Gay marriage has arrived, and middle America is in a dither. But why are American conservatives fighting so hard to push back the tide? What could be so threatening about same sex marriage in this day and age, when marriage has more to do with your tax liability and credit ratings than with ‘death do us part’? After all, millions get married every year, and half of those will get divorced; pre-nuptial agreements are routine, and unmarried women will soon outnumber married ones.

But conservatives say that same sex marriages violate nature’s plan, and are pushing for a federal amendment to the Constitution to ban same sex marriages even as the first gay marriages have taken place in Massachusetts. Two federal courts denied requests for an injunction against the Massachusetts marriages, and opponents are pushing a federal amendment to the Constitution.

According to Ed Vitagliano, spokesman for the American Family Association, opponents of same sex marriage “are still hoping a federal marriage amendment can be brought out of committee and passed.” He also says that there is a “battle, state by state, to convince legislatures to pass defense of marriage acts,” which would redefine marriage to mean one man and one woman only.

The AFA is headed up by preacher Donald Wildmon, who became famous for his crusades against pornography and calls for boycotts against popular music, television and movies. Wildmon has called himself an “apostle of Christian values” and once succeeded in censoring the cartoon show Mighty Mouse. The Tupelo, MS-based AFA has been in the forefront of organizing against same sex marriage, and the AFA is the owner of such websites as www.nogaymarriage.com and www.stopliberaljudges.com.

Vitagliano also claims that America doesn’t want gay marriage. “Most

Americans have a gut understanding that marriage is between one man and one woman for the purposes of raising a child.”

The furor erupted six months ago when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down a landmark ruling. In the November 17th ruling, Justice Marshall wrote, “The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. … [The Massachusetts Constitution] forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”

The court gave Massachusetts legislators six months to comply with the ruling, and same sex marriages proceeded with much fanfare in Massachusetts, garnering worldwide attention.

This ruling was a tactical nuke in the culture wars. Coming on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas (June 2003), which struck down Texas sodomy laws, the SJC ruling opened the door to unprecedented legal and social status for homosexual couples.

Vitagliano says that ‘natural law,’ biology, and history justifies fighting against gay marriages. “I think it’s obvious that kids do best in an environment that has one woman and one man, happily married. They have the male and female role models; it’s a very natural thing. We think that that’s the best model and nature designed it that way.”

“Nature has a clear design,” according to Vitagliano, that sex is for procreation, and other kinds of sex are not in accordance with evolutionary principles.

But historians and biologists reject these arguments completely.

Dr. William Percy, a historian who specializes in legal history and homosexuality at the University of Massachusetts Boston, says that the idea of gay marriage is frightening to many because it goes against a very strong tradition. “Marriage has always been defined as a marriage between a man and a woman for procreation and the rearing of children. It was defined that way in Roman law, in the [Catholic] canon law, and in the common law,” says Percy, ”It was never conceived that there would be marriage between people of the same sex; it’s a new-fangled idea. Of course, gay couples can raise children as effectively as straight ones. Probably better in some cases.”

Asked if the SJC ruling could be described as judicial activism, Percy said “I would say so, yes, because it’s traditional to have marriage between a man and a woman, even if it’s not codified in law, but legally they are on very sound grounds, because a minority’s being denied its civil rights on the basis of religious prejudice, and in this country…we have the separation of church and state, so I think the Supreme Judicial Court was right on as far as legal grounds go.”

Percy, who is one of the editors of The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (Dynes et al, Garland Science, 1990), says the reasons for the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexuality are lost to history. He dismisses the notion that homosexuality is somehow against nature. “All of the higher mammals engage in it, so it’s not, as Plato argued, and as some religions argue, contrary to nature. It’s in nature.”

Percy also says that only Judeo-Christian civilizations (and Islamic), have had strong prohibitions against homosexuality. “The Greeks accepted it if it was done decorously. Also in Japan, it was part of the militaristic culture of the Samurai. Aristotle claimed that militaristic people were given to it. And many primitive societies have [open homosexuality].”

And biologists don’t agree with Vitagliano’s outlook either. Shortly after queer marriage became a nationwide issue last year, Wendell and Cass – penguins at the New York Aquarium in Brooklyn, NY, became the most famous gay couple to ever shed feathers and eat raw fish together. The ground-bound avians have been a mated pair for nearly a decade, and became an instant symbol of nature’s tolerance for homosexuality. They sleep together, have sex together, and practice a monogamous relationship in a separate burrow.

Bruce Bagemihl, famous for his 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, says that not only is homosexuality present in nature, but that it’s a necessary part of life. And penguins are just the beginning - polar bears, cassowaries, snakes, and guinea pigs are just a few of the animals that have successful, long-term homosexual relationships.

Bagemihl wrote in an article from Whole Earth (Spring 2000), that “Rather than being seen as "barren" or counter-productive, then, homosexuality, transgender, and non-breeding are considered by some indigenous people to be essential for the ecology of life.”

In response, Vitagliano says, “Animals do all sorts of things that their owners wish they wouldn’t, we don’t model our behavior after that,” an answer unsupported both by science and nature itself.