This week Political Sigh has focused on the same-sex marriage debate. We have seen several points of view ranging from supporters to denouncers.  We have also talked to pastors and a gay male.  We have seen what they have to say.  So now, we are left wondering: what is the point?  Where is this debate going?  Can anything else be offered?  I would argue that the debate we are hearing and reading about in main stream media is pointless.  What we need to be talking about is how to find the middle path on this issue and not about whose extreme view we are going to adopt and make into a law.  But first, let’s take a step back and take a historical look at marriage.

In western civilization, marriage is an ancient custom. A father of a young man would arrange the most economically advantageous marriage for his son.  It was seen as a way to link two families and it was much more important for the higher social classes. Love never was factored into the equation. In some cases, after the wedding the bride and groom were led away to the bed chamber.  Marriage was for procreation and arranged for economic benefit. (For a very brief history on marriage, click here) The church was not really involved in the issue.

It is recent phenomenon that people can marry for love and that the church is taking a stronger role in pre-wedding, marriage and post-marriage activities. Here is where things get tricky, I think. Supporters of same-sex marriage believe that if straight couples can get married for love, then why can’t gay couples do the same?  It is only fair. On the other side, we have a segment of the population that believes in the traditional idea of marriage (even though it is still a fairly recent practice) as a love match that will eventually produce children.  I think the issue here is not so much about same-sex marriage, as it is that gay couples cannot procreate. The folks who support same-sex marriage are not as bogged down with the traditional viewpoints, but they do to believe in love.  You love someone, so get married.  If you have kids that is great and if not that is fine too. It is your choice.

This notion of the modern idea of family stems from the 1950s when suburban life was at its peak.  There were TV shows like “Leave it to Beaver” that featured the wholesome American family.  Men and women would get married, have children, buy a nice house and the man would go to work and the woman would stay home and raise the kids.  However, this is an idealized vision of family on today’s world.  At least 50% of first marriages end in divorce and there are approximately 9.9 million single mothers.  If people are really concerned about keeping marriage sacred and keeping the family together, let’s begin to look at the heart of the problem.

As far as gay couples and the issue of same-sex marriage are concerned, maybe we should go back to a time when the Church was not as involved in marriage. Let’s factor in the idea of being able to marry for love.  Let’s take some of what we do now and just change it a little bit. Right now, people who want to get married have to go to their state’s equivalent of the county clerk’s office and obtain a marriage license. Straight couples have some options.  They can either be married by a judge, a justice of the peace or a religious leader who is ordained. Let’s say, hypothetically, that we changed who could perform marriages and only allow judges and justices of the peace perform weddings.  This way, both straight couples and gay couples could get married.  Then, if a couple wants a religious blessing, they can have that ceremony as well. This is just a remixing of marriage.  Take a little of the old and a little of the new and “voila,” something good for everyone emerges.

I am one guy with one opinion.  But I am one guy who did extensive research into the same-sex marriage issue before forming a firm opinion on the matter. If you disagree with my views based upon evidence, then that is fine.  Please post in the comments and let’s have a rational discussion about the topic.  I am happy to hear from all sides of any debate.

Over the last few days, Political Sigh has been trying to get to the point in the same-sex marriage debate.  We have talked to people from all sides of the political spectrum and today we are discussing the religious side of things.  I interviewed, via e-mail, a Protestant pastor on the topic:

PS: What do you think are the religious implications of President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage?

PP: I believe that President Obama’s statement was a political move in an election year.  I think he has held these views for some time.

PS: What does your faith say about homosexuality?

PP: Our faith says that homosexuality is inconsistent with the Christian faith but that we are all sinners before God and need grace.  However, there is a large gap in understanding what this means. Some portions of our church push for modification and other vehemently strive for a stand that is more restrictive.

PS: Why do you think that President Obama made it known in an election year that he supports same-sex marriage?

PP: To win votes.

PS: Assuming that same-sex marriage is legalized in the next few years, what do you think it will do the institution of marriage?

PP: If legalized it will have some impact but very little on church weddings because we cannot be forced to do such weddings.  The institution of marriage is already wounded with over 40% of births happening outside the traditional family.

PS: You said in your last response that the institution of marriage is already wounded because 40% of births happen outside of the traditional family.  Also, approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce. In terms of the traditional family, do you think that both the Right and the Left are getting it wrong?  Maybe instead of focusing on same-sex marriage, we should be focusing on keeping families together because our traditional family is fading away?

PP: I think that is a fair assessment.  But maybe we ought to also minister to all those singles that are out there.  Almost all our activities are focused on married people or families. [End of interview]

I also spoke to another pastor about this issue.  He raised an interesting point. “Jesus never addressed homosexuality.  Paul did, but not Jesus.  So one of two things happened, either Jesus never met a homosexual or he didn’t see homosexuality as an issue.”  This was something I had never considered before.

These interviews made me realize that not every religious leader is considering same-sex marriage as a serious issue.  Sure, same-sex marriage may change a few things for the Church but as the interviewee said, the government cannot make churches perform marriages that it disagrees with.  The Church has more problems to worry about.

Later this afternoon, I will be doing a special post that takes all the information that I have gathered over this week on same-sex marriage and try to get to the point of the argument.  Check back a little later today for it.

This week I have shown you interviews with people for and against same-sex marriage.  Until now, I have not presented a person with a dog in the fight.  A few days ago, I was able to conduct a telephone interview with a person who is gay and in a committed relationship. As with my other interviews, this one is being kept anonymous. I asked his thoughts on the same-sex marriage debate:

PS: What do you think of President Obama’s announcement supporting same-sex marriage?

A: I think it is a good first step.  Having someone with his influence coming out in support of allowing marriage between gay couples can really boost the discussion.  Of course, there is still a long way to go on the issue but it was a good first step.

PS: You say there is a long way to go.  What do you mean by that phrase?

A: In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.  The next year, eleven states, including my own, put a constitutional ban on it.  If this issue is left up to the states, then gay people in progressive states are going to get rights and the ones of us that are in less progressive states will not.  Same-sex marriage is going to be one of those issues that has to be federally mandated.  Sure, Obama saying he supports same-sex marriage is a good thing.  But then in the next breath, he says it should be up to the states to decide.  That is just not going far enough.  If he really wanted to make a difference, Obama would have come out and said “I support legalizing same-sex marriage and I will do everything in my power to make that a reality.”

PS: Why do you think that some people are adamantly against same-sex marriage?

A: The same people that are against same-sex marriage are the same ones that have asked me my entire life “why are you gay?” or “how do you know you are gay?”  I have to tell them that I know that I am gay the same way that you know you are straight.  I do not have to sleep with women to know that I am not sexually attracted to them.  It is the same way that a straight male does not have to sleep with a man to know that he is straight.  He just knows.  I just know.

I really think that these people just don’t understand.  I think they are scared to face reality.  Gay people deserve rights.  We are being discriminated against because of our sexual orientation.  It has taken the American government a long time to get to where it is.  When our country was first founded, it was only rich white men who got the right to vote.  Then, after the Civil War, African-Americans got some rights but even those really didn’t take effect until the mid-1960s.  Women didn’t get the right to vote until the 1920s and it took a constitutional amendment.  Same-sex marriage and all the rights that come with that will not happen until it is federally mandated.

PS: What are some of those rights gay couples are wanting?

A: Heterosexuals are afforded 1,033 rights that are excluded gay couples because they cannot marry. The gay community pays the same taxes, but is not given the same rights. It is very similar to taxation without representation.  What we want are the same rights.

PS: There has been debate over the past few years about allowing civil unions for gay couples.  What do you think about that? Could that possibly be a good compromise?

A: It would make a good cop-out.  I used to be in full support of civil unions.  I figured, you can call it whatever you want just give me the same rights that a straight married couple gets.  Then I started doing some research on the difference between a civil union and a marriage.  In most cases, insurance companies will not allow the partners in a civil union to be on the same insurance plan.  That is just one example.

PS: There are some churches out there that say they will refuse to marry gay couples.  What do you think about this?

A:  I think that marriage should be kept a state thing and it should not be a church thing.  It is not the church that legally marries a straight couple.  It is the state that they live in.  Sure, the preacher or priest or what have you can perform the ceremony but that is because they are legally able to do so.  If those churches do not want to marry me and my partner, then that is perfectly fine and that is their prerogative.  I have other options, such as a justice of the peace or a church that is more progressively-minded.  [End of interview]

It seems like we have a really good response from a person who has something to gain in this debate.  Tomorrow, Political Sigh will be interviewing a pastor of a church will be giving his opinion on the debate.