I Now Pronounce You?

The conflict over the issue of same sex marriage seems to have reached a boiling point in society today. This debate has been sparked again by the emergence of state and city governments that have begun marriages without government permission or authorization. There are three primary viewpoints within this struggle, each with it's own merits. There are those who are against homosexuality and its acceptance, those who disagree with illegal marriage, and those who support homosexuality and gay marriage. The three sides of this debate vary greatly in how the issue and people involved are defined, their belief in the cause or consequence of allowing this behavior, the evaluation or values of the situation, and the jurisdiction of the government, religion, and society to propose or halt changes like these.

Perhaps the largest difference in the debate is how the issue itself is defined, as well as the parties supporting either side. The proponents of gay marriage have defined marriage as civil right of every citizen in America. This allows comparisons to Brown vs. The Board of Education and other civil rights struggles. The mayors and civic leaders who instituted gay marriage licensing are portrayed as civil rights leaders. Indeed, "testing the law is a civil rights tradition: Jim Crow laws were undone by blacks who refused to obey them ("Road to...").

Those who only oppose illegal marriage tend to define marriage as a social norm, not a civil right. Social norms are socially accepted ideas of right and wrong, whereas a right is something that cannot be denied or defined by the government once it is granted.

"If marriage is an individual right, then it cannot be a social norm. A norm is a license for each individual to decide for himself what it good to seek. How can an individual right to marriage exclude Muslims who want more than one wife? Or bisexual women who would like to share a husband (Gallager)?"

The definition of marriage from the side of those who disagree with homosexuality is very similar to this, but with a heavier focus on tradition. From this side of the debate, usually religious in nature, marriage is defined as a tradition passed down from generation to generation. Traditions, being rooted in history and experience, are much more difficult to change than a norm or a right. "Marriage, as an institution between a man and woman, is basically for procreation. Homosexual marriage, therefore, is an oxymoron-there is no such thing. It is something else. It is two people coming together for recreation, not procreation...Marriage is the institution...where children are raised and learn the ways for right from wrong (Darby)." From this perspective, this side of the debate feels as though the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained.

But what are the consequences of the institution of gay marriage such as it is now? What are these groups trying to create or prevent?

The opponents of homosexuality in general feel that the greatest threat of the institution of same sex marriage is the impact on the traditional family and family morals. Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott from Christianity Today magazine believe that "One effect would be that sexual fidelity will be attached from the commitment of marriage." A gay man is quoted in this same article as saying "Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception." Therefore, the moral opponents of homosexuality wish to preserve marriage as a monogamous union, and they feel that homosexuals and other alternative groups would have negative consequences.

In the middle is the group who simply disagree with gay marriage as it is being handled now: without the will of the people of American behind it. A student at the University of Chicago, Manuel Lopez, sums up the this sides viewpoint by stating that, "...in commanding the state legislature to enact gay marriage, the court has shown remarkable contempt for free institutions, for public deliberation and lawmaking, and for the separation of powers." The belief here is that the legalization of same sex marriage against the will of the people is contrary to this precepts of America, in which democracy reigns and the will of the people prevails.

Those who support the idea of same sex marriage have a rather obvious consequence. They will have gained equal rights, rights that all other Americans share, while being validated in the eyes of society. In addition, they will reap the financial benefits of marriage such as tax breaks, legal sharing, etc. Some activists on this side wish to force the idea of marriage upon society, allowing adaptation to occur. Ted Gup, a professor writing an article in the Washington Post, stated that "tolerance acts first, in the knowledge that actions change attitudes, not the reverse..." and of his opponents he says, "Either they underestimate the power of adaptability or they fear its power to expose the fallacy of their objections (B1)."

The value placed on factors in this debate, although closely correlated with the definition of marriage, are also worthy of discussion.

The proponents of gay marriage feel that what they term civil rights are more important than tradition or norms. Part of their evaluation of the conflict is based on their definition of marriage, and their comparisons to the civil rights struggles of the mid 20th century give fuel to these claims. They also believe that a civil right must be identical to heterosexual Americans, which shows that acceptance is a major part of this conflict. "...rejected the notion that civil unions were the same as marriage itself...Only marriage conveys the love and commitment that others automatically understand and respect.