Posted on 02/11/2004 9:56:56 AM PST by MegaSilver
Bravo for your compassionate Feb. 6 editorial A marriage, not a ''civil union' on the injustice that lesbian and gay couples face by being denied the rights that come only with civil marriage. No ''separate and unequal'' solutions will solve this inequity short of full civil-marriage equality for all.
As a gay man, my relationship of nine years with my partner is not afforded the same immigration rights as straight married couples. Therefore, we will be forced to leave the United States next year for a nation that respects gay people's civil rights. America needs to wake up.
TIM MILLER, Los Angeles, Calif.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman based on a commitment made in the presence of God. It is a function of religious practice. Our government should have nothing to say about it.
The government can, however, provide special consideration to specific couples who commit to take care of each other for life. These considerations are related to insurance, inheritance and other financial means instituted to help these couples take care of each other and to provide stable households for raising children.
Some people are married by judges, notaries or other officials. Is God really part of these commitments? Not usually. Therefore, society already recognizes the difference between a religious marriage under God and a civil marriage between two people.
I fail to see the problem with our government bodies recognizing these commitments between two people, regardless of whether the commitment is a religious marriage or whether the couple is straight or gay. Society should continue recognizing the value of these commitments and the importance of protecting them in the law, regardless of whether they entail a spiritual aspect.
MIKE LOFTIS, Navarre
If conservatives truly want to defend marriage, they should address the real issues that are causing its decline: divorce and adultery.
Banning divorce would quickly solve the problem of the high divorce rate. Criminalizing adultery, as is currently the case under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, would make people think twice before being unfaithful to their mates.
Of course, these ideas are unlikely to garner support among religious conservatives, not to mention the general population, and rightly so. I suspect that no one who supports a defense-of-marriage amendment is truly looking to ''defend'' marriage. They simply want to make sure that gays and lesbians are not treated equally under the U.S. Constitution.
SCOTT SHAY, San Francisco, Calif.
How about a constitutional ban on divorce? It seems to me that the sanctity of marriage and the protection of our children are much more threatened by the millions of divorces in this country than by the minuscule number of same-sex marriages.
RICHARD SIEGEL, Miami Beach
Sad news. Recently, one of my mother's closest friends got her husband to admit that he's been cheating on her--after having suspecting as much for over half a decade.
It's easy to dismiss these things when we read about them in the paper, but when they hit close to home, we tend to wish that there was some way the system could dole swift, painful, appropriate justice. And, in some states, there is a way: criminalized adultery, with offenders risking some pretty hefty sentences. Sound good?
It sounds great. One could easily make (and people have made) a very convincing case that adultery (or even fornication in general) harms not only the perpetrators and the smited spouse, but society as a whole. After all, since marriage is a public institution, the community as a whole is responsible for uplifting marriage. Thus, by breaking a public vow to remain faithful to one's wife (or husband), a man makes a joke not only of himself and his word but of the institution of marriage and the community in which he lives.
So why not outlaw adultery?
A couple of reasons. First, such laws are simply ineffective. They are next to impossible to enforce (since it would be very difficult to prove the adulterer guilty), and as such, they can't deter acts of adultery. If a person has so little respect as to break a vow made before God and kin--or even simply a judge--then there is no reason to think they would respect a law that probably won't hold them accountable, anyway.
Second, such laws represent a serious overstepping of the boundaries of government. Whether or not an act should be criminalized depends on whether, in general, it represents an immediate, tangible threat to another person or their rights or property. Our government or our communities may help create the social fabric in which morality can flourish, but they should not legislate it.
Why, then, should homosexual marriage not be legalized? Such was the question asked by readers of The Miami Herald in today's Letters to the Editor. At first, they might seem to have a point. Remember, though, that while the local, state, and federal governments should not legislate morality, they may help create the social fabric in which morality can flourish. This is the reasoning behind marriage licenses: to give a special institutional status and therefore community recognition to the sacrament of marriage.
Same-sex unions are not criminal. There are no laws preventing a homosexual couple from entering into a cohabitation agreement and having a liberal minister perform a wedding. The union simply will not be recognized by the state, nor should it be. A great number of people strongly feel that homosexual acts are morally wrong, and they do not want to be forced to recognize and uplift an institution centered around such acts. (Homosexuals, of course, respond that they cannot help their orientation, but this claim lacks any real substantiation. Besides, even if that were true, it would not automatically make homosexual acts acceptable, lest pedophiles or serial rape addicts be let off the hook for their "off-key" orientations.)
The argument against licensing same-sex unions can be summed up as follows: If mandatory prayer in public school classrooms is an infringement upon the civil rights of atheists, then forcing recognition of same-sex unions is an infringement upon the civil rights of those who object to the concept.
I think government can and should do both. The latter is far preferable to the former, but morality should very much be a consideration in ALL legislation. What other reason do we have for age-of-consent laws, polygamy laws, incest laws, prostitution laws, etc...? But many times, as in the examples you give, government is wiser to simply encourage morality rather than legislate against immorality. It is frequently more effective and it is a more direct way for the people to establish their own civilized community standards. The age-old way civilization functions is through social pressure to maintain standards. The government needs to draw some boundaries, but for the most part, the interaction of a group has a way of regulating itself.
My gripe is with the liberals tendancy to say that because it is wise for government to stay frequently silent on some of these issues, somehow that means government is obligated to promote immorality as morality's equal. To call a gay union equal to a heterosexual union is like saying zero equals infinity. They are not even close to equal. Government is not obligated to be morally deaf dumb and blind. In fact, the degree of our freedom is directly connected to the degree of our morality. It is in everyone's best interest to promote and defend morality.
It is impossible to extract value judgement from the function of society, whether in civil or government functions. The only thing in question is WHOSE values. (An argument the left uses, but they fail to acknowledge that they seek only to replace one set of values for another. There is no such thing in human interaction as "no values." We are not rocks. If we say gay marriage is okay then that is a value, albeit a warped one.) That's why the structure of our gov't was set up to best refect the values of the people. And that's why liberals want to break down traditional values -- because our government tends to reflect our values. If they can change society (with a little help from the force of gov't, especially the judiciary) then they control gov't as well. A government such as ours is only as good as its citizens. Corrupt the citizens, you corrupt gov't. In many ways, they are inseparable.
The fact that there are marriage laws, means that government does legislate morality.
The argument against licensing same-sex unions can be summed up as follows: If mandatory prayer in public school classrooms is an infringement upon the civil rights of atheists, then forcing recognition of same-sex unions is an infringement upon the civil rights of those who object to the concept.
Mandatory school prayer is illegal not because of the "civil rights" of atheists, but because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which also precludes anyone from demanding the silencing of any statement, or ending of any practice, simply because he objects to it. The demand that something be silenced or stopped because one objects to it, is actually a typical response of multiculturalists, which includes radical gays, as is the "civil rights" argument. If you try to use a civil rights argument AGAINST gay marriage, you will lose. It is precisely the civil rights claim that gays have been using -- so far successfully -- to win gay marriage.
Possibly, but even more so is the aspect of hererosexual unions having the power to procreate, something that homosexual unions, alas, cannot do.
Licenses serve as the very UN-liberal method of determining the responsibility of those who would bring children into the world.
It's an enduring mystery of why homosexuals even feel the need for the institution of marriage. There's no need to legitimise procreation and it brings property division and a whole host of problems into the mix when they divorce.
Most likely, it's just like all the other things that "gays" complain about - they just want society to accept them as legitimate.
Absolutely wrong. EVERY law is an imposition of morality. Why is murder illegal? because it's immoral. Without traditional Judeo/Christian morality the only system that makes sense is might makes right.
Why is speeding illegal? Because reckless driving may lead to injuring others and that is immoral. Why is fraud illegal? Because it's immoral.
Why are 'gay marriages' being forced on us by way of the massholes? Because they are imposing their morality on us.
So since every law imposes morals the question is "whose morals are they imposing?"
It's time for us to stand up and demand that our morals, that is, the tradition Christian morals that this country was founded upon be enforced.
That is another argument against same-sex unions, but my response was focused mainly on one aspect of it (the intrusiveness of forcing people to uplift what a great many of them consider to be deviant behavior).
Most likely, it's just like all the other things that "gays" complain about - they just want society to accept them as legitimate.
Absolutely right. Not to use a slippery slope fallacy here, but I can totally see gays trying to use this as a platform with which to get a "Hate Speech" code passed. After all, they did it in Canada...
Not in the sense that people are FORCED to marry to have a sexual relationship, though.
Mandatory school prayer is illegal not because of the "civil rights" of atheists, but because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which also precludes anyone from demanding the silencing of any statement, or ending of any practice, simply because he objects to it. The demand that something be silenced or stopped because one objects to it, is actually a typical response of multiculturalists, which includes radical gays, as is the "civil rights" argument. If you try to use a civil rights argument AGAINST gay marriage, you will lose. It is precisely the civil rights claim that gays have been using -- so far successfully -- to win gay marriage.
It's walking a fine line, I'll admit. Thing is, though, it's one thing for me to try to get sodomy outlawed simply because I object to the behavior. It's another thing for the state to SANCTION it and give the practice special legal status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.