I’ve been fighting for LGBT
rights for over 30 years. Over this
timeframe, I have listened to an ever-shrinking pool of arguments against us—none
of them convincing. Most of these have
been used in the struggle to obtain full marriage equality under the law. While I do not doubt the sincerity of some of
those who truly base their opposition on strong religious convictions, even
their arguments have become weak. For
others, I suspect homophobia, plain and simple, as the reason for denying gays
and lesbians the rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married
couples.
Many people are repulsed by gay
folks: we’re dirty, sinful, promiscuous, predatory, child-molesting, and
according to Reverend Robert Anderson of Colonial Baptist Church in
Randallstown, “deserving of death.” I wish there was a way to prove it, but I’m
willing to bet that the vast majority of people who have voted throughout the
U.S. over the years and will do so in Maryland and three other states this election
vote against same-sex marriage because of homophobia.
Few will admit it, of
course. Yet even their biblical
references from which they hide their true beliefs are suspect. “Marriage has always been a union between one
man and one woman.” Not true. King David had what, several hundred
wives? And concubines were common. When it comes to traditional marriage, which
tradition are you talking about?
Leviticus’ oft-quoted verse
whereby man lying with another man is an abomination is a point that should be
expanded. Here is where people
cherry-pick Scripture to justify their bigotry.
If homosexuality is a sin, so is eating pork and shellfish. Right near where I live there are posters
advertising a local church’s ham and oyster dinner.
The way I like to respond to
those who love to talk about “sin” is that murder is a sin. But murderers can get married. I’ve never heard a legitimate response to
that rhetorical jab.
Then there is the notion that
marriage is intended to produce babies.
The problem is, other people have babies who aren’t married, and there
are numerous couples who no longer have the ability to procreate or want
to. There is no push, however, to have
their marriage licenses revoked.
We hear all the time that
“same-sex marriage will destroy the institution.” News flash: heterosexual couples are doing a
fine job of that already with their 50 percent failure rate. And in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage
has existed longer than anywhere in the U.S., that state maintains the lowest
divorce rate in the country.
Furthermore, no one could come
up with a single instance whereby a heterosexual couple split up because a gay
or lesbian couple had their nuptials. Thus,
when they say that same-sex marriage threatens the institution or in the case
of Ravens’ player Matt Birk’s weird assertion that same-sex marriage would
“dilute” it, ask how? I’m sure you won’t
get a good answer, if at all.
“Marriage has never been
redefined before,” we’re told. Many
cultures had defined marriage in alternative ways. Until rather recently, marriage had been a
business and property arrangement between the wife’s father and the
husband. And even more recently, Loving v. Virginia redefined marriage to
allow people of different races to marry.
“Children need both a mother and
a father.” That has received more play
now that the other arguments appear unpersuasive. Most studies from reputable sources point out
that children do better with two parents as opposed to one. The findings do not reflect the gender of the
parents.
“Gays and lesbians can’t
procreate so they try to recruit children.”
That B.S. isn’t worth the space to dignify such nonsense, but it was advanced
recently and may have an effect.
The money shot: “If same-sex
marriage is approved, children will be taught about it in schools.” This is a favorite of the National
Organization for Marriage, and the ad is already running here. It is the opposition’s ace-in-the-hole when
polls show growing support for marriage equality. It worked in California the last weeks of the
campaign over Prop 8 as well as in other states. The message is designed to scare otherwise
non-religious parents who have children in school.
Though I don’t personally object
that children learn there is a diverse world out there, changing school
curricula cannot be accomplished without input from parents and local school
boards. It is not done by laws that are
enacted.
There are so many more but this
is a sample of the rationale used against us past and present.
The “love the sinner, hate the
sin” mantra has been exposed. Though the
marriage debate has been framed by Derek McCoy and his Maryland Marriage
Alliance as one in which gay people would be respected but should not be
allowed to “redefine” marriage, he showed his true colors.
During a recent town hall at the
Manna Bible Baptist Church in Baltimore, the aforementioned Rev. Anderson
talked of how the Bible states that gays and their supporters are deserving of
death. “If we don’t vote against it, than we are approving these things that
are worthy of death,” said Anderson. Seated next to the reverend was none other
than Derek McCoy, nodding and muttering in agreement.
It’s all recorded, and as much
as McCoy dismisses it, the video doesn’t lie.
To no one’s surprise, Manna took it down. McCoy, in defending Anderson’s comments said,
“Supporting traditional marriage does not make anyone anti-gay.”
Yup, we’ve heard that line before.