Weekend Beach Bum 

What 1950s same-sex couple would have thought that in 2004, they would be contemplating marriage? Thanks to the courage of countless LGBT activists and everyday people, the time is here. Our civil rights struggle has progressed to warp speed, and hundreds of gays and lesbians are tying the pink or lavender knot. Still, with a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the works and an Oval Office and Congress less than supportive of gay rights, our battle is not yet won. We must maintain the momentum for equal rights. To do my part, I offer you a Handy Guide to Defending Gay Marriage.

My favorite argument against gay marriage is Biblical. In my eleven years’ experience speaking out for gay rights, I have discovered that when anti-gay "logical" and "scientific" arguments have been proved nonsensical, you’re left with a religious argument. The United States Constitution draws a clear line between Church and State. We do not make laws based on religion. We make laws based on science and reason and protecting the rights of those who, without laws, would suffer silently on the sidelines. For all intents and purposes, we are a secular nation and we avoid legislating morality except in the most obvious cases. Gay marriage harms no one. When all else has failed to guide us in matters of jurisprudence, we have decided that if no one is hurt, it should not be illegal.

If we are to adopt Biblical marriage as law, homophobic politicians should not pick just one aspect of Biblical marriage. We cannot tout one line from Leviticus and ignore all other Biblical teachings. If George Bush gets his Constitutional amendment, here are some other laws we must adopt to keep in God’s graces. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chronicles 11:21). A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian shall be forbidden (Genesis 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30). Divorce shall not be permitted. (Deuteronomy 22:19, Mark 10:9). If a married man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow. If this man refuses to marry his brother’s widow or refuses to give her children, he must pay a fine of one shoe or be punished by a court. (Genesis 38:6-10, Deuteronomy 25:5-10). If Jeb Bush dies, I hope Laura is kosher with having a second first lady in the White House. Knowing George, though, he’d probably just pay the fine and surrender a Wingtip.

My second favorite argument against gay marriage is the "tradition" argument. "Marriage is traditionally defined as a union between one man and one woman," our President declared in a recent press conference. I’m all for tradition when it involves placing the same moth-eaten angel atop the Christmas tree each year, but cultures become stagnant when they cease to progress. America embraces change. Tradition and religion were the two main arguments against interracial marriage, which remained illegal in some states until 1969. Imagine what we would have lost had we never abolished the tradition of slavery and gained great black leaders for society. Imagine the cost of preserving the tradition of women not working outside the home or participating in the political process. Consider the insanity of maintaining either of these traditions, consider the insanity of denying lesbians and gays equal rights, and consider the suffering. A gay man who wants to visit his dying partner of 53 years in the hospital, who is turned away because he is not family, does not want to hear about tradition. He just wants to say good-bye.

Another of my favorite arguments against gay marriage is the Chicken Little assertion that if we legalize same-sex marriage, the sky will fall. On a recent edition of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson remarked that Canada now deeply regrets its decision to recognize same-sex marriage. This decision has "torn Canada apart" and is "threatening to bankrupt the country, costing the nation hundreds of millions of dollars in unexpected benefits to same-sex couples." I cannot believe I missed this breaking story on CNN. Americans like to joke about Canada’s being the fifty-first state, but I didn’t know our enmity for Canada ran so deep that we wouldn’t even report the nation’s imminent collapse.

Pat Robertson made this ridiculous comment just before interviewing one of our truly "great" Senators, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. In 2003, Senator Santorum compared homosexuality to incest, bigamy, adultery, and bestiality. On The 700 Club, Santorum rehashed the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage. If we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what’s to stop anyone from marrying just anyone, he asked. "What’s to stop people from marrying friends?" I have a news flash for Senator Santorum. People already can marry their friends! Gay people won’t corner the market on using marriage for purposes other than love and commitment. I went to college with two friends who married to move into an apartment together. The slippery slope argument holds no water because we are debating the issue of same-sex marriage only. I don’t know a single gay person who favors legalizing bigamy, adultery, incest, or bestiality. Gay people love their pets, but not that much.

Two final arguments against gay marriage really get my dander up. First is the allegation that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples somehow trivializes heterosexual marriage. Rosa Parks did not lessen the experience of riding in the front seat of a bus for white folks, and gay people won’t ruin heterosexual marriage. Conservatives have a lot of nerve acting as if they have a monopoly on marital bliss. Ronald Reagan divorced the mother of his two children to marry Nancy Reagan, who gave birth to their first child seven months after getting hitched. Newt Gingrich divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. Rush Limbaugh and his current wife, Marta, share six marriages and four divorces between them. Former Congressman Bob Bar of Georgia, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act, has three marriages before the age of fifty. (Which of those three marriages do you think he was defending?) Some people argue that the purpose of marriage is to sire children. To be fair, then, heterosexual couples should take fertility tests before marriage. If one partner is sterile, they should not be able to marry, and neither should couples beyond their child-bearing years.

In my email inbox today, I found a wonderful letter written to President Bush by "Steph" who lives in Wantagh, New York. The letter has been circulating the Internet (supposedly written by Bette Midler, but this is not true) as an eloquent plea to the President not to endorse a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. She implores him, "Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment."

I couldn’t have said it better myself.