Same-Sex Marriage

How is a same-sex union is the same as a marriage? Being from Canada, I have had to watch my political leaders squabble over this issue for some time now, and at no point did any of them ever attempt to inform us as to what it is about same-sex unions that make them the same as (as in "equal to") marriage. I have written a multitude of essays (well, three to be exact) and researched either side of the debate even more times, and I am still at a loss for words when I consider how a same-sex union is the same as my marriage. The majority of the articles, web-sites, books, and scholarly essays that I have read all allude to two factors when they attempt to tell me why there ought to be same-sex marriages: love and equality (as in civil rights). This blog will attempt to use the ideas of love and equality to express why legalizing same-sex marriage is an act of injustice.

First of all, love: "Homosexual people ought to be married because they love each other." You don't need me to tell you that love is huge. From a religious perspective, Mother Theresa is often quoted as reminding us that we are all created to love and to be loved. But is that what marriage is all about? Is the capacity to love the only qualification I need to have a stable and wholesome marriage? I love my wife -- we have a good marriage. I also love my brother, would we have a good marriage? Probably not -- we could barely live with each other in the same house growing up, never mind a commitment to live together for a lifetime. Some people would reply that the love I have for my brother and for my wife are of a very different nature; others would ignore that aspect and remind me that a good marriage takes compatibility -- I certainly wouldn't argue with that one, but is that it? Is marriage a public statement that I love my spouse and that we are compatible? On the contrary, marriage is so much more than just love and compatibility.

Marriage is about commitment, a life-long commitment; marriage is also about the complimentary nature of the sexes; more importantly, marriage is about kids. The nature of marriage, then, is that it is a relationship in which children are welcomed, nourished, and formed to be full members of society. Marriage is an institution in which the ebb and flow of the dynamic relationship of the husband and wife, the ways in which they compliment and complete each other, nourishes and fashions their children, who are created manifestations of their mutual love, fidelity, and respect, into becoming capable, confident, and productive members of society. That is its nature. It is all about the kids, it is all about the complementarity of the sexes, and it is all about the life-time commitment. Is this the same as a same-sex union? Does the sexuality of two gay men, the core of who they are, compliment each other the same way as the sexuality, the psychology, and the nature of a man and a woman does? Does the relationship between a husband and a wife have the same dynamics and compliments as the spouses of a same-sex union? The answer is no. No matter how hard a man will try, he can never be a woman. He may look, talk, and act like a woman, but we need to ask ourselves if our sexual identity subsists only in our appearance and our actions. If that is the case, then by all means, a man who gets a sex change is now a woman. However, following the same logic, a woman who has been badly burnt so that all of her feminine features have been scorched away, and has lost the capacity to walk and talk, is she still a woman? That is, if we lost the apperance of being men and women, would we still be men and women? Of course. Our sexual identity must go much deeper than our appearances since men and women differ on so many ontological, emotional, and relational ways -- hence, the complimentary nature of the relationships between men and women.

The next point: Equality

When we speak of wanting equality, do we want to make everything the same, so as to abolish all stigmas and apparent divisions? Or is equality based on legal recognition and the capacity to make legally recognized choices? Does equality go deeper than "same-ness" and legal and social freedoms? Is everyone inherently equal? Many proponents of same-sex marriage attest that their plight is the very same fight for civil liberties as the African-American and feminist movements grapled with in the mid-20th century. However, the logic of same-sex marriage advocates seems to revolve around the idea that equality is only found in being legally recognized as the same, as opposed to equality being found in one's nature and substance. That is, they passionately long for legal equality, and in their struggle they claim that their argument is just since it is synonymous with the African-American fight for civil rights -- meanwhile ignoring the fact that the "African-American fight for civil rights" was about acknowledging the inherent equality found within all human persons, while a same-sex union is not at all the same as a civil marriage. If we were to follow their logic it would seem plausable that the only thing that makes African-Americans equal to the rest of Americans is the fact that they have been legally recognized as equal, their inherent nature as human persons had nothing to do with it. To illustrate my point a little further I will claim that the argument for same-sex marriage is analogous to an argument that wants to ... say ... call an orange an apple -- their nature is different, but since apples are sold more often and eaten more readily, any attempt to label them as distinct is an act of inequality and ought to be resolved. They are both fruit, not one is less than the other, but to equate them would be unjust since their nature keeps them distinct -- an orange will never be the same as an apple, just as a same-sex union will never be the same as a marriage since their very own natures keep them distinct.