Reframing the Gay Marriage Discussion

I had an enlightening discussion recently on gay marriage involving people running the spectrum on the issue. This revealed much about the current discussion and made me realize we have a failure to communicate. It’s also made me realize that if gay rights advocates want to make progress, they must reframe the discussion. The word ‘marriage’ is the big hang-up. It means different things to supporters and opponents. I see many supporters view it from a legal perspective while many opponents view it from a religious/lifestyle perspective.

First, let’s see the legal perspective. I’d argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage should be considered a privilege and has significant legal ramifications. Whether a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to marry a man, a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, we’ve got legally-consenting adult humans. Denying gay marriage is akin to denying two people from creating and signing a legally-binding contract.

Constitutionality aside, there are monumental legal differences between civil unions and marriages. Obviously, these vary from state to state, but there are two key general differences. First, civil unions often entail far fewer legal benefits than marriages. Second, the federal government makes states recognize each other’s marriage licenses even if laws conflict, but not necessarily civil unions. 16-year olds married legally in a state with a minimum age of 16 can go to a state where the minimum age is 18 and still have their marriage license recognized, but a civil union in one state may or may not be recognize by another state.

These differences are critical to the debate and few opponents of gay marriage appear to be aware of it. This is important because I often here no objection to equal legal rights from opponents of gay marriage. “I don’t have any problem with equal rights for gays, but I do have a problem with gay marriage,” or something like that, suggesting a communication disconnect.

When opponents hear the word ‘marriage’, they’re worried about an attack on the religious and lifestyle aspects of marriage. Some worry that if they support gay marriage, the government will intervene and force religious organizations against their will to marry gay people. This should not be viewed as a credible threat because it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and of the rights of religious organizations. It is also not what supporters want.

Another common worry is that gay marriage is an assault on straight marriage. One presumption here is that marriage as an institution is put in place to ensure the orderly upbringing of children. I challenge this because it misses two key points. First, though gay couples cannot procreate without help, they are still capable of adopting and being good parents. There are many kids in the adoption system who would take gay foster parents over no foster parents. Second, if children are marriage’s primary purpose, why are marriage licenses granted to those who cannot have kids and those who can have kids, but choose not to?

I believe opponents of gay marriage feel threatened. They feel as though their way of life is under attack. Many feel as though they would be somehow forced to accept homosexuality as normal or something to this effect. Gays are a minority in the USA, no doubt about it. But, remember that one of the founding principles of our great nation is that even though we respect the will of the majority, we cannot violate the rights of the minority in the process.

I recommend supporters refocus the discussion from one of gay marriage versus civil unions versus nothing to one of equal legal rights for gays. Simply stripping the word ‘marriage’ from the discussion and instead seeking ‘equal legal rights’, supporters will make much more progress. It will get them what they want and would help drain emotion from the discussion by helping those who support equal legal rights for gays, but oppose gay marriage, recognize that they truly are on the same page as the gay marriage advocates. This will lead to a consensus that should lead to equal legal rights for gays, which is the end goal.