Defense of (gay) marriage

There's been some discussion lately (again) about same sex marriage, what it is and what should be done to encourage or prevent it. Everyone seems to have an opinion and I certainly do as well.So, what's the issue anyway? Oddly, there seems to be a lot of confusion of just what 'gay marriage' would be - both among the panicky politicians seeking a constitutional amendment, and those who support gay marriage.Gay marriage doesn't mean that a queer couple can walk into a Catholic Church and demand that the priest marry them. It doesn't mean that the National Guard is going to hold a gun to Billy Graham's head and force him to bless two men in eternal union. Those are religious unions and no legislation in the country is going to force them to marry gay couples. There are already plenty of religions that will celebrate or marry queer couples and this has really no effect beyond those individuals sense of faith and public celebration of their love.All those religious conservatives can breathe easy; their God can still condemn same-sex marriage as evil/unhealthy or perverse. No US law has the power to change that. Their protestations that God does not allow for gay marriage should be meaningless in a courtroom or the congressional halls. Religious prohibitions are not going to be affected and, with a constitutional separation of church and state, they should not be the basis of any US law.The other arguments against gay marriage seems to be the old 'natural law' argument, which is simply the same religious argument with a different name. Another is the argument that marriage is really designed to nurture and protect children, which is - in a way true - however, we do not prevent sterile people from getting married, or post-menopausal women, or men who've had their testicles removed through accident or illness. The same people who want to protect marriage as a child-rearing benefit to not champion lesbians with children as being unfairly denied there rights of marriage. Can you imagine a fertility test being the criteria for marriage?There are some groups that feel that there are aspects of gay sex that are unclean or unnatural. I know that the Dali Lama got into some minor flack about that issue because he stated that anal sex is unclean. He was accused of being homophobic. However, what he was saying was that putting your dick up someone's ass is an unclean act - whether it's two men or a man butt-fucking his wife. Buddhists have a variety of cleanliness requirements and the anus is an unclean part while the penis is not (or is less so). It had nothing to do with being gay. I have no idea, for example, what the Dali Lama (as a religious functionary) feels about oral sex. Again, this discrimination, if you want to call it that is based on religious proscriptions. The argument against special rights. Well that one I don't even know how to address, really since its demonstrably untrue. Gay people are simply agitating for the same rights as straight people. My best guess at addressing this issue is that perhaps those who claim gays are seeking special rights might actually mean that gays are seeking a change in the status quo (i.e.: gays are resisting their status as a despised minority). There are many people in the world, of all types, that resist change.What gay rights lobbyists are talking about when they refer to gay marriage is a basic civil right. Married couples receive a variety of state and federal benefits and responsibilities when they are married under a civil contract. This right has nothing to do with love and everything to do with equality.Without the right to a civil, legally recognized union with my partner, there are a huge amount of obstacles we face that heterosexual, married couples do not.I cannot be guaranteed of access to my partner if he's hospitalized, since I am not a 'relative' no matter that we've lived together for 11 years. We've been lucky on that so far but there is no right there.We cannot file federal or state taxes jointly.I cannot be guaranteed a health insurance policy that will cover my 'domestic partner'. When I was looking for a long-term job, one of my major considerations was a domestic partner privilege from the companies I was applying at. Note I said privilege. It's just that. My company can remove the domestic partner benefit at anytime without legal concerns. How many heterosexual married couples have to worry about whether their insurance will allow them to cover their spouse?And - when I pay for my health insurance, I do not get a standard benefit available to married couples. The federal government allows withdrawals from a paycheck before taxes to pay for health insurance of an employee and their family - their married family. The federal tax system does not recognize domestic partner benefits. What that means is that, first I'm taxed on the money I make, then it's taken away to pay for my insurance. Married folks? The money is taken away before taxes are applied, saving them a tax burden.When one of us dies, our legal and heritable rights are much more limited. I will not automatically be given trustee rights over my partner's estate as happens with married couples, nor will my position as his heir be particularly secure - especially since neither of us has a will. These are only a few of the issues that crop up in my mind - not even including the issues surrounding children, such as custody, adoption, visitation rights and such like. At 37, how many of us have to think of these issues? Married couples can just cruise along with the rights above assumed as normal.Finally, there is the growing international issue. Does the US really want to be in step with Turkey, Afghanistan, and a few African despotic countries as refusing to recognize gay marriages or unions from other countries? If we pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, we will be legally refusing to recognize the unions of people from Canada and several Northern European countries. The diplomatic issues will be ugly.This is the equality argument, written out, for gay marriage and it is my argument. I do not argue for gay marriage because of love. Love cannot be legislated - either for or against. I love my partner and no law in the world will change that. Nor to I think that a law should be passed on the basis of recognizing someone's love. I don't think emotionally based arguments like that are valid or useful in legislation if nothing else because it's almost impossible to 'prove' love. And - the civil rights of marriage have nothing to do with love. Or God. They are simply a collection of legal conveniences that our country uses to help maintain social order. Since queer people engage in the same complexities as straight people, they should receive the same help as straight people.