Senator Santorum’s Case for Same-Sex Marriage

When I first read Senator Santorum’s comments, I was deeply offended by what I felt such callous, uninformed and divisive remarks.

My partner and I had been together for ten years, until his death in a traffic accident last April. We grew, discovered unconditional acceptance, found joy, and were faithful and loving. It should have lasted a lifetime. It was wholly, and wonderfully good, and I found the senator’s remarks insulting, degrading and repellent.

Since then, I have struggled to see if common ground may actually be found, although clearly the senator does not see it. I have also come back to the belief that common ground must be found, not necessarily for the benefit of the one side of the other, but for the benefit of all – for the nation as a whole..

The fact is, there can be no way forward until Gays and Lesbians and reasonable conservatives begin to explore what they have in common, and identify common fears and common good. We can, I believe, see it in terms of neighborhood: in my neighborhood we are a very diverse group, yet we all have common concerns and fears about the future of our community: whether this will be a safe place to live in ten years (or whether it is now!), to what extent each of us can live our individual lives without interference and without encroaching on eachother, what common things we may need to yield if we are to flourish together, etc. Ultimately, what holds us together best is the need to ensure that each household and each neighbor is able to live and enjoy life as fully as possible.

And here is where I believe we can look into the Senator’s statement and find common ground, because polygamy, incest, and adultery have one thing in common: they are all exploitative. They all have enormous potential to damage other human beings.

Homosexuality does not belong on the senator’s list. Sexuality, in an of itself, is neutral. Does anyone claim for example, that heterosexuality necessarily equals polygamy, incest, and adultery? Yet heterosexuality can be perverted into these things (which almost always happen within the context of heterosexuality and family). With this in mind it becomes clear that what the senator really opposes is exploitative, damaging relationships – and who can disagree?

The problem lies not in sexuality, but in the fog and hysteria that surround homosexuality. This fog is starting to lift in civilized societies, and it will continue to do so as honest and intelligent people are encouraged to think clearly and get to know real homosexuals in place of believing in the stereotypes and hysteria. When they do so, they will realize that the fears and the goals of both sides are the same. Both fear exploitation, violence, and exclusion from living life as fully as reasonably possible; and both hope for life, liberty, and the pursuit of such happiness as one can manage to scramble together.

One of the greatest of these goals is finding one’s mate, and it is in the best interests of society to recognize, fortify, and celebrate strong commitments.

A very good case – a conservative case – can be made for recognizing, fortifying and celebrating same-sex relationships in ways that Senator Santorum would certainly approve of, were he not confusing the things he rightly deplores with things he upholds. He is, in effect, confusing apples and oranges. This, then, is “Senator Santorum’s case for same-sex marriage”.

What marriage is for

We need to begin by finding a definition of marriage and its role in human lives. One of the most complete descriptions I have ever read is found in the old Anglican (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer (paragraph numbers are mine):

1.      [H]oly Matrimony… is not by any to be enterprized [sic], nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained:

2.      First, It was ordained for the procreation of children…

3.      Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication…

4.      Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Let’s look at each of these reasons in more detail.

1) It is precisely harmful and exploitative “carnal lusts and appetites” that Senator Santorum objected to in his statement about Lawrence v. Texas.  A religious person will find no difficulty in saying that the best way to contain these is within the bounds of marriage, and others will probably add, “or within the bounds of a committed relationship.” And who can disagree?

So far, only a few countries in Western Europe actually have same-sex marriage, and only in Belgium and Holland is same-sex marriage fully the same thing as heterosexual marriage, with all the same rights and duties. (France, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, grant legal recognition to same-sex couples, although not full marriage rights. Canada seems likely to recognize marriage in the near future.) This might seem to indicate that in the rest of the world, only heterosexuals need to be thus reigned in, but surely the same argument could be made in favor of same-sex marriage? In other words, and to put it crudely, if you want homosexuals to stop being promiscuous - which is not in any way to say they are any more likely to be promiscuous, given the opportunity, than heterosexuals – then you must give them a realistic alternative. Given human nature and its need for intimacy, requiring celibacy or abstention is not realistic - or even desirable: we live in the real world, after all – which, come to think of it, is one of the things behind the reasons for marriage listed above.

2) Same-sex marriages do not produce children, although they do often support children. But we have long ago recognized that children do not a marriage make. Many married heterosexual couples are childless for many different reasons, and it would be patently cruel, for example, to forbid an elderly couple to marry because they were past the age of producing children, and I personally know three Episcopalian priests who, though happily married, are childless. It could also be argued that in an over-populated world, production of children is no longer the necessary thing it once was when a large family were needed to guarantee survival.

Still, many same-sex couples do have children, whether by surrogacy, adoption, or by bringing in children from a (heterosexual) marriage. Gays and lesbians in the United States are parents. That is beyond argument - and between eight and ten million children are raised in gay or lesbian households. The courts are gradually realizing that to protect the children, more and more of the rights of marriage need somehow to be assigned to same-sex couples. While same-sex marriages may not be “for the procreation of children,” they are certainly valuable for the welfare of the children. A family-values advocate such as the senator should have no problem agreeing with this.

Certainly same-sex marriage would be “for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other.” And here we come to some very good, conservative arguments about how same-sex marriage would benefit society: marriage provides an enormous resource of care for the sick, aging, injured or just plain tired out. Married couples are less burden on society because couples take care of eachother, and married people need less care, miss less time from work, and cost less than single people. In short, they live longer and more productive lives – and that is for the good of all of us.

There are other cost advantages as well: when my partner died I discovered that as we were not legally related (ie: married) I was not responsible for his debts. Most of these I paid anyway, in honor of his memory and good name – but the debts, including medical debts amounted to some $25,000. Surely it would be better for society as a whole if these debts could legally be collected? Remember that unpaid debts such as these result in higher insurance costs, higher prices, and in the case of some medical debts, higher reliance on the public purse. Another good, conservative reason for same-sex marriage.

The case against

At this point, we should stop for a moment and consider the objection that some conservatives bring against same-sex marriage, that it would “undermine the sanctity of marriage.” This is one yet another of those unexamined assertions that catch the attention, but like so many sound bites designed to raise more heat than light, those who utter it rarely bother to explain why this should be so. I suspect that they cannot, although there seem to be several possible underlying assumptions:

- There is only so much marriage to go around.
- Your marriage is worth less if I'm married. (Your house is less green if I paint my house green?)
- Tom and Sue will suddenly say "Aha!", get divorced, and re-marry same-sex partners (and, presumably, eat the children in the process)?
- If same-sex marriages are possible, gay people will not be forced into heterosexual marriages that look okay (for a while) and in the words of Winston Churchill in another context, “give comfort to those who wish to be humbugged.”
- We might have to treat “other” people as equals?

Clearly these things are silly. The only “reasonable” (well, reasoned) explanation I have ever read comes from Stanley Kurtz, writing in the April 30 National Review:

"The real danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery, thereby destroying the final bastion protecting marriage: the ethos of monogamy. ... Gay marriage threatens monogamy because homosexual couples -- particularly male homosexual couples -- tend to see monogamy as nonessential, even to the most loyal and committed relationships. Of course, advocates argue that legal gay marriage will change all that -- that marriage will make gays more monogamous. But it is just as likely (indeed, far more likely) that the effect will go in the other direction -- openly non-monogamous married gay couples will break the connection between marriage and monogamy [for straight people]. Even more powerfully, gay marriage threatens monogamy through its tendency to lead, on a slippery slope, to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory. ... As a new generation grows up exposed to gay couples who openly define their marriages in non-monogamous terms, the concept of marriage itself will gradually change."

Now, while this may seem reasonable on the surface, in the light of clear thought it is as silly as the rest of the reasons posited above.

Above all, Mr. Kurtz seems to doubt the power and richness of monogamy and faithful, life-long relationships. If marriage leads to greater and greater maturity and growth, it follows that the experience would encourage faithfulness in those who enter into it - especially those who are supported and encouraged by the institution of marriage. But Mr. Kurtz apparently has no faith in the healing power of marriage because he believes that heterosexuals would abandon it in droves were they to see gay people acting unfaithfully, and that homosexuals who clearly want to get married would not benefit as well. This doesn’t hold together. Marriage is either a good and enriching thing “greatly to be desired” – or it is not.

One can also question Mr. Kurtz’s blithe assumption that male homosexuals (he seems to feel that Lesbians are okay) “see monogamy as nonessential.”  I’m not sure that heterosexual males do not sometimes cast a roving eye, but surely if gay people want to marry, that proves, by definition, that they embrace “the ethos of monogamy!”  Moreover, I have more homosexual friends in stable, long-term, committed relationships than I do heterosexual friends. (I shudder to think what might happen if my coupled gay friends got the idea in their heads that marriages are not permanent, based on observation of heterosexuals… )

But the most dangerous argument that Mr. Kurtz makes is the tired, old “slippery slope” argument that if we do one thing, then we will need to do another. His reasoning seems to be that if we grant a group of people who want to commit to eachother the right to do so, we will somehow encourage polygamy and polyamory. It simply does not follow – and if it did, it is a poor argument to say that we will not do the right thing for one group because it might encourage some other group. No, Mr. Kurtz’s fatuous reasoning will simply not do; we cannot refuse to do what is right and for the good of society as a whole, for fear that someone, somewhere, may abuse it. Equally, we might say that the argument works both ways: that if we allow Mr. Kurtz to dictate policy on whether gay people should be accorded equal rights, we should allow the Baptists to enshrine into law that women must be subject to their husbands, etc., etc. A slippery slope indeed! It is like saying that we will not grant any driving licenses because some people will speed.

Religion

Dr. Jonathan Sachs, the Head Rabbi of Britain, has said, "If religion doesn't become part of the solution, it stands in great danger of becoming part of the problem."

But to return to Senator Santorum: it may well be that his objections to homosexuals stem from religious scruples. If this is so, several considerations arise:

The first is the American tradition of separation of church and state. Of course, right-wing extremists refer to this principle as a “myth,” but rational people recognize that such a separation is the best – and only – way of keeping one group from dictating to other groups according to its own ideas.  Theocracy is inimical to democracy; history, ancient and modern, has demonstrated this with oceans of blood.   Senator Santorum, in his role as a US Senator, will uphold this separation, as he has sworn to uphold the constitution.

No mater how deeply one may believe the doctrines of one’s own religion, it is clear, if one is to be intellectually honest, that in terms of attitudes toward homosexuality, there is much disagreement and on-going change. A number of Christian denominations, as well as Reform Judaism, simply see homosexuality as a non-issue, except insofar as many injustices and inequalities remain to be rectified. Dr. Rowan Williams, the new Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, while agreeing uphold the current official position of the church with regard to homosexuality, believes, in the words of his biographer and former student Rupert Shortt, that “an adjustment of teaching on sexuality would not be different from the kind of flexibility now being shown to divorcees who wish to be married, or the softening in the 16^th century of the church’s once total opposition to borrowing with interest, or the 19^th and 20^th century shifts of view on subjects like slavery and eternal hellfire.”

The church has changed its view on women’s rights, segregation, inter-racial marriage, etc. As early as the fist century it changed its views on the inclusion on non-Jews. Marriage itself became a sacrament only comparatively recently, historically speaking, and as late as the 19^th century, was denied to slaves. Change has happened, and continues to happen, thank goodness - or we would still have slavery, married women would not be allowed to own propert, and women would not be allowed to vote – all changes that have been stoutly resisted on “religious” grounds. More recently still, gay men and women – or those perceived as such - could be denied jobs and housing (they still can – but many cities, states and corporations are in advance of Federal legislation, and most recently the U.S. Justice Department attempted to bar employees from holding an annual gay pride celebration at the department's headquarters).

Conclusion

When approximately one eighth of the graduating seniors at Philadelphia's Saint Joseph's University walked out of commencement ceremonies as the senator prepared to deliver the keynote address, Senator Santorum remarked that "We are all called to love one another, even people we disagree with, even people who hate us for what we believe.” Herein lies an important truth: to deny someone the opportunity of love and growth is not love at all; it is rationalized hatred and fear.

We have not seen all the dire predictions of religious conservatives come true in Holland or Belgium, or in France, Germany, Denmark or Sweden. It is not likely that we will see anything but benefit from it in Canada.

Objection to same-sex marriage is not, strictly speaking, something that can be regarded as settled once and for all, from a religious point of view. Let the churches do what they will. In good time, they will change, as they always have, and a future generation will wonder what the fuss was all about. There is no excuse for civil authority to deny equal human rights to gay and lesbian people.