What are the most common arguments made by opponents of marriage for gay and lesbian couples? And how can you help pass the amendment?
Gays and lesbians are already getting married in 29 countries
It's been a wonderful entry into the new millennium. The Netherlands became the first country in the world whose parliament approved marriage for gay and lesbian couples. On the day the law came into force, three gay couples and one lesbian couple were married. One of the men has since died, but all the other couples are still enjoying a happy married life.
The Dutch were no great optimists. The MPs who tabled the bill were told by many people that the Netherlands would be the first and last country in the world with marriage for all. The prediction did not come true and today 29 countries allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. The Czech Republic is close on the heels of Germany and Austria, which have both introduced marriage. Preventing the Czech Republic from becoming the first among post-communist countries is a small number of very vocal opponents who have managed to make the whole issue an uncomfortable political topic. What arguments do they use?
It is divorce that threatens the traditional family, not gays and lesbians
The classic objection to marriage for gay and lesbian couples is that it threatens the traditional family. It is not recorded who first came up with this nonsense, but it has been around for a long time and there have been quite a few memes about it. So far, none of the opponents have explained how, specifically, same-sex people starting their own families would threaten those heterosexual families. And so the biggest known danger to families composed of a man and a woman so far remains divorce.
In none of the countries that already allow same-sex marriage have heterosexual marriage or the traditional family ceased to exist. Why would gays and lesbians want to destroy it too? As the We Are Fair initiative, which seeks to introduce marriage for all in the Czech Republic, says: "We are not attacking the traditional family. We consider it a good family model. We are only saying that it is not the only functional family model. Even two women or two men can be good partners and parents."
It's time to change the hypocrisy of the adoption process
Let's leave aside that marriage and parenthood are two different things. People don't marry just to procreate. Marriages are taking place between seniors and people who can't or won't have children. Opponents of marriage for all use children as an argument often and gladly. They don't want to allow same-sex couples to adopt children and claim that the right parents are the biological ones. And that we must not violate a child's right to know his or her biological parents.
However, the adoptions of children by heterosexual couples, which have long been running in our country, are proof that non-biological parents can also be good parents. Life in a family is always much better for a child than life in an institution. Moreover, a gay or lesbian person alone can adopt children today. They may not just do it as a couple. Does that strike you as absurd? Of course it is! The partner couple goes through the entire official procedure together, the conditions and prescribed training must be completed as a couple, but in the end only one parent is registered in the documents of the adopted child. In adoptions by heterosexual couples, of course, both the man and the woman are automatically and without reservation registered.
Rainbow children grow up like water. And children from traditional families
Another false argument against marriage for all is the concern that children in two-mother or two-father families fare worse than children in "traditional" families. But 95% of major studies have long since shown that children from rainbow families develop exactly the same as others. This is agreed not only by many Czech experts, but also by foreign professional societies such as the American Psychological Association or the Australian Psychological Society. A recent study from the Netherlands even concluded that children from rainbow families learn better at school, oops!
Just watch out when someone pulls a Mark Regnerus study on you. This paper was supposed to prove that the healthy development of children of gay and lesbian parents is at risk. Only its author was an active supporter of the anti-LGBT campaign. And his "study" was paid for by the conservative think tank Witherspoon Institute. The scientific journal Social Science Research, which originally published the study, subsequently apologized for its lack of editorial work. Two independent experts to whom the study was referred for review completely refuted its conclusions.
Marriage for all will not turn the world on its head
There are sometimes fears about marriage for all that it will bring with it other radical changes - such as the abolition of male and female, the introduction of a third sex, the uncontrolled growth of surrogacy, or even the groom marrying a piece of stone he found on the side of the road and took a liking to. However, the amendment, which has been pending a vote in Parliament for years, only deals with making marriage available to same-sex couples. It has no ambition to comment on gender or even surrogacy. In fact, it is a very conservative effort to allow gays and lesbians to take a vow for better or worse and live a peaceful life around the family hearth.
Marriage for all in the Czech Republic is supported by 67% of the population, according to surveys. It is therefore sad that MPs and MEPs are avoiding the subject. The last debate in the Chamber of Deputies, which took place in March this year, when the bill automatically came to the floor, lasted a full four minutes. The House preferred to put a debate on the investigation into the Bečva poisoning on the agenda and got rid of the uncomfortable subject. This Parliament will not bring us marriage again, there are elections in the autumn. The next one might, but we just need to elect the right people.
