For Better or For Worse

I do not typically tackle political or religious issues in a public forum, for many sound and unsound reasons, generally having to do with not offending people because you never know with whom you're going to need to get along, for business or social purposes, and it never hurts to not offend your friends, etc., etc., et cetera. We all know that I'm fairly argumentative, and definitely not afraid of confrontation, but until recently, I had firmly resolved to keep my opinions about political/religious/economic issues to myself, unless talking with family or engaged in civilized classroom debate. Since I have, however, decided that living in Charlottesville is a golden opportunity for me to stop pretending to be someone else, and just enjoy being myself, I have thrown my old resolve out the window, and am diving happily into my argumentative, confrontational self. That being said, and being spurred by a recent argument with my ex-husband about this particular topic (which was surprising, because I had thought we were on the same page on this topic), I'm going to briefly argue in favor of gay marriage.

As a caveat, let me make it quite clear that I will not discuss religion. Being somewhat areligious, I don't feel that I have a strong enough grasp on any religious doctrine to try and refute a ban on gay marriage within that doctrine. Furthermore, I believe that any religion which denies a human being the ability to live as a human being is not a religion worth considering (and I do say that categorically). I believe in God, big "G", but that's all I'm going to say about my beliefs at this juncture. They're inconsequential in this argument, to be honest, since my premise is that the right to marry is an inherent human right, and that the denial of it is a denial of one's humanity.

By-the-by, if you find yourself becoming offended by what I write here, let me know, and I'll be more than happy to have it out with you, albeit not publicly. We'll do it over coffee, or beer, or the phone, or Skype. And don't feel like you need to continue reading. I'm not standing over you, and won't be offended if you break off in the middle of this post (or indeed, right here).

One further caveat: I'm not gay, and have no current plans to be gay, despite a few conversations I've had with my sister about it being easier to pretend I am to stave off potential male relationships for my first few years of grad school (not altogether joking; no distractions need apply). I do not, however, need to be gay to believe that denying gay people the right to marry is just straight-up wrong.

So, as I said, the thesis of my argument is that it is a right of all human beings to marry, and that denying anyone the right to marry based on their sexual orientation is a violation of that right. Now, since I have about a half-million lawyers in my family, I am certain that someone, somewhere, will start happily constructing arguments defining exceptions to my categorical statement, all probably soundly based in current legal theory, and not one of which I find convincing or, in truth, relevant.

Humans have been getting married since, literally, the dawn of their existence. Marriage hasn't always looked like it does now, and has gone through so many permutations throughout the last several thousand years that I would find it difficult to accept any one definition of what marriage is. Even were someone to say, "Well, it's two people coming together in love to declare that love for each other publicly", I'd have to argue that, no, sorry, ever heard of arranged marriages? In fact, in the right (wrong) time and place, I'd even argue that a certain marriage would be a violation of an inherent human right (freedom), but that's a different argument for a different day. The point is that, no matter what definition you use for marriage, every human being has the right to marry. This doesn't mean they have to marry, nor does it mean that they should marry. It doesn't mean that, if it's forced on them, they have to accept marriage. It just means that, should they decide that it's something they want, then it's something they should be able to do. (And for the record, I do find the notion of needing a marriage license in order to get married repugnant.)

What makes it an inherent human right? It is inherent because it is a right with which everyone is born, regardless of class, race, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, etc., etc., and it is a right because it is bound up with that most integral and essential of all human rights: the right to direct the course of one's existence, otherwise known as freedom. If you accept that human beings have the right to be free (and if you don't accept that, then I do feel deeply, deeply sorry for you), and if you accept that gay people are human beings (and if you don't, then may I please direct you to my toilet, where other pieces of shit also float), then you must accept that gay people have the right to marry. Period. The end. No more discussion about the economic impact, the social impact, the religious impact. It is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you believe that one can "choose" to be gay, it doesn't matter whether you believe God sanctions it or not, it doesn't matter whether you believe that it will have a negative economic impact, or that we somehow have to "protect the children" (an argument which is over-used and under-important). None of these are reasons sufficient enough to change the fact that it is an inherent human right, for better or for worse, until death parts you from this world. You may kiss the bride . . . or groom. . . .