So what if it's a choice?

One of the foundations of the case religious conservatives make against same-sex marriage is that homosexuality is a choice people make. That at some point in their lives, individuals turn from their natural inclinations and actively choose to be attracted to members of the same gender. Never mind that no gay person I have ever spoken to or heard speak on the matter has ever described anything like that, never mind that it goes against all common sense that millions and millions of people around the world would choose a life of ridicule, discrimination, ostracism and hatred, this is what many on the religious right believe. They believe God made all people heterosexual, and that a few of those people defy him and choose a path of sexual immorality.

They also say marriage is between one man and one woman; that is the way it always has been (never mind that in many ancient – and some contemporary – cultures, polygyny was the norm) and that is the way it always should be. Of course, I fully honor the right of any church to define marriage performed under its auspices in any way it likes. Some leaders actually do define marriage differently – they speak of “Covenant Marriage,” which involves sort of an extra-sacred set of vows, as a way of separating a marriage before God into a different category.

But many go farther and claim that even civil marriage must be defined in the same way their tradition does, and that therefore gay men and lesbian woman can only marry someone of the opposite gender. (They like to claim that extending marriage to same-sex partners would be giving one group of people extra rights. What they neglect to comprehend is that while the ability to marry a person of the same gender IS an additional right, it would be granted to ALL people, maintaining equality.) And since homosexuality is, to them, a choice, gays and lesbians who want to marry merely need to make different choices.

I say, who cares if it’s a choice or not? What rational reason is there to deny gay people civil marriage equality? The “rational states’ interest” argument cited most has to do with children. In July of last year, the Supreme Court of Washington State upheld that state’s Defense of Marriage Act by claiming “encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.” (However, the court did so on the rational basis standard of review, meaning “any conceivable set of facts may be considered that support the classification drawn, and over-and under-inclusiveness generally does not foreclose finding a rational basis for legislation.”) Lawyers for the State also argued that rearing children in a home headed by their opposite-sex parents is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because children tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their biological children. Never mind that that is NOT what most studies say, and religious conservatives have been found to have twisted the results of the studies to suit their purposes, according to the authors of some of this research, that is what the court found.

The courts in Massachusetts found differently, noting that “[t]he ‘marriage is procreation’ argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage.” The Massachusetts court decision also stated that “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.” This makes sense: denying gay couples the right to enter into civil marriage does not prevent heterosexual couples from also creating long-term stable relationships.

But let’s get back to the matter of choice. Even if homosexuality were a choice, I still see no reason to deny marriage equality. There are lots of things we choose to do that are either protected by the Constitution, or which don’t effect the lives of other citizens to a sufficient degree to require prohibition or regulation. We can choose to practice any religion we want, or none at all. This right is expressly written into the Constitution. That might be due in part to the fact that the first colonies in this country were founded by Puritans escaping religious persecution. If Jamestown had been populated instead by homosexuals fleeing a repressive regime (never too hard to find, even now), the first amendment might read a bit differently.

If you are an evangelical, and you think homosexuality is a sin (which, if you are an evangelical, I suppose you have to), why should your religious viewpoint trump mine, which holds that homosexuality is simply another of nature’s variations? What’s more, if you’re a conservative (which, if you are an evangelical, it seems you have to be), why do you want further government involvement in people’s personal lives? Isn’t one of the core tenets of conservatism the idea of small government? If there is no rational state’s interest in denying civil marriage equality, why not extend civil marriage rights to include same-sex unions and move on to more pressing matters?