A repost from 2006 on gay "marriage"

In light of President Obama's recent statement in support of same-gender marriage, I thought it worthwhile to repost something I posted back in 2006:

What are called cultural issues by the mass media — by which the media usually mean “guns, gays, and abortion” — are intended to divert public attention from far more serious matters. “Guns, gays and abortion” are false issues used by the media, and by those who use the media for their own purposes, to avoid reality and the difficult.

It is easy to be against an abstract evil. Abstract evils, decried in emotional or religious terms, are useful in dividing public opinion for purposes of political advantage. What the self-avowed defenders of family really seek is power and control. Gay “marriage” is a particularly useful abstraction for the several varieties of theocrats and their allies among affluent conservatives — many of whom seek to maintain a status quo beneficial to them but often detrimental to families.

SOME years ago, The Herald-Whig (Quincy, IL) printed on its Faith & Values Page a column written by Michael McManus. McManus was working on the quite logical premise that churches had a responsibility to reduce the divorce rate by adequately preparing their young people for marriage. He visited Quincy to hold a small workshop at a local church. A handful of ministers attended; many did not. The event was soon forgotten.

“Gay rights” and “gay marriage” are convenient scapegoats. Easy divorce, the abuse of wives and children (and sometimes husbands), job and workplace demands that strain family life, poverty that strains family structures, crass commercialization that demeans women, salacious marketing that bolsters unhealthy attitudes about sex — these are difficult and family un-friendly issues clergy could be dealing with. Some do.

But others prefer gay-bashing (or any of other popular diversions ranging from flag-burning to liturgical purity) because they are not only easy but safe. Guns, gays and abortion in the abstract are safe because railing against them is unlikely to impact collection plates by discomforting church members who may, in fact, be guilty of any number of the real sins that damage families — the real concerns these clergy could be talking about.

In point of fact:

• Homosexuality is neither a “choice” nor a “lifestyle.” Current research, still inadequate, suggests a neurobiological basis for sexual orientation. From Wikipedia: “Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalysed by the enzyme aromatase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinise it. If there are few androgen receptors (males with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects.[3]. It is likely that both male and female homosexuality is a result of a variation in this process[4].”

• Whatever the Bible, the Koran or other ancient religious texts do or do not say about homosexuality is irrelevant. Human knowledge today is not what it was in the ancient world. Human knowledge has advanced, despite the best efforts of an historic Western church desirous of subservience and obedience rather than use of the brains God gave us. Human knowledge about sexuality in all of its aspects is far different from what it was 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. (And if Christians must quote a biblical text, let them quote Matthew 22:37-40, the "great commandments" passage.)

• Marriage, as the word is usually understood, is a religious ritual. No church is obliged to marry anyone — homosexual or heterosexual — it doesn’t want to marry. Thus, marriage needs no governmental protection because no government can force a religious entity to marry someone it doesn’t want to marry.

• What is called marriage is also, in effect, a form of contract in civil law. (Otherwise, could atheists marry?) Some gay couples may wish a religious ritual; some may not. But there is no rational reason the civil law should not recognize the contractual commitment that two men or two women make to each other — civil union, if you will. Such committed couples should be able to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in law other committed couples enjoy with or without the benefit of religious ritual.

• Perhaps four to eight percent of the population is homosexual. No one really knows, except that the percentage is now thought to be less than the Kinsey estimate of 10 percent in 1948. There were 600,000 same-gender households that identified themselves as such in the 2000 census, or about 0.6 percent of the total adult population. Whatever the percentage, the homosexual population is but a small fraction of our 300 million people.

• This small fraction of the population — the “gay community" — is NOT the cause of a 40- to 50-percent divorce rate (depending on the region of the country); is NOT the reason for an estimated 300,000 child prostitutes roaming the streets of major cities; is NOT the reason local governments and social agencies find themselves obliged to deal with domestic violence and child sexual abuse, homelessness and drug abuse, and other aspects of family breakdown; is NOT responsible for pedophilia in the Roman church (or anywhere else; most pedophiles are heterosexual); is NOT the cause of an economic culture that imposes work and spending demands that are damaging to family life — the list could go on.

IF THOSE who denigrate and demean other human beings because of their sexual orientation were actually interested in “saving the family” they would not be on the airwaves or on the Web (or in print) spouting ignorance and hate. Rather, they would be hard at work on changing those situations that actually endanger or harm families.

Ignorance and hate are easy. Doing something real to support real families is difficult. Doing something real to support real families requires time, intelligence — and real love.