Should gays have the right to marry?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

My 3-year-old daughter has decided that she will marry her baby brother in a few years. She feels love toward her brother and wants to live with him forever, which, in her mind, means getting married. This makes sense to a 3-year-old. But at some point, my husband and I will explain what marriage is and what it is not.

When I don't condone my toddlers' getting married, am I toddlerphobic? Bigoted? Am I denying them equal rights under the law? No, I'm just explaining the facts -- marriage is a sacred and legal covenant between an unrelated man and woman. It may be understandable that a gay or lesbian couple wants legal recognition, but that couple cannot be married. Because no such state exists.

Marriage is the oldest institution in the world, and I would argue, exists outside of any temporal definition of it. Because of this, with few exceptions, every society down through history, and every major world religion, has recognized the same one-man, one-woman parameters. No court, no legislature, can change the fundamental structure of marriage. Only its Creator can change it, and it doesn't look like He is doing that any time soon.

All we as a society can do, then, is change our definition of marriage. And that would be a mistake. We would be trying to make marriage something it isn't, would be violating the conscience of millions of people for the sake of a small minority, and would be setting ourselves on a slippery slope to disaster. If we change our definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples today, what is next? Bigamy? Adult-child unions? I'm not being facetious.

If we don't hold an objective, unwavering line on what marriage is and is not, what grounds do we have for objecting to any type of marriage union? I happen to think that bigamy is sexist, abusive and demeaning to women (even women who choose it), but if society tries to make marriage something it is not, why shouldn't a patriarch be allowed to take three teenaged wives if he and they so choose?

The conservative opinion on this may seem unjust to some, but it is not. It is protecting the traditional definition of marriage against an onslaught that would undermine our society.

My heart goes out to my gay friends who may struggle with feeling unequal under the law, but compassion should not result in destroying the fundamental definition of society's most important institution. I believe the gay lifestyle is morally wrong, but a gay citizen is entitled to civil rights and a free choice of lifestyle like anyone else. Some may say, "Well, then I have the right to marry." Yes, of course you do. The only qualification is that you marry someone of the opposite sex.

Shaunti is right. Marital unions outside of heterosexual unions do not truly reflect the spirit of marriage. Marriage is based on male property rights and commerce. This power structure can only exist between a man and woman. Or to use the very words of the Christian church -- words that aptly identify the power imbalance -- marriage can only exist between "man and wife."

Yet same sex partners still want to marry. Their desire to reap the same financial and social benefits of marriage, as their heterosexual counterparts, upsets the conservative community. Conservatives fear a deterioration of their traditional values and a precipitous decay of morals that will inevitably plummet down the slippery slope toward pedophilia.

It's only a slippery slope if your definition of marriage begins and ends with conservative Christianity. I can draw conclusions about the dangers of religion that the devout draw about same-sex marriages: If we give those Christians free rein what's next? Male superiority and female subservience? Oh, wait. That already exists. I blush. I should try to pick a more outlandish example. Sorry.

The reality is that other religions and lifestyles exist. As hard as this concept may be to understand in the state of Georgia, it is nevertheless true. The United States was formed based on free speech and self-determination and the separation of church and state. It wasn't based on the question: "What would Jesus do?" Does everything have to inevitably revolve around Christian ethics? If that's the case, I think we should consider revising our Constitution to better reflect New Testament ethics.

But in the meantime, I think it is fair to say that same-sex unions can't topple an institution that was never firmly grounded. Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage was originally an arrangement devoid of love, a monetary transaction that extended a couple's social network. It was a matter of survival. Women had babies and men foraged for food.

If conservatives are upset about sullying the original meaning of marriage let's go back even farther and talk about ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. Let's talk about dowries, about transferring property right between father and husband. Let's talk about the husband's surname as a cattle brand. The definition of marriage as a heterosexual union was only recently adopted by the Church as a holy union between 'man and wife'. And this is only a single chapter in a long history of marital 'bliss'.

If the concern is that we satisfy the "majority's conscience," despite a vocal minority, this argument isn't convincing. Women couldn't own property or vote when they were a minority voice, does this make it right? (Do I need to mention slavery, too?)

Church and state were separated for a reason: to respect all religions and lifestyles, not just the dominant one. Same-sex couples should be afforded the legal and financial benefits equally under the law, not to mention the emotional rewards of being recognized and affirmed as equally valued and contributing members of a society that they helped create.

You seem to have circular reasoning confused with insanity.

Example:

The legislature of Utah I think, came within one vote of declaring that legally the value of Pi was henceforth 3.2. It was easier to use that way.

Now. If it had passed, it would have been de jury legal. So what?

Would you want the engineers who design your high rise buildings or your jumbo jets to do the legal thing? or the rational thing?

In other words, you can't pass laws that contradict reality.
The definition of marriage since prehistory is simply reality put into words. Not subject to every perversion's whims.

You seem to have this rosy idealistic view of the "institution of marriage" when the reality is far from that. Go to Las Vegas and get married in 15 minutes, for example, or marry and then divorce within 5 years as many people seem to do.

Heterosexuals have been doing a pretty good job of deconstructing the instutution of marriage all by ourselves, without any help from gays.

In other words, you can't pass laws that contradict reality. The definition of marriage since prehistory is simply reality put into words. Not subject to every perversion's whims.

Your statement presupposes that gay marriage would contradict reality. That's an usupported assertion. It's also quite an ambiguous assertion. If gay marriage is codified into law and embraced by society, how is that contradicting reality? Are gay couples really just an apparition?

The value of Pi is mathematically certain. Societal norms and laws are fluid.

You confuse divorce law with the institution of marriage.

Marry in haste divorce at leasure.

There is a standard, even a disfuntional family is still measure against the standard.

The knee jerk reaction to condeming marriage ignores the outside influences which have also worked against marriage. (feminst martha burks, paternity fraud, no fault, etc)

You're asking me to defend a statement I didn't make. I said society and laws are fluid. I did not say marriage has been fluid.

Now that we have that straight, try to understand the point I was trying to make. It's not that difficult. The concept of marriage could be fluid, even though it hasn't been in the past.

There are set standards for every society. 100% of all human societies have been Father, Mother, and baby makes three.

Homosexual marriage IS a contradiction. It is an abnormal union seeking sanction by a legal denial. No matter how you slice it (religion, science, morality, ethics) homosexual behavior is an alternative to normal sexual conduct by humans.

You can argue acceptance and tollerance, or acceptance vs. tolerance till doomsday it, but will never change physical biology.

Should gays have the right to marry?

Odd question when you think about it. If we use the common definition of "marriage" then the question doesn't make sense. Observe:

1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

Unless all of the dictionaries are stolen, the answer is obviously "No".

5.56mm

The value of Pi is mathematically certain. Societal norms and laws are fluid.

Your choice of words is duly noted.
Marriage is not a "societal norm".
It is a shorthand alternative to "forming a family unit for the purpose of propagating the race in a more or less organized society".

That the perverts wish to redefine it has zero effect on its continuing definition.
Why can't they (and you) be satisfied by simply creating (or hijacking) a different word?
I would suggest "suicide".

Help me out here.

I'll try.

Two women we know got married by their minister.

OK, I'm with you so far. BTW, I hope all 4 newlyweds (the two women and their two husbands) are enjoying married life.

In the US people have the freedom of religious belief.

Certainly. The first amendment guarantees that the government can't coerce us to join any particular religion, and it is also supposed to guarantee that we can practice our religion as we see fit, and the government can't actively prohibit us from practicing our religion freely. That last point seems to be seriously misunderstood by the courts, though.

They are married in the eyes of their church.

They certainly are. Their husbands are married in the eyes of their church, too.

The government does not recognize the marraige.

I don't understand. The government should recognize both marriages. Which marriage isn't recognized by the government?

Are they married or not?

Both women are married. Both of their husbands are also married. There are two married couples here. What's the problem?

"If you rely on the courts to legitimate your beliefs, then you are putting your faith in the wrong system."

The court seems to be willing to step in and sit on a throne that isn't theirs. Once the court decrees there is no longer a 'right and wrong,' it will be forced into permanent retirement, having no more cases to opine about. All prohibitions will end, giving way to the justification of 'anything goes' when the law of situational ethics is firmly established.

Custody fights over adopted or children born...

Who gets custody of the cat?

If there is government recognized gay marriage (a travesty, I know) there should be the same property, spousal support, spousal abuse and dissolution rules. They will have to flip a coin to figure which one will get screwed in the divorce.

Gays will quickly be trying to change the laws.

More important than what the court decides is how YOU live your life. People are capable of doing the right thing regardless of what the law allows and/or prohibits. If you think you need a government to establish your religious values for you, you are no different than liberals who use the government as a means of social engineering. Forcing the court ito permanent retirement might not be such a bad idea.

"Forcing the court ito permanent retirement might not be such a bad idea."

Naw, I don't think that would be best. You didn't really mean that, did you? The courts exist to support the idea that there are absolutes concerning 'right and wrong' and that the law was given that sin be viewed as 'exceedingly sinful,' absolutely wrong (destructive). Once that concept is destroyed, there will be no accountability for anything, and hence, no justice (in the temporal world, at least) and chaos will reign supreme.

Can't a gay man marry any woman he chooses?

Nope. She would have to be unmarried, not closely related and capable of giving legal consent. She must also actually consent to the marriage.

As for men marrying men, heterosexual men can't marry men either. So, the law seems completely fair on this issue.

Sorry, that line of reasoning was dismissed when interracial marriage rights were recognized in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

To make a rational argument against same-sex marriage, you need to demonstrate a narrowly-defined compelling state interest which justifies withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.

Good luck!

In the past here on FR, I've made a rational basis case for preserving traditional marriage. Sadly, as far as I've seen, no one else seems to be able to do the same with any veracity.

Marriage certificate = birth certificate.

Secular, biological, no esoteric hobgoblins, no perverted ceremonious fakery - - crams the fallacious "separation of church and state" argument right back down their throats... (pun intended)

Sir, I think you are full of it...

A Different Take -

Over the years, I have met only a handlul of gays who have been with their partner for over 10 years (most had committment ceremonies). The foot loose and fancy free gay person seems to be more of a norm than the gay community would like to admit.

The gay partners being allowed on medical insurance plans has failed dismally in several arenas because gays were not with the same partner for any length of time so the costs for employers has skyrocketed...if these employers chose to keep the insurance at all.

Let's look at it this way, if gays want to marry...alright...go ahead. BUT....they will feel the heat of taxes and the heat of divorce just like the rest of us. When gays have to start PAYING for their lives and their mistakes as the rest of us do...I bet most of them will choose to stay single....

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.