::::::::
--originally posted on http://www.bendench.blogspot.com--
The sigh is because I feel like we shouldn't even have to bother having this discussion--and really, what could I say that hasn't already been said?--but after seeing Huckabee on The Daily Show the other day, I feel like it's worthwhile to state my position clearly.
Any marriage between consenting adult citizens should be acknowledged. Anything less would mean unequal protection under the law--which is unconstitutional.
This includes but is not limited to gay marriage, polygyny (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), group marriage (between multiple men and/or women), and even sister-brother marriage. The question is not what you or I want or approve of (honestly, I feel pretty weird about sister-brother marriage, myself)--it's what equal protection under the law entails.
I don't want adults and children to be able to marry because I don't want children to be harmed or exploited, but as long as the members of the union are consenting adults, I can think of no rational basis for denying them the right to marry. Any objections you have to the particular shape of the marriage seem better handled through vigorous social discussion than through legal prohibitions.
To paraphrase Doug Stanhope (he was talking about prostitution):
"Give me one reason why gay marriage should be illegal if it's not a church issue...
Exactly. There's no reason."
And it is about homophobia, Huckabee. You don't like being called a homophobe of course, since it takes the wind out of your argument, but that's what you are. Because fear (to some degree) is the only reason you could possibly have for denying anyone anything. I'm a pedophobe--I'm afraid of what pedophilia does to children, and that's why I oppose it. You and others that oppose gay marriage are obviously afraid of something--the question is only whether your fears are based in reality or not.
You don't give a damn about traditional marriage--the definition of which has changed regularly throughout history (read Marriage, a History by Stephanie Coontz). That's just your place to hide. And even if there were a traditional definition of marriage--which there isn't--it would be irrelevant to the conversation. That type of argument is called a fallacious appeal to tradition, because the question is not "what has been done?" but rather "what is fair?"
But I won't stress over the word. If you don't want to give marriage to everyone, give it to no one. Have the government only issue civil unions, and issue them to everyone the same. Let the individual churches decide whose civil unions they, personally, will call marriage or not. After all, there are churches that will perform gay marriages--and denying them this right would be just as unfair as forcing churches to perform gay marriages (which no one is proposing).
But I feel confident that gay marriage will gain acceptance, just as interracial marriage did before it--and against which all the same language was used. And when Prop 8 is overturned, it will be interesting to see what the religious right does.
