Same Sex Marriage:
The Most Hotly Debated Election Non-Issue
August 2004...the bigots won this one...

As part of the Republican agenda, and certainly part of the "Bush Doctrine" of family values and Christian ethics being proselytized by our current leadership, banning gay marriage has become a lightning rod of debate in the upcoming election.

In Oregon, one of the so-called "swing states" of this election, the debate is alive and on the ballot. MEASURE 36 would amend the Oregon Constitution to define only marriage between one man and one woman as being valid or legally recognized.

Supporters say they are defending the definition and purpose of marriage as it has been reflected in history, state law and religious tradition. They argue marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the stable family and necessary to procreation and the rearing of children.

Efforts to redefine marriage, they maintain, could destroy the institution and harm society. Amending the constitution is the only way to ensure marriage remains only between a man and a woman, they say.

"This amendment," says Rep. Linda Flores, R-Boring, "simply clarifies and confirms what has always been understood by our state's founders and our citizens, that marriage is only between one man and one woman."

Without question, this argument has pitted the "religious right" (as well as every closet bigot and narrow-minded redneck) against the so-called "ultra-liberals," gays and middle-of-the road humanists. It is an argument that is not, and will never be, easily resolved. The same reasons kept a vast majority of the country segregated, and without equal voting rights for the majority of our nation's history. Those reasons are simple ignorance and intolerance.

My personal experiences teach me that the arguments against same-sex marriage, just like arguments against racial bigotry, pale and shrink in the light of open, honest debate. And often, the most vocal behind the closed doors of religious organizations, locker rooms, and boardrooms are those without the intestinal fortitude to speak openly in public. As with racism, when you speak face-to-face with the "enemy," common sense should prevail. However, like racism, if your heart is so closed and blackened with blind hatred that you refuse to see people as fellow human beings and not as the "label" you disdain by rhetorical reference alone, all common sense is cast aside.

In my case the "freaks," "fags" and "dykes" have an even clearer face of recognition. Those most feared by those who are "righteously protecting the sanctity of marriage" are my own family members and friends. They are the people who lovingly share their lives through their acts of kindness and fellowship. They are the ones whose relationships are a shining example to the term "stable family." The irony of their reality is that the love and respect they have for one another is often times far stronger and steadfast than countless other "normal" marriages in ours and other families across the country.

The most egregious parts of the arguments put forth by the backers of this measure include the wording that a "man and a woman is the foundation of the stable family and necessary to procreation and the rearing of children, and that allowing gays to marry could destroy the institution and harm society." These statements are completely indefensible.

In Oregon, as in almost every state in the country, the divorce rate between heterosexual couples hovers between 40% and 50% of all marriages.

After working so hard in the face of societal ridicule to be able to show the love and devotion they have for one another, can the success rates of gay marriages be any worse than those of heterosexual couples? If statistics are accurate, and the solid, committed gay relatioships I have witnessed were allowed to marry, gay unions would INCREASE the solidarity of the institution of marriage.

Many would argue that the prospects of gay couples raising children deprive the children of a "normal upbringing" with both male and female role models. It can also be argued that the number of single-parent households, torn apart by the rancor and contempt of divorce, are far more injurious to the children involved. If we are to begin pre-determining the "most stable foundation of a family," we should begin by outlawing divorce, not by limiting the union of honest loving couples.

The primary cause of acrimony with this "moral battle" is similar to the race issues that have torn apart our country for centuries. Those who have not taken the time to understand and know gay people can never fully understand that like race, the differences between us are far smaller than the things that make us the same. Respecting one another, and most important, respecting and honoring those that share genuine love for one another must be the primary common point of union on this debate. To deny anyone the same right to "love, honor and obey," along with the legal right to common property, inheritance and the option to make life-saving medical decisions for one another, is not only small-minded, but not in the best long-term interest of our society.

I have attended over a hundred weddings in my life. I have witnessed a full variety of reasons for union including "sham weddings" to attain citizenship, marriages of convenience, marriages long overdue after years of co-habitation and children, as well as many marriages of friends and family members that have stood the test of time. However, without question, one of the most touching and wonderful celebrations recently was that of a cousin and his long-time partner, who after years of commitment and love to one another, decided it was time to make a formal, public commitment in front of their friends and family. Is their relationship any less loving, committed or solid an institution than that of countless others I have watched fail over time? I suspect not. Their courage and conviction as well as their genuine emotional excitement at finally "tying the knot," made me proud to know them and bless their union.

It is time for society to break down yet another outdated label. Same-sex unions can no longer carry an automatic label of "deviant" or "abnormal." The definition of marriage should be the public commitment of two people in love, who are willing to join home and expenses while taking the risk of the legal ramifications of divorce. Just as we no longer measure the sanctity of heterosexual marriage by the acts of couples in the bedroom, we can no longer deny the common rights of a legal marriage and civil union to gays for the same reason.

Like color, love has no denomination or sexual preference. Love is the single most powerful thing that should bind all humans together as one. There is no place for bigotry in the light of honest, real love. It is time for the love of all mankind to supercede the petty differences put forth by narrow-minded, pious, religious fundamentalists and other bigots. It is time to take one small step forward, toward real Christian love and tolerance.