Go Forth and Multiply

It is a rather compelling experience to learn about something only to conclude that the new information confuses things further. This is how I feel after every ‘session’ I spend reading about same-sex marriage debates in the USA. The only comparison I can make is to a rubix cube: every time I manage to get one face in order, I end up having to destroy it to complete the next face. I realised from the outset that this topic is a rather big beast, but I am surprised to still be discovering new ‘faces’ with every session. While I know this is a topic I will re-visit here often, I am really struggling to find the right place to begin my interrogation.

It seems to me that the point of most contention is the particularly messy business of trying to discern between the traditional and civil aspects of marriage. In short:

Traditional marriage covers the religious/moral aspects of the union.

Civil marriage is essentially the legal contract by which the federal and state governments extend certain rights and responsibilities to consenting adults.

These two concepts are not mutually exclusive; any form of governance is inevitably influenced by values-based agendas that change (sometimes drastically) over time. Everyone would agree that there is a limit to what the government should spend its time (and money) regulating when it comes to marriage. Unfortunately, people disagree on exactly where that threshold should be.

Not Republicans, though. Apparently this issue unites 80% of Republicans. Candidates for the Chair of the Republican National Conference (RNC) recently cited the importance of Traditional Marriage in preserving the integrity of the nuclear family unit, providing healthy environments for children and defining who we are as Americans (link below). In their opinion, it is the government’s primary objective to ensure that marriage remains a union of one man and one woman (under God), primarily for the purpose of procreating.

Is this really what the current marriage laws do?

With very few exceptions, the requirements for people to enter into a marriage are established by state governments. The criteria have changed over time according to what is socially acceptable. The Civil Rights movement sparked the most recent major overhaul of these laws, and it was as recent as 2000 that Alabama became the last state to repeal its constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage.

At the moment, most states will consider three things:

 A couples’ genetic proximity – this is to prevent close blood relatives from marrying. Around half of states require you to go beyond your first cousin. These laws came about after sociological studies published in the mid-1840s indicated cousin marriages resulted in unfit offspring. Interestingly, further study has concluded there is no significant correlation and the USA remains one of the only countries with legal prohibition of cousin marriages.

Both individual’s ability to consent to the marriage, usually by requiring they are of a minimum age and mental capacity. I can see an argument that these traits will ensure the couple can sufficiently care for any offspring, but suspect they also go some way towards protecting the individuals entering the marriage, as vulnerable members of society, from being abused.

Both individual’s gender – the topic we are currently grappling with. Obviously two individuals of the same sex cannot procreate without some form of third-party intervention.

I suppose these requirements do go some way toward ensuring a viable breeding pair, but surely this is not a comprehensive framework for preserving the integrity of the nuclear family unit. For starters: there is no assessment of a heterosexual couples’ fertility; children are not a required outcome of marriage; nor is there a government mandate to require couples who have had children out of wedlock to get married. There is also no assessment of a couple’s long-term compatibility to consider whether, if they do have kids, they have the tenacity to stay together. Can you imagine the public response if these reforms were suggested?

Under this logic, same-sex couples have the same procreation potential as infertile heterosexual couples – yet infertile heterosexual couples are not prohibited from marrying. Nor is a marriage license required for same-sex couples or infertile heterosexual couples to have children – either through surrogacy, artificial insemination or adoption. At this point, proponents of Traditional Marriage will usually question whether or not same-sex couples can adequately parent a child and scientists all over the world are rushing to provide evidence to support one side or the other.

Has the true motivation behind preserving Traditional Marriage revealed itself yet?

How confusing is this: A 2009 poll in Iowa found that 92% of those surveyed said gay marriage in the state had led to ‘no real change’ in their lives. Yet, a 2010 poll found that only 44% of Iowans supported same-sex marriage. I know statistics aren’t to be trusted, but this does demonstrate something important: the Traditional Marriage movement is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage – it exists, quite simply, to exclude same-sex couples from equally accessing the benefits, rights and privileges associated with marriage. The arguments used are offensive and the entire debate does more to contribute to the destruction of young peoples’ mental and physical wellbeing than it does to protect children because it perpetuates the culture of hate and discrimination.

Consider how this makes me feel:

The government considers it unsuitable for me to marry my close relatives, anyone under the age of 18, anyone who is mentally incapable of making decisions or any woman. This tells me that, in the eyes of the government, homosexuality is on par with incest, paedophilia and abusing people with learning disabilities – all of which are criminal offenses.

As a young person I felt ashamed of who I was and the feelings I had; as a result, I hid myself away from friends and family until I could escape to a context where I felt safe enough to be ‘out’. I don’t ever remember anyone saying that being gay was wrong, but I concluded from the (American) world around me that it was not acceptable.

In a way I was fortunate. Not everyone can leave their situation or create a space where they can fit in, particularly when they are young. I never suffered bullying in school as a result of my sexuality but the evidence of bullying across the USA is overwhelming. It is driving bright young people to kill themselves. Where is their protection?

More importantly, where do you think these bullies draw their justification from?

Children aren’t raised solely by their parents. They mimic the behaviour of the adults around them and draw so much of their worldly understanding and self-worth from their interactions with teachers, church elders, peers and, perhaps most influential, the media. Adults are fuelling the fire of homophobia in our country. Rather than working to protect children, state and federal legislators who oppose marriage equality are complicit in perpetuating this hatred to the detriment of everyone. Rather than helping to keep families together, they are tearing families apart.

It was essentially the subtle hatred of gays in the USA that drove me to leave, so that I could be who I was without fear of discrimination. Now, with DOMA in place and the Traditional Marriage movement seemingly gaining momentum, it is the institutionalised discrimination that directly excludes me, like so many others, from returning with my foreign partner. 

Reference:

RNC Candidates debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmuJ-wtnPEI&feature=player_embedded

Public Opinion of Gay Marriage in Iowa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa