lesbian couples I know did break up. Only one was legally the child's parent. They decided to continue "co-parenting" the child because they thought it would be best for the child. While I applaud their decision, (far more civil than most heterosexual divorces), the "non-legal parent" does not have the same rights and protections under the law that a heterosexual ex-spouse would have, and that's not right.

I'd like to think that marriage would add stability to gay relationships. Of course, heterosexual marriages are not doing so well in the stability department, (just ask Britney Spears), despite being sanctioned by the government. Or maybe that's part of the problem.

It used to be that you didn't need a license, or even a church wedding. There was no such thing as a marriage license. If two people lived together and said they were married, they were married, presumably for life, unless things got so bad than one or the other partner ran off. Then the government got in on the act. They got to say who could and could not marry. At first, divorce was not easy.

Over the decades, it became easier and easier to get divorced. Marriage went from being "till death do us part" to "till one of us gets bored." That's not all the government's fault, though they do make the regulations that govern marriage and divorce. Mostly it changed because our attitude towards marriage changed.

When the fence sitters offer up "civil unions" as a compromise, I'm perplexed. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck: It's a duck! Why would civil unions be ok, while gay marriage would destroy the moral fiber of the nation?

Here's where the mixed feelings come in: Instead of allowing gay marriage, I think government should do us all a favor and get out of the marriage business. It should concern itself with contract enforcement. Any two, (or three, or forty-seven), adults who wish to enter into a life-partner contract, (terms to be negotiated by the parties involved), should be able to do so. If you want "till death do us part" as one of your conditions, then no divorce for you. You want the contract to be renewable by mutual consent every five years? Make sure you get it in writing.

Most people would stick with one man/one woman, for life with an exit clause or two and civic life would go on as usual. If there are a handful of communal marriages, so what? I'm not talking about the old geezers in Utah who marry 14 year-olds against their will, just consenting adults.

You can't stop adults, (straight or gay), from cohabiting and having sex and, yes, even having children, if they so choose. If they want to make that union legally binding that's their business.

Click here for some interesting reading on civil unions.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.