Gays, the state and marriage

The issue of gay marriage and the myriad debates surrounding it won’t be going away anytime soon. Even recent comments from President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden won’t put them to rest. Yet, those comments exemplify the ongoing nature of the issue.

As Mr. Obama said, his views have evolved. Good for him for admitting a change in attitude.

Attitudes do evolve, at least for many people, and that’s a good thing. While racism still exists, fewer people live that way. Attitudes about gays themselves have also changed. There was a time when homosexuality itself was a punishable offense. No more because the attitudes of most people have evolved to a greater understanding and acceptance.

Now, though, many are concerned about what gay or lesbian marriage may do to the institution of marriage itself. The divide in opinion usually stems from the use of the word marriage when applied to gay and lesbian couples who want to join their lives the way straight men and women do.

Would it be easier for the majority if those advocating gay and lesbian marriage used the words civil unions? Yes, but that’s an easy way out and doesn’t solve the issue of equal rights.

As Bill Frezza wrote in a recent Forbes op/ed piece:

“Gay marriage, or marriage equality, may be the perfect culture war battle. The populace seems roughly balanced between opposing views. These views are evolving as more citizens become comfortable with, or at least feel less threatened by, homosexuality. And the stakes are minimal relative to the more important challenges we face. This makes conditions ripe for the battle to go on for a long time.”

Frezza writes that the conventional divide comes from the conservative right’s religious view that the family is the nucleus of society while the progressive left sees a constant change in social norms and that the government should keep up with those changes.

Yet change for the sake of change is no more valid than holding onto outmoded thinking for the sake of tradition.

The evolution of attitude here begins when one lets go of the traditional use of the word marriage and starts thinking about the rights of individuals and which concept takes precedence.

The homosexual community has advocated for “marriage” because of tax and other advantages made available to married couples, and Frezza offers one solution in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment:

“Congress shall make no law, nor enact any tax, nor provide any entitlement that discriminates in any way between married and unmarried persons, nor shall any State deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws irrespective of any matrimonial status that may or may not be conferred upon them by churches or the States, respectively.”

Such an amendment won’t end the controversy, but it does address the more important issue of equal rights without getting the federal government involved in the definition of marriage.