The Morality of Gay Marriage

(Note: I wrote this as part of a Student Voice Column about a year after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, where I'm from. I'm reposting it now to see what people think, specifically of the Torah-based arguments as well as the idea that civil unions weaken the sanctity of marriage. (I'm not proposing we get rid of civil unions, though; for now they're all we've got.)

On November 2nd, moral values were the most important issue by Bush voters; coincidentally, bans on gay marriage were passed by double-digit majorities in eleven states, nine of which went for Bush. To some, this implies that “blue states” are cesspits of morality, as if bordering on water causes depravity and sin. The religious right is calling to protect the “sanctity of marriage,” but in a country where half of all marriages end in divorce, couples can be married by an Elvis impersonator, and Star Jones’s wedding is sponsored by Wal-Mart and Budweiser, it seems reasonable to say that gay marriage is not really the biggest threat to morality. Those who think gay marriage is immoral have been misled by those who are disturbed by thought of homosexuality.

Labeling gay marriage as moral or immoral begs a simple question: where do moral values come from? Because religion is defined as an institutionalized set of beliefs, practices, and morals, it seems obvious that many people get their moral values from religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, religion is at the center of the gay marriage debate, as is shown by the much-repeated passage from the Old Testament condemning homosexuality.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination…If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be put upon them.” (Leviticus 18:22)

This passage lives in infamy as the religious right’s justification for the opposition to gay marriage. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin; gay marriage can’t be legal. End of debate.

While this argument may convince George Bush, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of the religious right, it doesn’t prove in any way that gay marriage is immoral. Though the Bible should be immaterial to the discussion of laws (even gay marriage laws) because of the separation of church and state, it isn’t necessary to do so to prove the flaws of this argument. Leviticus’s comments about homosexuality can be proved irrelevant without a secular blanket statement.

First and foremost comes the issue of the relevance itself. A satirical open letter to President Bush recently circulated on the Internet highlights this by asking:

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Leviticus 21:7. In this day and age, what would be a fair price for her (I’m pretty sure she’s still a virgin)?…I know that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean (Lev. 19:27), but may I still play football if I wear gloves?…Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit, I wear reading glasses…

Though God’s word may be eternal, the Bible is not. In the same way that it would be ridiculous to endorse slavery and to ban football on biblical passages, homosexuality cannot be condemned as an “abomination” in modern society.

The use of the word “abomination” in Leviticus is also questionable. Leviticus may have had a very different meaning than that which modern-day fundamentalists give it. As Ronda deVold, author of “Christianity and Homosexuality,” says:

…Leviticus prohibits male same-sex acts because of religious considerations, not because of sexual or moral ones. The concern was to keep Israel from taking part in Gentile practices…That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong…to make a comparison, there used to be a church law that forbade Roman Catholics to eat meat on Fridays…Yet no one believed eating meat was something wrong in itself.

Further support for deVold’s argument can be found in some biblical hairsplitting. She explains:

In these texts, the Hebrew word used to describe these behaviors or ‘abominations’ is TOEVAH…[which] literally means ‘culturally forbidden.’…the word that was intentionally not used was ZIMAH, which would have meant it was wrong in itself. The author…obviously [meant] something different than what many Christians try to make [it] mean today.

Though many religious zealots argue that homosexuality is inherently sinful, making it impossible for a religious nation such as America to legalize gay marriage, their logic is seriously flawed. Not only do Bible passages not condemn homosexuality as a sin, but when they are placed alongside other passages, they clearly no longer have relevance to contemporary society. Even from a biblical context, there is no legitimate reason to condemn homosexuality.

If homosexuality clearly is not the immoral act that the religious right claims it to be, the it becomes much more difficult to condemn gay marriage. However, the stereotype of the promiscuous gay man that caused so much fear in the '80s and '90s makes it easier said than done to dispel the idea that banning gay marriage protects the “sanctity” of the institution. Andrew Sullivan, the author of Virtually Normal, says that it isn’t gay marriage that threatens marriage as an institution; if anything, it’s the legal substitutes.

[Domestic partnerships and civil unions] allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city and qualify for benefits that had been previously reserved for heterosexual married couples…heterosexual “live-togethers” also qualify…in principle, an elderly woman and her live-in nurse could qualify, or a pair of frat buddies. [With gay marriage,] you either are or you’re not married; it’s not a complex question.

Many conservatives have an irrational fear of gay marriage, saying things like, “If two men can get married, what’s next? Two men and a woman? Will I be able to marry my dog?” Comedian Margaret Cho turns this fear on its head by pointing out that “[Conservatives] get [people] all riled up by telling them that gays are going to get married and move into their neighborhoods,” adding sarcastically, “As if a gay couple would ever choose to live in a trailer park.” Promoters of such ridiculous ideas clearly don’t understand the most fundamental requirements of marriage law (after all, a dog isn’t a consenting partner and can’t sign a marriage license). What they fail to grasp, however, is that permitting gays to marry is not what weakens the institution; as Sullivan says, with gay marriage, either you’re married or you’re not.

If the religious right could accept that homosexuality will continue to exist no matter how many gay marriage or sodomy bans are passed, half the battle for gay marriage will be won. Conservatives should recognize that legalizing gay marriage would promote morality; it would not only end the ambiguous “life partnerships” that they fear, but it would also work to end the stereotype of the promiscuous gay lifestyle that they detest. Encouraging gays to commit to one another would be a large step in the battle to defeat the promiscuous stereotype in favor of a realistic portrayal of stable relationships, the kind that gained a lot of publicity at the Boston Common last May. Married homosexual couples would be more able to pursue the typical American lifestyle of marriage and children, rather than the current laws that inherently condone a single lifestyle of promiscuous sex. If anything, the government has a moral responsibility to legalize gay marriage, rather than pursuing a constitutional amendment against it.

As a heterosexual from “the Gay State,” this is clearly a case of preaching to the converted. The protestors who showed up on the Boston Common last May with their signs preaching Leviticus and asking, “Got Aids Yet?” were ridiculed as ideologues or wackos. However, until politicians aren’t afraid to recognize that there is no legitimate basis to condemn gay marriage as immoral, gay partnerships will continue to co-exist with heterosexual marriage in the form of civil unions – and as everybody knows, the idea of “separate but equal” has worked so well for America in the past. In the early 1930s, a Republican senator from Wisconsin spoke regarding the issue of interracial marriage. He said, “This type of legal marriage must be forbidden simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.” His remark carries an uncanny “Back to the Future” quality when applied to the current gay marriage debate. In the same way that strong American ideals eventually defeated the federalization of racism, an end to legislation of homophobia will be accomplished as well.