Marriage Equality And The Legislation Of Love

Marriage Equality And The Legislation Of Love

By Amanda Fox

Marriage equality and the legislation of love is a hot topic right now, but it is also a very personal topic for me as well. For anyone who is unaware, I am a lesbian. I have a partner and we have a family. We have all the same concerns and responsibilities as every other set of parents and couples, but we do not have the same rights. I could easily turn this into a “look at my life” type of moving column that could bring a tear to your eyes, but that isn’t what we really need right now. We need logic. We need clarity. We need to stop and think.

What I say, I do not say in order to get a rise out of anyone. What I will say, I will say because it is the truth. I ask that you keep an open mind. I ask that you be honest with yourself about the way what you read makes you think. I also ask that you tell us, right here or on Facebook if you prefer, what those feelings are.

Does this look like the end of the world to you?

Does this look like the end of the world to you?

A homosexual person can take out a mortgage, finance a car and now they can be openly gay and enlist in the armed forces and potentially place them self in harms way, up to and including, losing their life to fight our nation’s battles. What these all have in common is that they all hinge upon signing a legally binding contract. Marriage is also a legally binding contract, yet in the majority of our country and at the federal level, thanks to DOMA, it isn’t possible to do so. A homosexual can put their life’s savings and life on the line but not their love. An intangible. Think about what is wrong with that.

Let’s be honest about what a marriage is. A marriage is a contractual agreement between two people to be bound to each other. There is no legal need for their to be mention of a divine creator. A member of the clergy is not needed to make the contract legally binding. A judge, a ship’s captain in some instances even I myself can sign off on and make a marriage contract legally binding and I am far from religious in any regard. The ceremony itself can be overflowing with religion – that is a personal OPTIONAL choice. Be assured, however, if you fail to file the proper permits and adhere to state regulations, it doesn’t matter if the Pope marries you – it will not be a legally binding contract which again, is what a legal marriage is.

It brings us to the question of why DOMA exists and why there has been so much animosity over the years regarding same sex marriage. While many peripheral reasons can be cited, it all boils down in large part to two simple answers. The first is there are people that simply do not like it and will cite any handy reason for their distaste of it, logical or not, and the other is all too often religion. I am not going to go base and rip religion apart, but I will explore the religiously based rationales that are often provided.

Top 10 Reasons Provided For Barring Same Sex Marriages Refuted:

  • It will ruin the economy. This argument hinges upon the belief that extending the tax breaks and other financial benefits of marriage to same sex couples will lead to economic doom. News flash – the world economy is already trashed. The tax breaks afforded same sex couples would hardly outweigh the money nationwide legalization of same sex marriage would pump into the economy.
  • It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage. To be blunt, marriage was first used as a means of transferring property and mingling bloodlines to enhance security. Daughters were property. Period. The concept of marrying strictly for love is actually an infant compared to how long the institution has existed. Furthermore, given the rate of divorce and individuals with multiple divorces not to mention issues of infidelity – the institution is already mocked.
  • I don’t like it. The only response is you don’t have to. I don’t like cauliflower without cheese so I don’t eat it. Simple.
    It denies children a mother or father figure. This is pretty easy to debunk because so far, gay sex has not produced offspring. In same sex couples that do have children via adoption,  previous relationships or other means, there is no valid basis to assume that not having a parent of each gender will be harmful. Many children are already being raised by a single heterosexual parent, but we aren’t legislating heterosexuals cannot have sex in order to ensure they have a mommy and daddy at home. We aren’t legislating that if there is a divorce or a parent is widowed that the children are turned over to the state for placement.

In actuality, studies have definitively shown children of lesbian couples thrive beyond those of children with heterosexual parents. But what does 20+ years of double blind research really know, right? If it was really about the kids, wouldn’t we be legislating against single heterosexual parents too?


  • Did these once controversial changes ruin marriage?

    Did these once controversial changes ruin marriage?

    Same sex marriage validates homosexuality as being legitimate. This only works if you can prove that marriage itself validates sexuality. By this logic, heterosexuality is also illegitimate unless a person is married. It’s ludicrous.
    Same sex marriage is a slippery slope to other forms of marriage such as polygamy, inter-species marriages and the marriage of minors. Polygamy and marriages to minors thrived some…. 2000 years ago. Marriage to minors was still fairly common only 125 or so years ago. So far, none of the changes to marriage laws whose opponents screamed it would lead to this has done so yet. Interracial marriage didn’t and many of us can remember when that was illegal. Polygamy is endorsed by some religions – just not the popular ones. Does anyone really need it explained why this is a ridiculous argument?

  • Same sex marriage will force people to be tolerant of that which they do not like. Now note, it isn’t said that people will be forced to like something they don’t – simply tolerate it. I don’t like mainstream religion, cauliflower without cheese on it and a host of other things. I do however tolerate their existence. If can tolerate religion, the Republican party, and Disney owning the rights to Star Wars, tolerating same sex marriage should be no more of an imposition on those who don’t like it than those above mentioned things are to me.
  • Same sex marriage will prompt divine retribution. I’m hardly a religious scholar but I am well versed enough in most major religions to know I’ve yet to find any verse in any chapter of any holy text that states this will happen. Hatred, being inhospitable,  false Gods – all sorts of things can bring down divine retribution if you believe in that type of thing. Love? I’ve yet to see where it says love will bring down the wrath of any God. Even if it did, it only matters if it is really going to happen. If one religion’s God says it will and another’s says it won’t – which God is right? Think about it a second.
  • People really say this stuff

    People really say this stuff

    “Marriage is a gift from God meant to create a family through a sexual union.” It sounds great, but it’s a fatally flawed argument. What this says is that if you can’t procreate, you can’t marry. If you want to use an argument like this it means you have to apply it to everyone including heterosexuals. The young girls that had mumps and became sterile. The girls born with non-producing ovaries and insufficient wombs. The girls who for one reason or another cannot bear a child – none of them can marry because they can’t create a family. The men that are sterile fall into the same boat as well as those with erectile dysfunction who cannot get their sperm from sack to egg – no marriage for any of you.

  • This also means that post-menopausal women better prepare for life after divorce when  their husbands leave them and men that are no longer sexually viable better prepare as well. If you cannot hold up your end in procreating, you are not fit for marriage. Of course, some counter with statements like they have already produced an offspring or several, but there are no free passes. It applies equally to everyone at all times or it isn’t worth discussion. Period.Same sex marriage is against my religion. Tough shit. Eating shellfish is against a major religion but people in other faith systems do it daily. Using birth control is against some religions, but people in other’s do it all the time. Here’s the thing – if it’s against your religion don’t do it, but don’t expect everyone else to subscribe to the beliefs of your religion and follow them. If I am close to any religion, it is Jedi, but I’m not seeking legislation to bar anyone from exploring the Dark Side of the Force, so don’t try to force your religion on me via legislation either.
Can this logic really be argued against?

Can this logic really be argued against?

Here’s the real deal. Same sex marriage will really only impact same sex couples. No religion will be forced to conduct same sex marriages or recognize them. There is no impending financial crisis that can be pinned to them. They do not invalidate heterosexual marriage in any way. What same sex marriage does do, however, is recognize homosexuals as equals under the law with all that entails. It recognizes that people deserve the same opportunities even if they fall in the minority of the population. Furthermore it provides us with national uniformity – it is quite ridiculous that some states will not recognize marriages legally conducted in other states based on the sex of the partners in the union.

Although I have no desire to marry at this time, I do want the option available to me the same as any heterosexual person has. I want to be recognized as an equal human being. Ultimately, I am not saying you have to like homosexuality. What I am saying is you have to like our country enough to recognize that we are better than this. We are better than discriminating against others based on whether they fall in love with a person of the same sex or not. We are better than imposing our religious beliefs on others. We are better than intentionally making others legally inferior just because we don’t like who they fell in love with.

Legislating love – it only works in you legislate in favor of more love and not against it. We have too much hate already.

Be Sociable, Share!



Powered by Facebook Comments


  1. Alvin Royster says:

    Interesting read. Would definitely like to read more about it.

  2. I’m not that into marriage too. But I agree that love is the foundation, which should be aided.

  3. Great article! Love is beautiful thing and is not something any gob should regulate. Im from Argentina, in here people can get married who they want!

Speak Your Mind