How Our Leaders Should Approach Same Sex Marriage

They should tell the truth.

If, in their hearts, they support same sex marriage, they should say:

"I don't believe in discrimination - one of my guiding lights and motivating forces is, and always has been, justice and equality. I believe committed same sex couples deserve exactly the same treatment under the law as committed opposite sex couples.

"I realize that a majority of my fellow Americans may not agree with my stance on this issue, and I respect that. To be honest, I don't think Americans are ready for same sex marriage and for me, or any politician, to push the envelope on this only causes division. But I have to stand on principle and tell the truth. I think the people expect it of me and deserve nothing less. I believe, firmly, in equal rights under the law and the constitution demands nothing less."

in particular and remind them of the literally bloody struggles to secure voting and civil rights in this country. It's really pretty simple. But rather than "same sex marriage," perhaps "civil unions" is more palatable to the huddled masses?

"I don't think the government has any right to tell houses of worship how to conduct business, but as for the CIVIL rights extended to heterosexual couples, should also be extended to gays and lesbians."

And you are right on it is a human rights issue in many ways. Since the 1970s (that’s almost over 30 years now) all major medical and psychological institutions have stated that sexual orientation is not deviant, not something that needs to be “changed,” not something that determines if someone is “good” or “evil.” Yet, that is exactly what this issue comes down to for many people.

Does it really make sense to say that two people, who are committed to each other, who want to stand by each other "in sickness and in health, for better for worse, 'til death do us part" are somehow maligning the institution of Marriage? Can a rational, intelligent, and reasonable explanation be made why this is so wrong? If the argument is because it's "Against God's Will" perhaps those against it could explain to us how love and commitment is against god's will? Too many wars are fought in the name of god (whatever designation you have for him/her) for me to be swayed by that argument.

Conservatives are Scared. When the AMA, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and others said, wait, homosexuality is not an illness… people and other institutions still hung on to that notion. Some people may say “Oh, not me, I never though that way – I have friends of friends that are gay, I just don’t think they need to dirty the word and sanctity of marriage….” Yes, they can work in our society, pay taxes for our country, yet when it comes to the legal benefits of what a marriage entails (social security, insurance, estate, the right to see someone when they are seriously ill, etc.), then gays/lesbians are suddenly not “part” of our society. Our question to them should be: What gives?

People against Same Sex Marriage need to be reminded that marriage is not some sacred institution – years ago if a woman didn’t have enough in her dowry she was “passed” up for marriage, even if she was pious and righteous. Marriage was economic and about power. Marriage has many different histories – many religions arranged marriages, (yes, even in the States) – and that has nothing to do with personal commitment. Having a good dowry (or a poor dowry) had nothing to do with personal commitment. And I would not even say marriages were originally based on tradition. Marriage was originally seen as ownership – a man owned his wife, his cow, and his land. That’s why divorce was so difficult (if impossible) to get. It’s not that sexual liberation made marriage and divorce so easy – it’s that our laws became more understanding to the fact that if two people were not happy married together, then they didn’t have to be married anymore (and it didn’t have to be something so hideous as physical abuse to be the only way to get out). Sure, people would like to see that the couple at odds “tried” to make it work, in whatever ways possible – but if it doesn’t work – then they are not tied to an arcane law that says they must live out their days in misery.

Something we need to keep "on message" with is that the US would not suddenly crumble if there were a change in our marriage laws. Those who want to get married, with a religious ceremony or not, still could do so. Those who wanted a different relationship structure could also do so. The fact that certain people want to make marriage “one man, one woman only” discount that people of the same gender can love honestly, respectively, and yes, many even religiously. To legislate love between consenting adults is something I don’t understand – it used to be illegal for interracial couples to commit their bond in a “legal” ceremony. We got beyond that.

But even into the 1960s, it was illegal in most states to marry interracially. (For a very interesting look at this, and other marriage issues, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm ). The arguments against interracial marriage then were much the same from the far right against same-sex marriage now – “against natural law” -- the same reasons we have heard from our very own President of the United States. However, people who were in love and were of different ethnic origins still got married. They still wanted the commitment, and the ability to buy a house or car together, to live together, to laugh together or to be by each other's side in times of trouble. Soon, that stigma, that racism, was seen for what it was, and the laws were gradually lifted -- allowing all races to mix and mingle at will.

We need to tell those against Same Sex Marriage that when Domestic Violence, Emotional Abuse, Verbal Abuse, and Child Abuse can be eradicated from the HETEROSEXUAL lifestyle of marriage, then tell us that gays and lesbians don't have a right to profess their commitment and love to their union, and do so legally. When everyone in a HETEROSEXUAL family can meet for a holiday without any type of family strife, then tell us that gays and lesbians don't have a right to see their seriously ill loved one in the hospital because they aren't "blood" relative, and of course aren't married.

We need to remind those against "same sex unions" that heterosexuals do NOT hold a special key to the world of love. We are not special, nor are we all that compassionate. We often cannot see the world beyond our own bellybutton, it seems. But what it comes down to is fear of seeing someone that you thought was "so different" participating in the same mundane marital life as everyone else -- mortgages, bills, parent/teacher night, dirty diapers, car pools, celebrating holidays with extended family, cleaning cat barf, rushed dinners, toddler giggles, singing lullabies to a baby that’s been crying all night, laughing at inside jokes, arguing who took the trash out last, giving a huge family hug that doesn’t want to end. We need to let those who are against Same Sex Marriage know that when you see gays and lesbians this way, then they aren't so "Deviant" anymore..... they are just like you and me.... and they always were.


APA American Psychological Association Online http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

American Psychiatric Association http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

Position Statement http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

but not marriage should at least have the guts to push hard for those civil unions.