Same Sex Marriage.....much ado about nothing

Yesterday, at its annual convocation ceremony, Ryerson University in Toronto bestowed an honorary degree upon internationally renowned ethicist Dr. Margaret Somerville. A normally irrelevant event to everyone other than the graduating students and their families. However, Dr. Somerville opposes gay marriage, as well as other similarly divisive issues such as stem-cell research and late term abortion.

What a fiasco this has turned out to be and everyone looks ridiculous. Ryerson invites Dr. Somerville for an honorary degree without being aware of her controversial views. Upon learning of her much publicized opinions, the school provides a response intended to keep everyone happy while simultaneously upsetting all involved. Essentially their response can be translated to mean, we messed up but there isn’t anything we can do about it now. Uninviting her or expressing a strong defence of free speech would have been preferrable to riding the fence. So the convocation proceeded with an unwanted guest. How lovely.

I feel sorry for the graduating students who have been discarded on one of the most important days of their lives. They witnessed protests outside and some heckling of Dr. Somerville inside as well as existing faculty, standing behind Dr. Somerville, turning their backs in protest as she began to speak. The whole situation is very regrettable no matter your view on the issue of same sex marriage.

That said, I have yet to hear a reasonably credible objection to same sex marriage. Not even one single phrase that gave me pause for a moment. I have always been able to see the potential for downside to something I support or at the very least relate to the other side’s viewpoint. However, not on this issue. Other than hate and homophobia, the basis for opposition to same sex marriage is often similar to this extraction from today’s Globe and Mail: “Dr. Somerville rejected critics' labelling of her as homophobic. She said she fully supports gays' rights to civil union but opposes same-sex marriage. It erodes the role marriage plays in child-rearing and can increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents, she said.”

This is a baseless argument for so many reasons. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that a child growing up in a healthy same sex couple household is any less likely to be happy and well adjusted than a child with a father and a mother. I often hear statistics about children in nuclear families being better off than otherwise. I have a healthy scepticism about the validity of the data; however, assuming it is true, it is still irrelevant to this debate. The comparison is against all other domestic situations such as single parent homes, divorced couples and orphaned children. It does not specifically compare healthy two parent relationships strictly on sexual orientation. As well, how is adoption by gay parents going to increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents. Are gay parents more opposed to allowing their adopted children the opportunity to seek their biological parents? I would like to see the study that development that conclusion.

From the child’s perspective, the only difference between heterosexual parents and gay parents is the stigma, hatred and bigotry associated with being gay. In the absence of such homophobia, there would be no objection to same sex marriage and there would likewise not be any psychological issues for children with gay parents. Interesting that the bigots can use bigotry as one of their arguments.

Secondly, Dr. Somerville and many other like minded people claim to fully support civil unions but oppose same sex marriage. This is the “give them the same rights but call it something else” argument. This is proposed as a compromise. I cannot reconcile this aspect of Dr. Somerville’s opinion with the first part above. If you are willing to allow civil unions that presumably have all the same rights and obligations as a marriage then how does that not equally erode the role marriage plays in child-rearing and increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents…unless same sex couples in a civil union will be prevented from adopting children. In which case, this so called compromise does not come anywhere near equality. All the “non-homophobic” arguments against same sex marriage are exactly the same for civil unions since civil unions are the basis for all the legal rights and obligations in Canada. The only difference is a monopoly on use of the word marriage which is a ridiculously selfish stance, “You are not the same as me so you can’t use my word.”

Lastly, we have the biblical arguments. Homosexuality is an abomination, it is unnatural, etc. Clearly, those with this view do so from a literal interpretation of the bible and are wholly opposed to marriage, civil unions or parenting for gay couples. They view homosexuality as something that can be reversed through therapy. Of course, a literal interpretation of the bible would have me going to hell for eating lobster in Nova Scotia last week. Fundamentalist Christians see the Bible as a human operators manual, albeit one where they can pick and choose the chapters and verses that apply while ignoring the rest. Dr. Somerville does not appear to fall into this group or she would not be publicly riding the “civil union” compromise. The Bible is an interesting historical piece of literature that documents the societal views of various individuals at the time it was written but it is not literally applicable two thousand years later (or should I say 1,650 years later).

So it still all comes down to homophobia. There simply is no argument against same sex marriage that isn’t based on either the bigotry associated with a literal interpretation of the bible or the hypocrisy of Dr. Somerville’s “call it something else” view. The reality is that someday we will look back on these trying times for gays and lesbians in much the same fashion that we look back on the debate about whether or not women should be allowed to vote or whether blacks should drink from the same water fountain as whites or inter-racial marriage. It is called progress and there perpetually exists an aspect of society that is needlessly afraid of change. The institution of marriage will not fall apart, if anything it will be enhanced. Children will not be disadvantaged, in fact, gay teens will have new hope of acceptance and validation.

History will show that the Dr. Somerville’s of the world are no different on this issue than Alabama Governor George Wallace was on segregation in 1963…….wrong! Unfortunately, it will take a generation to prove it.