Often, when I express my position and frustration regarding gay marriage and how denying a subset of our culture the same privilege, recognized and afforded by the state, is complete and utter bullshit, I often get asked, “you are straight, what does it matter to you”. Humorously enough, the same question can be, and should often be turned around on the inquirer, “you’re straight and because someone with a different sexual proclivity wants to marry a partner of legal age and share benefits, what does it matter to you?”
With more state supreme courts extending marriage rights to both homosexual and heterosexual couples the tide may be changing, but what is the root of reasoning for those that still oppose equality for same sex couples? Many times an opponent will cite ‘traditional definition’, which seems to be code ‘I wish to remain bigoted’, or infer a slippery-slope of man marrying animals and intimate objects as a result of affording a person of legal age and consent to marry another individual of the same.
In regards to the first argument, ‘traditional definition’, it is those who toss around this term who certainly do not comprehend the earliest foundations of marital relationships. The institution of wedlock was used as a structure in order to retain/gain family wealth and increase ones societal status. Only fairly recent is the idea of marrying for ‘love’, traditionally women were considered property of the husband and he was paid a dowry for taking her on as a financial burden. Property brought into the union by the woman became the property of the husband, and quite often the families arranged the wedding at birth of the children. The romanticized notion that ‘traditional marriage’ included any semblance of ‘love’ is merely propaganda from those who wish to insulate their fragile bigotry from reality.
As for the second argument of a ‘slippery slope’, in the legal framework of nearly every society on the planet stands a clause that binding contracts may only be entered into by legal consenting adults… and marriage is no different.
So, why does the effort to refuse two consenting adults of the same sex bother me as a heterosexual? Because in reality, without a valid and reasonable argument against the practice of same sex marriage, opponents are merely trying to tamp down a segment of society which they do not understand and feel threatens some religious value. Too often throughout history, bigotry and misunderstanding led to the discrimination against a minority. If we allow such prejudice against one segment, the next time it may be a segment or sub-set of society that includes you or me, and we may be denied equality for whatever reason. At one time, during a darker part of American history, interracial marriages were denied and women were refused the right to vote because of very similar bigotry. It does not impact my life in any way to allow gay couples a right/privilege that is afforded the straight community; it will cause no difficulty in explanation to my child or lead to the downfall of western civilization.
‘Mary and Steve’ or ‘Larry and Steve’, it will be a couple who chose to share their lives, their wealth and their benefits, which is in reality the way marriage is “defined” in modern society.
