Garden of Eden Need Not Apply

The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear two cases which could change how we as Americans see each other moving forward into the 21st Century. The court may, or may not hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case which could decide the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban. I say may or may not because the court has yet to rule on whether or not a group called Protectmarriage.com has the legal “standing” to represent California in the case since they have no personal stake as it is defined by the court. The Court will hear arguments in United States v. Windsor, which challenges the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they are legally married in their states. As someone who has been married three times I am either an expert, because I now know what not to do, or I am a twice a failure, depending upon your viewpoint. What I am either way though is someone who has heard the rites recited by several wedding officiants and none of them referenced sex when posing the questions of marriage. To my mind, that’s because marriage is now, and has forever been, only about love.


There have been other laws enacted to determine who could and, more importantly, could not be married. Here in North America, laws were enacted from the late 17th century onward to prevent the “mixing of the races”. Those laws were enforced until 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and ALL anti-miscegenation laws were struck down. Some of the same arguments used to prevent the mixing of the races are currently being used in opposition to same sex marriage; “It is against God’s will”, “it violates Natural Law”, “it turns a moral wrong into a civil right”. In my opinion, those arguments all have in common a basis in some sort of religious scripture and should not even be a starting point for discussions. That, to me, they are simply daft is more to the point.


I can hear the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth through the ether as people read that statement, but I seemingly must remind people that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Since no one actually knows for certain what God’s will is regarding anything, I would suggest that none of us make our decisions based solely on that. Rending and gnashing again for sure, but consider the Americans who were here when the Europeans arrived. While they may have agreed with the sentiment banning same sex marriage, they would not have considered it as the word of the Christian God, and all those good Christians would have deemed them savages worthy of eternal damnation just the same. It is fairly well known that I believe in no god, but I do not have any beef with those that do, provided they do not attempt to force their beliefs on me. In the case of same sex marriage, those who believe it against God’s will are attempting to play Christians and Indians, with those of us unopposed to same sex marriage as the Indians.


I don’t play Christians and anything though, so unless someone is prepared to begin the Inquisition anew we should all agree that only secular arguments need apply whenever a law is going to affect all of us. We should, as calmly as possible, present our case(s) and let the majority decide. Unfortunately, that is not how the world works, so we are treated to whether or not something is moral more often than not. The problem with that is that morals change with the times. One of the most common arguments against same sex marriage is that it violates “traditional values”. With traditional being defined by Merriam-Webster as, an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior it is hard for me to see what people believe traditional to be. It was once traditional for men to wear wigs and stockings, but that’s not the norm now, unless you’re Dennis Rodman or a drag queen. Likewise, polygamy was once traditional and even lauded by the same scripture people use to demonize same sex marriage today. I’m guessing no one reading this believes either of those to be traditional, much less normal.


Another argument which bears discussing is that same sex marriage is a State’s Rights issue. Then all those crazy liberals who want the world to implode could be happy and us God fearin’ folks could remain safe in our marriages. Unfortunately for those hitching their wagons to this argument, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution states: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. So, while the Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state and there are differences in requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state. The reason(s) for this are simple: you cannot have legally married people denied rights or privileges by various states, or criminalized in others as was the case in Loving v. Virginia. People travel for work, education and amusement every day, all across the country and, as we all know, shit happens. Of the over 1,100 federal benefits of marriage, none apply to civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by the state in which you reside. Now imagine you and your same sex spouse are on vacation in another state and the worst happens. Are we saying that we are in favor of making that worst time even harder because the two people who have pledged their love to each other just happen to be of the same gender? Are we also saying that if you’re gay the federal government deserves a larger share of your income via taxes? Neither of those statements sounds very conservative, nor compassionate to me.


I recognize that nothing I say here, or anywhere else for that matter, will change the mind of those for whom the Biblical Word of God is inviolable, but I would hope that none reading this now are in that camp. The Westboro Baptist Church believes they are in the right when it comes to same sex marriage, as do the Taliban commanders who dynamited the Buddhas of Bamiyan. While I am not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with same sex marriage is in that stratum, I am saying that they most certainly champion your cause simply because they believe two people of the same sex cannot love one another as the tenants of matrimony dictate. Times change though, and my hope is that people today do not hold to the WBC or Taliban ideas of marriage anymore than they hold to the idea of a wife as the property of her husband. It is the 21st century and time for homosexuals to be allowed the same strife we as heterosexuals have had for thousands of years.


I’m wholly in favor of allowing same sex marriages, and not because I looked absolutely smashing as a groomsman in a same sex wedding and want to see more violet, pirate tuxedoes in my future. I also don’t believe love is all we need. I’d prefer shame and humiliation heaped upon my enemies and consistently good parking before universal love, but I do believe it is a step towards making the entire world a better place. Palaces won’t fall, dogs will not start dating cats, and the fabric of society will not come apart at the seams if two men or two women marry. Nor will the heterosexual marriages already consummated be lessened. What we will have is more family units, and less reason for government to intrude into our bedrooms, and isn’t that what traditional values are all about?