(Published in Naseeb.com Vibes on May 27, 2004, and in The New Age in Bangladesh on June 16th, 2004.)
Muslim discomfort about homosexuality is no reason to vote Republican. First, though, let me just say one thing: as far as I'm concerned, there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. For me the biggest issue in American politics is the skewed foreign policy that results from an uncritical support for Israel, in spite of the indefensible occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza. Neither Bush nor Kerry is willing to come to terms with this insanity, which is obviously the root cause of most Muslim anger against the US and the West; so I normally have a hard time caring about US politics.
However, George W. Bush and his neocon buddies have acted so deceitfully in their proclamations of Iraqi WMDs, and with such contempt of international law in the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, that my reservations have become irrelevant. This administration has to go.
Given that, I am very worried about a trend that I see among US Muslims. Many of them are recent immigrants from traditional Muslim societies which are intolerant of homosexuality. So when issues like gay marriage turn up on the political scene, they automatically find themselves allied with the Christian Republican right. But this is not a necessary position. I would argue that even if one disapproves of homosexuality, one can still support gay marriage.
This becomes clear through example. Let's look at a case of moral reasoning which has to do with purely heterosexual behaviour; namely an extramarital sexual relationship between a man and a woman. All Muslims would of course agree that this is immoral in principle; but now let's refine our view of it. Suppose there were two such couples, one of which was monogamous and one of which was not (ie., either the man or woman or both are also involved with other people at the same time).
Which of these two situations is preferable? Almost everyone would agree, I'm sure, that the monogamous extramarital relationship is more moral. Why? Because of these two possibilities, it's closer to the ideal of marriage. In fact, the only difference between a monogamous extramarital relationship and marriage is commitment (which is exactly what a Muslim marriage contract embodies).
When one looks at gay marriage in the light of the above example, it's no longer so obvious that Muslims should oppose it. Given the secular legal context of North America and Europe, there is no way to forbid or stop homosexuality. However, by legalizing gay marriage, homosexuals can be encouranged to be more moral by forming committed monogamous relationships. Just as this is preferable in the case of heterosexuals, it should also be the better alternative in the homosexual case.
This is an important point, because as far as I can see it's mainly the issue of homosexuality that separates most Muslim organizations from the left. This has to be overcome if Muslims are to have an effective political voice. The left has become increasingly fragile in recent years, as both parties have moved to the center in search of winning demographics. But Muslims need to unite behind people who are interested in questioning militarist US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere; and that means that the jingoistic fascism of the Rupublicans (or for that matter the Conservatives in the UK) is simply the wrong choice.