Thoughts on Gay Marriage

As many of you likely know, over the past few days, there has been a lot of hubbub about the Supreme Court's hearings on 'gay marriage' cases, one of them centering around California's highly-controversial Proposition 8 and the other addressing the equally-contested Defense of Marriage Act. You've likely seen a lot Facebook profile pictures changed to the red and pink equals sign over the past day or so, and you'll likely see a lot of heated arguments-- I use that word intentionally in favor of 'discussions'-- on social media platforms over the next while.

I wanted to do an overview of some of the rights that LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) activists are seeking, and I'll add my thoughts on each as I go. Then, once I'm done with that, I'll blah-blah for a little while about what's going on between my ears in terms of the question in general. If you stay for nothing else, at least skip to the end and read the last three or four paragraphs worth of closing commentary. I get less long-winded as I write, so you have a better chance of it being short-ish.  :)

 I think it's important to define what we're really talking about here, because the different sides spend so much time bickering and arguing over what means what that everyone's too tired to listen to what anyone is actually saying. So the following list will cover rights that are currently denied gay couples seeking legal recognition for their long-term, committed relationships (comparable to what traditional marriage supporters would call "marriage"). This is by no means meant to be a comprehensive list, and also, I'm not going to use the 'M' word, because I think to really understand this debate from a legal point of view, we have to set marriage aside and look at the issues. I'll come back to marriage and all that later, though.



RIGHTS CURRENTLY DENIED LGBT COUPLES UNDER CURRENT LEGISLATION

• Equal access to housing -- Basically, this is right on. There need to be regulations ensuring non-discrimination in the housing market. Housing needs to be both affordable and available for those in need, regardless of sexual orientation.
• Joint ownership of property -- This extends into a lot of finer details, but basically, there are no laws in place allowing for LGBT couples to jointly own property, to equitably divide property (and debt) in the case of dissolution of a relationship, or to inherit property in the absence of a will. Some of these can be averted through various legal measures, but from what I can tell, the process is lengthy and complicated. I see absolutely no reason why this has not been previously addressed. 
• Next-of-kin privileges for hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions -- Clearly, if a couple has sought legal recognition of their domestic partnership, the two have some sort of interest in the well-being of their respective partners. I'm not saying that partners or spouses or kids are better able to make decisions than, for example, a non-relative doctor or a social worker, but at the same time, if we afford heterosexual couples those privileges, they ought to be similarly afforded to those seeking alternative lifestyles.
• Access to joint medical, homeowner's, and automobile insurance -- This is pretty self-explanatory. Something like this has no connection with gender or sexual orientation, unless of course you are saying that teenage guys and old ladies are bad drivers, and then you'd be right.
• Social security benefits, joint tax benefits, etc. -- This entails a whole slew of financial benefits, but I want to clarify that here, I'm talking about only those benefits associated with the partnership itself and not with having children. That distinction is important, I think, because such benefits are given for different purposes. Supporters of traditional marriage might contend that marriage tax benefits are given to provide for greater stability, which in turn facilitates having children. I agree, but I would rebut that whether or not a couple has children, long-term, committed relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, do in fact, to some extent or another, lend to the stability of the nation as a whole. I am perhaps going out on a limb in saying this, but I feel that that-- namely stability within the nation-- is the primary purpose of those specific tax benefits, regardless of the desire or ability of parents to conceive children. If it were the case otherwise, heterosexual couples choosing to abstain from bearing children and those physically or emotionally incapable of bearing children would have to be likewise excluded. However, I'll address "child tax credits" and other similar benefits below.
•  "Child tax credits" and other similar benefits -- In short, because LGBT couples cannot jointly adopt children in many states, they may lose out on tax benefits associated with childcare. I personally believe that the best place for children is in a home with a mother and a father. That, I hold to unequivocally, and you can think whatever you want about me for it. The reality is, though, that there are a lot of kids-- likely well over three hundred thousand, if stats from 2005 are at all indicative-- that are already being raised by LGBT parents. The tax benefits, according to their nature, are given to better enable parents to adequately care for their children, and on one hand, denying LGBT couples those monetary benefits seems like it would disservice only the children. However, I can't adequately separate the religious and the political aspects of this specific question, so I remain neutral on this one and state simply that it is a right that LGBT couples are vying for.
• Adoption of children -- This is, as with the previous question, one where my personal religious and social beliefs (i.e. both from a spiritual and a secular point of view) conflict with the interests of the LGBT community. I hold that a family with a single mother and a single father is the best place to raise children, so while I recognize that LGBT couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples (or more so), I still personally can't support gay adoptions. That's a huge can on worms, though, so I'll have to address that in a different post if there's any general interest in hearing my thoughts on the topic.

There are a other rights in question as well, but this was not meant to be comprehensive. Rather, it was meant to highlight some specific trends within our modern culture. See, the problem is we've confounded two very different questions in one big, nonsensical shouting match, and it's not doing anything to take us closer to understanding one another or solving any sort of problem. Rather, it is unnecessarily dividing us and forcing us into ideological corners that restrict us from seeing the whole picture.

Photo by Tiffany Gill

With the exception of the adoption question and issues associated directly with it, supporters of traditional marriage and LGBT rights activists are talking about two entirely different questions. The traditional marriage guys are shouting, "Protect marriage!" and the LGBT community is shouting, "Protect our rights!" but all the marriage supporters hear is "Destroy marriage!" and all the LGBT community hears is "Deny them their rights!" I get the feeling that LGBT activists aren't concerned so much about the word 'marriage' as they are about the rights, and I might be wrong, but I think it's safe to say that most supporters of traditional marriage aren't so opposed to extending basic rights so long as the idea of marriage is protected and preserved. Obviously, there are still some big questions to be sorted out, but I think we're not listening to each other very much, and that's where most of the conflict arises. 

I almost wonder whether most of the problems would disappear if LGBT activists called it garriage instead of marriage.

So..... to state my views concisely (which apparently is not a strength, judging by the length of this post), I support LGBT rights. I don't support LGBT adoptions, but I think that's a question that we, as a society, need to set aside and discuss separately, as it centers around entirely different questions and in my opinion represents the primary source of conflict between LGBT activists and supporters of traditional marriage. Most everything else, I think, can be resolved if the different groups will try to recognize each other's point of view and work toward meeting the needs of all involved parties.

We like to wrap things and people in neat little brown packages with string, because then the world is much easier to comprehend. We don't have to worry about what's inside, and we can go about sorting and labeling everything and everyone without further thought. But that's not how people work. And that's not how politics should work, either.

To my LGBT friends that are trying to find their place in the world, I love you all. I think about you a lot more than you maybe think I do.