BY WILL GLOVINSKY

In print | Published November 20, 2008

Stirring beneath the tide of Democratic gains on Nov. 4 and whispers that we are entering a new era of progressivism was one conspicuous undertow: the constitutional prohibitions of gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida.

On a liberal campus with a very active gay and lesbian community, opposition to gay marriage can be a little difficult to come to terms with. After all, if you believe that all humans have equal rights, then how can you oppose gay marriage? But before we write off the electoral majorities of California, Florida and Arizona as bigoted, it is worth examining the anatomy of the arguments against gay marriage.

The first thing to understand is that people oppose gay marriage for different reasons. And while there certainly are some homophobic Americans who oppose gay marriage because they do not like gay people, that is not one of the principle arguments offered in the public debate.
Gay marriage opponents really cleave into two categories: traditionalists who adhere to various scriptures (and dictionaries) that define marriage normatively as the union between a man and a woman; and those who actively oppose gay marriage because of the ill-effects they believe it would have on the institution of marriage and society as a whole.

For traditionalists, a mixture of social inertia and literal religious reading stands behind opposition to gay marriage. Some Old and New Testament passages are interpreted to be condemnations of sodomy, and by extension, homosexuality. Other passages define marriage as between a man and a woman. By that religious reckoning, gay marriage would encourage and legitimize behavior considered to be sinful, and contradict God’s word on marriage.

The other faction against gay marriage grounds its opposition in the assumption that the institution of marriage is under attack, and therefore believes that traditional marriage should be preserved and bolstered rather than widened and reformed. These social opponents draw a rather tenuous connection between the advent of gay marriage and unfavorable trends in divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births and marriage rates. The theory goes that if gays and lesbians begin marrying, social norms that result in productive, healthy families will crumble, and all sorts of social woes will befall America.

While the veracity of this theory is quite easily challenged — it is hard to imagine that heterosexuals will divorce in droves, abstain from marriage or raise depraved children because homosexuals are tying the knot — the view is not exactly homophobic. However misguided the theory may be, it is grounded in social concerns of sexual norms, not a desire to refuse rights to a particular group of people.

Nonetheless, the theory is troubling. To say that gays and lesbians are unfit to raise children (a common sentiment that manifested itself politically in Arkansas this election) is simply wrong and insulting to the many happy American families with gay parents. And yet it is possible to construct a hypothetical supporter of this theory who is earnestly worried about the supposed social effects of gay marriage.

The view brings to mind the term post-racism, which has been used to describe contemporary race relations. Post-racism suggests that overt racism has been largely eradicated while institutional and subconscious racism continues to cause racial strife. Similarly, while this hypothetical opponent of gay marriage may like gay people, he still harbors anti-gay sentiments like the assumption that homosexual morality is somehow different or inappropriate.

As with the social opposition to gay marriage, it is possible to construe religious opposition in terms that are not homophobic at root. A Christian might, for example, reject the interpretation that God condemns homosexuality but accept the interpretation that marriage is the union of a man and woman.

Intolerant beliefs founded on religious teachings present a particular challenge to proponents of tolerance. Can you condemn someone for a belief that he or she finds in scripture? It depends, but the good news for gay marriage supporters is that even beliefs grounded in the Bible come and go with the times. The story of Ham’s son, whose face was “burnt” and whom Noah condemned to slavery, was long cited as a Biblical endorsement of American slavery and white supremacy, but you won’t hear many pastors talking about that today. People of faith deserve respect for the values they derive from their religions, but those values should not trample on the rights of others.

The bottom line is that opposition to gay marriage does not require homophobic beliefs, but certainly can feed off them when they are present. There is an inherent tension between this conclusion and the unequivocal terms used to defend the equal right to marriage, but it is essential to realize that the equality argument, while convincing, cannot dictate the parameters of the debate.

Will is a first-year. He can be reached at wglovin1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »