A Matter of Fairness

This post is mainly for "friend of a friend"s out there. In the last few weeks, I've seen a few people on my Facebook feed comment on the issue of marriage equality. Apparently, a few people I know have friends in their circles who aren't on board with the issue. Separate but related, I have some friends of my own that live in North Carolina, which is right now just weeks away from voting on a particularly hate-driven ballot initiative, Amendment One -- a piece of legislation so concerned with denying same-sex couples any legal recognition that its draconian language will actually wipe out civil union protections for all couples, gay or straight, in the process.

Some of these people I know might be in need of some ammunition for their friends as to why marriage equality should be supported. Of course, there are enough answers to that that I could probably fill an entire week's worth of blog posts and more. (And it's not out of the realm of possibility that, as the 2012 political season grinds on over the next six months, I might not be able to refrain from writing those other posts.) But for the moment, anyway, I'm going to constrain myself to one aspect -- the matter of fairness. Specifically, a question I put to those who are against marriage equality...

Why is acceptable to allow the following people to marry, but not a same-sex couple?

Infertile couples. Many people argue against same-sex marriage by saying that the primary purpose of a marriage is procreation and the raising of children. But we don't require people to test for infertility before allowing them to get married. Many opposite-sex couples marry who are incapable of reproducing. Why let them marry and not a same-sex couple?

Elderly couples. There are many senior citizens fortunate enough to find a loving partner (maybe their first, maybe not) in their later years. Not only are such couples incapable of producing children (as noted above), but there's almost certainly no chance these couples would ever choose to adopt children either. They likely either have children already from a previous relationship, or have passed the point in their lives where they have the desire or energy for children. But we let the elderly marry. Why not a same-sex couple?

Divorcees with children. Ever watch The Brady Bunch? Mike and Carol had three children each from previous marriages. The chances that they would ever want to have another kid together had to be about zero. There are plenty of real-world couples just like this that have more than enough children in their lives from previous relationships. But we let them marry.

Women battling addiction. It's medically proven that use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs can have profoundly negative effects on a fetus. Of course, children born with birth defects for these reasons are every bit as deserving of love as children born healthy. But if you're going to attempt a "think of the children" argument, is it right to rubber-stamp the marriage of a serial addict likely to produce an unhealthy child, while at the same time red-flagging the marriage of a same-sex couple?

Abusive parents. Every day, there are children taken away from their neglectful and/or abusive parents by Child Services. But the parents that failed to care for those kids or who beat them to within an inch of their lives? There's nothing preventing them from having still more children to neglect and abuse. And certainly nothing to prevent them from getting married or re-married.

Multiple-time divorcees. Some people say that a same-sex couple represents some kind of affront to the "sanctity" of marriage. And yet somehow, a man or woman on their third or fourth spouse represents less of an affront -- or none at all. We don't ask about the annulment of the drunken Vegas impulse wedding. We don't care about the 72-day Kardashian wedding. All we ask is if the person wants to get married to the new potential spouse, whether it's wedding number one or number six. Is there no point at which a serial spouse becomes more of an assault on the "sanctity" of marriage than one same-sex couple?

Adulterers. Some people cite passages in the Bible as grounds for their persecution of same-sex couples. (Not to drift off point, but the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So is an excellent refutation and contextualization of such arguments, and highly recommended.) What about people who commit other sins and blasphemy, according to Biblical word? I cite adultery in particular as the most common example. It's the #7 directly stated "thou shalt not," according to Exodus. But expressing love with another person who happens to be of the same gender? That's not even on God's Top 10 List. We let people who were unfaithful to one spouse go on to marry a different one. Why give adulterers a second chance, but not give a same-sex couple a first?

Criminals. People in prison are allowed to get married, not just after they're released, but while they're still incarcerated. And it doesn't matter what crime they've committed. Even if you're one of those people that for some reason thinks a same-sex relationship is a "sin," surely it's less of a sin than the one that was committed by a rapist or a murderer. We let the convicted rapist or murderer get married. We let the murderer get married even if he's on death row, has no chance of being released, and therefore (to return to an earlier point) will not be in a relationship with any chance of producing offspring. But somehow the disrespect to life shown by a rapist or murderer is less objectionable than the supposed disrespect shown to the institution of marriage by a long-time, loving same-sex couple that wants the same rights as everyone else.

So unless you first want to argue with earnestness that the infertile, elderly, divorcees, addicts, child abusers, adulterers, rapists, and murderers should also not be allowed to marry, I really don't see how you can argue to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Or at least, not while staking any claim to morality in the matter.

To any of my friends who find themselves listening to bigoted anti-gay remarks from one of their friends, I hope this provides you a few thoughtful counterpoints so that next time, you won't let the matter just drop without comment. Or hey, if you think someone would actually read through all this themselves, feel free to direct your friend here to my blog.

I say: friends don't let friends express intolerance.