I've heard the same question several different ways for the past week. The fact is, I am a weenie. And I recognize a no-win situation when I see one. Another fact is that I have written about same-sex marriage before. My position essentially is that, while I have no problem with same-gender couples marrying, I don't think the government should be involved in marriages of any kind. Marriage is an ancient cultural or religious rite.
That marriage between heterosexuals has been the most successful arrangement from a species-survival standpoint has nothing to do with the fact that many governments promote heterosexual unions.
But people on each side of the same-sex marriage issue pass that kind of thinking off as just a cop-out. They insist that you take a stand, one way or another. Same-sex marriage is just that kind of issue. There is no middle ground.
That's not fair, really. Because individuals are not like political parties. They don't have platforms. They don't have positions on every issue. They don't carry around personal manifestos laying out their philosophies.
And why should they? Many of the issues are complicated and deserve extra thought. I don't see anything wrong with someone simply saying "I don't know" when asked how they stand on an issue like same-sex marriage.
Frankly, I don't think many people are as threatened by the concept of same-sex marriage as the abuse of power exercised by zealots on each side of the issue. Each side thinks it has a moral imperative to do anything it wants in support of its cause. Homophobic jerks beat defenseless gay men; gay advocates run a health food store out of business because its owner spoke out against them. Both sides are wrong.
Now, Hawaii is the scene of a possibly landmark trial to determine whether gays will be able to marry here. It is not a pretty sight. The oratory is venomous. The tone angry.
The Supreme Court is hoping for both sides to put forth clear-eyed, logical arguments on which it can make a reasonable, informed decision. Instead, the Circuit Court trial has become a battle of belittlement. Each side's witnesses are pummeled and insulted. Each study entered into evidence is ridiculed.
And the state hasn't helped its case by bringing in expert witnesses like Brigham Young University professor Richard Williams. What clearly is needed in a case like this is an expert witness with no ax to grind. Instead, the state's key witness is a guy who not only says he's morally opposed to homosexuality but apparently doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. That's great. Good job, attorney general's office. This is just the kind of expert we need to express the state's position.
All this kind of rigamarole does is make people even more confused about the same-sex marriage issue.
And it shows clearly why the state should not be in the marriage business to begin with. It doesn't know what it's doing.
What the government should be doing is making sure that no group of citizens enjoys privileges denied to others. That includes married heterosexuals, single heterosexuals, single homosexuals and homosexual couples. Right now, married heterosexuals are a privileged class. With gay marriage will come another privileged class. Single adults become the underprivileged class.
The state may or may not have a compelling interest to ban gay marriages. But it definitely has a compelling interest to make sure that all citizens are treated equally. And it can't do that by conferring certain rights on certain classes of people.
