Opponents of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts have come one step closer to getting a constitutional ban against the practice. For months the state legislature has been stalling over a petition to put same-sex marriage on the ballot so that the electorate can have their say, but finally they’ve voted to advance a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If, as is likely, 50 legislators approve the amendment it’ll go on the November 2008 ballot.

My sense is that there’s enough support for giving gay people the right to marry each other that the amendment may be defeated in a popular vote. But this is a hot-button issue for Christian voters in particular and many will rally to the polls.

As a Buddhist, I have no problem with gay marriage. In fact I think it’s a good thing from the point of view of social justice to allow homosexuals to marry, and I think it’s also good to support families and to encourage people to form long-lasting, committed relationships.

In my fairly extensive readings of Buddhist scripture I’ve never come across anything that suggests that homosexuality is inherently unskillful. Sure, the Buddhist monastic code, or vinaya, forbids homosexual contact — but it also forbids heterosexual activity too. After all, monks and nuns are supposed to be strictly celibate. Anal, vaginal, or oral sex — with the same of a different sex — was for monastics a serious offense that entailed expulsion from the monastic community, while mutual masturbation is a more minor offense that must be confessed. But there’s certainly no singling out of homosexual activity.

Householders are of course permitted to have sex (Buddhism would have been a very short-lived phenomenon otherwise) but that sexual activity is governed by the third precept: Kāmesu micchācārā veramani sikkhāpadam samādiyāmi, or, “I undertake the training principle of abstaining from sexual misconduct.”

But what constitutes sexual misconduct, and does it include homosexual activity?

Basically, sexual misconduct is any sexual activity that hurts others or which takes what is not freely given. Rape, adultery, sex with those who are not, because of status or youth, unable to freely say “no” are all forms of sexual misconduct. This is all spelled out in detail in the Buddhist suttas. Yet homosexuality is never mentioned.

We have to assume, since the Buddha was familiar with homosexual practices and yet never specifically rules against them, that he regarded them as being covered by the same precepts that govern heterosexual relationships. In other words, if homosexual activity does not harm others then it’s fine.

So how does this affect my attitude to gay marriage?

In Buddhism, unlike in Christianity, marriage is not a sacrament. For Christians, marriage is a holy state ordained by God as the only legitimate avenue for sexual activity. For Buddhism, marriage is simply a social relationship that consenting adults may enter into of their own free will. There’s nothing holy about marriage, and sex doesn’t magically become legitimized because the partners are married.

Since the Buddha seems to have believed that homosexual activity is ethically equal to heterosexual activity, and that all sexual activity (whether homo- or heterosexual) should be covered by the precepts, we can only assume that he would have been comfortable with the idea of homosexuals marrying.

The reasons that opponents of marriage rights for gay people have put forward all seem spurious when looked at from a Buddhist point of view.

Since for Buddhism marriage is not a sacrament, there is no need to “defend” it by preventing gay people from participating in this institution. It’s hard for me to see how you can protect the institution of marriage by making it inaccessible to a certain class of people.

Some say that the purpose of marriage is to have children and so gay people should not be allowed to be married. But that implies that those who are sterile or past the age of child-bearing should also not allowed to be married. Should we have fertility tests before marriage?

Some say that children need a male and a female parent, but no evidence exists to show that that’s the case, and in any event we do not prevent single people from having children, nor do we take children away from widows or widowers. This is simply a non-issue and an irrelevance to the question of gay marriage.

There are also arguments that this gay marriage is a slippery slope — that if we allow marriage between gay people then this will lead to polygamy, intergenerational marriage, incest, marriage between humans and animals, etc (really, the imaginations of these people are so sordid!). There’s no question of these things following naturally from allowing gay marriage, any more that they followed from allowing interracial marriage.

There really are no rational arguments against gay marriage that hold water.

I’m not in favor of putting gay marriage to a popular vote. The people are not always right, and the framers of the US constitution recognized the dangers of the tyranny of the majority — the majority exerting its will and depriving a minority of its rights. This has happened numerous times in the history of the US particularly in relation to racial and gender issues, but so far the trend has been in the direction of increased equality.

But if this does come to a vote I hope that the voters will realize that gay marriage is not a threat, and that it’s in fact beneficial.

I see Massachusetts’ recognition of gay marriage as the continued extension of civil rights to a formerly oppressed minority, and the proposal to outlaw gay marriage by means of a constitutional amendment to be a tragic and shameful attack on civil rights.