As a foreword, I'd like to dedicate a paragraph to my experience with the gay community. I have one member of my family that came out, and I'm glad they did. Homosexuals still live with the societal stigmatism of being outcasts. They are not. We're all Americans, but even more so, we're all Earthlings. They're here. They're queer. I got used to it. I also spent a good deal of time in community theater, after high school. Again, brace yourselves... there are a lot of gay people in stage theater. They weren't great people. They were just people. Some of them cool. Some were just jerks. The same as you and me. I'm also, politically, Independent. Anyone who votes on this matter or any other issue based on what a political party tells them they should do, is not only a complete fuckhead, they're also the worst American someone can be... a mindless puppet for those in power, who would do anything a politician tells them, with just a tug on their strings.
Let me also say, upfront, that I am leaving out the dogmatism of religious zealotry. They claim to have a firm grip on what God wants for us, merely because they've read the Bible 200 times. Be that as it may, I also wouldn't entertain someone's ideas on what Chewbacca wants for us, just because they've seen Star Wars 200 times. That being said, I am only dismissing the religious ideas of the opposition. If a religious person makes an intellectually based argument and thinks that God is against gay marriage, I only throw the assertion that God is against it, down the toilet. It has zero effect, in my mind, on the validity of their intellectual disagreements with gay marriage. Coming back to the question at hand, would I push the button to allow gay marriage in America? In a word...
... no.
Please continue reading, even if you are in favor of its legalization. I've put a lot of thought into this, and none of it was without painful conclusions. In my opinion, the opposition makes too strong of a case against gay marriage, at this time.
First, I'd like to make a point of semantics. There is no 'ban' on gay marriage. The reason why, is because something has to be legal at one time, in order for it to become banned. Gay marriage has never been legal, therefore, it was never banned, in the true sense of the word. This, I should point out, is the weakest of all the reasonable arguments I hope to make.
Secondly, is my belief that the state should not promote the fruitless unions of two people. I think one of the reasons that only a marriage between a man and a woman should be recognized by law, (not by our emotions), is that when a man and a woman marry each other, it usually produces children. It produces further citizens of the United States. There is not one gay couple that has ever produced a child from their relationship. Not one. Yes, it may be true that a woman can be artificially inseminated, but the baby that comes from that is still 50% of the semen donor. The child is in no way genetically linked to the other woman in the gay couple's relationship. This, obviously, holds true to one man of a gay couple who finds a woman to bear his child.
Another deciding factor was the 'slippery slope' theory. If gay marriage is allowed, what concrete argument can be made against a man marrying two women? Or three? Or ten? Moreover, if you carelessly define state sanctioned marriage based on nothing but whether two people love each other, how could you make an argument against a father marrying his daughter? Homosexuals should try to see what detrimental effect the legalization of gay marriage would have on all of us in America, (including them), instead of just thinking the opposition is ignorant and hateful. That brings me to what I see as the most convincing, and most personal, argument against gay marriage.
I have listened to and thoroughly examined the idea from folks in favor of gay marriage, who claim that the people who are opposed to gay marriage today, would have been the same people who opposed a black person and a white person getting married in 1950. On the surface, this is a potent line of reasoning. In spite of that, I believe one only needs to lightly scratch the skin of this idea, and it bleeds out profusely. Here is why.
There is a fundamental difference between a man and a woman. Anyone, gay or straight, that denies this fact, is not only being intellectually dishonest to the person they're speaking to, but they are also lying to themselves. To demonstrate why a gay couple marrying is nothing like a black person marrying a white person, I'd like you to picture two men, standing side-by-side. One of them is black. The other, white. Fundamentally, at their deepest core, is there any difference between these two men? Of course not. They are both men, period. If we didn't know them informally, we would use the same word 'mister' before their names. Not one single distinction can be made between the two of them, other than an insignificant deviation in skin color.
Now, erase either one of those men from your mind's eye, and replace him with a woman, and ask yourself the same basic question... Is there a fundamental difference, to their deepest core, between this man and this woman? I don't believe there is any other honest answer, than absolutely. There is a monumental border between who this woman is and who this man is. Whatever reason you may have for seeing this difference is irrelevant. It is fact. Gay people demonstrate this more than anyone, when they say they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, but only have an attraction to someone of the same sex. However, if you are still too stubborn to admit there is a substantial difference between men and women, ask yourself this question... Would you be in favor of all bathrooms being made gender neutral? No more men's bathrooms. No more women's bathrooms. We all go into the same public bathrooms and share stalls. If not, tell me why? Black men and white men share the same bathrooms, now, because there is no real distinction between black and white men. They're both men, end of story. But, since you insist on saying there is no difference between men and women, would you feel comfortable, (and this is especially directed at the women reading this), with a man in the bathroom stall next to you? Would you find anything unnerving about walking into a bathroom to change your tampon, and see three guys standing at the urinals look over their shoulders at you, as you walk into your stall?
As I draw this to a close, I would like to acknowledge the friends of mine that are part of the gay community. I wish you happiness in your relationships and all that you do. It is with fatigued mind and heavy heart that I would look you in the eye, and not push that button to allow you to marry your partner. Know this, though. I believe a gay couple should have every legal access to their loved one that straight couples enjoy when they wed. This includes such issues as visitations with an ill partner, power of attorney over your lifemate, should they trust you with that responsibility. And if any of you asked me to be part of a ceremony, where you and your partner publicly declare your loving devotion to each other, I would proudly stand by your side. Regretfully, however, I believe there is a difference between your relationship with your partner, and that of a man and a woman becoming one, in the eyes of the State. Please remember that, like most opinions I have, I do keep an open mind. Good reasons have led me to this tough decision, though, and only good reasons could lead me away. I, personally, hope I get to hear one. Thank you for reading.
-Keith A. Kaiser
