Some Thoughts on Gay Marriage and DOMA

My spouse and I are very familiar with both the straight and gay worlds as we are both flaming heterosexuals with a number of gay/lesbian/bisexual friends and acquaintances. Despite our conservative religious backgrounds, whether there are gay couples (married or just living together) in our neighborhood is of no significance whatsoever to us or for raising our family. However, there must be a balanced discussion of the entire issue of gay marriage without painting any particular position or group of people as discriminatory or prejudiced.

We have straight friends who find everything about the gay community “disgusting” or “immoral.” We disagree and try to explain to them that gay people (that term includes male homosexuals, female lesbians, bi-sexuals of both sexes, transgendered and trans-sexual people) are genetically and hormonally different from straight people but they are still human beings, with more similarities to straights that their particular sexual or personality traits.

Alleged differences between races, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, and other historical distinctions have been proven scientifically, biologically, and ethically false. Organ transplants depend upon the 4 blood types all humans have in varying frequency that cut through all social, economic and political groups without regard to sexual orientation. Numerous studies have indicated that gay brains may be wired differently than straight ones but there are also studies suggesting major differences between brains wired for conservative as opposed to liberal political attitudes. While environment and personal choices do affect each person’s lives, we have to admit we have little “choice” on our very influential genetic or hormonal backgrounds.

Marriage has been limited to a man and woman for most of recorded human history, which is about the past 10,000 years. However, human beings have only been on this planet (4.5 billion years old) for the last 250,000 years. What types of sexual relations were permitted during the majority of our history is anyone’s guess. But considering the physical characteristics (and some mental and immunological differences) that appear between people from different geographic areas, there must have been significant inbreeding during our human history.

For most of history human life was short and brutal. As a result, long-term relationships that did not produce healthy offspring were not readily encouraged by most social groups. Prohibitions against sibling and close relative mating in most societies probably resulted from our forefathers looking at the less-than-stellar children of those marriages long before they understood modern genetics. It is also important to note that for most of human history until the 20th century, marriage also started much earlier, most often involving arranged marriages between teenagers. And pre-marital and extra-marital affairs probably have long been the standard, not the norm of human behavior.

There have been many gay people in noteworthy historical positions. However, those in gay studies who argue that more and more famous people were closet “gays” may be pursuing arguments where no objective proof is available. It serves no one today to argue about such conjectures since the actual differences between “gay” and “straight” people are overblown and are limited to certain sexual and personality attributes – none of which objectively dominates any person’s life, unless one becomes obsessed with the differences. There have been both competent and incompetent political leaders in history – and their sexual leanings were ultimately irrelevant. The effort to normalize gay life by arguing that many famous people in history were closet gays is probably not the best approach for gaining equality with the vast majority of heterosexual people.

Most of our Western ideas about marriage came about during the Roman Empire, during the growth of Christianity during the first 4 centuries A.D. Some Romans were outwardly more tolerant of “gay” people than Christians – but the most important aspect in life was maintaining a good public appearance. Roman society – despite well-publicized debauchery and alternative lifestyles of some upper-class people and emperors – was essentially conservative and always propagated the 1-man, 1-woman traditional marriage ideal.

Most world religions embraced that traditional marriage for centuries as well. In the Far East, different but parallel religious and ethical traditions also embraced such a limited view of marriage. Again, for practical reasons, marriages without quick procreation were social, economic, and species-expanding wastes of time. Now in some places, polygamy (1 man with multiple wives) and to a lesser degree polyandry (1 woman with multiple husbands) were and are tolerated so long as those arrangements were and still are economically viable and produce children.

As far as the percentage of gay people in society, many varying studies indicate about 5% of any population likely fits into that category. However, with the breakdown of strong religious influences in modern western societies in favor of more spiritual or humanistic outlooks, more people may be free to express their sexual freedom now and in the future. My spouse and I grew up in religious traditions that stated all “gay” impulses were immoral and sinful, and that even masturbating and other acts outside of proscribed sexual positions would be sinful as well. We ultimately came to the belief that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one’s business unless physical harm or death results.

I might venture to guess that more people will come out gay or at least admit to being bi-sexual in the future, putting the alternative lifestyle percent of the population at around 10% – a socially, politically and economically significant minority. This percentage has probably held steady throughout human history as a genetic/hormonal fact regardless of whether people were accepting or gays remained in the closet. However in a small town of 1,000 people in the past, 25 people openly gay might have been tolerable with 75 more in the closet to the majority of heterosexual residents who probably were of the same religious mindset. However, in a modern city of 1 million, 100,000 openly gay people are significant and noticeable even if the overall percentage does not change from the two locations or time periods. Some conservatives friends complain that there are more “gays” today in the past. It’s not just that more have come out of the closet, there are more of all types of people in the world, so naturally every subgroup will increase as well as our overall human population has grown immensely during the past century over our previous 250,000 years on this planet.

However it may be untrue to argue that the long historical, social, economic, political, and species-advancing history of traditional marriage is just a baseless bigotry against gays. Any activity that embraces most all cultures, religions and political entities uniformly for thousands of years cannot be dismissed cavalierly. Even with the exceptions of tolerating gay people in a few past societies, plus very limited current acceptance of polygamy and polyandry in limited areas, does not automatically give rise to the need for or “rightness” of gay marriage.

Past prohibitions against inter-racial marriages in various societies are now viewed as repugnant to the equality of all humans, cannot be extended to gay marriage either. Neither can the long road from slavery to equality for all black people in the U.S. be an appropriate parallel for gay marriage, but better for treating all people equally under the law. We have learned that mixed-race, mixed-ethnic, and even mixed religious traditional marriages produce healthy and smart children who contribute to every society – President Obama is just one example. However since gay marriages are essentially biological dead-ends, that actually opens up a better argument for accepting gay marriages or unions.

My spouse and I know a number of heterosexual couples who decided to have no children or they are physically unable to have children without expensive medical intervention. Their choices are to remain childless, adopt, or go thru surrogacy and fertility treatments. However, childless heterosexual marriages are viewed as completely normal from both societal and religious perspectives. The couples are free to concentrate on their relationship rather than dealing with children. This is where the gay marriage debate might start as a point of comparison, not from arguing parity with bi-racial child-producing marriages but concentrating on accepting two people in a commited relationship without the requirement that it always produces children. Certainly with improved healthcare and longer lifespans, our human population no longer needs to worry about species continuation with more than 6 billion of us on earth.

Even if the majority of U.S. states permitted gay marriage, the largest impediment to treating all individuals equally is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects: (1) No state needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state, and (2) the federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The bill was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and was into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Essentially the law prohibits same-sex marriages from being treated the same as traditional marriages for all federal benefits of social security, taxation, medical care, and any other legal considerations.

All individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be treated equally under the law for financial, healthcare, governmental, and tax purposes. Until and unless that federal law is amended, all the anger, between opponents and proponents of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, is misdirected and essentially results in too many people getting upset over essentially secondary issues. I personally believe meaningful access to healthcare or health insurance should not depend upon a person’s marital status, job situation, or being a dependent of any other person.

The excessive criticism of Miss California, who recently finished as runner-up in the Miss USA contest, was unnecessary. The vicious attacks by the gay judge and other gay advocates for her public support of traditional marriage were unwarranted. Gay people are not going to win any arguments with the majority of Americans who still do not like them and who prefer the traditional marriage limitations with such vitriol and baseless anger. Calling people who now disagree with the Gay agenda and its particular political opinions as bigoted or hateful is not the way to advance any meaningful legal changes that would protect the civil rights of all human beings. Even President Obama stated in 2008 that he supports traditional marriage but is open to civil unions.

The word “marriage” carries much historical and religious baggage. As we move forward, gay marriage should probably be limited to civil and governmental recognition. Religious bodies should be exempt from performing or recognizing any gay unions. There will be some religious organizations that will bless such unions but those that refuse should not be subject to endless civil litigation to compel such recognition. So long as gay partners have all the same civil rights with respect to governmental programs, healthcare, and tax considerations, then that should be the ultimate goal.

Going to war against the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian, Moslem and Jewish denominations would be unproductive, mean-spirited, and ethically suspect. In fact, arguments of equal treatment under the law might even be more compelling with conservative organizations than just demanding coverage under a word with historical and serious religious overtones. The principal goal for the gay community should be full legal equality under a Constitution that specifically protects the separation of church and state. As long as the majority of Americans with moral or ethical objections view their positions are protected under the free exercise clause, they may be more willing to acomodate gay civil unions on a purely legal basis.

Some in the gay community who are throwing tantrums and yelling ugly words at people who do not share their views, including blond beauty queens with breast implants and other private citizens who have the legal and moral right to disagree, are pursuing the wrong path. These antics are a poor choice of political tactics and are completely misdirecting the necessary debate on human rights that this country is probably ready to pursue without the theatrics. The prolonged fight over symbolic gay marriage on a state-by-state basis only prolongs the battle and needless animosity between the extremes, whereas a thoughtful debate on modifying DOMA would be a better use of everyone’s time, arguments and efforts.

5/2/09 by Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ