by Timothy Franklin

Created on: November 15, 2008   Last Updated: January 19, 2009

We can stare at statistics and poll results until our eyes go blurry and we're dizzy with numbers floating in our head, but the simple reality is that marriage is an institution. Sure, I agree with that. That's typically the number one argument against gay marriage. But just because a car is a Corvette doesn't mean that it's going to outrace a Toyota. It depends on the details. For instance, if a Corvette doesn't have a working engine and the Toyota does, it's a sure bet that the Toyota is going to win handily. Just because it is an institution doesn't make it unacceptable for gays to marry. After all, there are many cultures that have their own style of marriage ceremony (notice I said cultures, not religions). All of them deal with lifetime commitment and devotion to their spouse. So, if it's an institution, what is it an institution of?

Too often, heterosexuals say to their significant others that they are their "soul mates" and that they are their life and live in their hearts. Does that not apply to homosexuals? If a man is in love with another man to a level that they are able to take that big step, should they not be allowed to married? Or are we saying that they are incapable of such love and devotion? Are we saying that they are nothing more than mindless, lustful, perverts that are incapable of making responsible, committed choices? And if love is a matter of the soul, then who is to say that it is wrong? Perhaps it is right for them because they are gay and were born gay and are not meant to have a relationship with the opposite gender. The point of a marriage is to bring into union two people that are in love with each other. Religion only take a stand in this since many wedding ceremonies take place in a religious setting with a man of the cloth presiding. This does not make it a religious institution and to presume such is simply an attempt at control and domination over a perceived monopoly. But the truth is, the Church isn't responsible for every wedding ceremony. When I got married in 2000, my wife and I had a simple ceremony with a Justice of the Peace presiding. This means that religion did not have a play in our choice or in our union. So what would be so wrong if the law allowed for gays to marry? Only one: Selfishness and Mean Spiritedness.
Heteros that are typical right-wing conservatives absolutely refuse to accept gays as a part of our society. But the truth is that gays have been around since Old Testament biblical times (and probably before). You want proof? Ask anyone who is anti-gay marriage, and better than 90% of the time, they will tell you that it is "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord". They are actually quoting scripture when they say that (Leviticus 18:22). So, no matter how much the religious zealots may fight against the subject, consider the following in making your own decision: 1) Is love (not lust) a part of the soul? 2) Is marriage a religious institution or merely an institution?
Because if love is truly a part of the soul then no one has the right to refuse them. And if it isn't then marriage is an institution that perhaps none of us have a right to.

Learn more about this author, Timothy Franklin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.