For some reason, likely because it doesn’t directly affect me, I thought that this issue would go away after Prop 8. Turns out, not so much. In fact, after the surprising (to some) victory of Prop-8-ers in California (if you think that California is the bastion of all liberals, you clearly have never been to San Diego), the issue seems to have picked up momentum.

And, though I’d like to ignore it, or perhaps choose a different pet issue for my generation to struggle over… it’s here. And, it’s not going away.

In my Constitutional Law class the other day my professor said, “I think it’s just a generational issue really. It’s just a matter of time until gay marriage passes. I bet everyone in this class supports it.”

And then he said, “Let’s have a vote. All people in favor of letting anyone who wants to get married raise your hand.”

Approximately 118 people raise their hands.

“All opposed.”

Sitting in epicenter/front row of the class, I raised my hand… joined only by a Jewish kid in the middle of the class. Talk about awkward.

Later when I visited my prof for office hours, I spent about 30 minutes trying to explain to him why I had voted for Proposition 8 in California this past election. In the end he was clearly not satisfied with my answer, but we went on to discuss other questions I had.

When I came home and talked to Neil about our meeting he reminded me that in the 11th hour I had voted AGAINST Prop 8. I had completely forgotten. Am I a masochist, just aching for awkward moments with a state Senator who has repeatedly proposed marriage equality legislation? Do I suffer from False Memory Syndrome?

No.

I’d like to think not. I do think that it is symbolic of the almost completely even divide I feel over the gay marriage issue. I turns out, both sides of the issue are equally compelling and un-compelling to me in various and sundry ways.

Tonight (yes it is Friday night… ah, the joys of law school) I have been reading several supreme court cases on the issue of free speech. I just finished Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. In this case a man was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for BEING gay. Not for advocating any particular point of view, just because he told others that he was gay.

Basically I want to know how other people deal with the split in logic on the issue & why you come out where you do on the issue of gay marriage.

Let’s assume for the basis of this conversation that:

1. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
2. My religious belief is that only marriage between one man and one woman is legitimate.
3. There are plenty of beliefs I hold that I do not actively try to impose, through legislative means, on others. (For example, I do not contribute to the Prohibition Party even though, apparently, it is alive and well & I my religious belief is that drinking alcohol is wrong.)

50% of me thinks:

There are plenty of inherent genetic traits that the state does not acknowledge, uphold or facilitate. Unless you stand by the proposition that ALL consenting adults should be able to marry any or all other consenting adults (including bigamy, group marriage, incest etc.) you believe that at some point, some majority group gets to tell some minority group (no matter how small) that they can’t marry who they want/feel driven to/must. I personally do not believe that this social contract is limitless in its parameters & or application. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals does impinge on the liberty of others…as all laws and restrictions do. Such as how property laws, tax laws & criminal laws impose restrictions on conduct and associations.

An appeal to a complete libertarian view of marriage would find a more sympathetic ear from me than an appeal from a vocal & energized minority wanting benefits for themselves, while still excluding others. (Muslims, for example, who under their religious code can marry up to 4 women). If there are to be no limits on, or perhaps no state involvement in, marriage, so be it. If there are limits & a preference is put on certain (heterosexual) social arrangements, I see no problem with maintaining the status quo.

50% of me thinks:

As a person who has knocked doors for Ralph (the true King of them all) Nader during a very popular Democratic election, I have felt political bigotry. I have experiences the scorn and contempt from people in the majority. I do not want the dominant, widely accepted party to continue to be in control. I feel like they just want to maintain the status quo to maintain power, dominance and the privileges they have gained from this historic perch they have created for themselves. I got a tiny glimpse of what it feels like to be thwarted by a group of people simply because there are more of them, and less of you.

I know that as a person who has the privilege of being allowed to marry, it is a wonderful thing. And, as a person of privilege in this regard, how can I ever presume to know what is best for others, or to be able to deny them anything or any right?

I also know a lot of gay people. They are charming, responsible, normal people. Many would most certainly make better spouses, parents and members of families than myself or many other heterosexuals I know.

What’s the identifiable harm with letting gay people get married? What is it that we are so afraid of? What’s at the end of the slippery slope?

I can still teach my (hypothetical, future) kids that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. I can still teach my kids that we don’t drink alcohol, even though other people in our community do.

So, what’s the big deal? I don’t want gay people to feel bad, or to not be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. It’s not going to hurt me.

And, even if they just want the blessing and legitimization of the state (and have or don’t care about the “rights” associate with marriage). So what? And, isn’t that inevitable anyways? Aren’t our children going to look back on 2008 in 50 years and think, “how could they ever think like that, sheesh”? Isn’t this just a temporary battle (like the one for the 18th Amendment, which Joseph F. Smith enthusiastically supported, but was quickly overturned by the 21st Amendment & never considered again)?

What do you think? Should we have the corner on this market? Any (kind, thoughtful) insights are much appreciated.