Let it be

I was watching a discussion program today when the topic turned for a while to gay marriage. A man in the group proclaimed to be very much in favor of gay rights but completely opposed to gay marriage. The primary reasoning was what I've come to expect: gay marriage conflicts with and undermines the values and institution of 'traditional marriage.'

I recognize that this is a complex issue and there are detailed arguments on both sides that pull from religion, biology, culture, et cetera. I'm not looking to open that can of beans. But, to fully disclose, I'll say that I am unwavering in my support of upholding civil rights for all groups and individuals - which include those of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) persons and their families. I don't see any separation in general rights support and the specific issue of marriage. In my mind you cannot support gay rights and be opposed to gay marriage. So, with that said, on to the picking of my particular bone.

Now, when someone says 'traditional marriage' they are, of course, referring to a specifically Western idea marriage that has only existed for the past hundred years or so. These specific conditions are not what any sociologist, anthropologist, or socio-anthropologist worth their salt would call tradition when applied to any practice without a huge asterisk.

For centuries, marriage was seen as nothing more than a business arrangement. People were paired for a number of reasons: combining/exchanging goods, money and property, diversifying or maintaining the purity of bloodlines in clans and tribes, maintaining a proper household and social status, gaining /producing a labor force, producing genetically hearty offspring, and a few other things. The point here is that none of the reasons were true love. It was sometimes even the case that the couple didn't like or even know one another. Unless it was an older and wealthier man who could chose a wife to suite his own liking, the couple had little to no say what so ever in the choice of their spouse.

If the standard for marriage that is being cited as traditional by those searching for something to strike down gay marriage is that of two partners choosing their own spouse based on love, then it's a very modern construct they refer to and could not be called traditional by any informed person. Furthermore, that the very criteria used to define this modern union if the free choice of a partner based on love, isn't it an ironic hypocrisy then that those are the exact criteria that are being villainized when gay marriage is banned. Are gay couples not also freely choosing their spouse based on love and don't they then ascribe to the same definition of marriage that is being called traditional?

This entire issue is no different in my eyes then the forbidding of (and sometimes subsequent passing of laws to prevent) inter-racial, inter-religious, and cross-cultural marriages. Several years ago friend told me that is was a sad and self depriving thing if we deny ourselves love simply because of the package it comes in. Real love is one of the rarest things in existence and we are lucky to find it even once in our lifetime. Sometimes it comes to us in ways and in people that we don't expect but not being accustomed to something is no reason to deny it from ourselves or from others. Understanding this is part of understanding love itself.