I think I’m going to lose my conservative cred for this…

When considering the matter of gay marriage, I realize there are many out there who feel homosexuality to be at odds with morality, or at least an abnormality. To be honest, I believe homosexuality to be an aberration, as it is against nature’s plan for reproduction. Males are designed to be attracted to and impregnate females while females are meant to be attracted to males and to bear offspring. What bonobos, porpoises, and little green men from Mars may do or be observed doing is irrelevant. The purpose and function of males and females is to attract a mate of the opposite gender and reproduce. It’s an irrefutable fact; feel free to find a biologist who says differently.  Whether they can or not, whether they do or not, those are different matters. However, I don’t and can’t make the claim that homosexuality is immoral. My morals aren’t universal and apply to precious few people aside from myself. Come to think of it, they apply in full only to me. I believe it’s both immoral and abnormal, thus I don’t partake. Gay ain’t my way.

Now that we have that out of the way, let us take a crack at the whole gay marriage thing. There are three categories I feel are vital to determining the legality of gay marriage. I’m going to hit them one by one and see what happens.

  1. First, can redheads get married? I mean, my God, they’re gingers! Yes. Gingers can tie the knot, too. How about people with green eyes? Blue eyes? People with one blue and one green? Yes on all counts so far. But what about blacks? Whites? Albinos? Yes again. Can blacks marry whites or vice versa? Seems so. Race doesn’t appear to be a barrier to marriage any more, but what of people born without limbs? Or with Down’s syndrome, autism, ADHD, or the like, assuming sufficient mental capacity to make such decisions? Can they get married, too? Yup. So far, so good. Wait a second. What about people born blind or with bad vision? The deaf or mute? Hm. Looks like they’re good to go, too.
  2. Second, can liberals marry? Or conservatives? Yes, indeed. Christians? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Atheists? The answer is “yes” to all the above. How about capitalists or communists? They’re good to go, just like socialists, tribalists, or anarchists. It seems the ability to marry transcends political or religious affiliations.
  3. Finally, can someone get married if they’ve undergone voluntary sterilization? Of course. What if someone is infertile due to disease or accident? Or if they’re born sterile? Yes, they can, just as an elderly couple who have passed their child-bearing years.

Well, now, look at that. We seem to have successfully shot down the three main arguments used against gay marriage. First, it doesn’t matter if gays are born gay: people born with a variety of deviations, mutations, tweaks, quirks, and conditions get married. Second, it doesn’t matter if gays choose to be that way: people of political, religious, and ideological leanings the world over get married. Lastly, the ability to procreate is no barrier to undertaking the bonds of deadlock wedlock.

So with respect to those who oppose gay marriage on religious or moral grounds, there seems to be no valid legal reason to deny gays the right to marry on either the state or federal level. For what it’s worth, I’m of the opinion that the federal government’s involvement should be limited to asking a couple’s state of residence (or state in which they got married) if there’s a valid certificate on file. Uncle Sam only needs to know if X and Y are married, and if they are, badabing, badaboom. Done. Once a marriage has been proven to be legal, it is valid for purposes of taxation or extension of benefits. Genital compatibility and use is irrelevant.

If you personally are opposed to gay marriage, then so be it. That’s your business and your right. However, your morals fall into the same category as mine. They’re applicable in their entirety only to you and to a much lesser degree to everyone else. Eventually you’ll find people to whom they apply only barely, or not at all.

To be fair, there are some morals that humanity has found to be beneficial to society and has adapted into legal code, such as laws against murder or theft. (Whether those are actually morals or places where conscience intersects with legality, or if they’re laws that have morphed into morals is another topic entirely.) Gay marriage, however, doesn’t fall into the same category as murder or theft—or of any crime at all, for that matter—nor should opposition to it be counted as virtuous as opposition to true crimes against humanity. Gay marriage is simply two adults entering into a legal contract with each other with the state as a mediator.

Is it objectionable? To some, yes. So is interracial marriage or flag-burning, yet both of those actions are allowed. Is it injurious? Only in the sense that it offends some peoples’ sensibilities, but not in that it causes physical injury (but if the thought of gay marriage does cause you physical discomfort, I suggest you pop open the yellow pages and start looking under “psychiatrists.”) The trouble is we’ve already determined that for the majority of the population, genetics, ideology, and fertility are no grounds for denying or allowing someone the right to marry, so whether your argument is that gays should not marry because it’s abnormal, because they’ve chosen a lifestyle you don’t like, or because they can’t have children, your contention holds no merit. Marriage is allowed regardless of birth, politics, religion, or biology; it cannot be legally prohibited simply because a segment of society, no matter how large, finds it “icky.”