Opinion

Is marriage as sacred as we think?

Justin Vann

Here's a question to all you people in favor of "protecting the sanctity of marriage": Doesn't marriage have to be sanctified before you can protect its sanctity? Marriage today has less credibility than Michael Moore at a Republican convention.

Don't agree with me? What about Married by America, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry my Dad, Race to the Altar, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé and The Littlest Groom? These shows get incredible ratings, and nobody believes you when you say, "I watch them only because they're so ridiculous." The popularity of these shows clearly says something about marriage: It's not so sacred anymore. 

Still don't believe me? In 2002, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 50 percent (give or take a few points) of all marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability that you will remain with your spouse for the rest of your life is literally a coin toss.

But what about the 50 percent of marriages that don't end in divorce?

Aren't those still sacred? The Web site www.endabuse.org cites statistics showing that "In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner." Realistically, that number is much higher, taking into account the abuse that goes unreported. Granted, not all of the abuse occurs between spouses, but it's safe to assume that most involves heterosexual couples.

"But hey! Look over there! Some homosexuals are trying to get marriage licenses! How dare they? They're cheapening the beauty and tradition of marriage! What's next, bestiality and Satan-worshipping?" 

If you are the kind of person who would call gay marriage "the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage," you need to get a clue (and look up the definition of a slippery-slope fallacy while you're at it). 

Americans are missing the point in the worst possible way. We're so busy complaining over a little civil disobedience in San Francisco, we seem to have forgotten that a man beats his wife every nine seconds in this country. If you're worried about protecting marriage, start with the heterosexuals. 

Even if every homosexual on the face of the earth wore leather pants, a pink feather boa and a fabulous pair of Gucci sunglasses, they still couldn't damage marriage as much as the straight couples have. But let's go back to reality. How many feather boas and drag queens were standing outside of courthouses in San Francisco? I didn't see any. 

Another way to put it: For every flamboyantly gay couple that makes you feel uncomfortable by sitting next to you on the bus, a straight couple is getting a divorce or beating one another. For every "illegal" gay marriage that recently occurred, a TV show is probably being produced called Who wants to marry a dead goat? . Now ask yourself which harms the institution of marriage more. 

I'm not putting spousal abuse or divorce past homosexuals either, mind you. But we haven't even given them a chance. Therein lies our folly.

The purpose of this diatribe is not even to prove that gay marriage is inherently valuable. I'm prepared to argue the merit of gay marriage, but I choose to rant on the hypocrisy of straight America's accusations instead.

I will end with what should be abundantly clear to even the homophobes out there: There is no logical basis for banning gay marriage. To defend "the sanctity of marriage," is nothing more than blatant bigotry. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Vann, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at vann_mann@hotmail.com.