Gay Marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act

Legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act frustrates me. I have heard the arguments against gay marriage over and over again, yet I cannot find an argument that compels me to oppose it. What do we, as a society, gain from excluding so many people from the civil rights that the rest of us enjoy? How are homosexual relationships an “attack” on the family? I don’t see how granting homosexual couples equal protection and basic rights such as hospital visitation and joint tax filing attacks the family. With such a high percentage of Americans getting divorced, I see that as a bigger issue to focus on rather than trying to keep people from getting married. How does a gay marriage attack your family? It’s a ridiculous idea. It’s like suggesting there are gay recruiters going around trying to make kids gay. It isn’t a lifestyle or a choice, it’s just the way you are. Nobody can recall making a conscious decision about who to be attracted to. I could no more decide to become gay than a gay person could decide to become straight. Many in politics address the issue of gay marriage in an ignorant way, like homosexuality is a disease. During the 2008 election cycle, “Joe the Plumber” said that while he has gay friends, he’d never let them around his children. Really? First of all, that makes me highly doubt that he actually has gay friends – he was just trying to not sound ignorant and bigoted. He wanted to sound like he understood gay people, and in the process made it very clear that he does not and that he is, in fact, ignorant and bigoted. They’re gay, not pedophiles. They’re not going to do anything to your children. They’re not going to turn your kids gay. The suggestion that people can be “converted” is downright ridiculous and insulting. It’s just like when Ted Haggard went to be “treated” for homosexuality. He’s not “cured” because you can’t be cured of something that isn’t a disease or deformity. There’s an episode of South Park where Butters, an 8-year-old boy, is sent to a “Pray the Gay Away” camp because the adults are convinced that he’s “confused”. At the end of the episode, he says “That's it. I am sick and tired of everyone telling me I'm confused. I wasn't confused until other people started telling me I was. You know what I think? I think maybe you're the ones who are confused. I'm not going to be confused anymore just because you say I should be. (South Park Studios)” This is significant because Butters is pointing out that society had decided that it wasn’t ok to be gay (or “bi-curious”, as Butters is referred to as), and he didn’t even know there was anything “wrong” with him.
How is gay marriage an attack on the institution of marriage? Nobody is trying to make your church change its marriage requirements. If religious marriage requirements and civil marriage requirements had to be equivalent, no religious institutions could require someone who has been divorced to get special permission before they get remarried (or the state would have to start giving special permission for divorced persons). I also don’t see how allowing homosexuals to get married is detrimental to anyone’s marriage. How do gay people being married make a heterosexual marriage any less valid? It does nothing to change a heterosexual couple’s status; it just gives gay couples the same civil rights and equal protection as a married couple under the law.
I also don’t see why some in politics want to make it a requirement that homosexual couples are in a “committed” relationship. Though a commitment is generally required for marriages through churches, heterosexual couples are not required to prove any sort of “commitment” (except for marriages in which non-US citizens are involved). I think that the attempt to put this requirement in place is just a further attempt to undermine gay rights. Even if it was put in place, those who are advocating for it would just find another reason to not support gay rights.
This also leads into the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. Why would anyone assume that our professional military personnel are unable to work and/or behave in a professional manner with all different people? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. (Huffington Post, 2/2/10)” Plus, it isn’t like military personnel don’t already work with gay people – and know about it. General Mullen also said, “I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Everybody in the military has, and we understand that. (New York Times, 2/2/10)” The issue of harassment by higher-ranking officers is essentially a non-issue in that there would be no more harassment by openly gay personnel than there currently is by closeted homosexuals as well as harassment by personnel of the opposite gender. The issue of harassment is unrelated to sexual orientation. Harassment needs to be addressed throughout the military and among all military personnel.
We cannot say we are a nation that supports the equal protection of rights until we include all people in our laws, regardless of sexual orientation.