Gay Marriage Doesn’t Involve Rights …
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in Blogging, Blogroll, Common Sense, Constitution Issues, FamilyA recent commenter on a post on the topic of gay marriage at The Tennessee ConserVOLiance had this to say about the subject,
“You’re talking about being against basic civil rights.”
As you might expect, she was responding to someone who, like me, does not a support gay marriage. Her comments were to the point and respectful, two things that attract me to a comment, and so I’ve been thinking about what she said. I even began writing a comment to respond. But when it became obvious that my comment was going to be a lot longer than comments should be and when I started running down lines of thought I’d never considered before when this topic came up I decided maybe the matter deserved more attention than just a comment.
My first question was, “When did marriage become a civil right?” There is no right to marry in the Constitution, not even hidden in the emanations of the penumbra of our right to associate. Imagine the lawsuits that might arise if there were. Trial lawyers would have a field day. It’s not alienation of affection but lack of affection that would then be all the rage. Choosing someone to sue for violating this civil right would be interesting. If you’re pursuing your right to marry and there are no takers, who is liable? I suppose the usual suspects would face the brunt of the charges, those with the deepest pockets. After all, “Show me the money!” and “Follow the money!” work today, why not then?
I do not mean to make light of the feelings and desires of homosexuals who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being unable to marry. But twisting the argument into a civil rights case in order to acquire a non-existent right for themselves is not something I’m prepared to participate in. It seems likely supporters of gay marriage will respond they are not talking about a right to marry but about discrimination. In which case I must respond in order to be discriminated against, there must be something you are able to do which you are being prevented from doing because you are gay. Thus there is no discrimination here since homosexuals are unable to marry.
Please note I did not say should not be allowed to. I said unable to. I suppose it ought to be obvious, but to so many it is not. Marriage, by any standard you wish to apply to it, has consistently been both defined and recognized by society as a union between a man and a woman. If there has been the odd occasion where homosexual unions were legally recognized by a society as a marriage, I am unaware of it. Even if such instances exist, they are exceedingly rare exceptions, not obvious, ongoing miscarriages of justice crying out to be righted. When societies over the centuries have crafted laws concerning marriage, it was not the case that they were examining all of the options humans had for pairing up and then choosing heterosexual unions as the ones they would anoint with the mantle of respectability thereby relegating other options to second class status. Instead, in crafting laws dealing with heterosexual unions they were recognizing that both the law of nature and God’s law had already established the concepts of marriage and family on a heterosexual basis. It is not an insult to homosexuals but a recognition of heterosexuality as the norm, and a recognition that it is a vital norm for the survival of civilization, that drives our laws and definitions.
I can understand the argument is probably not going to run down those lines. It is probably going to be pressed down another more emotional and less constitutional avenue. Perhaps the right to associate will be invoked. Such an appeal would, in my opinion, be just as meaningless. I can think of no one who is arguing that homosexuals cannot associate with whomever they choose, particularly if they are choosing other homosexuals and the purpose of the association is sexual and relational. We have gay bars, gay parades, gay stores, gay publications, gay advocacy groups and so on. Who is preventing homosexuals from associating. What is happening is society is refusing to recognize such associations in a specific way. While different from the norm and not a choice that a majority of society would make, society is not opposed to the idea of homosexuals associating and even forming lasting sexual and emotional relationships. However, society is not prepared, nor should it be, to call those relationships a marriage. That is not discrimination, it is a recognition of reality.
For me, the issue finally comes down to a question that has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with motivation. What is it that homosexuals want to have but cannot because their relationships cannot be formalized as an official marriage? I would have to boil down the answer to two things, results and respectability.
There are things married couples can do that gay couples cannot. Mostly these center around the disposition of joint property and spousal benefits. Beyond these extremely limited exceptions, there is nothing a married couple can do that a gay couple cannot. Property can be owned and passed on to people without marriage being involved. So can money and possessions. According homosexual relationships the status of marriage would produce few benefits that homosexuals don’t already enjoy. That this is the case is a blow to the discrimination argument. It is hard to justify discrimination when all one can point to is that my partner and I don’t qualify for lower cost health care because we’re not married. But such are the results that are being sought after.
That leaves respectability. For me, this is the crux of the matter. 50 years ago, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. The sexual behavior associated with homosexuality was also illegal in some states. Homosexuals had bigger challenges than merely wanting to marry. Since then, a concerted effort on the part of homosexuals and their advocates has gained them much ground. While there still exists much prejudice against them in society as a whole, many of the impediments to their ability to live life as they choose have been removed. Now the battle is not to simply remove negative perceptions from their cause. Over the last 15 or 20 years the goal has been to add positive perceptions to their cause. To be able to marry would be a huge step forward in that regard. There are no rights being violated in the inability of homosexuals to marry. The only thing violated is society’s sense of what is normal and what is not. Homosexuals want no social stigma attached to their choices.
It is in this light that the quest for gay marriage is to be seen. It is less an assertion of the violation of their rights and more a desire to have the trappings of respectability draped over a behavior that is still seen by the majority of society as outside the norm. Appeals to civil rights miss the mark. Blacks were denied rights on the basis of being less than human. They were property. When that changed, all rights guaranteed by our Constitution to “persons” became theirs and rightly so. With over 50% of the population being female, the question of whether or not women were human was never a serious query. Granting them the right to vote was a correct civil rights decision based on their humanity and the overwhelming evidence that denying it to them was more a social decision than a legal one.
Those types of civil rights arguments don’t apply here. Nothing in the Constitution addresses the right to marry. It is assumed to be a privilege and it is further assumed to be easily definable in terms of participants by observation and common sense. Attempting to acquire for themselves the cloak of respectability and a limited number of results by forcing the rest of society to accept what millennia of society has rejected is ultimately selfish and not the righteous cause gay marriage supporters would have us believe.
The civil rights fought for and won by blacks and women had profound impact and implications for society as a whole. At a deeper level, it made us realize that our society can and does have flaws that need fixing. Homosexuals are capitalizing on that admission and are pushing past the issue of acquiring rights for themselves. That battle was fought years ago and won. Now the goal is to alter both society’s perception and values and to redefine both language and culture to make themselves feel and look better, not because there is a fundamental disservice being done to them.
So if someone doesn’t promote you or rent to you because you’re gay, that’s wrong, your rights are being violated and I’ll sign up to fight for you. If, however, you are demanding the right to marry, I’m sorry. Not only are you not being denied your rights but you are asking for something illogical. Unfortunately, I don’t expect to see any slowing of the charge just because it makes no sense.
Blue
H/T to Truman at Truman’s Take for the original post.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Tags: Constitutional Rights, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Homosexual Rights, Right to Marry
Entries (RSS)
January 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Gay marriage is a basic civil right. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set you free…
January 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Gay marriage is a basic civil right. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
The truth will set you free…
January 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
[…] Collar Muse makes a good point in saying that “Gay Marriage Doesn’t Involve Rights“. He is right to point out that there is no “right to marry” in the Constitution. […]
January 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I won’t dissect your entire post - but I have to hit a few points.
1. So you don’t think marriage a right? I’m guessing your tune would change if there was a threat that civil marriage would be abolished all together.
2. Your suggestion that there is no discrimination is a sign that you have a simplistic understanding of the issue. You’re suggesting that the law treats gay men and women the same as heterosexuals because gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. How absurd. Imagine living in a society that allowed only Christian churches to exist and telling non-Christians that they weren’t being discriminated against because Christians are only allowed to attend Christian churches as well. Sound foolish? Now consider that religion, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice.
3. You’re wrong about unmarried same-sex couples being able to achieve the same level of protection as married couples. I encourage you to visit Marriage v CU to see for yourself. If it was so easy to achieve the same protections, why do so many straight couples take the step of getting a marriage license?
4. You characterization of homosexuality as a “behavior” is small minded at best.
5. Your suggestion that gays are “capitalizing” on past civil rights struggles is simply insulting.
6. Gays do not need to seek your approval to feel better about themselves. I personally could not give a flying f*** what you think about my life. But I do care about the fact that as a law abiding, tax paying citizen, I am denied the legal protections provided to my straight friends and neighbors.
In the end, all you did here is regurgitate the same old crap we’ve been hearing for years. You fail to provide any logical, rational or legal basis for denying marriage rights to two consenting adults who wish to marry based on their gender.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Steve -
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. This is exactly the sort of dialogue that I hope to promote when I write. As to your points …
Marriage is not a civil right for anyone, gay or straight. If it were, single people could demand that someone marry them since their rights were being denied them. “Right” gets tossed around way too freely.
Gays are not discriminated against **in terms not being able to marry** because it is impossible for their relationship to be a marriage. “Marriage”, like “Right” means something specific and homosexual relationships don’t meet the criteria. Society did not begin with a blank slate and choose straight relationships to codify as the norm. That norm existed before the legal stuff did and society recognized that fact. It is, therefore, impossible to be discriminated against if you cannot do what you cannot do.
I have not visited the site you recommended yet but will do so. But common sense and even your own argument tell me that I’m right and you are wrong in this aspect of the issue. There is little benefit beyond respectability to gay marriage. If marriage is so basic and intrinsic to fully integrating two lives, then why do so many straight couples opt not to marry and get along just fine?
It is not my suggestion that gays are capitalizing on past civil rights successes, it is yours. I don’t believe marriage is a civil right, you do.
While you may not need my personal approval for you to be comfortable with who you are, the entire question we’re discussing means you need society’s approval. Otherwise you would simply live your life as it is and be fine. That you are not doing so indicates there is, indeed, something you want from me.
Two final thoughts.
Dismissing objections to your position as “the same, old crap” is only that, dismissive. If the same, old crap also happens to be the truth, then it is you who are wrong to be opposing it. I am not saying that I’m right and you’re wrong, just that you need a better platform from which to argue.
Finally, and at the risk of repeating myself, if you are being denied your Constitutional rights then I am without qualification, 100% in your corner. You are absolutely correct to oppose any infringement by government on your rights. But you have failed to make the case that marriage, of any sort, is a right.
Your thoughts?
Blue
January 31st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Do the proponents of gay marriage completely separate marriage from nature? Were they never children themselves? Assuming they were children, are they aware of the logistics of reproduction? Natural reproduction requires one man and one woman.
Is there any value to the natural family?
February 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Marriage is not a civil right for anyone -Blue Collar Muse
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” -United States Supreme Court
I’ll leave it to readers to decide which of the two they think is the better expert on Constitutional law.
Gays are not discriminated against **in terms not being able to marry** because it is impossible for their relationship to be a marriage.
Why? You can’t use open bigotry as a premise in an argument. It’s completely possible for a gay relationships to be marriages. They are in several parts of the world currently and have been in parts of the world off and on through out history. You’re statement is inherently invalid.
There is little benefit beyond respectability to gay marriage.
Are you married? Why? Did you marry to make your relationship “respectable” or did you marry (in part) to enjoy the over 1000 federal and thousands of state rights, privileges and protections afforded to married couples.
If marriage is so basic and intrinsic to fully integrating two lives, then why do so many straight couples opt not to marry and get along just fine?
The US Constitution (and all state constitutions that I’m aware of) guarantee equal protection under the law. They do not mandate partaking of that protection. I oppose mandatory marriage for ANYBODY. But, by the text of the Constitution(s), if the state wishes to grant marriage rights to one group of citizens, they must be available to ALL citizens barring a compelling state interest otherwise.
Dismissing objections to your position as “the same, old crap” is only that, dismissive.
I’m not so sure it is “only” dismissive. Those of us who support equal rights hear the same old debunked nonsense over and over again. When people continually repeat information that has been shown to be wrong, it speaks to the strength of their position. When the logical basis for the truth of your position is nothing more than “I’m willing to sa it over and over again no matter how many times it’s shown to be false” then pointing that out goes beyond “only” being dismissive.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Dear Blue Collar Muse,
I found your article while viewing the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll.
I haven’t read all of the comments here, but the two or three that I have read to the right of your post tells me that they are likely gay activists, supporters, sympathizers, or just uninformed about what the homosexual “marriage” push is really all about.
The following is a portion of a post from my Talk Wisdom blog. It is my goal to spread this information wherever I find the subject of same-sex “marriage” being discussed.
Thank you for speaking out about this very important issue. The self-destructive impact of the homosexual agenda needs to be aggressively counters, for the sake of defending our religious liberty and for the sake of preventing this awful indoctrination of our children and grandchildren.
God bless,
Christine
*******
This election will turn out to be a crucial one. It will represent in which direction our nation will head…towards more liberalism and socialism or, towards what our Founding Fathers intended…one nation Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
There is quite a difference between the words “liberalism” and “liberty.” Liberalism leads to licientiousness. Liberty, under God, leads to justice for all.
One of the most relentless, licentious, deceiving and indoctrinating of liberal agendas out there is the secular, humanistic push towards same-sex “marriage.”
You may be reading this and disagree with me. You may think that it doesn’t concern you. You may think that it isn’t so bad. So be it. But I am telling you right now, this subject is VERY serious and the battle for “same-sex marriage” does, and should concern you!!!
The following letter from Alan E. Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund presents the reasons why groups that are liberal (and whose ultimate intentions are to squelch the right to hear and speak the Truth as given in the Word of God in this nation) present such a dangerous precedent and threat to our nation. The essay below explains how activists promoting homosexual behavior and its corresponding legal agenda have been openly declaring their ultimate goal: the elimination of marriage and the deconstruction of families. My Christian friends, do not think that this agenda is harmless. Their rabid, immoral, depraved indoctrinating agenda is already inflicting tremendous harm upon our children. In fact, it is even more of a spiritual battle than physical. It is an attempt to destroy the souls of our children and grandchildren.
Christine
P.S. Please read the following newsletter. Copy it and forward to everyone on your email list. Copy it and place it on your website, discussion board or blog. [Note: All that the original author asks is that you copy and paste it in it’s entirety!] If you are able, please donate generously to the work of ADF.
Thank you!
In Christ’s service,
Christine
*******
February 2008
Dear Friend,
“We will bury you!”
It has been more than 50 years since then-Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev swore that solemn oath to a group of Western ambassadors…long enough now that many Americans don’t remember how deadly seriously their parents and grandparents took the threat.
But in the thick of the Cold War–three long decades before the Berlin Wall fell–most Americans had no doubt that Khrushchev meant what he said and that he and his fellow Communists would do their best to make good on the threat.
Our nation’s leaders planned accordingly, and people go used to building backyard bomb shelters while children practiced diving under desks during atomic bomb drills. Spy movies became all the rage as people strained their imaginations to think of clever ways the Communists might infiltrate our culture or try to break our will from within.
It may seem a little quaint now, from the vantage point of distance and the far side of September 11, but it was deadly serious stuff back then. People understood, all too clearly, exactly how much was at stake.
Unfortunately, we at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are finding that’s just not as true today when it comes to a threat just as blunt, aimed not at our borders and missile silos…but at the souls of our children.
For nearly 30 years now–in national gatherings and local papers, on network news shows and political platforms–activists promoting homosexual behavior and its corresponding legal agenda have been openly declaring their ultimate goal: the elimination of marriage and the deconstruction of families.
Neither their aims nor their tactics have been secret. Nor have they changed. Anyone who cared to pay attention, attend the events, or peruse the websites and publications of these advocates would find plenty of material outlining the social, political, and legal means of launching same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, domestic partnerships, “psychological parenting,” and many of the other legal assaults that have inflicted so much damage on American families.
But, of course, most people–certainly most Christians–don’t peruse those websites or attend these events, and they find it easier not to pay attention to the stated intentions of those who despise their values and mock their faith. That hasn’t slowed up the advocates of homosexual behavior though. They have been very busy doing exactly what they said they’d do.
And if you think their efforts aren’t having a devastating impact…you haven’t been watching the news from California.
A new state law there eliminates a school’s ability to make distinctions based on biological sex…and opens the door for the wholesale moral subversion of schoolchildren.
Specifically, this law requires anything that might promote a “discriminatory bias” toward someone’s sexual identity or sexual orientation be removed from the curriculum–all the way down to kindergarten. What’s more, such wrongful behavior must be presented to young people as a choice just a legitimate and even desirable as God’s plan for marriage and personal purity.
If these laws are allowed to stand:
…textbooks will be rewritten to eliminate any endorsement of sex roles.
…teachers cannot teach that a student’s sex at birth is a student’s true sex.
…on demand, boys can now be homecoming “queen” and girls can be homecoming “king.”
…schools that want to protect students from restroom and locker room intrusions by people of the opposite sex will be faced with a choice–either violate the law and refuse to allow boys to use the girls’ restrooms or spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build separate facilities for the small number of students who pretend to be the opposite sex.
Left unchallenged, this law authorizes public schools to force Christian families to embrace the homosexual legal agenda. Inevitably, it will change the attitudes of young people toward homosexual behavior…and that will change the whole moral future of America.
Yes, that’s what makes it so dangerous…but it’s also what gives ADF–by God’s grace and with your strong financial support–a foot in the door to block this massive assault on religious liberty.
ADF is not a public policy organization–but once such a terrible bill becomes law, the momentum moves to the courts for enforcement–and there, ADF is able to bring our fullest resources to bear. Already, ADF has filed suit with our allies in federal court to challenge this California law, asking the court to declare it unconstitutional. If that effort fails, we will actively defend Christians prosecuted by the state for refusing to forfeit their religious liberties.
An Extraordinary Record
The very candor of the homosexual advocates about their intentions has enabled ADF and our allies to prepare well for–and win–these many legal battles. Your prayers and strong financial support equipped us to be at the right places, make the right arguments, and soundly shatter the best-laid legal plans of those who support the homosexual agenda.
Until recently, these advocates’ best hope for accomplishing their long-term strategy was to force same-sex “marriage” on us through our nation’s judicial system. If they could succeed in making marriage about anything, it soon would be about nothing.
Thanks to you, that tactic didn’t work.
Over the past 10 years, ADF has been a part of 41 cases involving same-sex “marriage.” Thirty-three of those we’ve won outright, two were a “tie,” while we lost only one (in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth Supreme Judicial Court used international law to fabricate same-sex “marriage”).
Decisions affecting marriage are still pending for cases in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but that’s an extraordinary record of victories, won in the face of often overwhelming legal, political, and cultural opposition. But because the media minimize any mention of these wins, most Christians don’t comprehend the full import of what’s been accomplished: 45 states now legally protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And you may not even realize what a nation-changing difference your gifts have made.
But those pressing the demands of the homosexual legal agenda understand our success very well. Knowing they can’t get judges to fabricate same-sex “marriage” directly, they’ve adjusted their tactical approach for the same end–the abolition of marriage and redefinition of the family.
More Insidious Attacks on Marriage and the Family
In the popular culture, those advocating same-sex unions like to wrap their agenda in words like “love” and “tolerance.” In the courts and legislatures, they put on the mantle of “equality.” Among the angles these advocates are playing, with varying success, are the following:
* ADJUSTING THE TERMINOLOGY. The term “same-sex marriage” may not resonate with the voters, but “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” sound harmless enough. It’s not as if they’re really “married.”
But these aliases have paved the way for advocates of same-sex “marriage” to secure from their employers the same financial benefits traditionally provided to married couples. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) recently issued its “Corporate Equality Index,” detailing more than 500 major American companies that now grant full benefits to employees (and their partners) who practice homosexual behavior–as well as nearly 200 cities and more than one-third of U.S. states.
This widespread embrace of same-sex unions effectively blurs the definitions of marriage and obscures the true agenda of those promoting homosexual behavior–which is why ADF is working so diligently in courts all across the country to oppose these judicially imposed “redefinitions of marriage.”
* SAME-SEX “DIVORCE.” Same-sex couples “married” in Massachusetts and Canada are asking their home states to grant them a “divorce,” knowing that no state can exercise the authority to dissolve a homosexual “marriage” without assuming the authority to grant it too. ADF helped stop this effort at the Rhode Island Supreme Court and is currently involved in another case in Oklahoma.
* REDEFINING THE FAMILY. In several states, advocates of homosexual behavior are petitioning courts to grant parental rights and authority to an adult who is a “legal stranger” to the child over the objections of the child’s legal parents–to win tacit endorsement for same-sex parenting and, by extension, “marriage.”
* COERCING THE CHURCH. Those advocating homosexual behavior present their case as a simple plea to “live and let live.” But in fact, the invitation is to “live and let die” –and these advocates are working aggressively to block churches from preaching the Scriptures, where those Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior. In Montana, we’re defending a church under legal attack for speaking out on God’s plan for marriage and in support of a local referendum defending marriage.
Meanwhile, these advocates of homosexual behavior are moving to legally force churches and ministries to open their facilities to civil union ceremonies. ADF is currently combating this in New Jersey, where same-sex proponents are attempting to force a Christian ministry to use its facilities for civil union ceremonies and have even prompted the removal of some of the organization’s tax exemptions to compel that compliance.
* EVADING THE LAW. Although New York’s highest court has ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage,” the state comptroller continues to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples through the state retirement system and to legally recognize same-sex “marriages” from Canada. ADF has filed suit to block this blatant attempt to use tax dollars to subsidize homosexual unions in New York.
But looming on the legal horizon is a monstrous piece of legislation currently being pushed through Congress by the HRC–one of the strongest lobbying groups promoting homosexual behavior.
Attacking the Workplace –ENDA is Near
The Employment Non-Discriminatio Act (ENDA), now being debated in Congress, is about legally enforcing special privileges for those who practice homosexual behavior and sharply punishing any business or organization that opposes such behavior. Many ministries, including ADF, could be dramatically affected.
ADF has worked extensively with our policy allies to make them aware of the profound legal implications of this bill, and the good news is that President George W. Bush has promised to veto it.
And if at some point ENDA or similar legislation does become law, ADF will be ready to file suit to stop its enforcement and to defend Christians prosecuted for resisting the unconstitutional dictates of the homosexual agenda.
A Fundamental Question
All of the tactics being employed by those promoting homosexual behavior–and the terrible consequences of their success in California and potentially (through ENDA) in the rest of the country–have again raised the already-high stakes of the battle over same-sex “marriage.”
For thoughtful Christians like you, the fundamental question is not just whether homosexual couples should be able to “marry.”
The question is: “What kind of country is my family going to live in?”
I can give you a pretty good idea. If what they’re trying in California is any indication and if the homosexual agenda succeeds, we’re looking at a nation…
…where federal judges decide how your church is led, who it can employ, and how much of the Bible your leaders can teach.
…where you don’t have any say at all in what kind of moral and sexual indoctrination your kids receive in school–public or private.
…where you can be compelled to financially support homosexual behavior, whether you believe in it or not.
That’s only part of the agenda of those promoting same-sex “marriage.” But thankfully, it’s an agenda God has equipped ADF to fight tooth and nail for 14 years, with astonishing success.
We’ve been there, by God’s grace and with your help. Time and again, all across this country, we’ve won the battle for marriage (see John 15:5).
Please pray and give generously. Stand with us to stop the legal tide that would deny religious liberty and engulf our culture, our churches, and our families with the self-destructive impact of the homosexual agenda.
And may God bless our efforts to defend religious liberty, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Yours for religious freedom in America,
Alan E. Sears
President, CEO & General Counsel
*******
ADF is always looking for potential precedent-setting cases and for attorneys who could help our cause. If you wish to refer an attorney or a potential case to us, please see notify us.
Copyright ©2008, Alliance Defense Fund. All rights reserved.
Permission to reprint this and other documents as noted in their entirety is granted to ADF ministry friends.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Government has the right and responsibility to address marriage as best benefits the society it governs. As such, our government has determined that close relatives may not marry, polygamy is not allowed, adults may not marry children, etc. Therefore, our government has determined that granting marriage rights to homosexuals offers society no more benefits than these other forms that have been outlawed.
As for the things that homosexuals might argue for, i.e. property rights, you are correct; they have that option. Property rights can be passed from one person to any other person through a will. This means taking some time and effort, but it is possible. A will is sometimes even necessary in marriages. For example, my father passed away in Louisiana. My mother was not the automatic recipient of his estate. According to the Napoleonic laws of Louisiana, my brother and I were preferred above her, in spite of his will.
A person could even have a legal document drawn up demanding visitation rights be offered to specific persons, even if they are not relatives. Again, this requires effort and forethought.
As there is no solid, consensus scientific proof that homosexuality is anything more than choice. While there may be hormonal imbalances or other medical reasons that affect the choice process, that in no way normalizes the behavior. Alcoholism has been proven to be genetic, but we don’t dismiss the affects of that alcoholism on the person. They are still responsible for their choice, particularly after their condition is verified.
Thanks for the well thought out and presented post.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Dolphin,
You left something very important out of your U.S. Supreme Court quote. Allow me to fill you in, “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival”. Please tell me how same sex marriage would contribute to our existence and survival. Sorry, gay marriage does not qualify as a Civil Right.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
This seems to me to be just a fearful knee-jerk from the far-right religious folk… Clearly this is mostly about their inherent fear that the christian values that they espouse are no longer the default mainstream position. In the scramble to maintain their historical level of control over american society, they find whateer they can to force their narrow religious views on others. If christians were really ‘christian’ in their behavior there would be no argument; trying to impose religious values on people who do not share that religious faith is awfully close to facist theocracy.
In the end, there is but a single relevant datum: there are gay people in our society. They are not going to go away, they are not inherently evil, and there is no reason that they should be made to feel marginalized. I get that religious people are against it, but that is their CHOICE. Choose to be religious all you like, but remember that not everyone agrees with your religion. The rest of this is all smoke and mirrors, disguising a narrow religious doctrine. Meh.
- BB
November 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@BeerBaron -
So, if I understand you correctly, “In the scramble to maintain their historical level of control over american society, they find whatever they can to force their narrow religious views on others.” applies to Christians but not to those with whom they disagree.
“…trying to impose religious values on people who do not share that religious faith is awfully close to facist theocracy ” applies to Christians but not to those with whom they disagree.
“… there are gay people in our society. They are not going to go away, they are not inherently evil, and there is no reason that they should be made to feel marginalized” applies only to the feelings of homosexuals and not to the feelings of Christians.
“Choose to be religious all you like, but remember that not everyone agrees with your religion” applies to Christians but not those with whom they disagree.
Finally, I assume that when 90% of blacks vote for Obama they’re enlightened and have escaped the bonds of social shackles but when 80% of those same blacks vote against Prop 8, they have reverted to ignorant again? And when Obama wins a 52-48 victory it’s a landslide and a mandate but when Prop 8 wins a 52-48 victory it’s a squeaker that really highlights just how close America really is coming to choosing wisely.
Finally, please address the actual content of my post which appealed to the word “God” only once and the words “Christian” and “religion” not at all. I do seem to recall leaning quite heavily on things like “society” and its values as well as historical precedent in making my argument.
You appear to have highjacked the discussion and taken it in a direction I did not intend but to which you desire to go. That would be a great idea for a post at your blog. While here, please address the issue in the post - Marriage as a “right” or not and whether or not it is even possible for homosexuals to marry and retain the value of definitions and meaning for words.
Those are comments I would look forward to hearing from you on.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Your idea that marriage is not a civil right its contradictory to legal precedent - that is, Loving v. Virginia, which declared that “marriage is one of the basic civil right of man.” If your interpretation were correct, miscegenation bans would still be entirely constitutional.
More importantly, your idea that marriage guarantees only a few rights and “respectability” is likewise uniformed. There are hundreds of rights and responsibilities that are attached to marriage. Moreover, even those rights that gay couples can supposedly procure by legal agreement between themselves are easily stripped from them.
In those states where broadly defined civil unions have been set up, there have still been cases where families have challenged wills, where partners have been refused the right to see one another in the hospital, where the police have literally come into people’s homes after the death of their loved one and tried to remove the deceased’s property, on the grounds that it does not belong to the surviving partner.
You know what could have prevented those conflicts, those incidents that had to be personally crushing to the person on the wrong side of them? Being able to say “We’re married.”
It’s not about respectability. It isn’t. I couldn’t care less whether anti-gay people “respect” me or whoever I love. They’re free not to. I don’t want to be rude, but, frankly, it’s insulting and self-centered when anti-gay marriage proponents pretend that GLBT people just want their respect. We don’t. It’s not all about you.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
A right, as I am defining it, is something that belongs to you just by nature of your asking for it. We have the right to Speech, to Assembly, to Keep and Bear Arms and so on. Marriage is not that sort of “Right”. There is no right to marry. If there were, heterosexual people would be able to demand a spouse and it would need to be provided for them.
“Civil Rights” are different. I do not have a right to any particular house. But I do have a right to compete for said housing fairly. As do gays, Muslims, handicapped and others. That is a civil right.
Marriage, while it may be fairly considered a civil right, it breaks with logic, natural law and any number of other considerations to extend that civil right to homosexuals. The miscegenation bans you mention were rightly overturned. Because blacks, whites, reds and browns as humans should not be prevented from enjoying natural human relationships simply because they are of a different color. A black man married to a white woman should not be banned because of race insomuch as any human male and any human female can exercise both their civil right to marry under the definition of marriage accepted by humanity from the beginning. However, excluding homosexuals from marriage does not constitute a violation of their rights because according to the definition of marriage, they are not able to marry.
Thus, I am in favor of and support homosexuals being able to share property, determine the disposition of that property, and enjoy all of the other benefits that human beings enjoy by virtue of their humanity. If you are being discriminated against because you are gay, I will support you in your struggle. But I will not redefine your struggle to introduce a “right” that is illogical in its intent. The solution here is to work to make the domestic partner status stronger, not to make the definition of marriage weaker.
I don’t disrespect you because you are gay. I honor you because you are a human being made in the image of God and loved by Him and thus by me. I even respect that you have the ability to love and believe that ability comes from God as well. How you choose to exercise that freedom and ability is your business and will not produce any contempt or other negative feeling in me toward you. You are a free moral agent who does not answer to me for the decisions you make. You are welcome here, you would be welcome in my home and we can be as friendly as you permit us to be.
But I will not defy logic or common sense and define a homosexual relationship you have as the legal or moral equivalent of marriage. Not because I am a bigot. Because it runs against the grain of society, common sense and history.
It’s not all about me at all. But neither is it all about you. Just because you would like to marry doesn’t mean it is possible. The only reason to insist it be so, at the end of the day, is respectability. I understand your interest in denying that. I understand you may even continue to hold that position. You are free to do so and remain involved here in whatever capacity you choose. I will always respect you. In this, however, I will disagree with you.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Well, when it comes to the legal rights that we are guaranteed by the constitution, it’s the legal definition of “right” that matters, not yours. And by that definition, marriage is a civil right. That’s all there is to it.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that legal rights are the only rights that exist, the only sort of rights that matter at all. We may say that the freedom of speech is a natural right, but, before the government legally guaranteed that, there was no reason why someone couldn’t deny us it, unless we forcibly stopped them from doing so. “Nature” did nothing to afford us that right, and, therefore, it was not a natural one. Likewise with all other supposed “natural rights.”
Likewise, I just don’t see the sense in your argument that miscegenation laws were justly overturned, while gay marriage bans are perfectly fine. According to you, the difference here is that society has always conceived of marriage as simply the union of one man and one woman - race not being a factor in it, while gender is. People have “accepted since the beginning” that your definition of marriage is correct, supposedly.
But the very existence of miscegenation bans refutes your argument, by demonstrating that, for a nice, long time, our society defined marriage differently. Did the government make those bans over the will of the people, at that time? No. Rather, they were widespread, existing in many, many states across the country and not opposed by popular outcry. American society in those parts of the country, both by popular will and by legal definition, had said that marriage was a union between one man and one woman of the same race. If you walked up to a supporter of such a ban and tried to foist your idea of the one true definition of marriage on them, he would have called you a crazy liberal for trying to change what would be, to him, the very essence of what was socially recognized as marriage - unions between people of the same race.
The definition has not been nearly as concrete and unchanging as many people would like to believe.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
@ N.S. -
Your miscegenation argument was taken into account in my response. I was not limiting my discussion to a century of laws specific to the USA. Those were rightly shown to be wrong. My appeal was to thousands of years of human history. There have always been those who banned this race or that. Eventually those bans were all overturned and recognized as wrong. Not so with sex. While there have been societies across the generations that have either permitted or condoned homosexuality (famously the Greeks) these are, by far, in the minority. Society in general recognizes there are two sexes for a reason and sanctions “marriage” as existing between them. As I note, neither I nor they ban them altogether for long periods either. Previously, homosexual acts were crimes. I do not support that evaluation.
But neither can I see how “marriage” can be redefined to include homosexuals without doing violence to the idea of marriage and the concept of language and communication.
As you your first point, I agreed that marriage is a civil right. But civil rights are different from different from the inalienable rights listed in the Bill of Rights. As I mentioned, those rights are granted by God and belong to all men by virtue of their existence. That other men keep these rights from them does not invalidate their truth or reality.
That government censors a movement or keeps it locked down doesn’t mean the right to free speech or assembly doesn’t exist. Any right to marry, civil or otherwise, is not the same thing. If for no other reason than you cannot get married without the permission of at least one other person - the other person in the marriage. Marriage is many things. It is not a Right guaranteed to you by God - nature’s God - Society or by whatever other authority you care to appeal to.
That is all on the legal or Constitutional side of the question.
The other side is, as I continue to point out, the definition. Even those societies which condoned homosexuality did not, to my admittedly incomplete knowledge, sanction homosexual relationships as marriages. Once again, if for no other reason than one prime purpose/result of marriage is family and creation/care/training of children.
Words mean things. I know that and so do those clamoring to change the meaning of the “right” to marry. They want the respectability of the title. But, like Shannon Faulkner at VMI. the very act if getting what they want will destroy whatever value their success was meant to obtain. A pyhrric victory if ever there was one.