A few weeks ago I eluded to the issue of marriage equality. Yep, I’m talking about same-sex marriage. I’m straight and I’m not too sure that anybody should get married considering the near certainty of divorce, and things such as alimony, so I definitely do not have any personal interest in this topic.

So when we talk about marriage, as far as the legal sense, we can simplify it as a legal contract with certain privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities. In a lot of ways its like incorporating, just restricted to a man and a woman (in most jurisdictions). So what are some of the common arguments against allowing any two people of legal age to enter into this contract?

1. The Argument from History – Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so it should continue that way. Since it’s a historical argument, we should look at a few facts of history. For the majority of history marriage was between a man and one or more women of the same race, tribe, and class. So as far as history goes, this argument fails.

2. The Argument from Nature – Homosexuality is unnatural. Let’s look at human history: Classical Greece, medieval bath houses, medieval universities, and King Philip of France and his lover Richard, Duke of York (aka King of England) and their lovers quarrel during the Third Crusade. Homosexuality in humans has been observed and documented for as far back as we have documentation. How about the animal kingdom? Chimpanzees, banobos, gray whales, orcas, bottle nose dolphins, big horn sheep, bison, dogs, cats, and rats are just a handful of mammal species who have been observed to engage in homosexual relations. Regardless of if you like it, it’s perfectly natural.

3. The Argument for Families – Marriage exists for having families and raising children. This fails on several grounds. First, is that there are plenty of people who get married who either cannot or choose not to have children. There is no fertility test to get a marriage certificate and no expiration if no children are produced (although in the case of Henry VIII there was one and that never turned out well for his wife). Second, is the fact that there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who do have children, either from prior relationships, adoption, or sperm donors/surrogacy.

4. The Argument for the Children – Children do best with both a mother and a father. Regardless of if this is true, there are plenty of children who have single parents or even no parents. There are also plenty of straight people who are horrible parents. I think it would be safe to say that children do best with two mentally and emotionally stable parents. There have been few studies about people who were raised by same sex couples, but as it turns out they are no more likely to be gay than anybody else and they are just as well adjusted as anybody else. It would seem that anything that promotes stability and permanence in a loving, committed relationship would be good for the children. So again, this argument fails.

5. The Argument from Religion – Marriage is a religious institution and the Bible says it’s between a man and a woman. This fails on two grounds. First off, the Bible doesn’t say that, unless you want to be an elder/bishop. What it does say is that it’s between a man and one or more women. Secondly and more importantly, IT DOESN’T MATTER. If marriage is a religious institution and the government has any involvement in it, then it violates the establishment clause. It’s either religious or its civil. Those who want to be able to define marriage based on their religion should be trying to get it off the law books.

I already know what a few of you are going to say, “Why can’t they just have civil unions so we don’t have to call it marriage?” Ever heard of “separate but equal?” Since people ultimately object based on their religion, let’s end the debate by taking it out of the equation. How about civil unions for all?

This is one of the greatest current tests of American secularism and so far most of the country is failing miserably.