Tuesday, April 12, 2005

More on Gay Marriage

The fervent attacks on gay marriage began when the Massachusetts Supreme Court interpreted their state’s constitution as prohibiting the state from outlawing homosexual marriage. Thank you Massachusetts. Before this little bit of judicial chicanery, homosexuals seemed to be making slow but progressive strides toward true inclusion in our society.

But now, as we reported earlier today, conservative think tanks are producing opinion papers that implicitly link homosexuality with polygamy (and that’s not nearly as bad as what others think we’re sliding towards.).

Yes, allowing homosexuals to marry would redefine marriage as it has been known throughout the history of our country and culture. It is certainly not something to be embraced too quickly or through judicial decree. Civil unions might be a better option (a matter we will discuss in a later post). But would legalizing the unions between homosexuals be anywhere near as bad as legalizing polygamy or bestiality or incest or pedophilia?

Absolutely not. Homosexual love is still love as we define it: an undeniable, irrepressible, spiritual/physical connection between two consenting people. The idea of gay love might seem odd to those of us who are straight (it may, let’s admit, even seem repellent where sex is concerned) but that doesn’t mean homosexuals don’t share true love—and anyone who has met a homosexual couple would be hard-pressed to argue that what they share is in any way less true than what heterosexual couples share. It is inconceivable that God would give two people true love only to condemn it.

Homosexual marriage would redefine marriage, but it wouldn’t redefine love. Polygamy, bestiality, incest and pedophilia all exist far outside the bounds of what true love is. Trying to link homosexuality with real sicknesses is a false association that obscures the real debate. And it reeks of a bigotry our society needs to overcome.


Post a Comment

<< Home