The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage

Townhall.com ^ | 11/26/2008 | Frank Turek

[Servant of the Cross]

After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.” Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights!

We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.

Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.

That’s a preposterous premise! It would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy. Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!

[houston1]

none of which addresses the fact that the domestic partner law was not given equal weight to a marriage as people claim.

[fwdude]

none of which addresses the fact that the domestic partner law was not given equal weight to a marriage as people claim.

No one is implying such a thing, and, in fact, I hope that domestic partner laws DON'T make such partnerships the same as marriage in all but name.

The complaints by the homo-activists is that they are undefendibly vulnerable to contested legal arrangements - to listen to them, you'd think this a widespread, common problem, with partners being smacked down right and left. I'm saying that this is a lie and that a properly executed legal document should hold up in all by the most activist court. We shouldn't be ruled by the exceptions in a society.

[4rcane]

those who are trying to push for gay marriage, I find are more concerned that their definition of marriage be pushed than they are concerned about rights imho. I mean, alot of ppl dont have a problem with civil union, if two gay couples want to be together with full rights that married male/female have. So why are they against it?

It seem more of a pushing of ones opinion onto someone else than basic liberty

[Republic of Texas]

They don’t want to get married, they want to stick a thumb in the eye of Christians.

[fwdude]

No conservative should fall for the civil-union-as-a-concession-for-marriage trap. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. are just a form of “marriage” by another name, and WILL be used as a wedge to gain the appellation of Marriage by the homo-leftists. Someone on this site once put it very succinctly: Why do we want to encourage bad, destructive behavior at all?

[fwdude]

I might add that many states, including my own State of Texas and most recently Florida, have included in their Constitutions language that explicitly forbids marriage-mimmicking arrangements for other than natural man-woman relationships for good reason. These states saw the logical conclusion of allowing homo-degenerates a place at the table of civilized institutions.