Response to an Anti-Gay Fellow Student

An anti-gay student in one of my classes sent me a rather lengthy defense of her opposition to same-sex marriage. I thought some of you might appreciate reading the response that I wrote back to her. For the record, she is a conservative Christian from Georgia. She's also a young black woman who's an Obama supporter, and is only "conservative" on a few wedge issues, like same-sex marriage and reproductive choice.

*****************

Axxxxxxxx,

I got your e-mail. I am disappointed by the vehement tone that you take in opposition to my legal right to marry. Please let me explain why I think you should reconsider--not your religious objection, but your legal one.

The first thing I want to look at is your claim that same-sex marriage could subject the children of same-sex couples to increased social hardship. I agree with you that it’s unfair for children to suffer because the relationship of their parents does not meet society’s approval. However, you haven’t presented any actual reasons why you think that permitting same-sex marriage would add to the burden that these children are unfairly forced by society to carry. The ridicule and teasing of children who have same-sex parents (or are GLBT themselves) is a sad fact of life, whether their parents are married or not. So why do you think it would be any worse if their parents were married? I actually believe the opposite—that legalizing same-sex marriage would go a long way toward normalizing gay couples in society, thus reducing the amount of social hardship that these kids go through because their parents are “different.” But more importantly, I think you're placing the blame on the wrong parties. If the children of same-sex couples are being abused by cruel, judgemental people, the blame lies squarely with the people who are cruel enough to verbally and emotionally abuse innocent children. You are blaming the victims here, and that is incredibly unfair. What makes more moral sense--for people to re-arrange their lives and hide their relationships in order to avoid cruelty and persecution, or for vicious people to just stop persecuting other people--especially innocent children?

Next, I'd like to address your argument that same-sex marriage is against God's will. As a general rule, arguments that invoke God or religion in opposition to same-sex marriage aren’t very effective ones, because everybody has different ideas about God and religion. One person’s religious beliefs and values might be in complete contrast and opposition to someone else’s beliefs and values. If your religion says that gay marriage is wrong, and my religion (or lack of one) says that it’s perfectly fine, why should I be forced to adhere to your religious doctrine rather than my own beliefs? Your argument also neglects to consider the fact that there are plenty of religions and faiths (the United Church of Christ, for example--Obama's church) that are perfectly accepting of same-sex marriage. The law is supposed to be neutral toward religion (as per the First Amendment of the Constitution) in order to protect religious liberty. If we permit one set of beliefs to reign supreme as the law of the land, how are we upholding our duty as Americans to promote and protect religious freedom? It isn't freedom if it's forced. In fact, you might consider that your own denomination of the Christian faith requires people earn their "salvation" on their own, by making "godly" choices. If the "ungodly" choices are illegal, then by your own dogma, how can anyone reap the spiritual benefits of choosing rightly? Salvation and faith cannot be imposed unwillingly. Anything less than a free-will acceptance of the "salvation" you speak of is nothing more than a false facade. How can false faith and forced virtue be pleasing to God?

Your next argument is that marriage is a "covenant with God," and is therefore sacred and meant only to be permitted under God's rules. Unfortunately, your argument is limited to only one narrow interpretation and belief about God and marriage; it doesn’t address the fact that there are thousands of other individual and ecclesiastical interpretations of God, in many of which same-sex marriage is perfectly acceptable. It also doesn't negate the fact that the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing religious dogma as secular law, so that nobody is forced to abide by a religious view that they don’t agree with. Either you believe that religion should be enforced by law, or you believe in the First Amendment of the Constitution--you cannot logically or fully believe in both. Therefore, arguing in favor of forced religion places you in direct opposition to the oldest and most cherished American "value" of all--religious liberty. One final point to make here is this: if marriage is a sacred covenant with God, then divorce is an particularly heinous sin, because you are literally breaking a covenant with God. How can anything be more disrespectful to a covenant with God than to violate it utterly? What's worse--making a promise, or breaking one? Why do you not oppose legal divorce just as strongly (if not MORE so) than you oppose same-sex marriage--especially considering the fact that Jesus himself spoke out against divorce and re-marriage? If your answer is that you can't legally force people to adhere to the Bible, and that people will have to justify their own actions to God someday, then I think you might understand a little better than point that *I* am trying to make.

You continue with the argument that same-sex couples cannot produce children, and therefore should not be permitted to marry. This statement makes the claim that marriage, by definition, is a union that is inherently meant to produce children. However, this argument is not and cannot be true, even by your own religious standards-—for example, elderly people past their childbearing years are permitted to legally marry in your church, other churches, and in secular places like courthouses. Couples who are knowingly sterile and/or infertile are also permitted to marry--again, in your church, other churches, and in secular courthouses. Because there are obviously numerous exceptions to the “marriage is for producing children” definition of marriage that you put forth with your argument, why should same-sex couples not be an exception too? Another point is worth making here--if marriage is a sacred "covenant from God" that should be kept sacred by legal means, then why are you not protesting the marriages of Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, Wiccans, and everyone else who utterly rejects your God? Why are you not trying to outlaw secular marriages, including the Las Vegas drive-through-Elvis weddings that make a mockery of this "sacred" institution? It is hypocritical to raise your voice in protest against same-sex marriage only, when many other types of marriage are every bit as much an affront to your beliefs as is same-sex marriage.

Finally, your argument that same-sex marriage violates the “history” of marriage is not the least bit sensible or convincing, because there are many "traditions" that our modern society now understands to have been very, very wrong. Marriage discrimination and prejudice against same-sex couples is no different than the myriad of other damaging traditions that we have shed along the wayside as our society has increased in liberty and freedom. Any tradition that inflicts contempt and damage upon a entire class of people who aren't hurting anyone is a bad tradition that must be struggled against and overcome, even at the cost of hardship. Arguing that history and tradition justify an action is incredibly unwise when you consider historical institutions like slavery, segregation, women as property, wife-beating, child abuse, forced marriage, marriage and sex with barely-pubescent girls, torture, war for profit, political oppression, animal abuse, rape, and all of the other traditions that used to be common and accepted, but are now seen for the atrocious affronts to human rights that they truly are. Yes, discrimination is a human tradition. So is hate. So is oppression. That doesn't make it sensible, just, or fair to defend traditions simply because they ARE traditions. Some parts of our history are better relegated in the dusty anthologies of the past, where they belong.

Feel free to write back if you want to further discuss a point I made here. Understand that I am not attempting to argue that your religion is wrong, or that you shouldn't believe in it. I am simply trying to show you how so many of the arguments you use to justify your opposition to legal same-sex marriage do not hold up well under objective scrutiny. Keep in mind, nobody is attempting to force your church (or ANY church) to accept, perform, or acknowledge same-sex couples. You are free to refuse to recognize as valid the marriages of any couple--same-sex or not--that you choose. Many churches don't recognize heterosexual marriages that are performed outside of their church, for example--and straight couples accept this without trying to force a change. The only thing that we want is the right to be legally married (with access to the secular legal benefits and responsibilities that go along with marriage,) either in an accepting church of *our* faith(s), or in a secular way that doesn't involve God at all. Yes, I know that Barack Obama disagrees with this idea right now, but even the best politicians are not always right on every issue.

Peace,

Bxxxxx

*****

Wish me luck. Maybe a chance to hear some opposing ways of looking at the things she has always taken for granted as being "true" will help open up her eyes. She supports Obama, so there must be something in her worth redeeming. She's no brainless Freeper, thank goodness. The only way to convince people of what's right is to engage them in conversation. Obama wants to do this too--I just hope that when he does, his end of the "conversation" is more substantial than simply listening to them. I understand that he wants to hear all voices, but he also needs to take a stand against the voices that are wrong. I personally believe that he will eventually lose his legal objection to same-sex marriage (if not his religious one,) but I don't want to say this to her directly--we still need every Democratic voter, after all. Even the homophobic ones. *sigh*

for people to re-arrange their lives and hide their relationships in order to avoid cruelty and persecution, or for vicious people to just stop persecuting other people--especially innocent children?"

This by far is your strongest argument, in my opinion. Otherwise, this is the best "treatise" on the subject I have ever seen. Very well done! :thumbsup:

RIGHT ON, YOU MADE YOUR POINT WITHOUT BEING MEAN! JUST AS OBAMA WOULD DO! I NOW LIVE IN GEORGIA,MOVED FROM NY... YEAH I KNOW WHY? WE ARE STILL ASKING OURSELVES THAT ONE! PEOPLE HERE ARE WAY TO SELF RIGHTEOUS,THEY ALL WANT YOU TO THINK AS THEY DO OR YOU'RE OF THEM'..I KEEP HOPING THEY WILL SEE THE LIGHT,BUT I AM LOSING THE FAITH. KEEP UP THE FIGHT AND LET US KNOW WHAT HAPPENS