If you know me, my church, or my blog well at all, you know that I support gay rights. I think God supports gay rights. I think the sacredness of marriage is about mutual love, commitment, and respect. Period.
And if you have had the opportunity (or misfortune?) to talk with me about “the issue” in more depth, you might also know that I understand other views on the subject. I know there are certain biblical passages that lead some Christians to believe that sexual relationships–and by extension, marriage–should only be between one man and one woman.
These Christians are wrong. (Which Jesus will surely confirm for me in heaven, after a few days of him explaining everything I got wrong . . . ) But I get where they are coming from. I see how an intelligent, faithful, logical person could believe that same-sex marriage is not within God’s will for Christian people. I don’t agree. But I get it.
Here’s what I don’t get: Christians who argue that making same-sex marriage legal is a threat to “traditional” marriage. Whenever I express my dismay at this line of reasoning, my husband (who, to be fair, does cook and listen to classical music and is fashion conscious and definitely hot) says, “Well, of course I will divorce you and find some guy to marry when they legalize gay marriage in Kansas.” (A.k.a. When hell freezes . . . but we’ll save my particular state’s dysfunction for another post.)
The chairman of National Organization for [straight] Marriage, John Eastman, says that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of gay marriage this week it will discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.
I do not get this. I mean, is this something people actually believe? Or is it just the best than they can do for a legal argument because the real reasons– “I think gay sex is gross” or “Everyone should be obligated to live by my own narrowly defined moral code” or “I have anger issues due to my own repressed sexuality”–wouldn’t sound good if you actually said them out loud in front of the Supreme Court?
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would discourage heterosexual couples from marrying. Because, since Loving vs. Virginia (which legalized inter-racial marriage) you hardly ever see same-race couples anymore.
Ultimately, according to Eastman, the survival of the species is at stake. (We have not switched to a discussion of global warming. We’re still talking about gay people getting married.)
I think this is how the argument goes: If gay people get married, then non-gay people won’t want to get married as much. So we would end up with a lot of married gay people who, thanks to those pre-teen sex ed videos, we all know cannot make babies. And we wouldn’t have enough married heterosexuals to propagate the species. (Never mind that we are already threatened with over population. Never mind that it is possible for a man and a woman to make a baby whether they are married or not.)
Or, maybe the argument is more along the lines of: There won’t be enough opposite-sex couples to raise children in “healthy family structures.” (Never mind the 30 years of scientific research indicating no detrimental effects for children raised by two parents of the same gender.)
I honestly don’t know what the argument is. It makes no sense to me. And I am very interested to see if it makes any sense to the Supreme Court justices this week.
*Please note: By saying my marriage is “non-gay,” I do not mean to imply that there is a lack of joy and playfulness between my spouse and myself. It’s just that I’m female and he is male and I really don’t like the term “straight” as it implies that others are “crooked.” And, let’s face it, “heterosexual” is pretty obnoxious when used repeatedly in a blog post.
**Also, I commend to you the blog of my cyber-friend, Martha Spong (pictured above).