I’m against changing marriage licensing so that legal marriage will no longer mean uniting the sexes. Some people claim to be in favor of “gay marriage”, but this is a misnomer. I'm in favor of gay marriage - my own marriage is quite gay, thank you. Changing the legal definition of marriage means forcing everyone to apply the title "marriage" to, and treat as marriage, sex-segregated or sex-exclusive or same-sex or single-sex or brideless and groomless unions. There would be no requirements that the participants actually be gay.
Keep in mind – marriage licenses are issued by the state, on behalf of the citizens of that state.
Originally inspired by a blog posting by Greg Koukl, I wanted to bring you some bad arguments for changing marriage licensing to license couples missing one of the sexes. Koukl has a more in-depth piece here
Keep in mind – marriage licenses are issued by the state, on behalf of the citizens of that state.
Here's a survey of some arguments we have heard from marriage neutering advocates as to why the Supreme Court of the United States should neuter state marriage licensing nationwide.
"We Love Each Other"
As Koukl points out, love does not equal marriage. The state doesn't deal with subjective internal matters like "love" – it deals with objective facts like the sex of an individual and whether or not they are already married. This is information already listed on government documents, so no privacy is forfeited. There are many loving relationships where the individuals are not married to each other, or having sex with each other.
"This Will Make Me Happy"
This one is especially used on friends and family members. While appealing to someone’s concern for them, the activist for change really is asking them to set aside their own convictions and feelings and to give up their vote to the activist. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered. Our government is there to allow us to pursue happiness, not make us happy.
"You're Just Imposing Your Morality On Us"
Law itself presumes some morality. As a democratic republic, the people of each state determine which moral principles to place into law, within certain boundaries. Since a marriage license is issued by the state, the people of that state have a say in the matter. Forcing them to issue a license is imposing your morality on them.
"Your Opposition is Based on Your Religion"
Not every reason to oppose the neutering of marriage licensing is connected to a specific religion. Some reasons are based on biology and societal interest. One need not be religious nor believe in God nor the supernatural to see the natural and objective differences between the uniting of a bride and groom and other kinds of voluntary associations. However, even if someone's perspective is based on their religion, that does not disqualify their vote or position. The federal government can't have an official religious denomonition or organization, but individuals citizens are not denied their freedom or religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, or their right to vote.
"Who Cares What Other People Do? Who Cares If We Get Married?"
This confuses private, voluntary behavior and state-involved licensing. When the state gets involved, it becomes an issue of the governed as a whole, not just the couple. State-issuef licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If someone wants to have a private ceremony, nobody is going to stop them.
"We Love Each Other"
As Koukl points out, love does not equal marriage. The state doesn't deal with subjective internal matters like "love" – it deals with objective facts like the sex of an individual and whether or not they are already married. This is information already listed on government documents, so no privacy is forfeited. There are many loving relationships where the individuals are not married to each other, or having sex with each other.
"This Will Make Me Happy"
This one is especially used on friends and family members. While appealing to someone’s concern for them, the activist for change really is asking them to set aside their own convictions and feelings and to give up their vote to the activist. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered. Our government is there to allow us to pursue happiness, not make us happy.
"You're Just Imposing Your Morality On Us"
Law itself presumes some morality. As a democratic republic, the people of each state determine which moral principles to place into law, within certain boundaries. Since a marriage license is issued by the state, the people of that state have a say in the matter. Forcing them to issue a license is imposing your morality on them.
"Your Opposition is Based on Your Religion"
Not every reason to oppose the neutering of marriage licensing is connected to a specific religion. Some reasons are based on biology and societal interest. One need not be religious nor believe in God nor the supernatural to see the natural and objective differences between the uniting of a bride and groom and other kinds of voluntary associations. However, even if someone's perspective is based on their religion, that does not disqualify their vote or position. The federal government can't have an official religious denomonition or organization, but individuals citizens are not denied their freedom or religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, or their right to vote.
"Who Cares What Other People Do? Who Cares If We Get Married?"
This confuses private, voluntary behavior and state-involved licensing. When the state gets involved, it becomes an issue of the governed as a whole, not just the couple. State-issuef licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If someone wants to have a private ceremony, nobody is going to stop them.
State marriage licensing is a public behavior.
I am included in "the people". You are asking me to call something marriage when it isn't. It is none of my business if you have someone perform a ceremony for your relationship, you choose to live together, etc. But it becomes my business when it comes to marriage licenses. I fully support the freedom of association: You can associate your partner, but you can't force the people of the state to associate the term "marriage" it with.
"How Does It Hurt Your Marriage?"
We need not prove that neutering of marriage licensing harms our own personal marriages in order to reserve the right to refuse to neuter marriage licensing.
However, one could also ask "How does my fake UC diploma harm your UC diploma? How does my counterfeit money hurt your money? How does false labeling hurt your labeling? How does it harm a Gay-Straight Alliance if a NARTH-backed club calls itself a Gay-Straight Alliance? How does it harm a Jewish Community Center if a YMCA calls itself a JCC? What would it hurt if, say, the Los Angeles Clippers claimed to be 2012 NBA Champions?" Yet, I dare say the outrage would be more pronounced.
Counterfeits devalue the real thing. It is harmful when the law imposes an untruth (that both-sex and single-sex unions are identical) on the people. Family law has an impact on all of us.
Also, when a court usurps authority from the people, it is harmful to all citizens. But state-licensed marriage isn't just a personal arrangement. It is a public institution.
"They've Had Same-Sex 'Marriage' in [fill in the blank] For [fill in the blank, but it is less than 15] Years Now, and the World Didn't Come to an End."
This only makes sense in response to someone who insists that there will be some sort of glaringly obvious Divine judgment executed against any locality where this happens. Most people who argue for maintaining traditional marriage licensing put forth arguments based on what is going to happen in the long term (declining marriage rates, shorter marriages, more illegitimacy, more infidelity, more divorce) due to generational and nationwide shifts. Sure, fire and brimstone aren't raining from the skies, but the politicians and the activists will never admit 40 years down the line that the further devaluation of traditional marriage and the combination of mothering and fathering has been bad for society. All of the problems will be chalked up to racism, or homophobia, or a lack of some government program, or the "underfunding" of public education, or carbon dioxide levels.
Some argue that because a minority of states have changed marriage licensing, a movement initiated through judicial imposition, that every other state in the union should as well. However, I highly doubt these same people would think this way if another state, say, started issuing licenses to civilians to carry military-grade automatic weapons. because a few states screw up their licensing, should all the other states be forced to follow? Remember – licensed marriage is a not a right.
Bad/Sham Marriages - "If marriage is so sacred, what about divorce, Kim Kardashian, television shows like 'The Bachelor'?"
Citing bad or sham marriages as a reason we should neuter state marriage licensing is akin to the "divorce" argument. That some people make poor use of something does not obligate us to change the definition of that thing so that more people will be interested in using it. That some people sell "lemon" cars does not mean that a furniture store is a car dealership.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is vocal about preserving marriage who supports the cheapening of marriage or likes the high divorce rate. But you know, our objections were met with the standard "change the channel or click off the television if you don't like it!", which was ignoring our point. We also hate divorce, but the fact that a significant number of people choose to end their involvement in a particular marriage (often, they go on to another marriage) does not mean that another kind of union should be recognized as marriage. We also hate sham marriages perpetrated by heterosexuals. However, why would the occurrence of one kind of sham we don't like mean it is okay for the state to enshrine an entirely new kind of pseudogamy into state practice?
"We're Being Treated Like Second Class Citizens"
The state, on behalf the people, treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and has requirements for various licenses. This is the only example I know of where people are claiming they are being treated as second class citizens because they aren't interested in obtaining a license on the established terms – which neither bar applicants on the basis of sex nor sexual orientation.
We are not telling you that you have to ride in the back of the bus. You are telling all of us bus riders that the wheels must come off of the bus because you get motion sickness. You don't have to ride the bus if you don't want to, but you should not be able to force us to change the very nature of the bus. It is there to move society forward.
You have the same access to marriage as anyone else. However, if you choose not to participate in marriage, you should not be treated like you are married. People should get treated differently based on behavior. Someone who wins an election will have certain benefits and access that their opponents won't get. Someone who serves honorably in the military will have the access that comes along with being a veteran, while a pacifist conscientious objector won't. Felons get treated differently from people who aren't felons.
I am included in "the people". You are asking me to call something marriage when it isn't. It is none of my business if you have someone perform a ceremony for your relationship, you choose to live together, etc. But it becomes my business when it comes to marriage licenses. I fully support the freedom of association: You can associate your partner, but you can't force the people of the state to associate the term "marriage" it with.
"How Does It Hurt Your Marriage?"
We need not prove that neutering of marriage licensing harms our own personal marriages in order to reserve the right to refuse to neuter marriage licensing.
However, one could also ask "How does my fake UC diploma harm your UC diploma? How does my counterfeit money hurt your money? How does false labeling hurt your labeling? How does it harm a Gay-Straight Alliance if a NARTH-backed club calls itself a Gay-Straight Alliance? How does it harm a Jewish Community Center if a YMCA calls itself a JCC? What would it hurt if, say, the Los Angeles Clippers claimed to be 2012 NBA Champions?" Yet, I dare say the outrage would be more pronounced.
Counterfeits devalue the real thing. It is harmful when the law imposes an untruth (that both-sex and single-sex unions are identical) on the people. Family law has an impact on all of us.
Also, when a court usurps authority from the people, it is harmful to all citizens. But state-licensed marriage isn't just a personal arrangement. It is a public institution.
"They've Had Same-Sex 'Marriage' in [fill in the blank] For [fill in the blank, but it is less than 15] Years Now, and the World Didn't Come to an End."
This only makes sense in response to someone who insists that there will be some sort of glaringly obvious Divine judgment executed against any locality where this happens. Most people who argue for maintaining traditional marriage licensing put forth arguments based on what is going to happen in the long term (declining marriage rates, shorter marriages, more illegitimacy, more infidelity, more divorce) due to generational and nationwide shifts. Sure, fire and brimstone aren't raining from the skies, but the politicians and the activists will never admit 40 years down the line that the further devaluation of traditional marriage and the combination of mothering and fathering has been bad for society. All of the problems will be chalked up to racism, or homophobia, or a lack of some government program, or the "underfunding" of public education, or carbon dioxide levels.
Some argue that because a minority of states have changed marriage licensing, a movement initiated through judicial imposition, that every other state in the union should as well. However, I highly doubt these same people would think this way if another state, say, started issuing licenses to civilians to carry military-grade automatic weapons. because a few states screw up their licensing, should all the other states be forced to follow? Remember – licensed marriage is a not a right.
Bad/Sham Marriages - "If marriage is so sacred, what about divorce, Kim Kardashian, television shows like 'The Bachelor'?"
Citing bad or sham marriages as a reason we should neuter state marriage licensing is akin to the "divorce" argument. That some people make poor use of something does not obligate us to change the definition of that thing so that more people will be interested in using it. That some people sell "lemon" cars does not mean that a furniture store is a car dealership.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is vocal about preserving marriage who supports the cheapening of marriage or likes the high divorce rate. But you know, our objections were met with the standard "change the channel or click off the television if you don't like it!", which was ignoring our point. We also hate divorce, but the fact that a significant number of people choose to end their involvement in a particular marriage (often, they go on to another marriage) does not mean that another kind of union should be recognized as marriage. We also hate sham marriages perpetrated by heterosexuals. However, why would the occurrence of one kind of sham we don't like mean it is okay for the state to enshrine an entirely new kind of pseudogamy into state practice?
"We're Being Treated Like Second Class Citizens"
The state, on behalf the people, treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and has requirements for various licenses. This is the only example I know of where people are claiming they are being treated as second class citizens because they aren't interested in obtaining a license on the established terms – which neither bar applicants on the basis of sex nor sexual orientation.
We are not telling you that you have to ride in the back of the bus. You are telling all of us bus riders that the wheels must come off of the bus because you get motion sickness. You don't have to ride the bus if you don't want to, but you should not be able to force us to change the very nature of the bus. It is there to move society forward.
You have the same access to marriage as anyone else. However, if you choose not to participate in marriage, you should not be treated like you are married. People should get treated differently based on behavior. Someone who wins an election will have certain benefits and access that their opponents won't get. Someone who serves honorably in the military will have the access that comes along with being a veteran, while a pacifist conscientious objector won't. Felons get treated differently from people who aren't felons.
Man: "But I Don't Want to Marry a Woman, I Want to Marry My 'Husband'"
Legal marriage is not an obligation, and not a right along the same level of freedom of religion or speech. That a man does not want to marry a woman does not obligate the state to change its marriage licensing so that he can get a marriage license with another man. The fact is, he does have the same access as any straight man. The access is there. And since there is no legal requirement that each individual marry, he is free to not marry a woman. That someone is wanting something does not obligate the majority to change. Likewise, there are straight men (and, apparently, a handful of women) who want to have their marriage licensed without subjecting it to laws that mean some level of spousal support and division of assets in the event of a divorce. So they don't marry. Everyone has equal access to marriage, even if not everyone can find an eligible, consenting partner. But not everyone wants licensed marriage as society offers. That doesn't mean they don't have the access.
Nobody is stopping anyone from being with their lovers. You can even have a ceremony, exchange rings, have a party, received presents, go on a trip together, change names, live together, call each other spouses, and request that other people treat you as though you are married.
"What About People Who Undergo a Sex Change?"
A man who has his genitalia removed/altered, is injected with hormones, and wears dresses is still a man, albeit a mutilated one. However, the law should refer to the birth certificate, whatever it says. (Some countries do allow (or soon will) people to change their birth certificates willy-nilly. That is their problem.)
"We Need State-Licensed Marriage For [Fill in the Blank]"
Same-sex couples claim that they need state-issued marriage licenses for their relationship because of some of the things that come along with it, such as Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance defaults, hospital access, immigration, and so forth.
The implication is that these voluntary associations should have this kind of treatment in the first place, when the kind of voluntary associations that are treated this way are actually available to individuals regardless of sexual orientation.
Many of these things are federal issues, and are not immediately affected by California's Marriage Amendment (or similar laws in other states) – stand or fail. They apply more to repealing the federal DOMA. Anything that is the jurisdiction of the state is already supplied in California by a law that treats domestic partners as spouses.
Regardless, this argument treats marriage as a means to an end for certain legal benefits and entitlements. In some cases, one could argue that those things should be given to anyone in the first place, or should involve voluntary transactions by all the parties involved. However, assuming they all should be given to married couples, the question is why have they been? Marriage, because it unites the sexes and can naturally create and raise the next generation, has been treated by government in this way on behalf of society. Society does not have the same interest when it comes to same-sex couples, trios, etc. If marriage no longer guarantees the uniting the sexes, society loses most of its interest in whether it happens or not, or lasts nor not.
In regards to hospital visitation, why can't someone designate their visitors (ahead of time, if necessary), and hospitals honor that? There are ways of address these issues without a wholesale neutering of state marriage licensing. It seems to me that much of this argument is like burning down a house to rid it of termites.
"I Can't Get the Same Benefits as a Straight Man"
Strictly speaking, yes, a gay man can get the same benefits – by marrying in the legal sense. That he doesn't want to is not the state's concern. Likewise, one can't get veterans benefits without being a military veteran, no matter how ardent a pacifist. The military is under no obligation to change its purpose to accommodate pacifists. Government treats different kinds of associations and different behaviors differently.
Marriage is a specific kind of voluntary association. The state treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create children and raise them with both a mother and a father who are legally, financially, socially, and some would say spiritually bound to each other and the children. The state has an interest in raising citizens. and thus supplies this model of doing do with certain benefits and protections. Businesses and organizations can choose to extend to you the same benefits they extend to married couples. Some benefits of marriage are social, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual, largely having to do with uniting with someone of the opposite sex. Obviously, those benefits would not be magically extended to you even if the state were to recognize your relationship as marriage. In some places, you are extended the same legal benefits as a married couple.
"Our Relationship Should Be Treated the Same"
There's nothing in the Constitution that says this. In fact, the state treats different kinds of relationships or associations differently, such as different kinds of business relationships, all of the time. A relationship missing one of the sexes is different from one that is inclusive of both sexes. Single-sex relationships of this sort have never been necessary for the perpetuation of society, while both-sexes relationships have. Both men and women are necessary components of society, and marriage unites them. They are the only kind of coupling that can naturally produce new citizens and raise them with both a male and female role model.
"It's Not About Children, Because Not All Married Couples Have Children"
This is like saying that cars in general aren't for driving because some cars are kept in a collection instead of used as transportation. Koukl covers this one well.
"Gay People Have Kids, Too"
Two men or two women have never produced a child naturally through their union. This means that any children involved were either conceived in a prior relationship, were conceived using "reproductive technology", or were adopted. Someone making this argument assumes that we all think these things are hunky dory. However, that a person fornicated or chose the wrong person to marry and make a child with and then divorced, or that a person is able to find a sperm donor, egg donor, or a rent-a-womb does not mean we should change our marriage licensing. It means a bunch of people screwed up in not ensuring a child would have both a mother and father married to each other. If a person was widowed and with a child, that's sad, but if they switched teams that still doesn't compel the neutering of marriage. As for adoption – the ideal should be that children are placed with a man and woman who are married.
"We're a Part of Society and Not Going Away"
Same could be said for single people. So what?
"You're a Bigot!"
That’s an accusation, not an argument.
"Shut up!"
That’s a request, not an argument.
"You're on the wrong side of history! It's gonna happen, whetha ya like eht or nahht!"
That's a prediction, not an argument.
"It's Just a Piece of Paper"
This one is curious, given the intense pleading for it.
"Marriage Is Already Devalued"
This one is a little like the previous one. Activists for change cite the high divorce rate, adultery, fornication, out-of-wedlock births, and celebrity/"reality" television marriage train wrecks as reasons why marriage isn’t being handled right by both-sexes couples. But just because marriage licenses are being misused or disrespected doesn’t obligate the state to change the licenses to be issued to couples who do not have both sexes included.
If it doesn't mean anything anymore, why are you trying so hard to change the laws so that a same-sex union will be called marriage? But you are on to something when you suggest that marriage isn't esteemed the way it used to be. For example, marriage used to be considered by most people a lifelong commitment that involved a division of labor, and the institution in which people lived together, had sex, and raised children. Now, much to dismay of the very same people who are trying to preserve marriage in the legal sense, society encourages... divorce if one spouse is unhappy or no longer "in love" regardless of whether they have children or not; husbands and wives to both work outside the home, share the domestic chores, and to have other people (day care workers, for one) raise their children; shacking up; sex outside of marriage or any sort of relationships whatsoever; and having children regardless of marital status."We Need State-Licensed Marriage For [Fill in the Blank]"
Same-sex couples claim that they need state-issued marriage licenses for their relationship because of some of the things that come along with it, such as Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance defaults, hospital access, immigration, and so forth.
The implication is that these voluntary associations should have this kind of treatment in the first place, when the kind of voluntary associations that are treated this way are actually available to individuals regardless of sexual orientation.
Many of these things are federal issues, and are not immediately affected by California's Marriage Amendment (or similar laws in other states) – stand or fail. They apply more to repealing the federal DOMA. Anything that is the jurisdiction of the state is already supplied in California by a law that treats domestic partners as spouses.
Regardless, this argument treats marriage as a means to an end for certain legal benefits and entitlements. In some cases, one could argue that those things should be given to anyone in the first place, or should involve voluntary transactions by all the parties involved. However, assuming they all should be given to married couples, the question is why have they been? Marriage, because it unites the sexes and can naturally create and raise the next generation, has been treated by government in this way on behalf of society. Society does not have the same interest when it comes to same-sex couples, trios, etc. If marriage no longer guarantees the uniting the sexes, society loses most of its interest in whether it happens or not, or lasts nor not.
In regards to hospital visitation, why can't someone designate their visitors (ahead of time, if necessary), and hospitals honor that? There are ways of address these issues without a wholesale neutering of state marriage licensing. It seems to me that much of this argument is like burning down a house to rid it of termites.
"I Can't Get the Same Benefits as a Straight Man"
Strictly speaking, yes, a gay man can get the same benefits – by marrying in the legal sense. That he doesn't want to is not the state's concern. Likewise, one can't get veterans benefits without being a military veteran, no matter how ardent a pacifist. The military is under no obligation to change its purpose to accommodate pacifists. Government treats different kinds of associations and different behaviors differently.
Marriage is a specific kind of voluntary association. The state treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create children and raise them with both a mother and a father who are legally, financially, socially, and some would say spiritually bound to each other and the children. The state has an interest in raising citizens. and thus supplies this model of doing do with certain benefits and protections. Businesses and organizations can choose to extend to you the same benefits they extend to married couples. Some benefits of marriage are social, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual, largely having to do with uniting with someone of the opposite sex. Obviously, those benefits would not be magically extended to you even if the state were to recognize your relationship as marriage. In some places, you are extended the same legal benefits as a married couple.
"Our Relationship Should Be Treated the Same"
There's nothing in the Constitution that says this. In fact, the state treats different kinds of relationships or associations differently, such as different kinds of business relationships, all of the time. A relationship missing one of the sexes is different from one that is inclusive of both sexes. Single-sex relationships of this sort have never been necessary for the perpetuation of society, while both-sexes relationships have. Both men and women are necessary components of society, and marriage unites them. They are the only kind of coupling that can naturally produce new citizens and raise them with both a male and female role model.
"It's Not About Children, Because Not All Married Couples Have Children"
This is like saying that cars in general aren't for driving because some cars are kept in a collection instead of used as transportation. Koukl covers this one well.
"Gay People Have Kids, Too"
Two men or two women have never produced a child naturally through their union. This means that any children involved were either conceived in a prior relationship, were conceived using "reproductive technology", or were adopted. Someone making this argument assumes that we all think these things are hunky dory. However, that a person fornicated or chose the wrong person to marry and make a child with and then divorced, or that a person is able to find a sperm donor, egg donor, or a rent-a-womb does not mean we should change our marriage licensing. It means a bunch of people screwed up in not ensuring a child would have both a mother and father married to each other. If a person was widowed and with a child, that's sad, but if they switched teams that still doesn't compel the neutering of marriage. As for adoption – the ideal should be that children are placed with a man and woman who are married.
"We're a Part of Society and Not Going Away"
Same could be said for single people. So what?
"You're a Bigot!"
That’s an accusation, not an argument.
"Shut up!"
That’s a request, not an argument.
"You're on the wrong side of history! It's gonna happen, whetha ya like eht or nahht!"
That's a prediction, not an argument.
"It's Just a Piece of Paper"
This one is curious, given the intense pleading for it.
"Marriage Is Already Devalued"
This one is a little like the previous one. Activists for change cite the high divorce rate, adultery, fornication, out-of-wedlock births, and celebrity/"reality" television marriage train wrecks as reasons why marriage isn’t being handled right by both-sexes couples. But just because marriage licenses are being misused or disrespected doesn’t obligate the state to change the licenses to be issued to couples who do not have both sexes included.
I seem to recall Leftists, including homosexuality advocates, having had something to do with a lot of those shifts. It is interesting that now they say "What's the big deal about marriage anyway?" They're like an arsonist who burns down a house and then tells the property owner "You might as well sell your property. There's nothing on it."
Along the same lines, radical feminists have long insisted marriage is oppressive. Thanks to easy no-strings sex and punitive divorce settlements, many men are now claiming that marriage is miserable and oppressive for men. Yet most of those same people insist that "marriage" should be extended to same-sex couples. This doesn't make sense, because these people are claiming to be for "gay rights" but want to subject gays to something they consider oppressive.
"Everybody knows what marriage is. Nobody knows what civil unions or domestic partnerships are."
Assuming that this statement is true – so what? People know (or think they know) what a "corporation" is, which is another state designation describing a voluntary association. So does this mean that there is a problem with a "Limited Liability Partnership"? As I've written numerous times before, it is okay (and necessary) for a state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.
Yes, everyone does know what marriage is, because all of us are here either because of a marriage or through a pairing that emulated marriage, even if for a moment. We know what marriage is because it existed before our nation, before our laws. The state did not invent marriage; it recognizes and licenses it. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are an invention of some modern states.
These days, who under the age of 70 doesn't know what a civil union is? And so what if they don't? Everyone knows what a high school diploma is. Some people aren’t as clear on what a GED means. Yet, we continue to issue both.
One of the reasons this argument is strange is that at the same time the person making it is counting on people to nod and say, "Yes... everyone knows what marriage is," most of the people understand that marriage unites the sexes by uniting a bride and a groom, and other pairings that try to look like marriage are a counterfeit, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how intense the feelings. So yes, "everyone" knows what marriage is – and we know what it isn't, too, but we're not supposed to think about that part when someone is making this argument.
This argument seems to be another variation of the "prestige" argument – that marriage is more appreciated in our culture than civil unions or domestic partnerships. But even so, where is it written that every personal relationship has to be treated the same by society and our laws? Friendship is one of the most important kinds of personal relationships there has ever been, but we don't issue state licenses for it. Friends may argue that their friendship should get the same state designation as marriage, but we are not obligated to comply.
Assuming courts have only made correct decisions in the past (demonstrably false, but let's assume for the sake of argument) and, in doing so, did not reach beyond their constitutional authority in doing so, this does not automatically mean it was right for a court to strike down bride+groom requirements in marriage amendments and other laws. If the court ordered the ACLU to pay me ten million dollars simply because I wanted it, would that automatically mean it was right, because the court has corrected past evils? There is no reason why this should be an issue for the courts instead of the voters.
Most common is likening the denial of marriage licenses to single-sex couples to laws banning "interracial" marriage that were struck down. But as Koukl aptly demonstrates, that some things were illegal in the past and are now legal does not mean other things must necessarily follow. Otherwise, we might as well throw out all laws. Skin color is irrelevant to marriage. Gender is not. It is central to the state’s interest in marriage.
The Best Argument
A not-so-bad argument I've heard is that licensing same-sex relationships as marriage will stabilize gay relationships, and that stable gay relationships make the individuals more productive members of society. Without arguing the claim that stable same-sex relationships make the individuals more productive – if so, they do this already without a marriage license. (Remember that the state did not create marriage – marriage existed and exists, and subsequent laws merely describe it.) Also, many things make people more productive but we don't or shouldn't have the state get involved. Furthermore, there are compelling arguments that changing the licensing would cause harm that would outweigh the good, and thus be more of a negative to society, than any positives.
Regardless, the people who want the change have the burden of proving that the change would be Constitutional and beneficial to society.
The bottom line is that the uniting of a bride and groom is objectively and demonstrably different than a brideless or groomless pairing, and so these different associations and different behaviors can be treated differently under the Constitution.
Other responses to marriuage neutering advocate arguments:
It Takes a Bride and Groom to Make a Marriage
Paradox Now - Marrinage Neutering and Gender Distinctions
Divorce Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering
The False Compromise
"Our Right Was Taken Away!"
"We Are Your Family and Neighbors"
Equal Protection
It's Discrimination
"Hasn't Marriage Always Been Changing?"
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.