Barry Slaff

The election of Barack Obama marks a major step forward for America. We now have a president who can restore our country’s image in the world, get our economy back on track, judiciously exercise his powers as Commander-in-Chief, and continue to inspire millions of new participants in the political process. With any luck, last night’s election was the beginning of great things.

Yet since its founding, our country has maintained a spectacular inconsistency between its enumerated principles and actual doings. In the beginning, all men were created equal– except for blacks, or at least two-fifths of them. We established justice– except towards people living where our countrymen wanted to expand. After our Civil War, we amended the Constitution to reaffirm our commitment to equal rights– yet another fifty years passed before women of any race could vote, and a further forty-five years expired before we achieved true institutional equality. Each milestone brings in tow conspicuous signs that we just can’t get equality right, and our most recent achievement is no exception: on the same night we elected the first black president of the United States, the most progressive state in the Union amended its constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry.

If the U.S. Constitution is any guide, laws should be designed “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Laws which seek to take away freedoms– the freedom to marry, for instance– should especially be targeted towards at least one of the above goals. Yet it’s hard to imagine how California Proposition 8 achieves anything close to any of those. Failing with my own imagination, I sought the input of others, in particular those fine citizens with the National Organization for Marriage. Their organization’s website takes this question head-on (content from their website is italicized).

Q. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

<!–more–>

A1: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A2: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

A3: “Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.”

A4: “Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

A5: “When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

A6: “One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

There actually is no harm from same-sex marriages, a truth made glaringly obvious from the sheer number of bushes beat around by all six answers. (1) simply misses the point: to restrict the definition of marriage is to restrict the freedoms of those who cannot marry, and to restrict peoples’ freedoms, the majority has to have a better argument than “because we’re the majority and we say so.” (2) should more accurately read “people who believe children should only ever be raised by one mom and one dad will be treated like bigots,” though this is the case whether or not same-sex marriages are legalized; but that’s actually not even true, because “beliefs” do not constitute bigotry. Bigotry has to involve actions which promote certain beliefs. (3) is absurd; none of those organizations currently has to endorse every legal custom to keep its access. Non-endorsement is much different than active discrimination. (4) mistakes “just as acceptable” for “just the same.” (5) again confuses having an “idea” with “bigotry,” and besides, same-sex marriages can be presented as acceptable without demeaning heterosexual marriages. (6) is a restatement of (1).

The only other significant argument this organization makes goes as follows:

Q. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

Even if we concede– and many advocates of same-sex marriage would not– that the ideal child-rearing formula involves one mother and one father, it makes no sense to render all good choices other than the “ideal” choice illegal. Laws should take away freedoms only when necessary, not exclusively permit freedoms which fit into a narrow “ideal.” It remains to make the case that same-sex parents actually are a good choice, which the scientific literature on the subject does nicely.

There is one more argument worth addressing. It is admittedly a very weak argument, but it is made so frequently that it deserves rebuttal.

Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.

The argument that traditional marriage “isn’t new” just re-treads the common “is-ought” fallacy: marriage ought to be this way because it is this way, and we ought to continue restricting marriage freedoms because that is what we do currently. It is not common sense; it’s a logical fallacy. (Of course, the two may not be mutually exclusive, which could largely explain the situation in which America currently finds itself.)

The right answer is clear: same-sex marriages do no harm and thus should be allowed. Until someone can demonstrate that they in fact do harm– to children, heterosexual couples, someone or something– there is no good reason to outlaw them, especially by amending state constitutions or our nation’s Constitution.

Of course, we should not lose sight of the big picture: last night was a big step forward, and social progress takes a lot of time and hard work. Yet while we celebrate our country’s achievements, we should not forget that we still have plenty of work to do.