Civil Unions and the Destruction of Society BY GREG D. KUBIAK To hear some opponents of gay marriage and equal rights, you would think the survival of Western civilization was ‘dependent on defeating the gay tide. But after folding back the arguments against -honoring gay relationships, all that is exposed are hallow arguments and hysteria. Robert H. Knight, director of cultural studies for the Family Research Council, is perhaps the most prolific and boisterous of the religious rights spokesmen again homosexuality. From his posi- tion at the FRC, he tries to portray himself as not just a social policy advocate, _but as a learned academic on the subject. Knight (not to be confused with the state senator who sponsored the anti-gay mar- riage initiativeiin California) uses the strongest of terms in making his case against gay - marriage rights. He says that while “domestic partnerships is billed as an extension of tol-' erance and civil rights,” it would “actually undermine the institutions of marriage and family.” In his recent writings, he gives seven argu- — ments to back up his point. Knight fears that policies and laws that confer partner benefits or "marital status on same-sex couples would send a clear signal that marriage is not a social priority worth encouraging above other kinds of relationships. However, he fails to fully explain how heterosexual marriage will be damaged by allowing homosexuals the same benefits. But let’s keep looking at his arguments, and perhaps this overblown claim will fall of its own weight. First, Knight declares that the “procreative imperative” that underlies traditional pro- tection of marriage and family will be harmed if gays can marry and raise children. Clearly, he fails to acknowl- edge that lots of kids have been raised quite well, thank you, in non-traditional gay or lesbian households. To define family as a bread-winning husband, wife and 2.3 chil- dren, as Knight would do, is a misguided and nostalgic cry from the past. Besides, there are plenty of straight couples that get married with no “pro- creative imperative” in mind. Not everyone wants kids. The FRC opposes gay mar- riage because it would “legit- imize sarne sex activity and homosexuals’ claim that they should be able to adopt chil- dren.” Loving someone to whom we are naturally and emotionally drawn should in no way be delegitimized or discouraged by government, as Knight’s logic seems to suggest. To use his logic, why isn’t the FRC campaigning to take away marriage licenses from those who delegitimize their marriages by committing adultery? If it’s the institution they’re worried about, they should be bolstering anti- adultery statutes instead of worrying about an expansion of the privilege. Surely gay‘_ marriage is not the lone threat to straight marriage. Next, Knight opposes our rights to marry as it would’ “injure the crucial kinship structur.e,’> Jvhich imparts “continuity, community and stability to societies.” Again, what a wrath of over-blown rhetoric! If gay marriage had the strength to destroy the sta- bility of society, President Reagan would have given us all rings and air-lifted us to the Soviet Union back in the early ‘80s. Knight’s fifth principle against gay marriage is that it would violate the “freedom of religion, as more and more devout Christian, Jewish and Muslims” would be “told that they must accept as ‘moral’ what their faiths teach is immoral.” Muslims, we’d have no gov- emment. Knight believes that domestic partner laws would “mock the idea of commit- ment” due to the “easy disso- lution of the relationship” under these laws. I suppose he’d hold up the near 50 per- cent divorce rate as a better model? Religious bigots scorn queers for being non-monoga- mous, perverts incapable of living in a committed relation- ship. But when we ask for the tools to live in a committed relationship, we’re told it would destroy society. And lastly, this stalwart of morality argues that gay mar- riage will “breed cynicism” as it would “defy common understanding about the rela- tive worth of particular rela- tionships.” _ You want to experience cynicism? Tell a lesbian that she cannot have custody of her biological child because a judge thinks her “lifestyle choice” is not conducive to appropriate family values. Tell a gay man that he cannot go into an intensive care unit to see his partner of 17 years because he’s not “immediate family.” Tell an entire class of citi- zens that they should‘ be denied a basic civil right because they are an “abomi- nation,” and I’ll show you cynical. V Greg D. Kubiak, a Vice Versa Award winner, can be reached via OITM or by e- mail at GKubiak@aol.com. V Look, the principle of the _ , .. ._ .. _ . separation of church and state is that the state has no right to interfere with the workings of religious belief and religion has no right to interfere with the workings of government. We practice the death penalty in the nation, despite the fact that many religions don’t accept it as “moral.” If every government sanction had to pass the religious muster of devout Christians, Jews, and l'T _-._,matri_rr1o9.ni2u.aric1a.£2m1A)L1.21_w May 2000 Out in the Mountains 13 I e°"‘€‘$ 6 st ea‘ ' . gape“ BLACKWO OD ASSOCIATES, PC qttorn eys blackv.vdlaw@aol.com fax: 802-863-0262 Employmaat andSpea'ol Education Law, Civil Law, Wills and Illediation, LGB1'Adopa'ons and Dommtic Issues, Personal Injury Law and other litigation Good legal advice can make all Vthe difference. Langrock Sperry & Wool offers the services of 22 lawyers with over 300 years combined experience in all areas of the law — including two lesbian attorneys with special expertise serving the legal needs of the g/l/b/t/q community. SUSAN MURRAY & BETH ROBINSON With offices in Middlebury and Burlington Middlebury (802) 388-6356 Burlington (802) 864-0217 smurray@langrock.com brobinson@langrock.com Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP SChO%nbe1‘g O F! N & \/ I Arronnizvs AT LAW iv‘ /-1 131 CHURCH STREET £fl2M_ 05401 _.._._._..__——————<—-——— P. 802.864.3120 Associates www.vermontiami|yiaw.com inio'@vermontiamiIyiaw,com