Adam & Steve: A Lack of Liberty
Numerous debates plague our politics these days, and one that affects me directly is the issue of gay marriage. People from every background and lifestyle seem to have a strong opinion on this topic, so I’ve decided to join them. Contrary to popular belief, homosexual citizens are actually people too, and therefore deserve the same equality afforded to all heterosexual citizens. Homosexual citizens deserve the same marriage rights as any other citizens, because it is unjust for a government to practice such deplorable discrimination.
The reason this issue affects me is because my aunts are lesbians and when I say my aunts, I mean my mother’s sister and her partner. They are wonderful people who have helped shape me as a person, a fact that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Both women are therapists in Massachusetts, one of the few states that doesn’t discriminate against homosexuality. Their field of work is one devoted to helping people with their situations, ranging from abusive parents to even sexual orientation. My aunts are two of the most charitable people I’ve ever met, often donating larges sums of money to organizations like Heffer Project and The World Wildlife Foundation. These women deserve the same rights afforded to the rest of us, and discriminating against them is just as heinous as racism or sexism.
I find it hard to have a logical discussion with anyone who happens to be against gay marriage, mainly because his or her only argument against it is that Christianity doesn’t condone it. That argument is pathetic and sickening, because saying Christians are against homosexuality is implying that the All-Mighty Creator of humanity is also the All-Loving Faggot-Hater of humanity. America doesn’t have a single designated religion, and every type of religion is tolerated. I could set down an apple and an orange, make them the quintessential creators of the world in the book I write about it, and I’d have created a new religion. That, of course, would be illogical and completely unfounded, but so is a government that mandates what type of marriage is allowed, and which aren’t. This hypocrisy is what fueled the entire civil rights movement of the 1960s, a movement that has taken a new shape today.
Marriage is no longer a solely religious rite. While most Christian religions still conduct marriage ceremonies, federal and state paperwork must also be filled out. Even if a priest or a rabbi witnesses a marriage, the government is ultimately the only one that legally recognizes it. This is why Elvis can marry you in Las Vegas, and why religion is no longer the most important factor in marriage. Though marriage may be sanctified within certain religions, religion is no longer sanctified in marriage. Another rebuttal to the sanctity of marriage argument is that marriage isn’t exactly a sacred thing anymore. The divorce rate in America is alarmingly high, and the reaction to a couple that has been married for 10 years is that of shock and reverence. Often, the marriage of a homosexual couple lasts far longer than the average heterosexual marriage, since their struggle for marriage brings them closer together and strengthens their bond.
Another religious argument against homosexuality is that a marriage between homosexuals would yield no biological children. However, there are several counters to this logic. Firstly, gay parents often adopt children, and considering their struggles for marriage rights, they would likely turn out to be dedicated and supportive parents. There are millions of children around the world, children that were created by uncaring heterosexual parents, who are just waiting to be adopted. Secondly, if the whole purpose of marriage is to raise legitimate children, why are heterosexual parents without kids not penalized? Their relationship is just as unfruitful as two homosexual parents, yet they have the power to change that, biologically. They should be discriminated against as well, and have their marriage rights revoked, since they never reared children.
One of the more ridiculous arguments against gay marriage is the idea that gay marriage will infringe upon people’s religious freedom. By saying that, they imply that gay people directly affect their ability to be religious, and that somehow homosexuals stop them from believing in God. That argument is incredibly asinine, because homosexuals have no affect on your life unless you let them. This is akin to saying I shouldn’t park my car in front of a tree because it stops your dog from being able to pee on that tree. Dogs pee on any tree they feel like, regardless of the cars that may be in the vicinity. My dog isn’t a discriminatory “peeist” and is allowed to do his business without the disruption of every person walking by. Marriage rights should be the same way, since marriage only truly affects the families at hand. When I drive by a wedding to which I’m not invited, it doesn’t affect me whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual. The whole argument against freedom of marriage is a sickening use of hatred towards the unfamiliar, analogous to racism and sexism. Using religious freedom as a scapegoat for a fear of someone’s different lifestyle is pathetic and craven, and enlisting the government to support your cowardice is even worse.
When did it become the government’s job to tell people how to live their lives? Wasn’t the Constitution founded so that the government was for the people, by the people, not the other way around? I’m not a proponent of “big government” by any means, but I don’t think that people who do support it want a Congress that can decide where dogs can pee and where people can park their cars. The same should be true of marriage, and the government should exist only, in that respect, to allow marriage, not to limit it.
Overall, I don’t think anyone should have the power to decide who gets married and who doesn’t in the eyes of the law. Discrimination against homosexuality should hold the same societal taboo as discriminating against black people or women, both of which became illegal long ago. There needs to be a word created that holds the same weight as the words racist or sexist, so that when someone victimizes homosexuals, they can be called a queerist. Telling one couple they can be married and another they can’t be is prejudiced, and should be as effective as telling someone their face is made of apple while another person’s is made of pear ? it should be downright unfruitful.