Marriage

I see the homosexual marriage issue as somewhat of a red herring. The grad student goes on and on about discrimination against homosexuals in ancient societies, fascist governments, and, of course, his favorite double target, Christian Conservatives (or, as liberals are wont to say, “right-wing Christians”). As an aside, that reminds me of how often supposedly tolerant liberals are indignant about stereotyping unless they’re doing the stereotyping.

The reason I view this issue as a red herring is well documented in the grad student’s diatribe. Homosexuals have suffered terrible abuse and prejudice throughout history, but are better accepted and more successful in current American society than in most societies in history (including our own, if we go back some years). This group has higher education levels than average, as well as above average home ownership, and about the same income levels as heterosexuals. Indeed, one survey noted that “…“status income” levels were slightly higher on average for gays…” The report tried to assign status to different occupations, and noted that relatively more from this group entered the educational profession, which had status, but lower pay than the average college degreed profession. So, there is no statistical evidence that discrimination has limited people in housing, education, wealth or legal status.

Further, nobody stops homosexuals from living together or becoming partners. There are very few restrictions on Wills, powers of attorney, visitation rights, assignment of benefits or life insurance for homosexuals, if those are documented. Civil unions solve the remaining few, and, as the grad student knows, I am for those (as are most Americans).

But marriage is, to me, as President Obama says, “between a man and a woman”. It is a rite, not a right. It is wholly unnecessary to impinge on and attack the culture and beliefs of a group (even the majority group) by telling them that they cannot have a rite or belief that is defined other than how the State tells them to define it. The grad student rails that those of us who want to continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman, cannot adequately prove that consenting to marriage for homosexuals would damage heterosexual marriages or families. But in a late night (for me) debate he couldn’t demonstrate how homosexuals, once allowed legal status of civil unions, would be harmed by not having the rite of marriage attached to that legal position.

The truth is, it is all about legislating acceptance and winning votes by convincing a group that they are victims and need the patronizing politician to protect them. Homosexuals have been discriminated against, and laws should be blind to sexuality. I think they are now in the vast majority of cases. There will always be prejudice against some against all…sexuality, races, religions, you, me…all of us. But this is a pretty free and pretty much equal opportunity society in my view. It’s time to move on from the politically contrived victim industry. My Christianity teaches me to try to love all, and not appoint myself as judge of others. Let’s try to be sure that our laws allow equal opportunity and our education mitigates hatred and prejudice. But let’s stop trying to legislate beliefs and values.

The Old Man