May 19, 2004 - 2:52 a.m.
State Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt: "If same-sex marriage is allowed in our law, this will be the most devastating thing in the society, in our country."
Hmm.
I'd like to examine some of the arguments against what our country (and members of my own profession) are labeling "gay marriage":
Lousy Argument No. 1: The Biblical Argument. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Genesis doesn't mention same sex marriage, so it's wrong.
Well, Genesis doesn't mention driving cars, either, so sell your Subaru back or you'll burn in hell. Parts of Leviticus say a man should not lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman. Yeah, okay, cool, except other parts of the Bible set down rules for the subjugation of women, rules for slavery, penalties for touching the skin of a dead pig, and the proper age at which a woman should be sold. Those parts, many say, were written to fit in with the times, and are no longer valid. Well... ? I'm not saying the Bible is stupid. I have one by my bed. I read it fairly regularly. But I'm saying using it to justify or rebuke two people's genuine love for one another is wrong.
Lousy Argument No. 2: The Pro-Family Argument. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry will change the family unit as we know it.
Sure, it will, in much the same way that integrating schools affected education in this country or the way that suffrage for women affected the vote in this country. Change isn't always bad, and in this case, it's a change only to people who undergo it. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does NOTHING to my family. I have relatives in Massachusetts, who live not far from town halls where same-sex couples were hitched. As far as I know, they're still married to their spouses, their houses didn't burn down, they still have jobs and none of their children have run off with the circus. Incidentally, in 1997, 1.1 million divorces were granted in the United States. Between 40 and 50 percent of marriages end that way, say current statistics. Marriage is beautiful. Families are beautiful. But things happen, and the picture of the "institution of marriage" in this country is not as pretty as it's been in years past.
Lousy Argument No. 3: What's next? Marriage between people and dogs? Cats? Bunny rabbits?
COME ON. Are you even kidding me with this one? Not only is that the most offensively ridiculous thing I've ever heard, but who would marry a dog? How would one pass the time with his or her dog spouse? Playing poker, like in that painting? What would conversations at the dinner table be like? People -- reasonable people -- normal, adjusted, sane people -- will not seek a state license to marry animals. Besides, many heterosexual couples would tell you they're already married to dogs.
Lousy Argument No. 4: It's a plot to destroy Christianity.
Yes, yes it is. It's a good thing someone spoke up -- for a second, it looked like a group of people committed to a life together almost obliterated a 2,000-year-old system of belief. Phew. That was close.
If you're a church, and you don't want to marry same-sex couples because your faith teaches that it's wrong, fine.
If you're a private citizen, and you're not particularly fond of or accepting of the way gays and lesbians live, that's OK, too.
But if you're the United States Government, where all men are created equal (even though when that was written we only meant white male land owners), and where we have a 14th Amendment for emphasis, just in case we're unsure, we've learned this time and time again: IT'S NOT OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE.
This isn't about whether Couple X should be allowed to marry. This is about whether a country should be allowed to keep them from marrying. I say no, and I say that it's not the state or federal government's place to amend their respective constitutions to forbid it. Cropsey, here in Michigan, and whomever, over in Washington, are free to believe whatever they want. They just can't force it on the rest of us.
 |
 |
