The topic of gay marriage has suddenly become a hot political issue in this election year. With the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordering the state to allow gay marriage and maverick clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in San Fransisco, debate is heating up on both sides. Conservatives have introduced a proposed ammendment to the federal Constitution that would define marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman. Liberal candidates for political office are usually walking a fine line between opposing legalized gay marriage but supporting civil unions as an alternative, and alienating their voter base.

I cannot come to a conclusion on where I stand on this question. My instinctive view is to oppose legalizing gay marriage. I support gay rights in so far as I do not feel a homosexual should be discriminated against, e.g. lose his or her job or be denied housing, because of his or her sexual orientation. (I do not see how denying someone a marriage license is discrimination.) However, I do not want the state to recognize homosexual behavior as equal to heterosexual behavior. Regardless of my instinctive response, I want to have a logical, well-founded take on the question, and I am frankly unable to come up with a sound argument to oppose legalized gay marriage.

The primary argument conservative opponents propose is that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. This is why they call the existing law that forbids gay marriage recognition by the federal government the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps this is true but, to quote Jesus completely out of context (and yet appropo), that seems like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. We live in a culture in which the traditional institution of marriage is under attack from many directions. The divorce rate is at or above 50%. Among younger Americans, it has become a normal part of the relationship cycle to "live together" before marriage. One could argue that, among younger people in our society, marriage has become simply something to break up the monotony (witness Britney Spears' recent marriage: "We were just looking at each other and said, 'Let's do something wild, crazy. Let's go get married, just for the hell of it'," said the short-lived groom). The rate of out-of-wedlock childbirth is 25% and growing.

All of these well-known statistics show that the value of marriage is on the decline. They represent large-scale trends in the population moving away from a traditional view of relationships and marriage. The most optimistic estimate is that only 10% of the population is homosexual, and many researchers appear to favor a much lower rate, closer to 3%. So, even if every homosexual in the country decided to marry, there would only be an impact in a few percent of the population. So why "defend" marriage by focussing on the impact of a very small group when the behaviors and attitudes in the vast majority of the population are equally undermining the institution? I'm forced to conclude that the whole thing is a mask for the real issue: they are gay!

Does the state have a clear interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples? I cannot see it, and I have tried to come up with one. The legal implications of marriage are things like tax filing status and inheiritance rules. I do not see a pressing interest in telling a gay couple they must file their taxes as singles rather than married filing jointly.

So, where does that leave me? I want to oppose gay marriage, but I cannot come up with a solid argument to support that desire. Do I then have to say I reluctantly support it? I don't know.

Last updated 03/25/2004 03:20 PM