For the record, let me say that I am a centrist, with *slight* liberal leanings. If it matters, I also hold degrees in economics and sociology, although they are only BAs.
I strongly support gay marriage, but I will readily admit that the arguments here are legitimate. With absolutely no disrespect meant, I would like to attempt a counterargument here:
Firstly, I would address the argument that gay couples do not contribute to the propogation of the species in the way that heterosexual ones do. Although this may have some validity, the article glosses over a necessary follow-up point. If you are restricting the rights and permissions of marriage (ie tax benefits, etc) to couples that aren’t propogating our society, then you are stating that the *reason* for that restriction is based on the child-bearing nature of marriage. If you truly believe that, then you must necessarily follow that logic with the following: marriages that do not exist for the purpose of propogating our society (i.e. producing or adopting children) should not reap the legal benefits of marriage. I confess that it makes sense, from at least some perspectives. The fact is that if child-rearing is the reason for these benefits, then those benefits should be withheld from ALL non-child-bearing couples; if you only restrict gay couples from reaping said benefits, you are not applying the standard universally.
Secondly, I would like to make the following point: This is the first time I have actually heard this argument, and I had to do quite a bit of google searching to find it. This argument is rarely introduced in the national debate on this issue. I cannot produce any official research to back this up, but I don’t believe this is a commonly made argument, or at least not nearly as commonly made as the religious perspective. For this reason, and the reason listed above, I posit the following: it is not the will of the American people that child-rearing potential should be the qualifying factor for marriage benefits. Although I grant the “nobody makes this argument” point may be innaccurate, I would contend that since you’re arguing to restrict another person’s freedom, the burden of proof to the contrary lies on you.
As one final note, I’d like to touch briefly on the “will of the American People” bit up there. In general, I believe the will of the people is how the country should be run, but there are many exceptions to that. For example, in many states during the 1800’s, it was the “will of the people” that black people not be considered full citizens. Although that is a wholly separate issue from homosexual marriage, it illustrates the fact that democracy sometimes boils down to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. When many people vote to restrict the rights of a few, sometimes many people are wrong.
The entire problem stems from state interference in a religious matter.
This can be rectified by removing all legal benefit of marriage, on the one hand. No disparate impact, no issue with equal treatment under the law.
On the other hand, civil involvement in the act of marriage, which is at its core a religious ceremony, a religious commitment and a religious institution, is fundamentally outside acceptable limits set by our Constitution.
This argues for civic disengagement from the entire process, not just a removal of legal benefit.
It strikes me that this is merely regarded as a vanguard for advancing homosexuality in the culture. Very few lesbians, let alone gay men, actually favor a lifelong legal obligation to one person. The gates haven’t exactly been stormed in those few states recognizing such a civic union.
So, there’s that weakness in the whole kerfluffle.
Another problem is the very clear intent of forcing churches to perform same sex marriages. This itself is fundamentally outside the limits set by our Constitution as well. The end game is forced acceptance of behavior regarded as immoral and against any number of religions, thereby gaining state control over religion.
That’s the problem, and that’s why it’s so thoroughly controverted and resisted. Gays and lesbians can be “married” in any number of so-called “churches” in every state, right now. The Metropolitan Community Church is one of them.
It’s ultimately not about their own freedoms, it’s about forcing acceptance and limiting the freedoms of others.