When ignorance rears its ugly head...

Recently there's been a lot of uproar about same sex marriage in this country. In California, there's a great effort to overturn Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in the state. While we're all anxiously waiting to hear what the court has to say in the matter, let's examine some of the arguments surrounding the issue of same sex marriage in America.

1. Our income taxes will increase to make up for the credits that will be given to all the homosexual couples who will flock to the courthouse to be married.

Perhaps, but more likely not. In any case, if those numbers of homosexual people wanting to get married suddenly felt a hankering for a member of the opposite sex and decided to get married, should we stop them because taxes might go up? If they want to marry in the currently legally sanctioned way, who would then decide which couples can marry and which can't to prevent raising our taxes? This is a ridiculous argument. If we, as a nation, believe that everyone should have equal protection under the law, then we cannot deny that protection to certain people based on what might or might not happen to the amount withheld from our paychecks every week.

2. Gay marriage will pave the way for polygamy and bestiality.

Unlikely, although I'm sure some polygamists will try. The problem with polygamy under the law is that is creates a situation with inherent inequalities. Suppose a man with two wives were to die. How would his estate be divided between his wives? How would it be divided among his children? And, god forbid, what if he had more children with one wife than with the other? One could divide the property equally between all concerned parties, but inevitably someone would feel slighted. If he'd been married to one wife longer than the other, would the wife he married first be entitled to a larger share of the marital property? Property laws would have to be too complex to account for polygamy, whereas a same sex marriage would have the same property issues as any other "traditional" marriage.

3. Schools and textbooks will have to teach homosexuality if same sex marriage is legalized.

Well, no. It's not the schools' job to teach about marriage anyway. Schools can teach sexual education, that is, how the human reproductive systems work, not whether is it "right" or "moral" or "good" to have a sexual relationship whether it's with the same or opposite sex.

4. The courts won't be able to favor traditional marriages over same sex marriages in matters of adoption or custody.

If I recall, there is no blanket statement from any court stating that heterosexual couples are to be favored as better parents than homosexual parents. Shouldn't the courts be considering what couple is best able to provide for the child financially and emotionally? A child's needs can be met without concern for the sexual proclivities of its parents, and those proclivities shouldn't be a consideration in awarding custody or adoption rights. One's sexual tendencies have nothing to do with whether one can love and provide for a child. And no, this won't pave the way for people wanting to legalize sexual relationships or marriages with children. Children in their minority aren't able to consent to sexual relationships, and same sex marriage isn't going to change that.

5. The spread of Christianity in the traditional family setting will be severely curtailed.

Perhaps, but more likely not. The fanatical members of the Christian Right are not going to shut up because we uphold equal protection for homosexuals under our law. It is the parents' responsibility to see that their children are brought up with an understanding of Christianity and its tenets IF they so choose. We do not dictate in this country how one should observe religion, so this is not a valid argument for preventing homosexuals from enjoying the rights afforded to them under the constitution. No one is requiring the churches to accept or recognize same sex unions, but at the same time, the churches CANNOT compel the state to refuse to recognize the rights of those whom the churches oppose.

6. Freedom of speech will be curtailed and soon you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

The fredom of expression laws in this country are quite liberal. One can say freely that he thinks homosexuality is wrong, that its adherents are going to hell, and that rights should not be afforded homosexuals. Expressing this view will not get you tossed into prison or fined, nor is it likely to. It is only when those same far right wing fanatics start spouting that all gays should be shot or lynched or gelded or what have you that "freedom" of their speech will (and should) be curtailed. In this country you can speak out against your government, you can speak out against any practice, race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or disability you wish, but you cannot incite others to harm or curtail the rights of another. This is eminently reasonable as far as I can see. You are welcome to your ignorance and your evangelism, but you are not welcome to impose it upon me.


In essence, what we have in the same sex marriage debate in California is the attempt of one group of people to disenfranchise another group of people of their rights under the constitution. Under the equal protection clause, these right are ALREADY afforded to people in California; homosexual and heterosexual. Proposition 8 effectively denied those rights to homosexuals. If that isn't a violation of the equal protection clause, then perhaps "separate but equal" wasn't either.