Should gays have the right to marry?

AJC.COM ^ | July 18, 2003 | SHAUNTI FELDHAHN DIANE GLASS

[new cruelty]

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

COMMENTARY-

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.

REBUTTAL-

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.

Marriage = Economics, b.c.

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.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Charming."

If that is disgusting, so be it, it is reality.

[cc2k]

My argument makes as much sense as your purported "analogy" to a hypothetical law prohibiting bah mitzvahs.

There are many (including me) who belive that the term mariage specifically (and exclusively) refers to the spiritual and legal union of a man and woman as husband (that would be the man) and wife (that would be the woman). Marriage is conveyed certain privileges in our society, and the purpose of marriage is to establish families for creating and raising children.

I apologize here if I get too graphic, but sometimes it helps to identify what those with other opinions are actually trying to achieve.

I also believe that marriage is not, and should never be, a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a man and whoever (or whatever) he sticks his penis in. I don't believe marriage should ever be a legal "right" or package of government provided "benefits" for a woman and whoever (or whatever) she allows to penetrate or stimulate her vagina. Those who wish to define marriage in terms of sexuality miss much of the point of marriage, and they probably have no business getting married in the first place (and that goes for a lot of heterosexuals, too).

Like I said earlier, friends, lovers or whatever have the means available today to address most of the issues of "partnership." Anybody can establish a living will and convey to other the right to be consulted on medical decisions, and to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. The example given before of someone who has their "life partner" (whatever the heck that is) excluded from their life when they become ill because the "judgmental parents" don't approve of their "lifestyle" can be handled within existing laws in most states.

[tdadams]

Well, it would be disgusting to show a 90 year old man and wife having sex on TV, too, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them having sex.

Geesh, I never cease to be amazed at how obtuse some people can be.

[ShandaLear]

I don't see any special rights here at all and I don't consider marriage a right.

[ShandaLear]

This is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Religious groups can continue to have their beliefs about homosexuality and what else has changed? Not much. I wish that the same churches that are upset about this showed as much concern for the adultery within their midst. What's that saying about the splinter and the log?

[mvpel]

If so, your issue is with the judge and the legal use of restraining orders. I'm personally hard pressed to see how someone could get such a restraining order issued as you suggest. Therefore, your example to me is pure and simple bull$hit.

Okay, suppose they don't get a restraining order, but use their perogative as blood relatives to instruct the hospital not to admit the partner. You're ignoring the underlying issue here. And I know a divorce attorney, and I've heard some stories about restraining orders that would curl your hair.

[Publius6961]

Should gays have the right to marry?

NO.

I know today anyone can say anything, no matter how silly, illogical and internally contradictory.

The question is meaningless.
Like asking "should trees be allowed to breed with locomotives?"

The question can be asked and even a law passed making it "official", but meaningless it remains.

I could never understand the perverts' obsession with being deemed "normal".
They're not.
Never can be.
No matter what.

[Eastbound]

Yes, I know that, too. But think of the number of people the court will cause to stumble. Looks like a 'millstone' offense to me.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And proponents of gay marriage are willing to concede...

They aren't willing to concede to anything that doesn't conform to their idolatry of perversion.

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)

[ShandaLear]

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

[tdadams]

My argument makes as much sense as your purported "analogy" to a hypothetical law prohibiting bah mitzvahs.

Your analogy had no semblance of similarity whatsoever.

Thanks for the lecture, but you're losing sight of what I said when I originally entered this thread. You don't need to lecture me on why marriage is for one man and one woman. You don't need to lecture me on it's value to our society or it's traditional place or it's saction by God. I don't and haven't disagreed with any of that.

My gripe is and always has been the utterly stupid, dismissive, and disingenuous sophistry that I've seen here far too many times now. That gays are free to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Do you honestly think that's a substantive, persuasive or credible argument??? If so, you're neck deep in denial.

If anything that kind of argument only paints you as someone who has no rational basis on which to argue his case for traditional marriage and is simply relying (hoping) that the argument for "tradition" carries enough weight to prevail. And I'm telling you, warning you, you better come up with a more logical and defensible basis or you will indeed see gay marriage come to fruition in the U.S.

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. Simply saying "it's always been that way" will not hold for long. You better sharpen your argument.

[longtermmemmory]

Its about the next generation. If homosexual marriage is FORCED upon society, then the public schools will have to teach homosexual marraige as normal to children. Developing children will be taught to mary the same sex. School book will be mandated to show homosexual unions on par with mother and father. (with fathers always shown as bad)

Its about recruiting.

[Publius6961]

I see some variation of this statement on almost all threads on this subject. I'm bewildered that anyone could think this is a legitimate and convincing argument. It's truly one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I've ever seen.

Assertions are fine, but useless as refutation.
The moon is made of blue cheese. Anyone who can't see it is risible.

See the nonsense in those statements?
How about some reasoned arguments as to why you think the statement is absurd.
You don't believe words can have fixed definitions? What?

[VRWC_minion]

My argument against gay marriage is based on the fact that the state marriage is a 3 party contract intended to place responibilities on the parties to care for each other financially and if god is willing, to raise children. In exchange for the parties accepting certain obligations, they are afforded certain priviledges by the state.

My problem with gay marriage is two-fold. First, the debate around it is solely over the "RIGHTS" and never about the "OBLIGATIONS". If one is to hear from both pro and con the entire debate is over rights. Well, if that keeps up then the concept regarding obligations wil fall by the wayside and marriage will be looked upon both legally and socially as a granting of rights. Such a one-sided confering of rights upon certain parties is not tenable under our concept of equality under the constitution. The end result of this entire process will be the watering down and complete destruction of the concept that marrieds have obligations to the state. In addition to the focus on rights having the consequence of destroying the concept of obligations and thereby destroying marriage as we know it, the second problem I have is the "sacred" part that marriage holds in our social constructs and our laws.

The meaning of sacred is to "set apart". It has religious connotations but even under our social, political, and legal constructs we have "set aside" this notion of marriage. We say to the parties that this label is sacred. One of the things that makes it sacred is that the "entry fee" is restricted. Not anyone two people can be married. We have some standards about it. By removing the "entry fee" we begin the process of removing barriers that actuall set marriage apart and make it sacred. The end result of this process will be that the concept of marriage will no longer be sacred, it will simply be a legal contract.

The combined effect of my two concerns is that we have set the wheels in motion to remove the concept that marriage is first and foremost and obligation and is viewed by society as sacred. In the end, the gays will find that the very thing they sought is unatainable.

The solution in my mind, before this process degenerates marriage further, is to establish the concept of civil unions.

[William Terrell]

Their desire to reap the same financial and social benefits of marriage, as their heterosexual counterparts, upsets the conservative community.

I think this an exposure of the core of homosexual marriage. Men and women would be getting married even if there were no financial or social benefits.

Indeed, the man/woman covenant flowing naturally from the male/female pardigm is the reason such benefits are naturally present in any society in the first place. That paradigm is reflected in the physical and behavorial structure of creatures in general.

The "traditional family" is the surest guarantee of freedom. It can survive, and add to its number to survive better, without the support of a society and the regulation of a government. A homosexual "family" can't do this. It would have to be a weakness in the protective fabric of families where ever it appears.

At the basic Mother Nature level, a family of that nature would simply die of old age.

If our society passes on a redefinition of something so modeled after material reality, it is mad and deserves its coffin.

[VRWC_minion]

Okay, suppose they don't get a restraining order, but use their perogative as blood relatives to instruct the hospital not to admit the partner.

Then I would say the life partner who got sick was irresponsible for not providing for this enventuality and ask you this question" If this person was so irresponsible over this small issue regarding his/her relationship,. what makes you think he/she would take the responsibility marriage would require ?

[mvpel]

Marriage automatically entails familial rights, instead of having to take out powers of attorney for every possible eventuality.

[longtermmemmory]

Which is why you have a health are surrogate. Any client going through a divorce is immediatly advised to sign such a document. If they get into an accident then the Wife/husband would have power to exclude the family and pull the plug.

Power of attorneys and health care surrogate docuemnts should be done by even normal married couples.

[VRWC_minion]

Marriage automatically entails familial rights, instead of having to take out powers of attorney for every possible eventuality.

Every married person should give their spouse a POA. Without it, in the event of completer disability, the spouse has no power to effect transactions for the other.

What you are saying in your example is that the naturally irresponsible person who doesn't avail themselves of the simplest of contracts like POA and living wills will avail themselves of a more major commitment like marriage.

I don't buy it.

[longtermmemmory]

that is incorrect. One correctly drafted durable power of attorney would accomplish the task.

Just because it would make life "convenient" for homsexuals does not mean the institution of marriage must be deconstructed or we have to subject our children to the deviancy of alternative lifestyles though public education.