Many people argue from a standpoint based in personal religious or moral beliefs that same-sex marriage is wrong: it threatens the sanctity of marriage, is sinful, blazes a path for other immoral behavior, and unnatural.
However, where is the legal argument in all this? The part that doesn’t have to do with theological tenets? And it seems to me that we’ve got a lot more problems with marriage today than gay people trying to – how dare they! – enter committed relationships.
Firstly, Britney Spears comes to mind if you want to point fingers for undermining the sanctity of marriage. (And maybe parenthood too, if you believe the tabloids, but that’s another story…) It baffles me that it’s so easy for almost any man or woman with some extra cash to get legally married in this country, no matter how irrational the situation, when there are so many loving, same-sex couples who don’t have that privilege. (TV’s "The Bachelor" – I’m looking at you.)
Seriously, what’s more a threat to ‘traditional’ marriage: Rosie O’Donnell and her wife raising four kids together, or Britney Spears annulling one quickie marriage and ending another after an ill-fated reality show and two kids. Thankfully, her ex, Kevin Federline, takes marriage more seriously; he’s only done it once…of course, when he and Spears got together his former longtime girlfriend was eight-months pregnant with their second child.
When you boil it down, there’s plenty more than committed gay couples threatening the institution of marriage – most of it the hustle and bustle of modern life, acceptance of divorce, etc. I think that’s what we should be focusing on…and as far as what our government should be focused on, I’d put the war, social security, domestic security and health care far before not allowing gay people to legally marry.
Alright, so people say homosexuality is sinful. Though I disagree with the assertion, I can’t argue with that point because it’s based in religious principles, not legal ones. I don’t think any church, temple, mosque or other religious institution that doesn’t want to recognize gay marriage should. However, I haven’t heard any good legal arguments for why two people of the same gender should not be able to have a legally recognized, civil-marriage/union/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Gay people, as far as I’ve been told, pay taxes like everyone else. Aren’t they entitled to the same legal benefits?
We’re not talking about beastiality, polygamy, or pedophilia here…we’re talking about two consenting adults, of sound mind, who want to pledge themselves into a lifelong, committed relationship. They happen to be of the same gender. We trust them in most other aspects of society – voting, driving, paying taxes, holding careers. Just not in picking life partners and getting the same rights in that respect as straight people?
I’d think people who rave about the ‘promiscuous gay lifestyle’ would want that, would want to see more people in general eager to get married. Are heterosexual people really going to stop believing in marriage because gay people get equal legal rights? No. Again, it goes back to larger societal issues about relationships, of which homosexual, legalized unions is relatively insignificant.
Lastly, to people who say homosexuality is unnatural…ask a gay person if he or she chose that sexual orientation. I understand it’s ‘unnatural’ in the sense that gay relations do not lead to procreation, but for everyone I’ve ever met who is gay, the same sex attraction is just as instinctive an urge as that of heterosexuals. (Because how many people do you know who consciously choose to be straight? And based on the track record of some notable ex-gay activists, I’m skeptical that orientation can really change…)
Plus, marriage in and of itself is changing. ‘Traditional marriage’ is a bit of a misnomer when you consider that a few hundred years ago women were considered property, and within this century, people of different races couldn’t legally marry in the U.S.
All that being said, personally, I think the concept of marriage is a wonderful thing – pledging to spend your life with a person you truly care about, through thick and thin. I hope – and feel confident – that one day both straight and gay people will be sanctioned to take those vows by the government. And it will be a great day, showing society’s dedication to committed, lifelong relationships.
whereIstand Tags
Thats because there aren’t any. Just like there are no good legal arguments for capital punishment, only religious or emotional ones.
As a quick disclaimer – I believe that homosexuals should have, at the very least, civil unions.
Now, with that said, I couldn’t resist playing the devil’s advocate (pardon the pun) to your assertion that there isn’t a legal basis to deny marriage to gays. It largely depends on what you believe the fundamental basis of the law is.
First, there’s the idea that law is the codified morality of the people who created it and/or who are subject to it. If we accept this idea, then gay marriage won’t be legal until an older generation dies off and public opinion becomes more tolerant. We can see this view behind state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.
There’s also the view that the role of law is to discover and protect the natural rights of man. In all honesty, I agree with this view, but I find the justification for the existence of natural rights slim, since, among other reasons, comparing lists of ideas natural rights leads to many contradictions, many of which are culture specific.
To respond to Freddie’s devil’s advocate; I don’t think I would argue that the law in the United States, as it is now, doesn’t suffer from major pollution from religion. Banning gay marriage is the perfect example of that. There is no known reason to ban it that doesn’t involve religion. Religious people think its wrong, for no real reason, therefor they push for laws to ban it. But when you press them and ask them why, they can’t give you a reasonable reason.
What part of a reflection of public morality didn’t you get? Since the morality of the general population is Christian-based, of course religion is going to play a huge part in determining public morality.
The strong basis is on morality and the cheapening of the marriage vow that God instituted between one man and one woman.
That’s acceptable for you Paul, but your religious beliefs can’t govern the entire nation. That’s not how the country was meant to work.
Actually, aren’t laws created and voted on by a body that is representative of the people? Presumable these representatives are actually representing the views of their constituents, which means that so long as Christians dominate the nation, the laws will be reflective of a Christian morality. So yes, the nation does work that way, so long as your view is the majority.
Sure, if voters continue to vote for representatives who fail to follow the tenets of the Constitution, then fine, the nation can work that way.