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.

[DXer]

Hence the need for a legal dictionary, which preserves the standard. How do you propose to get around the copyright?

Marriage can't be changed because in your mind a definition in a legal dictionary is unchangeable? Please contact both sides' legal counsels IMMEDIATELY so we can put an end to this issue now. ROFL!

Now let me update you on what's been happening in the REAL world...

Hawaii amended their constitution to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming a reality. They apparently hadn't heard of your legal dictionary argument. ;-)

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. This allows states the choice of whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thirty-seven state DOMAs have also been passed. Sounds like the Feds and 37 states also haven't heard about your legal dictionary theory. ;-)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected to rule soon on whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry. They're expected to disagree with your legal dictionary and actually redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. ;-)

The Federal Marriage Amendment has been proposed to amend the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriages. Those pesky legislators in D.C. apparently haven't heard about your legal dictionary argument either. ;-)

Where do you draw the line? If the definition can be altered to include same sex unions, why not use the word, 'marriage' to define a union between a human and a goat -- or even a human and a whale? Do you see how wide the doorway is going to get once the gate is torn off its hinges?

Absolutely not! Your slippery slope argument fails the simplest of tests. Animals don't have the capacity to enter into a contract. And don't worry, Bill won't be marrying his Buick anytime soon, either. :)

Yes, labels are needed, and there should be no ambiguity -- and 'civil rights' cannot overturn centuries of legal definitions. Why would a lemon want to call itself a peach?

Please explain how you're going to get around the "Separate But Equal" issue with the Plessy v. Ferguson precedent I mentioned earlier!

Here's what could happen. If a state allows same-sex marriage, DOMA will be challenged as unconstitutional because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Even many SSM opponents concede this is likely. That's one reason the Federal Marriage Amendment is being pushed.

You need to sharpen your argument on this issue. I suggest you start by thinking in terms of a narrowly-defined compelling state interest which justifies withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.

Think on this a while and feel free to get back with me after you have an answer that will withstand judicial scrutiny.

[Eastbound]

"Sounds like the Feds and 37 states also haven't heard about your legal dictionary theory."

An idea whose time has come. Pass the word, if even in jest. Thanks.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You've posted this several times now, without expounding whatsoever about what your thought process behind it is.

Human reproductive biology. You didn't read #39 that I posted to you - - or did you just ignore it?

Human reproductive biology. Secular, simple, scientific.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I suggest you start by thinking in terms of a narrowly-defined compelling state interest which justifies withholding the fundamental right of marriage from same-sex couples.

Separation of church and state...

Human reproductive biology. Secular, simple, scientific.

Birth certificate = marriage certificate.

Monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in law.

I want to take the false "church-state separation" and cram it right back down their throats and use Roe v. Wade to do it...

See my post #39 or click on my name to see my FR homepage.

[cc2k]

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.

First of all, there is no "fundamental right of marriage." Marriage is a contract, not a right. Same sex couples can't enter into a marriage contract without committing fraud. If you can explain to me how a same sex couple can enter into a marriage contract without committing fraud, I'd be open to hear how.

Before you try, you should understand the full meaning of a marriage.

Marriage is a contract between 3 parties. The first two parties are a man (there must be one man in the contract) and a woman (there must be one woman in the contract). The final party to the contract is a community. This could be a church. It could be a village or tribe. It could be a representantive republican government. It could be an agent of a King or Queen and his/her subjects. But it is always a community which provides some kind of social services and possibly protective services for its members.

The full terms of the contract are:

1. The man and woman vow fidelity to each other.
2. The community needs children to ensure its survival and growth. The man and woman commit to the community to produce children.
3. The man and woman commit to raise their children according to the laws, rules, moral standards and values of the community.
4. The community commits to assist and support (and possibly protect) the man and the woman and their children. The community commits to assist in some ways with the raising of the children.

Now, same sex couples can definitely meet the requirements of point #1 of the contract. It is still physically impossible for same sex couples to meet the requirements of point #2. Most people would say that same sex couples have a family history of failing on point #3 (and trying to destroy the rules of marriage is one more blatant example of their lack of respect for laws and customs).

And you might not know this, but most churches and all states will declare a marriage null and void if it can be proven that one of the partners at the time of the marriage had no intentions of producing children. For example, if one partner is sterile and knows this at the time of the marriage, but doesn't tell the other partner, the marriage will be null and void in the eyes of the church and in the eyes of the state. All same sex couples would fall into this category.

The reason that same sex couples can't marry is because the community knows up front that such a marriage can't produce children. The "couple" is trying to perpetrate a fraud on the community.

If a same sex couple wants to take vows of fidelity, that's fine. If they want to have some kind of "committment ceremony" and some kind of a party to celebrate their committment I have no problem with that either. But same sex couples can't marry because they can't live up to the duties and responsibilities of a married couple. It's physically impossible for them to meet all of those responsibilities and duties.

If a community removes the duty to have children from the marriage contract, then I hope all married couples within that community will stop having children and cause the quick extinction of that community.

[Dr Warmoose]

I am a conservative and a Christian...

You do know that this is essentially the first words out of a seminar caller's mouth when they speak to Rush or Sean.

Absolutely no one is personally effected by gay marriage except the gay couples who marry.

Here is why I have troubles accepting the "I am a Christian" preamble. There is one true definition of "marriage", it was defined six days after the beginning of the Creation of the Universe. So it precedes everything man has to say on the matter. So since God said "One Man and One Woman", and you say that it can be "Two Men" or "Two Women" or "One Man and One Transgendered" you are doing the same thing as Eve in the Garden when she decided to add and delete words from God's Command. You have rejected God's Word and have proclaimed your definition of marriage to be greater than God's. So before there is even one gay "marriage", I can see at least one who has been "personally effected by gay marriage". You. You have used your free will to choose to hate the things of God and worship yourself instead.

The institution of marriage is much more at risk as a result of no fault divorce

Strange enough, divorce was permitted because the people were stubborn. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus Christ recognizes "divorce" and says that those who marry someone who is divorced commits "adultery" (which is condemned in the Decalogue). In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees were challending Christ on the matter of "No Fault Divorce" (Hillel) and "porneia" divorce (Shammai). Divorce Enthusiasts will read Matthew and ignore Mark and Luke, but that still doesn't say that homosexual "marriages" are OK, since marriage is still defined as "one man and one woman".

This means that you have invented your own definition of "marriage". At that point we have nothing to discuss because we can't communicate because you prefer to redefine words that don't fit your sinfilled thinking. You talk about your private definition of marriage, and I will talk about God's definition of marriage. God's hasn't changed. Yours could because you hijack words to fit your purpose. So today you may define "marriage" as a partnership with alleged long term commitments. How about one man marries two men and three women? How about one woman marries one woman and a male dog? Since you have rejected the clear and absolute definition of marriage, I guess you can make "marriage" mean anything you want.

[biblewonk]

Can someone explain to me why for years liberals have lashed out at marriage.

Yes, because marriage is of God and the particular groups of liberals attacking it have a heathen agenda.

[biblewonk]

The trick question circulating from homosexual apologists is, 'How will allowing homosexuals to marry harm heterosexual marriage(s)?'

It won't.

[biblewonk]

Consider this situation - two individuals, both male or female, take your pick - have been living together in a relationship for 15 years. They hold a joint checking account, own their home as joint tenants, and have thoroughly intertwined their lives out of their commitment and devotion to each other.

Oh Please!!!

[Eastbound]

"The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected to rule soon on whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry. They're expected to disagree with your legal dictionary and actually redefine marriage to include same-sex couples."

Legislating from the Bench again, huh? So what next? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- except on Friday and Saturday.' -- (Supreme Court's 'right' to re-define the law.)

Legalisms aside, want to venture an opinion why lemons want to wear peach fuzz? I think that deep down, they actually reject their own lemon-ness or fear the challenge of creating and meriting their own 'honorable institution.' Easier to be a 'poseur' and bask in another's merit, I suppose. Good thing the lemon's aren't pushing to wear the insignia of the Navy Seals. ;-)

[mvpel]

Oh Please!!!

Not all gays fit your stereotype, you know.

[mvpel]

Oh Please!!!

Not all gays fit your stereotype, you know.

[biblewonk]

Not all gays fit your stereotype, you know.

Sorry, I know too many gays to have a stereotype. But the language used was grossly manipulative. It is an obvious attempt to normalize something that is no different than beastiality.

[mvpel]

So you think it's impossible for two people of the same gender to enter into a loving, committed, long-term relationship? That relationships are all about body parts?

[ShandaLear]

I am a conservative and a Christian...

You do know that this is essentially the first words out of a seminar caller's mouth when they speak to Rush or Sean.

Really? No I didn’t know that. I'm listening to Rush right now at work and I haven't heard one caller say that today. Weird.

Absolutely no one is personally effected by gay marriage except the gay couples who marry.

Here is why I have troubles accepting the "I am a Christian" preamble. There is one true definition of "marriage", it was defined six days after the beginning of the Creation of the Universe. So it precedes everything man has to say on the matter. So since God said "One Man and One Woman", and you say that it can be "Two Men" or "Two Women" or "One Man and One Transgendered" you are doing the same thing as Eve in the Garden when she decided to add and delete words from God's Command. You have rejected God's Word and have proclaimed your definition of marriage to be greater than God's. So before there is even one gay "marriage", I can see at least one who has been "personally effected by gay marriage". You. You have used your free will to choose to hate the things of God and worship yourself instead.

You are more than entitled to your opinion. However, where your opinion stops is where my relationship with God begins. I have no intention of defending myself from this kind of tripe, especially when it violates the very scriptures you seem to have appointed yourself as arbiter of. I will say this, the utter arrogance of your response is amazing to me but then I’ve dealt with this from fundamentalist Christians before.

The institution of marriage is much more at risk as a result of no fault divorce

Strange enough, divorce was permitted because the people were stubborn. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus Christ recognizes "divorce" and says that those who marry someone who is divorced commits "adultery" (which is condemned in the Decalogue). In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees were challending Christ on the matter of "No Fault Divorce" (Hillel) and "porneia" divorce (Shammai). Divorce Enthusiasts will read Matthew and ignore Mark and Luke, but that still doesn't say that homosexual "marriages" are OK, since marriage is still defined as "one man and one woman". This means that you have invented your own definition of "marriage". At that point we have nothing to discuss because we can't communicate because you prefer to redefine words that don't fit your sinfilled thinking. You talk about your private definition of marriage, and I will talk about God's definition of marriage. God's hasn't changed. Yours could because you hijack words to fit your purpose. So today you may define "marriage" as a partnership with alleged long term commitments. How about one man marries two men and three women? How about one woman marries one woman and a male dog? Since you have rejected the clear and absolute definition of marriage, I guess you can make "marriage" mean anything you want.

Again, this is a matter of opinion and I thank God that your opinion carries no weight regarding my personal relationship with God. Tell you what, you take care of you and I’ll take care of me. You’ll find yourself to be a much better person for it, I promise.

[gridlock]

The problem isn't the fact that people want to change the legal definition of marriage. The problem is that there is a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Once the state has decided to recognize the institution of marriage, and grant special rights and priviledges based on that recognition, marriage becomes a legitimate political football, and the destruction of the institution is all but guaranteed.

In a liberal society, we will deny ourselves nothing. So if the definition of marriage must be expanded to all possible permutations in order to avoid discriminating against ever smaller segments of the population, it will be expanded. This is the way the "ratchet effect" works.

Our society would be better served if marriage was not a legal concept. Property rights and parental rights are already handled outside the context of marriage for a large portion of our population. Laws could be passed to grant more liberal rights of power-of-attorney and survivorship benefits at a fairly low societal cost. Parental rights can be based on actual parental relationship, as modern medical testing makes the notion of presumptive paternity obsolete.

Thus marriage can continue to be what it has always been, a covenant between individuals. If a man and women want to marry in the traditional sense, they may do so. But the civil and legal appurtanences to marriage would be a seperate thing. The "standard package" would be developed quickly and could be entered into as simply as a marriage licence is today. If people want more detail or a more complicated arrangment, they could do what many already do today through pre-nuptial aggreements. And if two men or two women want to do the same thing, they may also do so.

This way marriage is preserved as a relationship between individuals and the state does not get involved in saying who is and who is not married. Any system that requires governmental definition will inevitably lead to progressive erosion of the institution until it is all but meaningless. We are about two steps from that point today. We should not take the next step in that direction.

[biblewonk]

So you think it's impossible for two people of the same gender to enter into a loving, committed, long-term relationship? That relationships are all about body parts?

I have a loving committed, longterm relationship with my best friend. We just don't sodomize each other. So yes relationships are possible. People have loving, committed, long term relationships with their dogs. I think you get my point. There are relationships then there are perversions. Hiding the perversion with the nicey nice words of a relationship is just a lie.

[ShandaLear]

I think your ideas are excellent, but I seriously doubt this will happen. The entire push of the so called "gay agendo" is to legitamize homosexuality through co-opting traditional rites, practices, and institutions of the larger heterosexual community. I don't see that there is much to be done to stop this and I don't see it as a threat to my beliefs or even what God intended those things to be. They are still what they are. There has not been a law written nor will there be that subverts God's law. That aside, this issue should not be settled based on religion. It should be settled based on the democratic process.

[newgeezer]

Amen to all that.