Let Us Wed

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

LET US WEDIt rests on equality, liberty and even society.

Let us wed...That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only ix countries--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Great Britain, South Africa, and Spain--have given full legal status to same-sex unions. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for centuries by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of us holding hands or kissing.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else?Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the 1969, in some American states it was illegal for African-American adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was „traditional“.

Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, by this argument, be „married“. But that is to dodge the real question-why not?--and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should we be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough!

The case against same sex marriage, according to the religious right, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because we see marriage as important: we want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals’ doing, not gays’, for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, often , but not always, (we allow infertile couples to marry) and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious status. (Already some religious denominations are performing marriages). Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends. (As some proponents of the constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage would pretend to do).

The importance of marriage for society’s general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage-a so-called civil union-is not enough.Yet that civil unions would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn’t everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilization.