Arguments against gay marriage based in religion, not law

Is the political game just a contest of semantics? I suppose your reply would depend on what… Is the political game just a contest of semantics? I suppose your reply would depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is. Or, more recently, what your definition of marriage is.

Courts in several states have been grappling with the issue of gay civil union and even — gasp — same-sex marriage. This seemingly simple issue has surprisingly high stakes, high enough that the president has endorsed the idea of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The basic argument behind this is that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow infringes on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. I’ve read many articles on the topic and I have yet to be convinced that this is a real threat to any heterosexual marriage that may be in my future.

The religious right would have us all believe that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman before God, and that any variation on this is an insult to the very idea of marriage. This argument, though, is flawed.

First, even within the long tradition of Christian religion, marriage has not always conformed to this definition. Oftentimes, there was nothing sacred about it. Instead, it was a financial union between two people who were indifferent to each other, at best, or a political union between two powerful people. Love had nothing to do with it; wealth and power were the factors that determined marriage partners.

Second, there are already thousands of marriages in the United States that do not fit these strict guidelines. Followers of non-Christian religions get married in the United States. Atheists and agnostics get married here. It happens every day.

So why is there such a stigma on homosexuality? What is the basis of this prejudice that disguises itself as guarding family values? The answer is several passages in a controversial chapter from the Bible that have been translated and analyzed by thousands of people.

Every single person I talk to seems to have a different read on the true message of the book, what is allowed and not allowed. And the passage in question — “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22) — comes only two sentences away from a passage about the uncleanness of menstruating women and in the same book that commands that no one eat blood.

The latter two beliefs don’t still hold much sway over the majority of the public, so why should the former? There seems to be no logical pattern to the embracing or discarding of Biblical beliefs.

And even if there was, even if this passage proved conclusively that the Judeo-Christian God ever has been and ever shall be against homosexuality, should that really have any bearing on the laws that our nation passes? The answer, for anyone who cares about the separation of church and state, is a resounding “no.” Individual religious beliefs should have no influence over laws and government.

But the separation of church and state hasn’t been respected lately. Instead, the president has broken a fundamental principle of U.S. law. Bush and the religious right make it their business to actively oppress a group that they consider inferior. And what is this idea of inferiority based on? The fact that a religious text may declare this group morally inferior.

And the mainstream liberal candidates for presidency are doing little to combat this blatant violation of the separation. Instead, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is playing word games. According to Foxnews.com, he said, “I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court’s decision.”

Kerry is sitting on the fence. Certainly gay rights are good, but he’s not willing to take a stand on the issue. Instead, Kerry and several other key Democrats are settling for the idea of civil unions that don’t provide the same benefits or rights as marriage.

This strikes a familiar chord with many people. It’s the old “separate but equal” routine. We’ll give you something almost like our marriage, but take away some of benefits and give it another name so that there will be no confusion. Make no mistake; this is not equality. It is one person’s morals — inspired by religion — being imposed upon another individual.

True equality and fairness would recognize that the definition of sacred is dependent on whom you ask. The sanctity of marriage is based on the idea that two people who love each other — regardless of race, class or gender — desire to make a lifelong commitment to one another.

E-mail Ginger McCall at gpm5@pitt.edu.