When discussing the recent elections, I conspicuously avoided mention of Maryland’s Question 6. I thought that the topic deserved a blog of its own, and wouldn’t be justified being crammed in with the other concerns I was addressing.
But the time has come at last. I bring you another edition of The Cutter’s Guide to Fixing America where I discuss the topic of gay marriage.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Question 6, here is the exact text as supplied by Ballotpedia:
Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
I voted for Question 6.
Why did I vote for it? Well, why not? If two American citizens are in love and want to spend their lives together, why should I oppose them getting married, just because they happen to be the same gender?
I’ve read up on the groups that opposed Question 6. One of the most prominent was the Maryland Marriage Alliance (MMA). By visiting their website, I was able to compile a list of the main arguments against allowing same-gender marriage.
It lessens and weakens the traditional definition of marriage
The best I can tell, the MMA feels that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, and if we change the definition, it will weaken the institution of marriage.
Hey, I appreciate traditions as much as the next person. But sometimes, we’ve got to change and adjust our traditions a bit to fit in with the times.
For example, let me remind you of some traditions we used to have in America: Pitchers would bat in the American League, women couldn’t vote, and people were given fewer rights just due to the color of their skin. Also, at one time, people were legally allowed to own other people as slaves.
If it is your family’s tradition to only have heterosexual marriages, then I fully encourage you to marry someone of the opposite gender. Allowing same-gender marriage is not going to stop you from doing that.
I’m also not sure how same-gender marriages lessens traditional marriage in any way. If two men get married, how does that affect what anyone else has? After Question 6 passed, I certainly did not wake up and say to Mrs. Cutter, “You know, marriage just isn’t what it used to be. Let’s start cheating on each other and/or get divorced.”
If you really want some examples of lessening the institution of marriage, here are some examples:
Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries
Somehow I think that most same-gender marriages will be able to surpass those lofty standards.
We’re not prejudiced! We just want to deny people civil rights!
Apparently, the MMA is not completely oblivious. They knew that some people might accuse them of being against civil rights, so they defend themselves with this statement:
Isn’t same-sex marriage a civil right?
No. Gay activists have worked hard to compare the same-sex marriage movement to the civil rights movement. The reality is that during the Civil Rights Movement African-Americans were literally being dragged from their homes and murdered. They were denied access to education, health care, jobs and even the freedom to come and go as they pleased. The comparison is actually offensive.
So in other words: Because there were previous civil rights offenses that were much worse, what we’re doing isn’t bad at all!
This would be akin to opposing the African-American Civil Right Movement by claiming:
During the Holocaust, Jews were routinely rounded up, placed into concentration camps, forced into labor, had medical experiments performed on them, and murdered. All we are doing is denying access to education, health care, jobs, and the freedom to come and go as they please. The comparison is actually offensive.
It doesn’t matter the scope of the offense. You are still trying to deny people a civil right.
Supposedly, the MMA’s ultimate motivation for opposing gay marriage is because of the children.
Here’s a quote from their website:
Perhaps most importantly, redefining marriage shifts the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship resulting in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two ‘parents’ will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children. And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct.
I don’t know how they can write something like this and still claim that they are not prejudiced against gay people. This statement basically says that only a man and a woman together can properly raise a child, and that a gay couple could not possibly raise a child as well.
I can tell you that heterosexuals do not necessarily make better parents than homosexuals. In fact, because homosexuals generally have to go through a much tougher process just to have kids, there is a greater chance that they’ll be more dedicated parents.
It certainly gives them more incentive than the couple who says, “Oops, we forgot birth control this month. Guess we got another mouth to feed.”
I wonder if members of the MMA are aware that even in male-female marriages, everyone does not fall into the usual gender stereotypes. Sometimes, the wife will work, while the husband is the stay-at-home caretaker. Sometimes, the wife might be into more traditionally masculine pastimes like sports or hunting, while the man is more interested in cooking or decorating.
Should these couples be forbidden from marrying and raising children as well? Unfortunately, if some members of the MMA gave you a truly honest answer, they probably would say yes.
Another quote from MMA’s site in which they show concern for the children:
Will my child be taught that gay marriage is OK if same-sex marriage is made law?
In states where the definition of marriage has been redefined, academic instructions are beginning to change to reflect the law. In some cases the change is so drastic that middle schoolers and teens are being taught about the details of homosexual acts.
Middle schoolers are being taught the details of homosexual acts? Embellish much? I am pretty sure that the teacher isn’t wheeling in a TV set and showing the kids some gay pornography. (I’ll be honest with you. When I was a middle school student, being shown porn in school would have been the greatest thing ever. My mind would have been SO blown.) Nor are teachers encouraging student to become gay or anything along those lines.
All they did was assign a book in which two men fall in love. The students are merely being taught that people of the same gender can sometimes fall in love. You know, the way it sometimes happens in real life?
And if the law states that people of the same gender can marry, shouldn’t we have the school curriculum reflect that? Doesn’t it benefit our children to teach them how things are in the real world?
It should be obvious that none of these are the real reason why people are against same-gender marriage.
Fortunately, I have learned what their real motivation is. They’re scared that if we allow homosexuals to marry, then the apocalypse will soon arrive, heralded by Nazis riding on dinosaurs. I think the television show “Drawn Together” nailed it perfectly:
You know, they might have a point. Maybe I should have voted “No” on Question 6.
Oh well, too late now! Bring on the Nazi dinosaurs!