Public should not exercise authority over any marriage 
November 12, 2009 by Nathan Warner
Equality under the law cannot be denied to homosexual couples
Last week, residents of Maine voted to overturn a recent law permitting the marriage of same-sex couples. This was a devastating defeat for proponents of gay marriage, as New England is considered the bastion of the movement.
This vote reaffirms the actions of citizens in nearly every state across the country. In almost every ballot initiative on the issue, U.S. voters have repeatedly denied the right to marry to homosexual couples.
Social conservatives, especially those who identify themselves as religious, spearhead this opposition. To these groups, marriage is not only a civil institution, but a sacred rite that unites a man and a woman under God. Homosexuality itself is considered a perversion of God’s created order.
To some extent, I empathize with these concerns. I come from a conservative background and consider myself a religious man.
I freely admit that homosexuality makes me uncomfortable — I, like many socially conservative heterosexuals, cannot fathom how same-sex attraction is even possible and question whether it is a matter of genetics or choice.
I even doubt whether adopted children of gay couples are provided the best environment for proper development — although I strongly agree that two loving, same-sex parents are far better than many alternatives.
Needless to say, for the past several years, I have been a strong opponent of gay marriage.
I now realize that these personal feelings, whatever they may be, are irrelevant, at least as far as equality is concerned.
It is time for me to come out of the closet, so to speak, and emphatically retract my objections to gay marriage.
More than that, I now consider it my responsibility to actively promote equality under the law. The most important reason that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples is that married couples are given significant legal benefits that are denied to same-sex couples.
These benefits include joint ownership, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, tax identification and benefits.
It is immoral, unfair and prejudiced to grant one type of couple legal rights that are denied to the other. Some may argue – as I did at one point – that same-sex couples aren’t applicable ‘couples,’ or that granting gays these rights would open the door for further perversion of marriage, like marriage to children or polygamy.
These arguments and others like them miss the point. Gay couples are just as capable of marriage-like devotion as heterosexual couples. In fact, it can easily be argued that marriage has perverted itself enough already, without any help from same-sex couples.
Two consenting adults should not be denied the legal benefits society agrees should be given to couples, regardless of race, creed, appearance, wealth, gender or sexual orientation.
Of course, opponents of gay marriage will continue to insist that these points are irrelevant and that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of our most basic social institution.
They could say it seems to defy to our most basic democratic norms — who is the government to impose itself on the people against their will?
In light of these concerns, I present an alternative to allowing same-sex couples to marry.
The state should remove itself from the marriage business entirely. The government could give all couples civil unions, where the legal rights now provided by marriage are given to any two consenting adults who seek it.
Marriage could become entirely a private affair, granted by churches or other private institutions. Giving civil unions to gay couples while still allowing heterosexual couples to marry is a step in the right direction, but it still implies a level of separation between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Perhaps this is only a matter of semantics, but it would end governmental discrimination against same-sex couples in every sense.
The main opponents to gay marriage – social conservatives – should welcome this move.
They are often the ones to speak out in favor of small government in other issues, and there should be no exception here. There is no reason for the government to dictate to whom one can marry. In fact, it is an infringement on individual liberty to prevent consenting adults from being legally identified as a couple, whatever that identification entails.
Forbidding same-sex marriage is only an attempt to force a moral code on society and should be abandoned — even by those who themselves believe that homosexuality is immoral. It is not the place of the religious to insist that all citizens be governed by strictly religious moral conventions.
Unfortunately, this is what both extremes will view as a compromise — that evil weapon of intellectual vacillation. It is thus unlikely to ever gain real support.
Social conservatives will contend that it still destroys marriage as an institution and progressives will argue that it skirts the issue and continues to perpetuate prejudiced attitudes towards same-sex couples.
If this dichotomy proves true, I would rather destroy marriage altogether than continue to legally favor one group over another. This is not a simple matter of public policy, but of equality and justice.
Consent is generally desirable, but has often been a stumbling block in America’s progressive realization of Thomas Jefferson’s proclamation of human nature.
In the name of equality, popular consent must be ignored and all unions made equal under the law.
And here, we have a guy showing the public how simple it is to be a hero.
While I have no problem with gays getting civil unions, I have a problem with them using the term marrige. Marrige is sanctent to the church and gay marrige is against the church. So I say let marrige be defined as between man and a woman and gays have civil unions.
I have to say I am surprised as you have mentioned already that you were pro gay marriage… so are you coming out of the closet, per se, again?
Now down to your article, you make a big point that gay marriage is about equality but gay people have the same right to marry as I do as long as it is in a heterosexual marriage.
Another point is that all of the legal rights you list ” joint ownership, hospital visitation, medical decision-making, tax identification and benefits” can be dealt with in a short appointment with an attorney or through some legal documents company. It is not difficult to give anyone (be it your partner, common law spouse, cousin, friend, etc.) those rights and you can do it for a lot less than the cost of a marriage. There are also many states that have civil unions which offer all of those rights. So I’m guessing your real problem isn’t with the rights but with the fact that gay couples don’t have “marriage” in most states.
You argue that “It is immoral, unfair and prejudiced to grant one type of couple legal rights that are denied to the other.” Would this include (as you pointed out) multiple wives, multiple husbands, child spouses, close relational spouses, multiple wives and husbands, large communes, etc. Where does “immoral, unfair and prejudiced” exclusion stop and rational exclusion begin? I don’t believe that your argument answers that.
I actually like your idea of removing the state from marriage altogether but that would mean a massive switch in how much of the government is run. Many things (taxes, probate, bankruptcy, welfare, etc) are run based on our socially defined familial unit (father, mother, kids). If we stopped using a family based system and instead changed to a group based system then how big a group is too big? Could 15,000 people in the same group file using the same tax return? Would they all get their tax deductions and credits? What about dependents? Because it would be very hard, I don’t see it happening.
My opposition to homosexuality is partly because I view it as a sin and as a citizen I have the chance to vote (as do all other citizens) to decide how my government is run. So far, the popular vote (democracy in action) says “No” to gay marriage and usually “Yes” to civil unions. I think it is elitist to think that you know better than our entire country how to run our government.
You say that “forbidding same-sex marriage is only an attempt to force a moral code on society and should be abandoned.” If that is true, then why don’t we abandon all other morals? We could start with Integrity, honesty (both legal requirements to becoming an attorney or doctor). We could also allow murder and stealing which were both “stolen” from religious morals before they were put into our statutes. We could get rid of notions of fairness and equality as they too are morals. I see morals as necessary to running any government as no amount of laws can stop an immoral person as we are beginning to see in our own day. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/82368
hold whatever religious views you choose but scripture has never said homosexuality was a sin. it has only been man who said that said scripture said it. no one has ever been able to explain how any words of any verses say it is sin.historically what has been done is to ASSIGN meaning to verses in spite of their words.
and those who chose to make it a sin under the new covenant do it by keeping one foot still firmly planted in the old covernant by saying we still have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28 instead of directly to the spirit who lives in each believer as indicated by the torn curtain at the crucifixion. they do it in spite of romans saying that all new covenant law is summed up in the 2nd commandment…………love your neighbor……….
the fact that someones rights can be determined by referendum violates the very foundation of this country……………………………
homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a brother, friend, engineer, doctor, teacher, soldier,neighbor, father etc.
homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together the same as heterosexuals
the foundation of this country is that all will have equal protection under the law to IN LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
that there should be any attempt for support of any specific religious views under the law comes against the whole issue of seperation of church and state.
Atheists marry. Catholics marry. The Marriage License says nothing about God or religion. Marriage is a civil contract between two people, a pledge of mutual love. Ten percent of the population won’t make much of an impact on marriage; the major enemy of “God-ordained” marriage is divorce. So outlaw this device that takes out half the marriages.
david’s “points” are rather self-defeating. He loses it pretty quickly, stating that homosexuals have the right to marry, in the manner that a heterosexual does – to the opposite sex. It’s not exactly like a mirror image of the arguments against interracial marriage, or anything. “You blacks have the right to marry, just as long as its within your own race.” Exact same argument.
And thank you, Nathan. Very good article. This is an issue individuals and society are evolving on. Equal protection under the 14th Amendment is equal protection, including for gays. If that’s civil unions or marriage, it matters less the label than securing the rights, though marriage for them is likely inevitable.
I think the main fact about the term marrige is that marrige is typically referrred to as a sanctent term, that being one religious in nature. So like many have said gays can have civil unions, but keep marrige sanctent between man and a woman.
I would really like to thank you for writing this article. The point you make is what many people cannot seem to grasp in this country. Someone’s personal feelings towards homosexuality are irrelevant and should not get in the way of freedom for everyone. Banning gay marriage by popular vote is not only demeaning and dehumanizing to the homosexual community, but what is most important is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Civil unions might be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately civil unions in this country grant far less rights to the couple than a true marriage. It’s sad to see that too many people in this country did not learn the lesson taught by Plessey v. Ferguson, the Jim Crowe laws, and the civil rights movement. Seperate is NOT and CAN NEVER BE equal!
AJ,
Marriage is again a sactant term associated with the church, the church does not support gay marriage and neither do I (and no I am not overly religious), but I dont have a problem with gays getting civil unions because the term is different. The word marriage will not mean as much anymore when gays gets to use that term as well. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and thats how it should stay. We are not taking away anyones freedom by not letting them use a word, we are simply laying a definition into law.
Nathan,
This is a very bad article in the way it is written because you defeat your own argument in your article. I mean this was very, very, poorly written and filled with contradictions. It makes me wonder if you or the editor took English at all.
Let me also include that I understand where Nathan was trying to go with this article by saying freedoms shouldnt be allowed to be voted away or taken away by the majority of the citizens. I feel he picked the wrong topic because outlawing gay marriage is not a freedom issue but a social issue. By voting against gay marriage we are not taking a freedom because we set up civil unions that have the same force as marriage for gay people, the wording is just different.
C,
Your response makes me laugh with your attempt at trying to sound tolerant. I especially love when you say that the word “marriage” will not mean much anymore if gays get to use it too. What’s even worse than a close minded fool with a big mouth is a close minded fool who doesn’t recognize his own hypocrisy. I would also like to inform you that civil unions are in no way equal to marriages. So your sorry excuse for an argument is what is truly pathetic here. Try doing some research on the rights civil unions give people versus the rights marriages give people and educate yourself before you share your ignorance with the world again.
John R,
Look up Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27. These verses are from both the Old Testament and the New Testament and there are many more.
Under our constitution and its case law, there are certain “rights” which cannot be touched by legislation or referendum. The right to marriage for homosexuals is not a “right” under the Constitution (nor could it be under the legal test) as they are not a suspect class.
I was in choir and theatre for years and I have met and hung out with many homosexuals but just because they are nice people doesn’t mean they can have any legal rights they want. This is a social rights debate and has nothing to do with a civil rights debate.
The separate of church and state doctrine does not mean that no moral or religious elements can be found in government or we would have to burn the declaration of independence and disband our government as it opens with a prayer every year. The doctrine focuses on the fact that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our Founding Fathers didn’t want another Church of England here in the US and so they included that doctrine. Morals as I stated above are actually necessary to running of our government.
Fred Conwell,
You are correct that some marriage licenses say nothing about God on them (mine does because I was married in a church but I would assume that if you got the certificate from the government that it wouldn’t mention God). The fact is that marriage is based on a religious rite though it has now been secularized and put to use by governments. Why should religions that have been using this rite for millennia let the government change its use? It’s like someone owning an area of land with a pond on it and then letting a friend use it. Why should the owner let the friend dictate how his pond is going to be used?
P.S.I would say that pride and selfishness are the two biggest enemies to marriage, but that’s just me.
AJ,
You are the definition of ignorant, by saying my opinion is wrong, but look at the pools the vast majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. So im a hypocrite by saying civil unions are fine but marriages are not? I am just saying I like the one over the other one, that is not hypocrytical.
I also say you are a cloased minded big mouthed fool because you cant seem to accept other people opinions. I recognize everyones opinions though I may not agree with them so I debate them.
I am tolerant of gay people, and the few gay people I know also see why I dont support gay marriage. They acknowledge that the term marriage is typically seen as a religious word.
I also see that civil unions dont provide everything a marriage does but they are similar in nature. There needs to be a difference between civil union and marriage because gays getting “civily united” are totally different than man and woman getting married. Again there should be a difference because they are different.
Again AJ who is the ignorant one here? Me who says yeah I dont agree with your opinion but it is still your opinion, or you who results to name calling and bashing an opinion when they have nothing bettter to argue against. I am also going to guess you are gay. At least I am tolerant to someone else’s opinion, so that makes me more tolerant than you.
David right on!
Adam,
Race is a suspect class and thus granted protection by the Constitution while sexual orientation is not, thus no protection. So my statement is still valid though I do agree I should have been clearer.
Whether or not sexual orientation will eventually get protection is a social issue and has nothing to do with civil rights. When the general public decides that they should be granted those rights they will be or there will be a reversal of case law (which would lead to just about any group getting constitutional protection). The 14th amendment has nothing to do with gay rights as they are not considered a protected group under the Constitution.
AJ,
How is not giving a right to homosexuals unconstitutional when constitutional they are not a protected class and thus have no recourse? Please actually do some actual research as just saying gay rights is about civil rights doesn’t make it so. Before you call someone “close minded fool with a big mouth” you should make sure you aren’t one. Your lack of any research whatsoever shows that you have made up your mind based solely on what people tell you and not facts or logic. That makes you the very definition of a closed minded person as you will not listen to facts nor logic.
Also there are various different types of civil unions and yes, some of them are “everything but marriage” civil unions. One of which was just passed in Washington. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/69333537.html
I believe David is spot on. He is right when he says this is a social issue and not a constitutional issue. I believe I said the same thing earlier or that might have been on another news story similar to this.
Quoting David:
“Now down to your article, you make a big point that gay marriage is about equality but gay people have the same right to marry as I do as long as it is in a heterosexual marriage.”
I was pretty much going to say the same things he did. Why should we afford rights to certain people above and beyond what is granted to everybody else? As a straight male, I can’t marry another male either. And in turn, a homosexual male can marry a woman just like I can. That’s equality if I’ve ever seen it…
It’s not about equality, or anything else the gay agenda is trying to label it as, it’s about sticking it in the face of the people who do not condone it, which we see time and time again is the overwhelming majority of the nation every time the PEOPLE have a say.
Everything they want can be done via a lawyer, with no need for a “union” or “marriage”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00uaB51ivXU
“C” and company, please watch this video. You can cry that you are being “chased” into a cave by people who don’t agree with you, but in the end, you’re really just like Albie. Social issues ARE civil rights issues.
I am sure Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks would be marching along side Perez Hilton and Rosie O’donnell preaching for their “civil” rights…
Rolls eyes…
Leslie,
Who is being chased into a cave? We definitly are not, we are just voicing our opinions. We are not “shouting down” others opinions much like you and AJ are trying to do to us. There is a very distinct difference between social and civil rights issues. Like Petros said I highly doubt MLK and Rosa Parks would march with the gay rights activists.
“Unfortunately, this is what both extremes will view as a compromise”
Compromise? No, I’d view it as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Keep marriage, including the term, for all, and let churches come up with a separate name for the subset of marriages that they’re willing to recognize, if they wish to do so.
“I, like many socially conservative heterosexuals, cannot fathom how same-sex attraction is even possible and question whether it is a matter of genetics or choice.”
Now this is interesting. Please don’t take offense; I’ve rarely seen it stated so openly and concisely, and by someone who, judging by the tone of the piece, is willing to give a thoughtful, honest answer: If you “cannot fathom how same-sex attraction is possible,” surely that means you cannot imagine ever choosing it. But that implies that you didn’t choose your own opposite-sex attraction either, so how can you entertain the notion that same-sex attraction might be chosen? And remember that “not a choice” does not necessarily mean “genetic.”
Regardless, thank you.
Leslie,
Watching a youtube video will not change constitutional law. Sexual orientation is not protected nor can it be under the constitutional test to establish suspect classes. The only way for this to happen is for the Supreme Court to change the test which will most likely allow almost any group constitutional protection, so I would recommend against that course of action.
Once again, saying that a social issue is a civil rights issue does not make it so. The law does and the law says that sexual orientation is not protected.
hyhybt,
Religions were using “marriage” thousands of years before governments, why should religions change?
“Religions were using “marriage” thousands of years before governments, why should religions change?”
That’s exactly the problem: religions have *not* been using the term “marriage” longer than governments, unless you have records from a time when there was religion but no government (not even one that was the same as the religion) to show otherwise.
Even if it were true, marriage as it’s normally thought of by most people nowadays (except when discussing same-sex marriage) is what’s legal and not at all dependent on what religion, if any, the participants have.
Thank you all for your comments.
I know this is a very controversial issue, and it’s unlikely that anybody is going to change their mind as a result of this article or any of the comments. However, perhaps we can still learn from each other and accomplish something here, even if it’s just more bickering.
I can’t respond fully to every objection; that would take a book or more. There are several points, though, that I would like to address.
1. Several of you mentioned that you view homosexuality as a sin, and thus cannot be condoned by the government. David wrote that we as a nation need some form of public morality, and it shouldn’t be crossed by same-sex marriage. To some extent, I agree with these concerns–that’s why I included the biographical information in my article. However, I still do not believe that homosexuality is something that should be regulated by the government. My views here are based on two distinct points: first, that public law, although stemming from religious tradition, must be completely secular, and second, that the moral code we do keep from religion is based on standards of human decency to other people. David, you are correct in mentioning that (a) our laws borrow from religious standard of morality, and (b) that it would be foolish to abolish all moral standards in the public sphere. However, our laws have not borrowed from every religious code: we don’t require all male infants to be circumcised, as the Jewish faith prescribes, or that women wear hijabs in public. These are religious practices, but are also moral codes that those faiths follow. I think we can all agree that governments shouldn’t require either of those things. In the same way, we probably also agree that governments shouldn’t forbid homosexuality–this would be a major infringement on individual liberty. This raises an interesting point: why should the government promote one type of faith-based morality over another? Perhaps because our nation was founded largely on Christian principles? To me, that isn’t good enough. We can’t hold people who don’t believe in our faith to our moral codes. The law, and government, must be based on secular moral values.
What, then, should the laws be? Why should some religious-based moral laws be kept and others abandoned in the public sphere? My answer is that the laws that are kept should be the ones that protect us from each other and defend our legal and natural rights. For example, murder is forbidden because it infringes on another person’s right to life–no matter the faith, all cultures forbid murder. It is universally known to be wrong. In contrast, we don’t outlaw things like masturbation, homosexuality, or even casual lying (not to authorities or in contracts), because these have no tangible consequences on others. These may be sins, but they are not for the government, or even humans, to judge. They must deal with the consequences of their actions.
You can see, then, why I believe homosexual marriage should be permitted, at least as far as religion goes. It is not our place to judge the behavior of two consenting adults who are not harming anyone else. As I said in the column, personal feelings are irrelevant. They are going to be gay whether they can marry or not, and I don’t believe it will destroy the institution of marriage more than it already has been.
2. There is quite a bit of controversy about whether homosexual marriage is a social, civil rights, or constitutional issue. I’m not sure I completely understand the problems here, but I’ll try to address them anyway.
The first is the argument that homosexuality is not a protected class, is without legal recourse and thus no rights are actually being denied (please let me know if I misunderstood this). David, I took the liberty of looking up the suspect class test you mentioned:
“To be considered a suspect classification in the United States, the statute at issue must target:
1. a “discrete” or “insular” minority who
2. possess an immutable trait,
3. share a history of discrimination, and
4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.”
I would say that homosexuality can, in fact, meet these criteria. Perhaps it hasn’t yet, but a future court may well decide it does. Furthermore, public opinion (and the law) is already moving in this direction, as reflected by the recent law passed that extends hate-crime legislation to sexual orientation.
This leads me to the next argument raised above, which suggests that because homosexuality is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not a protected class, this controversy is a social issue only, and not a civil rights issue.
I am going to use race–specifically, blacks–as an example here, to compare and contrast with homosexuality. I am well aware that there are distinct differences, but a comparison can still be illuminating. According to the comments above, race is a valid civil rights issue, and not a social issue. It is protected under the Constitution, and thus gives black Americans the ability to seek redress for any discrimination against them. However, this was not always so–race only become protected in later amendments to the Constitution. Even then, discrimination against blacks continued, with blatant segregation and so on. We all agree this is a civil rights issue, as the movement was so named. This illustrates a fundamental point: namely, that the Constitution is not an infallible document. It can and should be changed to reflect current realizations of its omissions.
What, then, makes race a protected class, and not sexual preference? What makes the struggle for race equality a civil rights issue, and what’s the difference between a social controversy and proper civil rights?
Again, I could go on and on here, but to be succint, homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. As we all know, interracial marriage was, at one time, prohibited, and we all see this is as racist. In the same way, homosexual marriage should be permitted, primarily because the Constitution requires that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment–the equal protections clause). Because marriage is a legal status that confers many legal benefits, it is unconstitutional to deny these benefits to anyone, regardless of race, religion, whatever. As several people noted, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying a person of the opposite sex, and thus no discrimination occurs. However, because of their very nature, homosexuals are denied the same rights as as heterosexuals: specifically, the ability to be easily and legally identified as a partner (and, together, as a couple) with a person they love and are attracted to. As one person mentioned, they can often procure many of these benefits with the help of an attorney, but it isn’t the same access, which is thus unequal treatment under the law.
Hopefully, this clears up some of my argument. I apologize for the length, and look forward to your responses.
Nathan,
Maybe I’m not understanding your last explination completely but here is how I see gay marriage as a social issue: no one is born gay, I do not buy that theory at all, if you are gay you made the choice to be gay so you should be willing to accept the negative consequences that come from your desicion, which makes this a social issue not a civil rights issue. This therefore takes the 14th amendment out of play for this group of people.
No one has answered my question yet..
“Why should we afford rights to certain people above and beyond what is granted to everybody else? As a straight male, I can’t marry another male either. And in turn, a homosexual male can marry a woman just like I can. That’s equality if I’ve ever seen it…”
““Why should we afford rights to certain people above and beyond what is granted to everybody else? As a straight male, I can’t marry another male either. ”
Simple enough: If the law is changed so that I may marry a man, you, as a straight man, will be able to as well if you wish. See? Equal.
Nathan,
1. Thank you for your response. I agree that we should be selective in choosing which morals we incorporate into our government but why include gay marriage and not others. Who makes the decision and based on what criteria? And how can we decide what a “secular moral” is? In the end, there must be some criteria for us to have a logical conclusion. As of right now, popular opinion is the criteria being used, whether this is correct or not I’m not going to argue here.
2. It is true that courts may one day change course but currently sexual orientation does not pass the test. I will briefly explain the test as it is currently understood.
1. A “discrete” or “insular” minority who
(Homosexuals are not discrete or insular as you can find them as CEOs, movie stars, journalists and all sorts of other main stream positions)
2. Possess an immutable trait,
(As of now, sexual orientation is viewed as a decision by the courts though this could change. I don’t think it will because I know gay people that are no longer gay meaning that being gay is not immutable (unchangeable))
3. Share a history of discrimination, and
(I think we can agree that homosexuals satisfy this requirement)
4. are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.”
(I can’t see any court saying that homosexuals are powerless when they have so many people in positions of power including congressmen, mayors, governors, etc. The law that was passed would also show the political power homosexuals have)
I agree that the Constitution is not an infallible document and that’s why our Founding Fathers included a way to change its shortcomings, so whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Constitution or not is irrelevant. Race satisfies the above test and so it is constitutionally protected and that is the difference between it and sexual orientation. The fact that popular opinion is being used to decide whether to grant “marriage” or not and the fact that sexual orientation is not Constitutionally protected, leaves me believing that it is a social right and not a civil right.
Your 14th amendment argument hits on a point I made above that no one has responded to. (Quoted below)
“You argue that ‘It is immoral, unfair and prejudiced to grant one type of couple legal rights that are denied to the other.’ Would this include multiple wives, multiple husbands, child spouses, close relational spouses, multiple wives and husbands, large communes, etc? Where does ‘immoral, unfair and prejudiced’ exclusion stop and rational exclusion begin?”
Also who is going to set the objective criteria of what is ok and what is not ok? If homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the 14th, so are the rest of these groups and anyone else that wants to get marriage to anyone or anything.
Excellent article! I’m a gay conservative-libertarian and for years I have have advocated the same position. Government should not be sanctifying marriage and civil unions should be open to all consenting adult couples.
“Simple enough: If the law is changed so that I may marry a man, you, as a straight man, will be able to as well if you wish. See? Equal.”
But that doesn’t answer as to why we should change the law for a certain class of people which goes above and beyond everyone else?
The point is, there is no inequality and injustice when it comes to marriage, so that argument can’t be used. We are ALL equal.
Marriage never has been nor should it ever be defined as anything other than between a male and female. Marriage in and of itself was intended for two people of opposite sex to unite and create life, two people of the same sex cannot do this. If two people of the same sex want to be in a relationship, then that is their choice, let them. but it should stop short being defined as marriage.
I do feel that the rights issues and the privileges, such as hospital policies and health insurance, etc. should be changed.
Some Islamic law allows a grown man to marry and rape a pre-pubescent girl.
So should we light the kilns of the traditionalists now, or later?
If you want to claim your religious morality should be mandated by law, then I don’t think you would have a problem if a Wahhabist had a say-so too. That is, if you really stand by your principle.
There is no non-religious argument against homosexual marriage. And the pitiful fallacy of claiming that homosexuals DO have rights, inasmuch as they have the right to “not be gay,” just goes to show you how barren the arguments on the other side really are.
By that logic, black people had the same rights as whites under Jim Crow too, they would have just had to find a way to be white to properly exercise them.
Someones racial heritage is a genetic pre-determination, just like homosexuality is. If that doesn’t fit David’s bill of “immutability,” then he simply doesn’t understand the concept.
Science is now producing research that proves that homosexuality is genetic rather than environmental, and since that is the crux on which people like David who advocate civil apartheid, base their argument, it will be interesting to see how much proven science will factor into their future ideas in the debates we are destined to have about this topic again.
Ian,
There has been no credible science to prove your point. People choose to be gay so they should live with the consequences.
C: If you insist on proof, provide some yourself. At the very least, please tell us the story of how you decided to *be* straight. (NOT a story about how you chose who to have sex with.)
C,
It hasn’t been proven 100%, obviously, as the science is still being conducted. But major organizations like the American Psychological Association and Pyschiatric Association have sent briefs to the California Supreme Court stating that attempts to “change” homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior are actively harmful to the individual.
You seem to be pretty comfortable with saying homosexuality is a choice when you offer no explanation as to why your heterosexuality isn’t one.
I’m curious as to why you hold gays to a standard that you refuse to hold to yourself.
Ian and hyhybt,
The American Psychological Association used to consider homosexuality a mental illness until not too many years ago, so I don’t see how that can help you in your argument too much.
I know people that used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black. So trying to say that it is the same doesn’t really work. It is just a stretch that the gay movement has been trying to use for years and it still doesn’t work.
As our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values why would we then base our decisions on Islamic law or Buddhism or snake charmers? We would base it on our history and our foundation while others countries would base it on theirs.
There are many arguments not based on religion against gay marriage. Our social constructs, our history, many state constitutions, many statutes, etc. all say that our country believes in marriage between a man and a woman. Why should we change that because some small group wants to change the foundation of our society? And if we do change it, why not include marriage to children, inanimate objects, multiples wives, multiples husbands, multiple wives and husbands, marriage communes, etc? Our society decided that homosexuality is wrong morally and so it should be banned.
Finally, heterosexuality is the normal biological way of the world so there is no need to “prove” it as you request. The only non heterosexual animals are usually amoebas, so are you saying gays are amoebas or some type of one celled creature and that’s why being gay is normal too?
Repeated, for the hard-of-seeing: “At the very least, please tell us the story of how you decided to *be* straight.”
hyhybt,
It is natural to be straight, that is all there is to it, we are born attracted to women and science proves that. David already said what you asked. It is BIOLOGICAL to be attracted to the opposite sex. Gays force themselves to like the same sex and they must live that desicion and the negatives that come from that desicion.
No, logically, if one is a choice, then so is the other. The fact that natural reproduction happens only with male-female pairs does not speak to whether or not it is natural, biological, or in some other way unchosen for a minority of people to be attracted to the same sex instead. Neither David nor anyone else has said what I asked. Also, if “gays force themselves to like the same sex,” how do you explain the many who would much rather have liked the opposite sex, and fought and/or denied their orientation for years? What about the ones who knew what they were before they even knew there was such a thing?
Put most simply: I trust gay people to know more about what it’s like to be gay than straight people. But again, logically, if being gay is a choice then *not* being gay is also a choice. So when and how did you choose?
Hyhybt,
You seem to not understand my point, how about if I put it another way. Did you decide to breathe when you were first born? No, it was a biological function of your body. It is the same with sexual orientation. You can decide to not breathe if you want to now but even then once you pass out you will start breathing again. In the end, people who practice homosexuality have chosen to act that way against their natural and biological nature and have chosen to “hold their breathe” for as long as they can.
Hyhybt,
And if you still don’t get my point, think of it this way. Are child molesters, people sexually attracted to inanimate objects, people sexually attracted to animals, etc. born that way or did they decide to act that way. According to your logic, they would know better than I what it’s like to be them so obviously it’s genetic right?
Would you then agree that murderers know better than I what it’s like to be them and so that’s genetic as well? If it’s genetic then we can’t punish them as murderers because to commit murder per our laws you must purposefully do it to satisfy the mens rea requirement. So at best they would be convicted of manslaughter and be out in a couple years.
By your logic, anyone would know better than I what it’s like to be them and so everything that anyone did wouldn’t be their fault it would genetics.
Quit sidestepping: even if your analogies were relevant or accurate, they all refer to ACTS. I will ask again: when did you choose your ORIENTATION?
hyhybt,
Just admit you you have nothing and move on because it is readily apparente David has you beat even though you dont want to admit it.
Thank you for proving my point. Good night.
Hyhybt,
See my last post which focuses on orientation (“Are child molesters, people sexually attracted to inanimate objects, people sexually attracted to animals, etc. born that way or did they decide to act that way”?) Those are not actions but orientation even though it doesn’t matter much whether it is orientation or action. If gay people didn’t act gay then they wouldn’t want marriage and so there would be no debate.
You seem to be in denial so there is not much point in continuing this discussion until you bring some facts. I pointed out facts that you won’t even acknowledge because they destroy your arguments. So instead of continuing this “debate” with you, I will just point you to my previous posts which you have yet to respond too.
Quoting Ian:
“There is no non-religious argument against homosexual marriage”
I have one for you…what benefit to society does a homosexual couple bring that equals the benefit of what a heterosexual couple can bring?
As far as being “born” gay or not, it really doesn’t matter. I realize not everyone has religious principles but I know most who are against gay marriage do, such as myself. So this is for those people, and also for non religious people who may learn something.
Even if someone is born gay, that does not mean they should act out on it. Homosexual acts are no worse or no better than heterosexual fornication, many Christians seem to forget that. They are ready to bash gays as sinners, and the next minute are having sex with their girlfriend..my friends, in the eyes of God YOU ARE NO BETTER! Fornication as well as homosexuality are mentioned in the SAME sentence in the Bible as acts that will keep people from the Kingdom of Heaven. So whether you are born straight or gay is irrelevant. If someone is straight, they are no better than the homosexual they condemn if they are jumping on every girl they can. If someone is born gay, thats fine, but it is a passion one must control just like fornication is a passion a heterosexual person must control.
I hope that cleared some things up. I know of some who are “gay” and Christian and struggle with that. The believed that the cannot be Christian because they had these feelings towards the same sex. NONSENSE! Fighting the passion of the sin only makes them a stronger Christian!
(Takes a step off the perch..)
I second Petros.
Petros (and David, by extension):
To answer your first point: I fail to see why we should base legal decisions on what “benefit” a couple has to society. I think you’re implying that heterosexual couples can have children, while homosexual ones cannot. This is entirely irrelevant. The argument for allowing homosexual marriage or equal civil unions is based on individual liberty, not social benefit. A guy watching pornography in his basement gives no benefit to society, either, but he isn’t hurting anyone else. He should be free to do so, just as two consenting adults should be free to legally designate each other as their partner.
And to answer your second question: I, too, am a Christian; I agree with much of what you say regarding homosexuality.
However, as I note in the article, religious beliefs are irrelevant. I think you and I both agree that heterosexual fornication has many negative consequences for those who practice it. However, we don’t pass laws saying that this should be forbidden–it’s a matter of individual liberty. They aren’t hurting anyone else or preventing others from enjoying their constitutionally protected rights, so, if two people consent, they should be allowed to do whatever they want–regardless of how you or I feel about it. Put simply, it is not our place to judge our fellow man. Let them do what they please, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else. If our God finds their behavior immoral and sinful, they will face the consequences of their decisions, in this life or the next. That is not society’s concern. The role of the state, in this case, is to protect the rights of individuals, not dictate moral behavior.
(Side note: yes, I am fully aware our legal traditions are based on judeo-christian moral values. However, because we live in a secular society–and rightly so. We should remember and celebrate our religious past, especially those of us who still are religious, but it is wrong to force our religious moral code on those who do not believe as we do. Our legal system has evolved to where morality is no longer the primary concern… as an example that this, in fact, a good thing, I point to religious-oriented legal systems, such as the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia. There, women can’t drive and must wear headscarves. Just as you and I wouldn’t want that forced on our non-Muslim women [not that it is wrong for Muslim women to believe they should behave as such], we should not force our Christian values on our society. Our legal system, although founded on religious morals, has grown beyond that. It is based on protecting the rights of others, and on a loosely-defined secular natural law, which all faiths–even those of no faith–agree on–for example, preventing incest; marriage communes, etc.)
Thus, homosexuals should be granted equal status under the law, and allowed the same legal benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. I agree that heterosexual marriage has a long social history and is a revered social tradition. However, marriage has become more than a religious event; it is a legal status, which confers legal benefits to its practioners. This legal status should be available to any two consenting adults who seek it.
When I was in the Army, there were kids who would marry a friend just because they would get paid an additional family stipend–there was no love or commitment involved at all. We don’t require these things, which seem to be required of religious unions, from all legal marriages… it’s simply beyond the power of the state. All consenting adults should have the legal ability to name a partner who can, among other things, be considered their next of kin; visit them in a hospital; jointly own and inherit property, without the need for additional legal wrangling.
As long as gays dont use marriage as a term I am good, let them use the term civil union, bc when one thinks of marriage they think of it as a religious vow plus it is religious terminology.
Nathan, I thank you for the thorough response.
“To answer your first point: I fail to see why we should base legal decisions on what “benefit” a couple has to society. I think you’re implying that heterosexual couples can have children, while homosexual ones cannot. This is entirely irrelevant. The argument for allowing homosexual marriage or equal civil unions is based on individual liberty, not social benefit. A guy watching pornography in his basement gives no benefit to society, either, but he isn’t hurting anyone else. He should be free to do so, just as two consenting adults should be free to legally designate each other as their partner.”
In this country, we live by a code and that code is the Constitution. Pornography, no matter what you think of it, is a protected right. But if it involves minors, it isn’t. There is a line that can be crossed, and the same thing can be said about homosexuality. The fact is there has to be a line or else all types of wackos (not implying homosexuals are wackos) will come out of the woodwork demanding their rights as well. We have to have a line, and in my opinion, majority should rule on this opinion. And as we have seen in even the most liberal of states, the majority of people do not agree with it. The fact is the reason people are against it is not because of necessarily that the people are gay, it is because what will come out of it. The liberal educational system will then see the green light to teach homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, and MANY parents do not want this for their children. This is what in reality the homosexual agenda is: to be accepted. Well people don’t have to except it, and no one can make us. It really has nothing to do with rights or any of the sort. No one is saying people can’t be gay, people have every right to do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom. Again, the PRIVACY of their BEDROOM. No gay pride parades, or gay pride month as the supposed “Christian” Obama has signed into law. What kind of Christian takes pride in a sin? Anyway, the “rights” they claim they seek can already be granted to them without needing to be married. They want to be married so that they can shove it in the face of the religious establishment. Anyone can make anyone heir to their estate, power of attorney over them in the event of extreme medical conditions, and even in some states, such as Nevada, they can put non spouses on their medical insurance as long as they share a dwelling. Single people can adopt children. Gay couples can do pretty much anything a married couple can do without having to be “married”. So what is the reason for the marriage then? To show their love for one another? Please, you have claimed yourself that people get married for reasons other than love. Also, marriage has always been for necessity, not love. See for example the many cultures that practiced (and still practice) mixed marriages. Where is the love there? Which brings me back to my question about the benefits gays bring to society. Being married does offer the couple benefits, benefits that only a couple that has the ability to benefit society should obtain. And since gays cannot do that, they should not be given the benefits of marriage.
Hi Nathan,
I agree rights should not be determined solely based on what “benefit” they give to our society. I was actually agreeing with Petros in his comments about the actions of Christians. I also agree that there are heterosexuals (and I am assuming there will be homosexuals in those areas where marriage is allowed) that marry not for love but for gamesmanship of some kind.
But, I think you will be surprised to see how religious our society is. Below I have compiled a partial list of the religious aspects of our society.
- Our money says “In God we trust”
- Our pledge of allegiance that is recited daily in our schools says “One nation, under God,”
- To practice law or medicine you must be in good moral standing (this is the reason Bill Clinton was not allowed to practice law in Arkansas or in front of the Supreme Court because he lied). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35470,00.html http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/60413
- In many parts of the country, people swear on the bible that they will “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God,”
- Our current war on drugs, is a moral decision because someone can do drugs and not hurt anyone else and yet there are still illegal,
- Our property laws make it so you cannot control your land in many ways. You can’t give your property to terrorists, you can’t let it fall into disarray (even if you are not in a home owner’s association due to city or county ordinances), etc.
- You can’t deny the holocaust in our educational system,
- Our traffic laws prevent you from doing whatever you want. You can’t speed as much as you want even though you aren’t harming anyone else, you have to stop for red lights even if no one else is there, you must yield to pedestrians, etc.
- In the Declaration of Independence, our natural rights were given to us by God,
- We are guaranteed protection by our Bill of Rights to freedom of religion and the government cannot “prohibit [] the free exercise thereof”
- Our government starts with prayer at the beginning of every session of Congress,
- There are prayers when we inaugurate a new president,
- Many of our laws are based on religious customs (ex. prohibition on murder, prohibition on stealing, marriage, our welfare services, etc.)
- To enlist in our military according to federal law, you must take an oath saying you’ll protect this country “So help me God,”
- Immoral things like pornography and prostitution are all limited to small areas or illegal throughout our country,
- Vices such as smoking, drinking, gambling are subject to an age limit and are limited by geography as well,
- Strip joints and bars can only be put in certain areas of a city,
- Children can’t see certain types of movies by either an age limit or they must be with a parent or guardian (ex. R, NC-17),
- If you lie in court, you can be punished,
- To be a judge, you must say an oath that ends in “So help me God,” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000453—-000-.html.
- In our legal system, a judge can decide that even though someone is due something they shouldn’t get it (ex. unclean hands). They can also do the opposite through equity (which was originally done by a chancellor which was a king’s clergyman)
- Even our work week (for most people and all government) is based on religion as it goes from Monday to Friday, leaving Sunday off so people could attend church and do other religious rites.
- Anyone who views or distributes child pornography is guilty of breaking our laws,
- If a teenager and an adult have sex, that is considered rape whether it is consensual or not. The same is true for an adult and a child or two children.
- A person can only be married to one person at a time or they will be guilty of bigamy or polygamy.
- Our cemeteries and courthouses are covered with religious icons such as crosses and the Ten Commandments.
- Christmas, a Christian holiday, is considered a national holiday and much of the nation is given the day off.
As said before, this is just a partial list of the religious aspects of our nation. I think that you could even think of more than this list as I am sure I could but I thought this list would be demonstrative of how religious this country is.
I respect your belief in being able to do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s Constitutional rights but that simply isn’t how the US has been run or probably will ever be run.