Out In The Montains : OP/ED - Civil Unions and the Destruction of Society

To hear some opponents of gay marriage and equal rights, you would think the survival of Western civilization was dependent on defeating the gay tide. But after folding back the arguments against honoring gay relationships, all that is exposed are hallow arguments and hysteria.

Robert H. Knight, director of cultural studies for the Family Research Council, is perhaps the most prolific and boisterous of the religious rights spokesmen again homosexuality. From his position at the FRC, he tries to portray himself as not just a social policy advocate, but as a learned academic on the subject.

Knight (not to be confused with the state senator who sponsored the anti-gay marriage initiative in California) uses the strongest of terms in making his case against gay marriage rights. He says that while “domestic partnerships is billed as an extension of tolerance and civil rights,ä it would “actually undermine the institutions of marriage and family.ä In his recent writings, he gives seven arguments to back up his point.

Knight fears that policies and laws that confer partner benefits or marital status on same-sex couples would send a clear signal that marriage is not a social priority worth encouraging above other kinds of relationships.

However, he fails to fully explain how heterosexual marriage will be damaged by allowing homosexuals the same benefits. But let’s keep looking at his arguments, and perhaps this overblown claim will fall of its own weight.

First, Knight declares that the “procreative imperative” that underlies traditional protection of marriage and family will be harmed if gays can marry and raise children. Clearly, he fails to acknowledge that lots of kids have been raised quite well, thank you, in non-traditional gay or lesbian households. To define family as a bread-winning husband, wife and 2.3 children, as Knight would do, is a misguided and nostalgic cry from the past. Besides, there are plenty of straight couples that get married with no “procreative imperative” in mind. Not everyone wants kids.

The FRC opposes gay marriage because it would “legitimize same sex activity and homosexuals’ claim that they should be able to adopt children.” Loving someone to whom we are naturally and emotionally drawn should in no way be delegitimized or discouraged by government, as Knight’s logic seems to suggest. To use his logic, why isn’t the FRC campaigning to take away marriage licenses from those who delegitimize their marriages by committing adultery? If it’s the institution they’re worried about, they should be bolstering anti-adultery statutes instead of worrying about an expansion of the privilege. Surely gay marriage is not the lone threat to straight marriage.

Next, Knight opposes our rights to marry as it would “injure the crucial kinship structure,” which imparts “continuity, community and stability to societies.” Again, what a wrath of over-blown rhetoric! If gay marriage had the strength to destroy the stability of society, President Reagan would have given us all rings and air-lifted us to the Soviet Union back in the early ‘80s.

Knight’s fifth principle against gay marriage is that it would violate the “freedom of religion, as more and more devout Christian, Jewish and Muslims” would be “told that they must accept as ‘moral’ what their faiths teach is immoral.”

Look, the principle of the separation of church and state is that the state has no right to interfere with the workings of religious belief and religion has no right to interfere with the workings of government. We practice the death penalty in the nation, despite the fact that many religions don’t accept it as “moral.” If every government sanction had to pass the religious muster of devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims, we’d have no government.

Knight believes that domestic partner laws would “mock the idea of commitment” due to the “easy dissolution of the relationship” under these laws. I suppose he’d hold up the near 50 percent divorce rate as a better model? Religious bigots scorn queers for being non-monogamous, perverts incapable of living in a committed relationship. But when we ask for the tools to live in a committed relationship, we’re told it would destroy society.

And lastly, this stalwart of morality argues that gay marriage will “breed cynicism” as it would “defy common understanding about the relative worth of particular relationships.”

You want to experience cynicism? Tell a lesbian that she cannot have custody of her biological child because a judge thinks her “lifestyle choice” is not conducive to appropriate family values. Tell a gay man that he cannot go into an intensive care unit to see his partner of 17 years because he’s not “immediate family.”

Tell an entire class of citizens that they should be denied a basic civil right because they are an “abomination,” and I’ll show you cynical.

Greg D. Kubiak, a Vice Versa Award winner, can be reached via OITM or by e-mail at GKubiak@aol.com.