"Protecting" Marriage and Other Nonsense

Maine's recent vote overturning the state's same sex marriage law has brought this issue back to the forefront of national debate, at least temporarily. Every time I see a vote like this, I have to wonder, do all these people who voted to deny marriage rights to same sex couples have such warped moral compasses, or are they simply unable to reason clearly?

The most common argument cited by opponents of same sex marriage is that they want to "protect" traditional marriage. The question they are never able to answer logically is exactly how allowing same sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriages. One argument, if we can call it that, is that allowing different types of marriage will denigrate the "value" of traditional marriage. The argument is so vague as to be completely meaningless. How do you define the "value" of marriage in the first place? The chief value it has is the formalization of a strong family bond between two individuals, such that they can share their lives and fortunes and potentially raise children together. How would allowing people of the same sex to formalize such a bond, one which will arise between them whether or not it is officially recognized by society, hurt the bonds that heterosexual couples form? Surely the argument is not simply that if too many people are married, marriage is no longer special? If that's the case we might as well make obtaining a marriage license a long and difficult process, perhaps with probationary periods beforehand, for any kind of couple (the same would apply for the odd argument that because married couples get certain benefits from society, allowing same sex marriage would be costly to society and therefore shouldn't be allowed). But somehow I don't get the idea that these defenders of "traditional" marriage want in any way to discourage heterosexual couples from getting married or to reduce the total number of marriages. No, they simply don't want to allow homosexual couples to marry.

So what arguments do these opponents of same sex marriage put forth against it, other than out-and-out homophobia? None that are at logical, and many that are just homophobia thinly disguised. One I've heard is that homosexual marriages can't produce children. This is true, in the sense that two people of the same sex can't have a child together in the genetic sense (though it may someday be possible for lesbian couples through genetic engineering). But what of that? Many heterosexual couples can't or don't have children together either, and we don't require them to do so or invalidate their marriages because of their childlessness (the latter used to occur fairly frequently, especially among royalty, but I don't think many people would advocate making a law along such lines). What's more, homosexual couples, like childless heterosexual couples, can and do adopt children or use surrogates, and given the number of children in need of a home around the world, the more couples there are to adopt the better.

But this brings up one of the more homophobic (as well as ignorant) arguments some use against same sex marriage, namely that children raised by homosexual couples will be somehow unnatural. There is a similar argument that allowing homosexual marriage in the society will result in it being "taught in schools". The idea of it being "taught in schools" is a bit bizarre in the first place; what do they think, teachers are suddenly going to start telling children they should marry people of the same sex? At most, schools might use materials that present same sex marriage as being normal. This is what many opponents actually object to, as they don't regard same sex relationships as normal, so they don't want to see toleration of them taught or even passively encouraged. If that's not homophobia, what is it?

Furthermore, some opponents of same sex marriage seem to believe that presenting same sex relationships as normal will somehow cause more children to "become" homosexual (a similar argument is applied to children raised by same sex couples). This argument is simply ignorant, as overwhelming evidence indicates that sexual orientation is primarily a matter of nature, not nurture, so that the percentage of people who are naturally inclined to homosexuality does not vary significantly whether the society is tolerant of homosexuality or not. The only thing that varies is whether those who are by nature homosexual are open about it. In an extremely conservative society, very few if any people will be openly homosexual but there will be just as many homosexuals; they will simply hide their sexual orientation. Conversely, even in a society that treats homosexual relations as completely equal to heterosexual ones, the vast majority of people will still be heterosexual. At most, you may see an increase in open bisexuality, but this is not harmful either, as most people will still settle into a relationship based on their primary orientation, whatever that may be.

Some decry the possibility of more "experimentation" with different orientations among adolescents, but, as stated above, in the end people who are basically heterosexual (again, the vast majority) will end up in heterosexual relationships no matter what they do when they are young, and the converse is true of those who are naturally homosexual. In fact, studies indicate that quite a bit of experimentation goes on among adolescents already. I myself have heard of quite a few examples anecdotally, mostly from women (thought that might be a problem with my sample...). On the other hand, many young people will not experiment with different orientations no matter how widely accepted it becomes. Speaking for myself, I never had the least bit interest in men or boys at any time in my life, and even if I had been living in a society that was very tolerant of homosexuality (rather than the extremely homophobic one I did grow up in), I doubt I would have been inclined to experiment even a little with it. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of my friends and classmates did so, nor do I think it would have harmed them. And while, due in part to the homophobic society I grew up in, I'll admit that even now I sometimes feel slightly uncomfortable around gay couples (not, however, around lesbian couples, for some reason...), I recognize that this is my problem, not theirs, and in time I hope and expect to overcome it. Unfortunately, many other people don't even recognize their own homophobia, even when it is much more severe than my own.

In the end, the opposition to same sex marriage is no different from the opposition to marriages between people of different races or "miscegenation", as they used to call it. All of the so-called arguments against same sex marriage could be (and in many cases were) applied against mixed-race marriages. What's more, recalling the legalization of mixed-race marriages (for those who don't know, only a few decades ago mixed race marriage was actually illegal in many places, unbelievable though that may sound) is just one of many analogies that help illustrate why the argument that in this debate the "will of the people" should prevail is ludicrous. If people in states like Mississippi, Alabama, or even Texas had been able to vote on state constitutional amendments outlawing mixed-race marriage or for that matter desegregated schools, they certainly would have done so. It took the courts to force the overturning of these discriminatory laws (in the case of mixed-race marriage, it was a 1967 decision by the US Supreme Court). In doing so, the courts were fulfilling one of their major functions, protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Similarly, in the current fight over same sex marriage, it has been primarily the courts that have been responsible for establishing equal rights for same sex couples, often in the face of public opposition, just as desegregation was a result of court rulings which were openly opposed by most people in the South. The idea that the electorate should be allowed to vote for inequality in the same sex marriage debate makes no more sense then allowing them to vote to uphold same segregation or anti-miscegenation laws would have been. Discrimination of this sort is wrong, no matter how many people support it. We can only hope that more and more judges will do the right thing and rule against these discriminatory resolutions, and that after same sex marriage has been legal for enough time, the public at large will come to see that it is not in the least harmful to the society, and there are no grounds for their fears and prejudices.