Gay Marriage: Why is This Still a Question?

Right. Now I've reached the grand age of 51 (in December—passed without so much as a mention in this forum), and I need to get a bit more serious about life, geeky or not. No more of this posting when my fancy strikes, in the manner of a casual, laid-back, frivolous person in her 40s. I am a woman of practicality, solidity, and dependability, and gravitas and I will actually live up to my promise of posting once a week from now on. You hear me, Unknown Reader? From now on!  Or, at least, once every other week. Once a month?

Part of my excuse is that I have taken the bold and distinctly impractical step of falling in love since my trip to Scotland. While I have assured my beloved that it is not his fault that I have posted scarce anything new in the months since we've been seeing each other, I have to admit that I am highly distractable these days, and that spending time with him and calling him often seem much more desirable pastimes than staring at a blinking cursor for hours trying to come up with something topical or amusing for a blog entry. But that excuse, of course, is exactly that: an excuse.

So, while on the subject of love, I thought, per the famous poem recited on playgrounds by taunting children everywhere, I might segue into the topic of marriage. Specifically, gay marriage. And why it still isn't allowed in my adopted home, the state of Pennsylvania. I should start by saying that, given my history of the past eighteen years, I'm rather opposed to marriage for myself. I mean, do all you gay men and women know that you're letting yourself in for countless arguments over whose turn it is to wash dishes, who cleans up more after the other, who gets to decide where you go on vacation, what you eat for dinner, what television shows you watch, and when the car needs servicing, and Is that really what you're going to wear? and Do you honestly consider that a nutritious meal? and Do we have to visit your father this Thanksgiving? and Why does it always sound like a pistol report when you bite into an apple? and Why must you always amend every bloody thing that I say?? Ahem. Got a little carried away. Your marriage won't be like that. Probably. Though you never can tell.

Now, some of my coupled gay and lesbian friends say that, even with the right to marriage, they probably wouldn't exercise the option. Some because it just doesn't seem worth the bother (see my own views above); some because they feel it would open up their private lives to prejudice from strangers who otherwise might be blissfully ignorant of their sexual orientation. But others would joyfully welcome the opportunity. Eleven years ago, a friend of mine from college got married to her partner in Canada. I was present at their beautiful and moving wedding reception nearly a year later in Oregon, where they live. There, surrounded by friends and family, they reaffirmed their commitment to each other, ate wedding cake, and were toasted. I can't remember if they exchanged rings, as I was chasing around after my toddler daughter at the time, but I imagine they did. Also, I have zero memory of what the brides wore, though I'm fairly certain it wasn't white. And probably not dresses, either, though I can't say for sure. I would make a terrible social pages reporter.

So, back to the issue at hand: Pennsylvania is one of the few Northeastern states that does not allow gay marriage. In the map below from January of this year (according to Wikipedia), Pennsylvania shows up as pink (same-sex marriage banned), surrounded on three (3!) sides by dark blue (same-sex marriage legal). Why is this? First, a little history: in 1996, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed a law defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman, and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal.

January 2014 map of status of gay marriage (Wikipedia)

[For a more informative map that chronicles the ever-changing status of same-sex marriage across the country by year from 2000-2014, connect to this link on the Mother Jones website, called "The Spread of Marriage Equality." It is quite fascinating to watch the states pop into and out of the legalization of same-sex marriage.]

Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrating Supreme Court decisions

On June 26 of last year the United States Supreme Court, in two 5-4 judgments, struck down both California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, and the part of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies legally-married same-sex couples government benefits generally accorded to heterosexual couples. Though this was a landmark decision, they did not then go on to claim a national right to same-sex marriage. A Philadelphia Inquirer article appearing the next day presented the arguments for each side. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (and, interestingly, joined the minority opinion in the Proposition 8 ruling), stating: "DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life. It tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage." Justice Antonin Scalia, for the minority opinion, wrote: "The Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms."

D. Bruce Hanes

Getting back to the situation in Pennsylvania: in July of last summer, Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, on the grounds that he considered the 1996 Pennsylvania Marriage Law unconstitutional. He managed to issue 174 of these licences before Commonwealth Judge Dan Pellegrini ordered him to cease and desist in September. Since then, several couples have filed suit against the state, with the largest suit, Ballen v. Corbett, brought by Sasha Ballen and Diana Spagnuolo and 27 other couples,  naming Governor Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and state Secretary of Health Michael Wolf as preventing their right to be married. At the moment, these couples remain in limbo, because, at the time of his ruling, Judge Pellegrini did not clarify the status of the marriages that had already taken place, and thus they still don't know if they qualify for such things as joint income tax filing or spousal benefits. While the IRS announced last September that they would accept joint filing from couples married in states where same-sex marriage is legal, this ruling does not apply to couples married in Pennsylvania, where it is not legal.

According to an Associated Press report on Feb. 20 of this year, lawyers for the Pennsylvania Dept. of Health (which issues marriage licences) further claimed that, "Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history so as to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and, therefore, cannot be considered a fundamental right.... The very recent developments among a minority of states do not transform same-sex marriage into a 'deeply rooted' historical and traditional right." And in an agreement reached between the two sides in January of this year, allowing the case to proceed, Judge Pellegrini commented, "This should not be an issue of a vast amount of fact-finding.... The arguments at this point are pretty much well-developed."

And what are these arguments? I gather from reading a wide variety of conservative and religious anti-gay-marriage websites that the basic objections to it are roughly as follows: same-sex marriage denies the "true purpose" of marriage, which is the perpetuation of the species; it denies children of said unions either a father or a mother; it promotes homosexuality by giving it legal standing and encourages immorality; it imposes morally repugnant practices on society at large; and, finally, it is offensive to God.

Following these arguments to their logical extremes (for which I do not apologize, as the opponents of gay marriage feel no compunction about doing the same — witness all the arguments that, if we allow gay marriage, then marriage between people and dogs will surely follow), let me address each of these arguments in turn.

Same-sex marriage denies the true purpose of marriage, which is the perpetuation of the species. This would mean that infertile couples and couples who intend to have no children should not be allowed to marry, as they are perverting the "true purpose" of marriage. And, by the way, nowhere is it written down anywhere in law or religious scripture what the true purpose of marriage is. I expect it was originally a way of solidifying inheritance claims and providing for the political and financial joining of two separate familial entities.

Same-sex marriage denies children of such unions either a father or mother. By this logic, people who have divorced, who have conceived and are raising a child out of wedlock, or whose spouse has died, deserted them, is currently working or fighting abroad, or is imprisoned are unfit parents because they are depriving their child of a mother or father. Yes, in an ideal world, children would have both a mother and a father, but, as we can easily see, we are not living in an ideal world.

Same-sex marriage promotes homosexuality and encourages immorality. I fail to see how allowing people of the same gender to marry each other would encourage people to become gay, or would make the gay lifestyle more attractive to those who are (presumably) undecided. Marriage is not a romp in the hay; it's a legal and binding contract. Moreover, as I (and most scientists of human sexuality who have no religious or political agenda) understand it, homosexuality is not chosen. I mean, think about it: a young man or woman in the throes of adolescence muses to him- or herself: "Let's see, I could choose to be attracted to/fall in love with someone of the opposite gender and fulfill all the expectations society puts upon me and receive approbation, or I could choose someone of the same gender and be discriminated against, spit on, accused of degeneracy and of unravelling the moral fiber of society. Hmmm. which to choose, which to choose?" 

Same-sex marriage imposes morally repugnant practices on society at large. As to whether or not homosexual practices are repugnant or immoral, I find that a spurious argument. I find smoking repugnant, yet I would not deny smokers the right to marry, have children, or be served in shops owned by non-smokers. Besides, marriage is only partly about sex; it is also about financial security, about responsibility for each other's health and well-being, about companionship, about intellectual and emotional compatibility, and sometimes about the raising of children in a stable and loving environment. As to the "imposing" of these practices on society (and yes, conservative websites state this; I'm not making it up to make them look bad), they are referring to the financial and other penalties that will befall anyone refusing service, tenancy, or civil rights to couples of the same sex. To this I say, get over it. (Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound very enlightened on my part, does it?) Vegan clerks have to serve meat-eating customers in department stores; Jewish shopowners have to ring up the purchases of neo-Nazi customers, fundamentalist Christian waiters have to seat Wiccan patrons in restaurants, tree-hugging conservationist ushers have to show petroleum corporation CEOs to their theater seats. There will always be people whose views or practices we find morally repugnant, but, as long as they are not breaking the law, we are not allowed to violate their rights as citizens of this nation.

Same-sex marriage is offensive to God. Here, I'm on admittedly shakier ground, since I'm not a theologian. Those of you who don't believe in God can just skip this paragraph, because it will be irrelevant to you. Well, since God has not seen fit to have this recorded in any of His many Scriptures, I'm not sure how we know that He is opposed to same-sex marriage. The very idea of same-sex marriage was inconceiveable in the days when the holy texts were recorded. There is, however, commmentary on same-sex relations, of which God does appear to disapprove strongly. At least between men. I'll start by dipping into my own tradition: in Leviticus 20:13 it states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Looks pretty straightforward. But what does it mean? "...lies with a man as one lies with a woman..." —is this talking about love? about romance? about sex? only about sex in the absence of love? What kind of sex? Also, what about that word "abomination"? In Hebrew, it is to'evah. Jay Michaelson in an online article in Religious Dispatches of USC Annenberg, cites 103 uses of the word to'evah or its plural in the Torah, almost always with reference to the cultic practices of non-Israelites. He suggests that this particular to'evah referred to a cultic practice of homosexual ritual sex, rather than to a loving union between committed partners. In the Christian Bible, there are four explicit condemnations of (male) homosexual sex: Romans 1:26-27, Corinthians 6:9-10, Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7, as well as several vague references that are taken to be about that. Again, given the context of this condemnation (men who have sex with other men are lumped in with murderers, liars, whoremongers, idolaters, and lechers), it would seem that this refers rather to the following of selfish pleasures and crimes for one's own gain, than to the wish for a stable family unit and the companionship that goes along with a committed relationship. The NALT Christians Project website offers some arguments in favor of understanding and acceptance. I cannot claim to know much of anything about Islam's stance on homosexuality. Apparently the Qur'an contains five verses that explicitly condemn homosexuality. The Mission Islam website contains a discussion of these verses, and, while it comes down wholeheartedly on the side of homosexuality as abhorrent to God, it does mention that liberal Muslims note that there is no judgment on Mohammed's part as to what should be done with men who practice homosexual acts.

Well, this has become an unwieldy post indeed. I beg your indulgence, Unknown Reader, for having rendered you either impatient with the tiresome length of my argument or indignant at its superficiality. So I will conclude with an emotional appeal, since this is such an emotional topic. Can we agree to separate the act of homosexual sex from the idea of same-sex marriage? Whatever emotional responses contemplation of these acts arouses in you, don't two people of the same gender who love each other and who are willing to enter into a public, legal union with responsibilities and duties, often so that they can raise children in a stable and committed environment, have the same right as people of different genders to enter into matrimony? Why shouldn't they be covered by their spouse's health insurance, be allowed to file joint tax returns, be able to visit each other in the hospital, be listed as their child's legal guardian in the event of the death of their partner? All those things that heterosexual couples take for granted.

So, to all the gay and lesbian couples out there waiting for Pennsylvania to legalize same-sex marriage, I wish you patience and fortitude. Whatever the decision handed down in the current court case, I think it's only a matter of time before the Commonwealth comes down on the side of justice and reason. In the meantime, try to work out beforehand who's going to do the dishes and just how often you will be expected to visit your fathers-in-law. Good luck!