Move Over Miley Cyrus . . .

...Utah has its own "judicial wrecking ball." In a Salt Lake Tribune article published online yesterday, author Brooke Adams detailed the state's most recent filing about the same-sex marriage quandary it has been facing since December. Because I have little to no desire to read the entire 120-page document, I will mostly use Ms. Adams' summaries here.

In reading her summaries, it surprised me that although Utah is misguided in oh-so-many ways, it actually has a few things right. It amazes me how two disparate groups and look at the exact same thing, one side shaking its collective head in the negative and the other nodding in the affirmative.

First of all, would this decision be a "judicial wrecking ball" that would greatly affect court decisions of a similar nature in other states? Absolutely! I, and those of my ilk, raise our hands in rejoicing that more and more states' courts would understand that "defining" marriage in such a way that cuts out a large part of the population is a bad thing. Supporters of "traditional" marriage lament this "redefinition" and see it as another win for Satan, one step closer to Gomorrah and the breaking down of the very fiber of our society.

The document states that "a decision affirming the district court . . . would also unfairly dismiss the majorities in more than half of the States and numerous judges as irrational bigots" (1-2). This statement is both false and true. The "majority" that it mentions alludes to the "fact" that most people think that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. According to a survey done by the Public Religion Research Institute, 53% of Americans now support same-sex marriage rights. This is up from 32% just ten years ago, a jump "rarely [seen] . . . on any issue over a decade's time." Once the wrecking ball starts demolishing exclusionary laws, just think what this number will be in another ten years, given the fact this number is moving up at an increasing rate. So, even though Utah's population may be behind the national average, and all indications show that it is, does that give them the right to discriminate? As far as being "irrational bigots," that is true: As the majority of our nation moves steadily toward equality, those who lag behind will most certainly and rightly be seen as both irrational and as bigots.

I find it particularly disturbing that the Sate of Utah refers to "the evolving views of opinion leaders" as something that is a "trend" (6). This is as much as to say that eventually this "trend" of equality will fade as mercurial opinion creators move on to their next issue. Look at world history, folks. Every documented century that has passed has led us closer and closer to equality in all areas of life. If it is a trend, it is a mighty long one. This isn't going to fade away, Utah. Gay people and non-gender-normative people and same-sex couples will eventually be seen as equals.

Speaking of changing trends, I also have to wonder, as I have done many times before, when people will realize that this "ancient tradition" of one-man-one-woman marriage is a fantasy. Even recent history, especially LDS recent history, disproves this very argument. It seems rather convenient to me that Utah, the vast majority of its law makers being LDS, ignore historical and Biblical fact in order for their own "opinion leaders" to effect the changes (or lack thereof) that they are seeking. Our current idea of marriage is not ancient. So stop making it sound like God told us that marriage is between one man and one woman, especially when the LDS church still allows one man to be sealed to multiple woman for all time and eternity and considers polygamous marriage to be totally acceptable in Heaven.

Utah asserts that allowing same-sex marriages will result in "fewer and shorter heterosexual marriages; an increase in fatherless and motherless parenting; reduced birth rates and more out-of-wedlock births; less "self-sacrificing" by heterosexual fathers; and increased social strife" (qtd. in Adams 1). As more gay people feel comfortable being who they are and living according to their biology, there most most certainly be fewer heterosexual marriages. As more gay people who are currently involved in mixed-orientation marriages realize that they have denied themselves and have been denied by others for long enough, some "heterosexual" marriages will indeed be cut short. The same follows with fatherless and motherless children, should those same-sex couples decide to have children, whether by adoption or by surrogacy. Ditto for reduced birth rates (not that Utah's prolifically birthing majority should worry about reduced birth rates). I honestly don't understand the claim about more children being born out of wedlock. Nor was I able to follow any of the document's logic about why men (and not women) would suddenly think that their presence in their children's lives would no longer be necessary if marriage is de-gendered.

I also take great issue with Utah's (and the LDS church's) stance that opposite-sex marriages maintain the "need" that children have for "gender complementarity in their rearing" (19).  Unfortunately for Utah, this idea of biological gender roles has been heading out the door for a long time. There is no real question today that gender roles are social constructs, and the idea that males must act "manly" and females must act "femininely" is increasingly seen as false at best and ridiculous at worst. Within our increasingly enlightened paradigm, there is no reason at all why one man in a same-sex parental situation couldn't (or shouldn't) be the nurturer and the other be the leader and task master (or whatever it is that a manly father is supposed to be). The same, obviously, goes for two women. Moreover, there is no reason why both parents shouldn't embody all of those characteristics. So, if it is a broad range encompassing the fullness of emotional support that Utah is seeking in its present and future children's lives, same-sex parents can and do currently offer that.

I find it laughable that the state thinks it is necessary to point out that "the two sexes are not fungible"; that is, they are not interchangeable (29). Of course they aren't. Unless there is something happening of which I am not aware, not one person is advocating that everyone become hermaphrodites. I am pleased that Utah is aware of some biological truths; namely, that we can't pull a switcheroo on what is between our legs. Gender, on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with whether we have a penis or a vagina. Or both.

The final thing I am going to discuss here to keep this post from turning into a tome of epic proportions (and I realize I have only barely scratched the surface of this document), is Utah's assertion that same-sex relationships "are primarily about 'personal individual interests' and an 'adult-centric' lifestyle" (Adams 1). I honestly can't decide whether this continued assertion makes me more angry or more sad. Why is my sexuality reduced to something completely selfish? What about all the current same-sex parents of children? What about all the gay people (including me) who sincerely desire to share my life with my eventual husband and who sincerely desire to share my life with the children I eventually want to have? What about that is "adult-centric" aside from the fact that I am an adult and I want to be able to choose the other adult with whom I am to spend the rest of my life? What about that is only about my selfish desires? And really, when it comes down to it, aren't ALL relationships within our modern definitions, adult-centric and a bit selfish? If coupling was completely child-centric, finding someone emotionally, physically, sexually, spiritually, intellectually, and psychologically compatible would be of no concern. The desire to fall in love is, by nature, both adult-centric and selfish. Even back when marriages were arranged, which was much more recent than many so-called traditionalists would like to admit (and are still happening in some parts of the world!), it was not about the children; rather, it was about improving social standing and increasing wealth and land ownership. So until every heterosexual person actively starts looking for a spouse based solely on who will make the best father or mother to future children, I don't see how this argument is valid at all. 

I, like many others, am curious to see/hear how the oral arguments will go on April 10. I am curious to watch how this will unfold, given our changing paradigms about gender, sexuality, equality, and the role of our courts and their ability to make decisions that may very well go against the ignorant and bigoted majority (yes, I said it).