Do you ever worry that you might never get married? (Not that every person needs or wants to get married. Okay, and a lot of my readers are already married. But pretend you're not, and just go with me here for a moment.)
I do. There are many reasons I’m afraid of this:
I’m thirty, and no one’s ever asked me. I have a Master’s degree, and plan on
more education down the road, and the more educated a woman is the more
statistically likely she is to wind up a spinster (though actually,
that trend may be reversing - good topic for a future blog). There's also the fact that the men of my generation
keep getting slapped with all these labels – Peter Pan Syndrome,
Failure to Launch, Fear of
Commitment.
My best friend has that same fear. My best friend also has all the same basic
factors: about the same age, about the same education level, about the same
problems with men. But on top of all the reasons, my best friend has another
doozy of a reason to fear never getting married. It’s currently illegal for him to do so in 38 of the 50 states here
in the USA.
More than just worrying about a fear of commitment, he has
to suffer the consequences of
other
people fearing
his commitment.
Meanwhile, all my fears look pettier, because technically speaking I *could*
get married tomorrow (especially since my state’s
governor
just eliminated the three day waiting period for a marriage license. And
also eliminated the pesky syphilis test). I could log on to eHarmony, or troll
a bar, or strike a deal with a
prison inmate
without ever meeting in person first - and get married, and cash in on all the
related benefits of marriage. Meanwhile, my friend, several years into a
committed relationship, would be unable to get legal recognition of his marital
status. Even if he got married in one state, he wouldn't retain marital rights in another state. It limits your life in a thousand ways.
I generally try to avoid political discourse on the
interwebs, because it’s so easy to escalate and hard to mediate. But as those
of you who know me can attest, when something big comes up, I speak out. In the
past few days, North Carolina voted against equality. President Barack Obama
acknowledged his belief that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. And
suddenly, my newsfeed is abuzz, filled with a wide range of perspectives and words. Equality. Gay marriage. These
funny topographic theories called “slippery slopes.” I have family and friends who are so extremely “right,”
they can be used for angular measurements, and family and friends who are so
far “left,” they’re pretty much gone. I am naturally a peacemaker and a
people-pleaser. So I try to avoid stirring the proverbial pot, knowing whatever
stance I take is going to ruffle the feathers of one or more of the wonderful
odd birds in my life. Especially when
it comes to politics.
But I’ve decided this really, really isn’t about politics.
It’s about people. It’s about love. And it’s about time that I weighed in
clearly with my two cents. So, here goes:
 |
"All marriage between a white person and a
negro... to the third generation inclusive...
are hereby forever prohibited." Looks like
forever just isn't what it used to be, racists! |
I don’t buy the
“slippery slope” argument. In fact, I get offended when I hear the “Well,
if two guys or two girls are allowed to marry, then what’s next? Polygamy!
Incest! Adults marrying kids! People marrying animals! It’s just such a
slippery slope!” No, actually, it isn’t. Two consenting adults wanting to get
married should not be compared to children, or animals, or anything other than
two consenting adults.
And by the way, you should know, if you don’t already:
this is the exact – THE EXACT – argument that was made regarding interracial
marriage. Ready for this?
It is clear from the
most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this
question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and
problems ... the state's prohibition of
interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the
prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription
of minimum ages at which people may marry… (Excerpt from Virginia Assistant
District Attorney R. D. McIlwaine III, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the
1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws. Yeah, he lost. But for the record, this was the on-the-record lawyer-talk. Outside the courtroom, people said much worse, far less eloquent things about interracial marriage.)
The argument was racist, baseless fear-mongering then, and it’s homophobic, baseless fear-mongering now, and
it’s wrong in both instances. Two consenting adults, regardless of race,
regardless of income level, regardless of gender. Period. Solid footing. No
slipping here.
I don’t buy the
“biblical definition of marriage” argument. There are actually several points I can
make on this front. (More than you’d think. I minored in Hebrew Language &
Literature in college, took seven semesters of Hebrew, and a fascinating course
called Christian & Jewish Perspectives on Homosexuality.) But I’m gonna
leave it at these three fairly straightforward reasons why I find this argument bogus.
 |
| Anyone know who created this visual? |
First, see the image: the bible has a
TON of examples about what a marriage looks like. We just don’t like to
cling to most of ‘em.
Second, as I’ve said before – I tend to
err
on the side of love. And you know what? So do mainstream religious texts,
when we let them. If you want to find something in sacred texts that will give you permission to hate, well, yes, you'll find it.
But if you want to find commandments to love - you'll find plenty of love to guide you through the rest. So why should a handful of potentially anti-equality verses be
given MORE weight than the hundreds of times we are told to love, honor,
respect, pursue justice, forgive – you get the idea. Also, do I smell bacon on
your breath?
Third, none of this should really matter to the legal argument in this country. Because this argument is fundamentally a religious one, and we are supposed to protect all people here, thanks to the separation of church and state. So why, in this instance, are we so swayed by purely religious arguments? Shouldn't we simply be looking at any potential harm to our society? (And then, finding none, move forward - which leads to the next point.)
I don’t buy the
“think of the children!” argument. Study after study show that kids raised
by two parents of the same gender turn out just freakin’ fine. And they are no
more likely to wind up gay than kids raised by two parents of different
genders. (And if they did wind up gay, wouldn’t it be great for them to not
have to wonder what their parents’ reactions might be?) Also, most gay adults
walking around today are the product of heterosexual parents. True story.
Do you have any other
arguments you want to throw at me? Because I probably won’t buy those,
either. I don’t believe there is any legitimate argument to justify why, in a
free and democratic nation, we would deny our fellow citizens the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever your fiscal stance, whatever your feeling on other “morality” issues, I find the position against
gay marriage to be a tough one to defend. It’s
right for me, but wrong for you? I deserve this, you don't? I don’t believe that’s a moral stance.
What I do believe is that this is the civil rights struggle of our time. What I do believe is that love will ultimately win out over
hate. What I do believe is that someday, if, in fact, I do get married and have
children, my kids will ask me about this struggle. And I want to be able to look them in
the eye and say, “Yes, it was terrible. People were really prejudiced.
Sometimes it takes time to change minds and help people learn how to treat each
other with respect. But your mommy and daddy did what we could to make things
better, and so did a lot of other people, and you know what? It got better.
Now, put on your shoes. We’re going to go visit your uncles.”
