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.

Homosexuals Demanding Marriage Rights?

The trick question circulating from homosexual apologists is, 'How will allowing homosexuals to marry harm heterosexual marriage(s)?' To address this twisted query one must understand what marriage is, as an institution within society and thus a crucial institution for civilization. This writer is convinced that homosexuality is deviant behavior ... little more than twenty years ago, it was defined as aberrant behavior in clinical Psychology texts.

To open a vital institution to even more degeneracy than is already corroding the institution because of tacit acceptance for adultery, spousal and child abuse, and rampant divorce with 'no fault' is to deliver a final death blow to the institution most tasked with the safety and nurturing of our children ... and the maturation of our young adults. When one looks at the ancillary factors of the institution of marriage --as when divorce, custody, and child support monies are contemplated by courts/judges-- it is evident that opening the institution to membership of more deviancy does nothing to improve the institution and in deed does much to degrade the sanctity of the institution. To understand why, one needs to look at what homosexuality represents ... and I don't mean to focus upon the deviant acts.

While there is a hormonal influence traceable in a very rare percentage of homosexual behavior, the behavior is a complex mix of onset hormonal fires and choice in behavior patterns. But how to explain the homosexuals who actually turn their lives around and away from the debasement of homosexual behaviors? You can tell a homo-activist by their insistence that this is not a genuine turnaround.

As human beings are exposed to notions of God and salvation, there is a very real tug of war between the 'adamic nature' we're all born with and the longing to commune with God, to be pleasing to Him not abhorrent to Him. I think this desire to relate to/with God the Creator is generated because of the human spirit within our human soul. All life has a soul of life, but as far as we know only the human animal has a spirit, and that unique 'thing' was designed to need God's spark within it to truly be alive in spirit as opposed to dead in spirit.

As the homosexual community seeks society's full affirmation for their deviant behavior, they cannot resolve the inner whispers in their human spirit ... they cannot mollify that which Holy God calls them to, simply by forcing through their activism the acceptance and protection within this society or any society. If one believes God speaks to us through scripture, it is clear that God abhors, detests, loathes homosexual behavior.

Much of the activism of homosexuals is misdirected rage against God's still small voice calling them to reject the behavioral urges, in favor of spiritual growth. Deviancy in sexual matters (whether adultery, or homosexual behavior, or addiction to pornography ...) is an immaturity in sexual development, where sexual and social development run into the 'diety' needs of the maturing human being with a spirit that will not be at peace until a relationship with the Creator is begun. It is the source of so many homosexuals that rage against Christianity. It is the source of their demand to have marriage rights. It is also the source of the demand to be accepted within a church community, as if they are 'just like everyone else'. They are not like everyone else, unless everyone else is slave to outright defiance over what God has called abomination!

A recent net exchange on the topic included the following cogent thought from a reasonable poster: "He [God] wanted us to love him freely. Homosexual life is no life at all." As the poster explained later, in so many words, when our behavior impedes our free association with Him [God], we are in a state of unrequited spiritual love, deep spiritual longing if you will, thus such a state in bodily life is not 'aliveness', spiritually. I'm reminded of where Jesus said 'Let the dead bury the dead'.

It is innate in so many to want to respond to God's still small voice by doing their own saving, being good enough to 'warrant' God's affirmation of them, not relenting to allow Him to grace them with eternal life in Him. As Cain railed at God when told to bring a specific offering, 'I can bring what I have produced by my own efforts and it will be good enough.' But it never was.

Achieving the 'right to marry, protected by the state' will not bring the Grace of God upon the unions of these deviants seeking affirmation ... or any deviants or their deviant behaviors for that matter. Adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Why should homosexuals assume they will, merely because they might have state protection while corroding even further that which God instituted? God instituted marriage for the purpose of man cleaving unto his wife and thus away from the worldly. God calls homosexuality an abomination. An institution under assault from so many corrosive forces already will not endure the further injection of deviancy into the structure.

From a secular perspective, the approval by the state for degenerates to take full advantage of institutions already corroded by over-liberalization may affirm the degenerates, but it nullifies the ability of the institution to function as a foundational good for the society and its children by overtly exposing both the young and the maturing individuals to degeneracy as if an acceptable behavior pattern.

As for the institution of marriage, we can't either force Churches to conduct same-sex marriages, nor demand that they don't.

Maybe churches can't be forced to conduct them now. But some day, a gay couple is going to demand that the Catholic diocese in some ultra-liberal part of the country allow them to receive the Sacrament of Marriage from a priest in a traditional Church ceremony. The Church will refuse, the gay couple will go crying to the media, and the liberal state legislature, anxious to prove their tolerance and their political correctness, will vote to revoke the diocese's tax-exempt status until they become more "progressive" in their thinking.

The inevitable lawsuit will make its way to the US Supreme Court over the course of a couple years, and all during this time there will be constant media attacks on the Church, with lots of push polls being taken that "demonstrate" that the American people overwhelmingly support making the Church perform gay marriages. Over the couse of this time, many of the more liberal churches will have caved to the threat and will have allowed themselves to be intimidated into abandoning their Scriptures and doctrine.

The Supreme Court will inevitably rule that the state has a "compelling interest" in guaranteeing fair treatment to all citizens that overrides the Church's Constitutional protections under the First Amendment. This is a given, because to liberals, "freedom of religion" is a one-way street - it means that all aspects of religion are to be banished from public life, unless it's expedient for liberals to invoke them (as in the case of gay marriage). But the government, of course, has no limits in telling churches how to run their affairs and establish their doctrine.

Suddenly, the judgmental parents of the ill person show up, and prohibit any contact from their child's life partner, and take out a restraining order.

I happen to know of a case extremely similar to what you describe.
It was extremely painful for the survivor, excluded, even from the deathbed of (his/her) partner.
I would not wish that scenario on anyone, even if I would not take part in that sort of a relationship myself.

As for the specific of "marriage", I would say that is a "religiously defined" union between male and female.
That is why, besides a Justice of the Peace, only ordained ministers of a recognized religion are allowed to perform a marriage ceremony.
( I think I've got that part right. )

So, let's go the secular route, and create the "Spousal Contract", purely a legal construct, that guarantees certain legal rights, to legally recognized unions between consenting adults.

I am sure not only gays and lesbians will get behind such an initiative, but also polygamists, polyandrists, communalists, and other proponents of various types of familial traditions.
All of the usual benefits of marriage, inheritance, insurance, etc. would apply, modified to apply equally & fairly to groups greater than two (2). [ i.e., survivor's benefits, pensions, etc. normally recieved by one surviving spouse would not be multiplied for a grouping of five "surviving spouses", but appropriatley divided among the five survivors. ]

The only major restriction I would place on the spousal contract would be:
The Death Penalty for any couple or familial group that included or attempted to include a minor. ( under age of consent )

Another question. If Homosexuality was wrong in 1789, 1889, and 1989 what all of the sudden makes it okay in 2003?

Two words..
CABIN BOY.

That is history. Socrates, Aristotle, the Romans, Lord Nelson, Batman & Robin (the TV series).
Homosexual relationships have been around as long as history itself. It has always been "okay", as long as it didn't interfere with one's "obligations".
Generally speaking, it was an upper class phenomenon.
Knowing little jokes, nods and winks were exchanged, but it was generally not spoken of in public, or polite circles.
Poorer, "lower" classes simply could not afford to keep a lover, and such behaviour was not as well tolerated among the common people.

What the "discussion" is about, is Marriage.
Marriage is what you do to produce offspring, and while it is considered a religious institution, it is also a legal union, and throughout history has also been a political union.

Many, if not most marriages were until recently, arranged by families to consolidate power, privilege, and money.
They were administered and approved by the church because the church stood to profit by such unions, and held the power the marriage ceremony (and divorce) to insure that profit.
You may consider this cynical, but even in this day and age, it is a truism that "money marries money".

What HAS changed, is the idea that homosexual MARRIAGE is okay.
That has never been OK before. Such relationships have traditionally remained outside the sphere of marriage, and even though the relationship may not have been publicly recognized, typically inheritances were included in wills, etc., and such individuals were even accepted at the deathbed. ( Often without a great deal of grace, but accepted. )

There's another post here that discusses what I think of the idea of such unions as a "marriage".
I don't accept that definition.
But you can read that one for yourself.

I'm bewildered that anyone could think this is a legitimate and convincing argument.

The truth is often not convincing to some.

Let's ignore the "fundamentalist groupthink" as you call it (pssst: I'm an atheist) and look at it from a completely secular standard...

Monogamy is a sectarian religious establishment.

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.
About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia (and is a lesbian).

The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.

(SARCASM ON) The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. (SARCASM OFF)

So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.

Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.

It is my secular and logical contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.

If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and/or is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage or the secular, biological reality of human reproduction. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.

Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.

I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established for the purposes of secular law. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...

Marriage certificate = birth certificate.

Problem solved.

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.