In the entry below I have listed my primary objections to the way that gay marriage is being instituted in this country. If you haven't read it yet, I do not at all address at all my views on homosexuality because, frankly, it is irrelevant to the argument. Marriage is the real issue, not homosexuality. In that same vein, I'd like to voice my primary contention with the actions and attitudes of many who oppose gay marriage.
The most common argument I encounter from gay marriage opponents is that we need to protect marriage, and allowing gays to marry would undermine heterosexual marriage. Now, one may state that allowing gays to marry would undermine the definition of marriage, but it certainly would not undermine heterosexual marriage itself. You know what undermines heterosexual marriage more than anything else? Divorce.
For all the energy spent protesting Adam and Steve at the city hall getting their marriage licenses (and, yes, I understand that an awful lot of the anger comes from the way that the marriage laws came to pass - see the entry below) I don't see any energy spent demonstrating against no fault divorce. As I posted below, marriage (in the form of the nuclear family) is the very foundation upon which our society is built. Having a stable family is vital in raising healthy children and developing them into productive adults who contribute to society. Marriage encourages and fosters this. Divorce and absentee parenting (more commonly the father being MIA) tear at this foundation. One of the most powerful predictors of poverty is being raised by a single mother. Likewise, you are far more likely to end up incarcerated if you were raised by your mother alone than by two parents. Allowing or not allowing gays to marry each other is not going to alter this one bit.
Marriage, as we are dealing with it in the courts and in the media, is a civil arrangement, sanctioned by the state and subject to its rules. It is basically a contract similar to a business partnership, but with the added wrinkle of needing to sort out the condition of the children should things break up. If the state wants to recognize two people wishing to pool their assets and make a commitment to each other, why should we stop it? Society is better off when people settle down, commit to one another, and follow through on those commitments.
For me, that is separate and distinct from the religious side of marriage, which has its own sets of customs and rules. If my church decided that it would accommodate and conduct gay weddings, I would have a problem with that. But that is a separate issue altogether.
