Uncomfortable Distaste vs. Stability and Equality: Is there a Conservative Case for Same Sex Marriage?
by M. Dylan McClelland | View comments |
Print This Post
It is time for conservatives to ask the question: does our moral, religious unease, distaste, or other objection to homosexuality outweigh our desire for a stable society in which the marriage and family laws encourage and enforce commitment.
There is likely no more contentious wedge issue in American politics than the battle over same-sex marriage. The conventional debate on the subject typically pits conservatives versus liberals, or, in the new vernacular of commentator Bill O’Reilly, traditionalists versus “secular progressives.” In perhaps a majority of those cases that debate is accurate, and people of good faith can and should debate the issues of what constitutes moral conduct in a civil society. This article posits the possibility of a new paradigm, a “conservative” argument for same-sex marriage.
Preliminarily, a few words on what this article is not. First, it is not an argument that same-sex marriage is a “right” protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Left’s common reliance on the equivalence of race and sexual orientation is foolish and divorced from both law and history. Reliance on the Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision invalidating state miscegenation laws is misplaced. The Loving Court invalidated a racial classification used to further a non-marriage aim – i.e., white superiority. The Court’s decision was entirely proper under a 14th Amendment Equal Protection analysis as the 14th and Reconstruction Amendments were intended to eliminate slavery and its vestiges. Nothing in the Reconstruction Amendments extends coverage to same-sex marriage.
The Left’s Due Process Clause “right to marriage” argument similarly fails. This right has always been limited by what society defines as tolerable; hence, limits on the age of consent to marry, bans on polygamy, incest, etc. As noted liberal Constitutional scholar Professor Cass Sunstein has written, there is a right to marry, but a right to what – “a right to marry a dog, rose petal, or sunny day?” The Constitution permits and a pluralistic democracy such as ours requires, that the State be allowed some regulation of its institutions. Further, state by state regulation is in accord with our Federalist tradition.
Second, this is not an argument about the immorality or acceptability of homosexual conduct. This argument likewise assumes that people of good faith may differ on the subject. One should note that discussion of passionately disputed issues is not delimited by the law’s sanction. In other words, many things are legal, but the debate over their propriety continues on – e.g., abortion, euthanasia, medical marijuana, etc. Historically, slavery and segregation were once legal, but a grassroots debate to change that status was entirely proper.
Third, this argument is premised on the principle that marriage is a vital institution, a pre-political foundation imperative to civilization’s survival and progress. The contention by some on the Left that same-sex marriage is appropriate because heterosexuals have screwed up the institution all on their own is rejected outright. This argument, the “Spears-Federline hypothesis,” suggests that heterosexual marriage is no longer a vital institution as measured by the ridiculous things some heterosexuals do, for example marrying high school dropout backup dancers. Stated another way, the Spears-Federline hypothesis can be described as “throw the baby out with the bath water,” and is as logically unpersuasive as the opinion that, e.g., all house painting is worthless because some people paint their houses pink. The argument does, however, raise the important question of marriage’s purpose and value.
The conventional liberal argument for same-sex marriage is predicated upon the notion that two loving people should have the right to marry each other regardless of their genders. The argument thus posits love and caring as the essential core of marriage. While indeed these are important and perhaps the chief motivating qualities of marriage, they are not its historic core or purpose. As Professor Douglas Allen stated recently in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the purpose of marriage is to restrain selfish behavior that impedes raising successful children. This purpose is important in understanding whether a conservative case can be made for same-sex marriage.
Freedom and Equality: Conservative Foundations
Central to the notion of conservative politics is a belief in freedom, limited government and the power of the individual. Moreover, conservatism is an enterprising, opportunistic belief system that all people are equal and owed only the opportunity to achieve their best result.
Same-sex marriage proponents assert that equal treatment requires equal access to marriage. But what does equality mean? Does equality require a doctor with two sick patients to divide his last dose of antibiotic equally between the two, though one patient is critically ill and the other barely sick? No, equality requires that we treat similarly situated persons equally. This semi-circular logic demands we treat like cases alike. In application to the same-sex marriage question, reasonable people may differ on whether homosexuals are like heterosexual couples or are sufficiently dissimilar in some relevant way that we are justified in unequal treatment. As Aristotle once stated, “It is unjust to treat unequal things equally.” But such debates are unhelpful, fraught as they are with contentious disputes over the nature of orientation (innate and immutable or chosen behavior?.
The more critical question is why is equality important? And it is important to conservative thought. Indeed it is the backbone of our opportunity-centered philosophy which rejects more government in favor of more individual (and equal) freedom. Some like Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky have offered a pragmatic, utilitarian justification for equality’s righteousness. Chemerinsky posits that we believe in equality because individuals in a society have no foreknowledge of whether they will be a “have or have not.” Thus, equality is pragmatic, insuring that no one will be left out before the game of life begins. It is utilitarian fairness. But this is unavailing to most. The majesty of equality cannot simply be reduced to a player’s preference for a blind draw of the cards.
Professor Richard Epstein has noted, expanding the notion of equality into the discrimination realm, that a broad anti-discrimination principle lies at the core of American intellectual and political understanding of a just and proper society. Professor Epstein argues that the anti-discrimination principle rests on a collective social judgment, often born out of wrenching historical experience, that some grounds for private decisions are so immoral and illegal for the government to allow its citizens to use them. Epstein’s logic, while ringing true, likewise falls short. It is an extension of Chemerinsky’s pragmatic argument, supplementing real world experience as the justification for a blind deal of the cards. While the world’s often tragic and chaotic history certainly informs our understanding of the social compact, it cannot explain our preference for equality.
Professor Michael J. Perry has asserted that equality derives from religious traditions and the belief that all persons are sacred as the children of God, a concept found in nearly every religion. Further, Professor Perry asserts that the idea that all persons are sacred is fundamental to the American identity. As proof of his assertion, Professor Perry offers the words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights . . .”
Professor Perry’s thesis, that any idea of rights is ineliminably religious, has powerful implications for the question of the right of homosexuals to be treated equally. As Perry notes, the United States remains a pervasively religious society. Any solution to the present dilemma (the inclusion of same-sex marriage), under Perry’s view, will have to reconcile America’s religiously-based value system with the seemingly secular issue of what traits or classes should be protected from discrimination and/or be given preferential treatment under marriage laws.
The determination of what traits should be protected is an inherently moral determination based on principles of justice. As Professor Westen has written, equality follows the prevailing rule. In other words, equality presupposes the selection of a moral standard for measuring equals who are then entitled to be treated equally.
Homosexuality has never been an easy issue for the American people. Torn between the afore-mentioned commitment to tolerance, and the religious underpinnings of their culture, Americans continue to struggle with reconciling two seemingly opposite positions. Most would agree that sexual orientation is likely irrelevant in most situations – e.g., employment, housing. While some will contend that homosexuality is relevant in the marriage context because of marriage’s procreative preference, this article suggests it is not.
The crucial role of marriage is no longer procreation: millions of out-of-wedlock births prove this. Nor is it, as our friends on the Left emote, to recognize the love between two people. Were it so then marriage would likely require recognition of loving consanguineous and poly-amorous relationships. Instead, as Professor Allen argues, marriage is intended to restrain selfish behavior in order to promote and produce productive offspring. It is here that the conservative case for same-sex-marriage may be made on both principle and practicality.
Gay couples have children. Whether through adoption, insemination, or earlier heterosexual couplings, the fact is that many gay couples are raising children. Thus conservatives, among the pioneers of advocating on behalf of children (born or fetal), can seek the same interests in same-sex marriage – i.e., restraining selfish behavior to promote the productive raising of those children.
Fact No. 2: it has long been studied and recognized that promiscuity runs uncomfortably high in certain groups of gay men. In fact, as National Review columnist Stanley Kurtz has written,
. . . such advocates are generally careful not to make the case for marriage, but simply for the right to marriage . . . This is undoubtedly good practical politics, since many if not most of the major gay and lesbian organizations who have signed on to the fight for same-sex marriage would instantly sign off at any suggestion that they were actually encouraging gay men and lesbians to marry.
Fact No. 3: we have a marriage problem in the United States. Scholar James Q. Wilson makes this point in his recent book, The Marriage Problem:
When there is a low sex ratio — that is, when there are many more women than men — marriages will be less common and more fragile, cohabitation will become more general, divorce will be more frequent, and children will be more likely to be raised in one-parent families.. . . For a century or more, [African-Americans] have had a lower sex ratio than whites. . . . Young black men are scarce because they are in prison or overseas in the armed forces and because black men die at a higher rate than black women . . . If African-American women had access to more potential marriage partners, more would get married.
Along with liberty, conservatives prize the corollary goal of personal responsibility. If marriage and its progeny, family laws (support, custody, child support, etc.), can credibly restrain selfish and promiscuous behavior, is that not a harmonious policy position for conservatives championing personal accountability? Wage garnishments for child support, for example, certainly enforce the accountability of fathers, heterosexual or homosexual, who casually create and abandon child-bearing relationships.
Perhaps then, it is time for conservatives to ask the question: does our moral and religious unease, distaste, or other objection to homosexuality outweigh our desire for a stable society in which the marriage and family laws encourage and enforce commitment?
Historically, marriage has been “the union of one man and one woman.” This union has formed the bedrock of civilization. But why; perhaps it is time to evaluate, and not simply reiterate, the strength of this principle? One “man” and one “woman.” The historical gender duality of marriage reflects civilization’s need for procreation, an incredibly important goal. But is the mere human replication occurring in marriage the essence of that institution’s function?
“One” man and “one” woman. Is it not equally true that the historical definition of marriage places like importance on the fact that it is between only two persons? Was not the two-person requirement equally important to eliminating polygamy and harems? The Dutch experiment with poly-amorous unions has demonstrated a decline in traditional 2-person marriage, and has had vast repercussions on birth rates and quality of life issues for children. Poly-amory does not work. Has anyone ever seen a polygamous family living a high quality of life? On the contrary, polygamous families living in Utah, Arizona and elsewhere are heavily dependent upon government subsidies. Measured against marriage’s essential purpose, polygamy has failed to restrain selfish behavior impeding successful child rearing. Measured against conservative principles, polygamy fails in practice the personal accountability test. Thus, the real value of marriage lies in the stability of two people.
None of this disparages the body of evidence and research which shows that children do better with a mother and father in the home. This is an unquestionably true ideal and nothing suggested herein should disturb it. However, just as two-person households are the ideal, single parenthood can be immensely successful, though concededly more difficult.
Recognition of the ideal does not require that we cannot progress as a society, amending institutions to continue their essential purpose while changing historical norms. Extending the stability of the two-person union to same-sex couples reflects society’s collective will that stable unions dedicated to productive childrearing are critical to the culture’s well-being. Stability is a conservative goal.
Conservatives ought not to stop there. Reinvigorating marriage should be seen as a systemic goal. States should consider repeal or amendment of no-fault divorce laws, repeal of domestic partner laws, and a top-down review of custody and support laws to ensure the personal accountability of every parent and spouse of whatever gender or orientation. In effect, use same-sex marriage as the vehicle for a wider re-dedication of commitment, pro-child, and pro-society values.
Lastly, is the historical reference. Conservatives have often suggested that pro-choice liberals are on the wrong side of history and that in time society will view the abortion movement through the same lens as slavery, segregation, and the holocaust – all crimes which denied the worth of the individual. The worth of the individual as an equal, created in God’s image.
While polls and elections still show a majority of the people oppose same-sex marriage, there has been a consistent increase in tolerance and the anti-discrimination principle. Do conservatives really want to be the bully in the schoolhouse door of marriage thirty years from now? Particularly when same-sex marriage, with some modest statutory reforms, could be used to implement a renewed commitment to stability and devotion to children? Further, reuniting marriage and childrearing as a single concept could go a long way towards repairing an institution eroded by the Supreme Court’s preference in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade for untethering procreation and child rearing from marriage, two decisions which ignited a generation of anti-democratic judicial social engineering.
Americans are a tolerant people. The San Francisco School Board recently voted to eliminate the Junior ROTC program from its schools, drawing fire from all quarters and deservedly so. But that same program permits and embraces openly gay cadets. Not many conservatives were heard screaming “Gomorrah is here” or “Rome is falling” because of the inclusion of these students. Why? Because conservatives are tolerant too.
Admittedly this is a contentious issue. Equally true, the polls today still oppose same-sex marriage. Clearly 45 states agree. As Professor Lynn Wardle of the J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University, one of the nation’s foremost same-sex marriage scholars, has argued, same-sex marriage arguments ignore the transformative nature of marriage. This is true . . . and exactly the point. We ought to buttress marriage: transform it again into that for which it was intended – a platform for commitment, stability, and successful child rearing. There is some risk, of course, that the wrong values will, as Professor Wardle argues, “rub off” in the wrong way – i.e., that broadening marriage from its historic roots will legitimize to future generations alternative lifestyles distant from marriage’s purpose, sharing only its name.
But, “Good leaders take the people where they want to go. Great leaders take them where they ought to be.” It is up to conservatives to keep the argument for the value of man-woman marriages going: in the churches and schools and townhalls; in cocktail parties, boardrooms, and college campuses, in the halls of Congress and each statehouse. Reliance only on the force of law is a prescription for ideological failure. The fall of communism, fascism, slavery, and segregation affirms this.
Further, each generation needs to be reimbibed with ideological vivacity. Making the argument that traditional marriage matters, even while tolerating other lifestyles, will convince many. Making that argument, while requiring all lifestyles to value the same ideals of commitment and stability, will convince even more.
Liberals maintain their positions with case law and judicial activism; conservatives mount principled arguments in the town square. Do we have the courage to build a fearless consensus each generation in support of our values and principles?
mmcclel@winfirst.com
Read more articles by M. Dylan McClelland
The author fails to make the case. He never tells us the compelling reasons to overthrow the foundational organizational structure of western civilization. He never tells us how society will be demonstrably better off for embracing alternate family configurations. Being able to enforce child support as a result of a broken gay marriage hardly motivates me to storm the streets in favor of gay marriage.
Words like "liberty" and "self determination" ring hollow in this context. No one has the liberty to be immoral. No one has the right to make up rules for themselves based on a whim or an attraction they wish to act upon. No one ought to be able to contravene the clear design of biology and then demand that everyone else celebrate it (for to disagree with gay marriage advocates on any minor point is to invite ridicule, name-calling, and derision).
I refuse to be bullied by people who wrap themselves in the flag but really have no interest in furthering this nation's greatness. Their only goal is to remove any and all restraint to any little thing that happens to pop into their minds and then demand that I admire them for being true to themselves.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 4, 2006
Couldn't the author's same comments be said for any other "consentual" arrangement…such as 3 men…or 2 women and 1 man…or 2 women and a goat…or…?
I'm remain unconvinced that simply enforcing "committment" and "stability" by sanctioning these "alternative relationships" does anything to better society.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 4, 2006
To answer the question posed in the title of this essay in one word: No.
The author makes a purely pragmatic argument that is not based in historical conservative ideology or thought. His same pragmatic approach could easily be applied to recreational drugs, suggesting they be legalized and controlled/distributed by the federal government. After all, since we can't stop the misuse, we might as well let people do what they want to do, but in a way that stops the illicit profit, smuggling, gang shootings, ODs, and deaths through contaminated product. Make it "safe" and "stable." McClelland conveniently sidesteps the issue of morality and asks us to consider a "greater good" that might come about.
I honestly can't see the difference between the logic of his argument and that employed to condone illicit drugs, legalized prostitution, or just about any other vice one could name.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 4, 2006
Like all arguments for same-sex marriage, the author's premise is fallacious - specifically regarding equal rights. In order for same-sex marriage proponents and sympathizers to make their case, they must prove that homosexuality is present from birth, i.e., genetic in nature. Of course, no proof of this belief exists. Homosexuals already have identical rights to that of heterosexuals.
Homosexuals can marry anyone they like, so long as they are of the opposite sex and of no close relation. Nobody has the right to join in matrimony anyone or anything they want. I can't marry my sister, nor can I marry my computer.
The fact that seemingly intelligent people can't, or won't comprehend this reality exposes the fight that rational people have before them.
Comment by pricstm | December 4, 2006
This has long been an issue of UN-IMPORTANCE for me. I have often wondered why conservatives of which I am have made such an issue over gay marriage. What is the fear? What is the concern? Obviously, gay marriage conflicts with many people's personal religious beliefs, but conservatism should not sponsor ones religious beliefs over another. I believe it is a stretch to look at gay marriage as a "vice" like drugs. Who is the victim in gay marriage? Who is hurt by gay marriage? Whose life is changed if Bob and Gary are married instead of living together? My answer, as I am sure it is suprising to some, is no one. My only concern with gay marriage is the door it may open for "rights" down the road. If it is proven that gay men or women hold special risks that other married couples do not, then the "right" of equal insurance is not there. Society does not deserve a burden placed upon it based on someone's choices. I do not believe recognition of a marriage by government ( they have to work out the religious aspect of this with there own God) places a burden upon society. I personally find homosexuality a sin against God, but I cannot as a conservative expect my religious beliefs to dictate the rights of citizens. The case against gay marriage is based on prejudices and biases. As a society we accept Ann Nicole Smith marrying 88 year old billionaires, Jerry Lewis marrying his cousin, and Vegas style drive-through marriages, but we cannot accept two openly gay people? I feel way too much time and energy is spent on this topic, which hinders the ability of the conservative movement to accomplish real goals. Someone needs to make the case against gay marriage that goes beyond, "What is next, man marries dog?" If this is the only response people have to fight against gay marriage, the defense is weak. Many states have made declarations against gay marriage, of which I say fabulous, democracy at work. If a state does pass gay marriage will those currently opposed acknowledge democracy at work? No, it will then be a battle in court. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black when we do not get our way. Lets spend our time, money, and effort on issues that lead this country to real results like immigration, defense, abortion, and fiscal control. Leave the gays alone.
Comment by Honker | December 5, 2006
Marriage is and has been in a sad state with or without the issue of homosexuality thrown
into the mix. I personally don't think gay marriage will curb promiscuity among certain gay
individuals or add stability to the institution of marriage overall. I think folks of the conservative
persuasion have to look at the topic in a less dispassionate way (and many have). It is more about
activist courts rather than elected officials making decisions for us. A judge doesn't care what average
Joe & Jane American think of him/her because they are not elected and have lifetime tenure. The fact is that there are American citizens who happen to be gay and some sort of equitable situation has to be decided upon.
It is a question of where the line in the sand is going to be drawn, what the American people are comfortable
with, and what legislatures should be doing instead of the courts. A line in the sand is far easier to change
through a statute than through a court decision.
Comment by Brooklyn Dave | December 5, 2006
I was not necessarily comparing homosexuality to other "vices"…merely that the pragmatic arguments most often forwarded to make a case for the legalization of traditional vices (prostitution, drugs, etc.) are similar, if not identical, to the argument employed by Mc Clelland.
As to "Who is hurt by homosexual unions?" It is my belief that the long-term results will show that the big losers are the children raised in such "families." There is a biological reality that no amount of philosophizing can circumvent: nature requires for conception exactly one male contribution and one female contribution. For thousands of years our societies have been structured to mirror this reality when it comes to subsequently raising those children so conceived: a family structure consisting of exactly one man and one woman. Yes, many of those families were disfunctional, sometimes horribly so. Yes, sometimes one or the other parent left or died, and the child(ren) were raised by a single parent rather than one of each sex. But those have been the exception rather than the rule and the basic societal structure has remained intact.
When we depart from the order that has been established in nature, we do so at our own peril. The long-term results for children raised by homosexual couples is not in, because it is a relatively new phenomena sprurred by both new adoption laws and by advances in reproductive capabilites outside the womb. The jury is still out, but it is my belief that the findings will not be good.
This is not to say that both partners in a homosexual union may not love their children just as intensely, and nurture them as carefully, as a heterosexual couple. It is simply to say that men and woman are biologically, spiritually, and emotionally different (different…not better/worse) and that the healthiest children will be raised in situations in which both influences are equally present.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 5, 2006
Yawn. So many people make the lame argument that "allowing gays to marry will strengthen marriage". How? Well, the devil's in the details, and it seems here, no one who makes this case ever has any. Dan Quayle put it best when he said "I fail to see what marriage will provide to curb promiscuity among gay men. If even the threat of an early and terrible death from AIDS is not enough to do it…neither is a contract. Lesbians seem to be monogamous enough without marriage."
Conversely, the other weak claim is along the lines proposed by Honker. "Marriage has degraded so much that…well, why not?" The same people who have pushed for marriage are the same who weakened marriage with the VAWA, no fault divorce and the like. So despite your mockery of those who worry about the slippery slope, that's exactly what this is. The same groups who have constantly attacked marriage are now demanding gay marriage. Most of these groups are also in favor of bigomy, incestual and inter-species marriages, so it's not even remotely a stretch.
The only question of any importance is: Does the state have the right to define what marriage is? The answer is either yes or no. It's not yes and no, or sometimes, or maybe. If yes, homosexuals are out of luck. There is no reason other than the whim of the majority to allow it. Nor is there any compelling benefit for society if they do. If the answer is no, then any people who want to marry can marry whomever, or whatever, they want, in any quantity they want. This isn't conservative fear mongering, it's simply logic and legal reasoning. If the weak argument "they can't control who they love" overrides society's right to make rules governing marriage, then almost no rules can be implimented. Can't demand age limits (pedophilia may very well be out of the pedophiles control), ban zooaphilia (I can't help it the pork chops came onto me), bigomy (hey, they love TWO people), and the list goes on.
Marriage is the state (or church) recognizing the validity of a union. So the men and women of each state decide what is valid. And they have chosen the one that has worked for thousands of years. One man, one woman. There's little reason to change that now.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 5, 2006
I would like to address both post #7 and #8 in a breief response
nevedamistermom= You correctly claim that gay couples should not have children. What you do not do however is produce evidence that gay marriage would promote more gay families. I realize this would be a daunting tasks based on the fact that gay marriage is not legal, but let us look at this objectively. With the exception of adoption from a government agency, what hinders a gay couple from having children now that would be lifted when they are married? I am not in any way, shape, or form endorsing adoption by gay couples from a government agency, and I believe a ban on such adoptions would be approved using your lists of reasons against gay parenthood, but gays will become parents whether they are married or not. This brings the discussion back to the focus on the article, marriage; not parenting. (Congratulations Grandpa Cheney)
WolvenBear- Yawn indeed. "Does the state have the right to define what marriage is?" I find your answer to this question intellectually lazy. You claim majoirty rules, case closed. Fine, answer the question in my original post of what avenues would be pursued when the majority accepts gay marriage in a single state? Will majority still rule? Your correct assessment of "controlling who they love"being a weak argument is true (and not something I bleieve) but your inability to correctly distinguish between gay marriage and pedophilia, zooaphilia, and bigomy is even weaker. You suggest that once society accepts gay marriage all forms of sexual deviance await. Considering your analysis uses terms such as logic and legality, let me use the law to describe the obvious. Being gay is not illegal in this country, being a pedophile, zooaphile, or bigomist is. I do not foresee the day we have the gay registration guide next to the sexual predator website. I am confident organizations will use your slippery slope reasoning to promote perverted ideas (Nambla comes to mind), but this is not a reason to prevent the acceptance of gay marriage. The slippery slope argument can be made with virtually every topic in politics today, and every topic in the past, and every topic in the future. The argument carries no weight. It simply avoids discussing the true issue at hand by focusing on issues that are not currently issues. In actuality it says, " I agree with you, but I am afraid of the repercussions." Deal with the repercussions when it is necessary.
Once again I ask everyone what is being protected and who is the victim in gay marriage? I do not see the answer and therefore believe that if gay people want to marry in a free country, they should be able to. I try to practice what I preach, when I say I believe in limited government, I mean it.
Comment by Honker | December 6, 2006
Honker,
Ordinarily, you're my hero. But not on this issue.
May I remind you that gay behavior was once illegal? Polygamy was legal, now is illegal, and just may become legal again? On what basis could you argue, based on your statements above, that man-boy sex should remain illegal? Well, you can't, because there is no difference between the variety of expressions of sexual behavior we have been talking about.
Morality and legality are not synonymous. That is the difference between the libertarian view of limited government and the conservative one. The title of this article asserts a conservative position on gay marriage when it is really a libertarian one. Conservatives want to preserve the moral climate that civilization is built on, the very thing that allowed this nation to become the greatest nation ever seen on the face of the earth.
There is more to conservatism than limited government and liberty. Liberty has never included the right to be immoral, and that is the crucial difference.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 6, 2006
Honker,
Yes, your point is well taken. Homosexual marriage does nothing to prevent homosexual parenting. But it would be pretty hard to make a straight-faced argument that the institution of marriage is perfectly neutral on the topic of offspring. Marriage creates a legal and social environment in which having children is not just "permitted" but actually expected as the norm. And I think this will naturally result in more homosexual couples deciding to raise children. Finally, I think the burden of proof to suggest otherwise rests with you…not me. Think about it. If we were to completely abolish the institution of heterosexual marriage today, and erase all the laws that provide economic and other incentives/protections to the family structure and offspring of these unions, would we see a long-term rise or a decrease in the number of children being born? The answer is obvious. Why would homosexual marriage be immune from these cause/effect relationships?
As to the issue of whether homosexual marriage produces more gay familes, the answer is a rather obvious one. By definition of law, married homosexuals will create a family structure where one did not previously exist. For example, a partner's parents will be "in-laws" where they were previously just "Joe's/Mary's mom and dad." In fact, the very term "in-law" pretty much sums it up. A new legally recognized set of family relationships exist IN LAW.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 6, 2006
Sorry…typo…I should have said "The absence of homosexual marriage…" in the 2nd sentence.
Comment by nevadamistermom | December 6, 2006
I have a strong political and personal conflict with gay marriage. I will stand by my political belief that gay marriage should be a choice made without government involvement, but I appreciate the critiques and the discourse. Because homosexuality is against my faith and my moral standard, I want to simply accept all arguments which denounce it, but I cannot. To my conservative brethren, I must agree to disagree.
Comment by Honker | December 6, 2006
Honker, it has nothing to do with distinguishing between gays and pedophiles. Intellectually lazy or not, my answer is the correct one. Either the state has the right to decide what marriage is or they do not. Which is it? You don't answer the question. If gays have some magical right to circumvent the will of the people and be granted the benefits of marriage despite society not approving, then we have no basis to tell first cousins no, or telling three people no, etc.
My analysis isn't weak at all. Mountain man's point is right on the mark. Homosexuality used to be illegal. Bigomy used to be legal. Pedophilia is defined differently in all fifty states. In some states 18 is legal, others 17, etc etc etc. This is the state defining what is acceptable to it's constituents, nothing more. This is the way it should be. The states set limits on what is acceptable and what isn't.
And contrary to you harping on about "anti-gay advocates will harp on and file law suits", we both know that won't happen. If it didn't happen over abortion, which is more important in everyone's eyes, it's certainly not going to happen here. What most conservatives feel on marriage is "majority wins". Why is this? Becuase marriage is society saying "we approve of your union". So if society approves…we have little beef. Some might try to change minds, but the majority of us don't care.
You keep dancing around, limited government, let them do what they want, free society, blah blah blah. None of that matters. While I may have misunderstood your original argument, I find your real one sorely lacking. You want the state to stay out of state affairs. There's a reason that they say "And now, by the power vested in me by the state of…" at weddings. Marriage is a state affair. It's a legal contract with responsibilities and benefits granted by the state. Telling the state to butt out is laughable.
And finally, the slippery slope argument hardly means I agree with you. I couldn't care less about gay marriage. If we can tell two straight people no because theyre related, we can certainly tell two homosexual individuals to shove off. Marriage isn't a right. I certainly don't think homosexuality should be illegal (that would be the state butting in where it's not needed), but when they come around and demand that I rubber stamp their union, it's now my business.
While slippery slope arguments are weak, they're almost always right. They were right on abortion, they were right on "the seperation of church and state", and they're right here. Foresight is never a bad thing. And it's hardly foolish to look at what we're doing and see what future impact this will have. The basic argument is that homosexuals have a right to get married, regardless of the public will, and the voice of the VAST majority. Not only is it not a stretch to then say, well first cousins have that right, it's the only logical and legal conclusion.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 6, 2006
WolevenBear- we agree more than you probably realize. I am satisfied with your statement that gay marriage once approved by a majority in a state should be legal. As for the fight that will ensue, it will stretch all the way to the Supreme Court. Your claim that anti-gay advocates will not file lawsuits is completely incorrect. It is and will continue to happen in abortion, as it should; as there is a real victim in abortion. I did answer the question of if a state can define marriage- I agree in my statement which I state I favor democracy. Plain laungage. The contradiction of the state is insulting however. As an employer I must NOT recognize the sexual orientation of a person. I wonder if I could not rent an apartment to two gay people? My refusal to recognize the gay union would find my way to the courthouse sponsored by the same state that refuses to recognize the same couple. In closing, I will say with utmost certainity that gay marriage will be appoved by a vote in at least one state in teh next 10 years, then we will see some oil added to that slippery slope we talk about. I hope we all remember that the same justification that is being used to ban gay marriage can be used to support it.
Comment by Honker | December 7, 2006
Honker, I admire your passion.
However, a quick search of Lexis Nexis, with the terms "abortion lawsuit" turns up 125 documents (over the past two year…I can't go back any further). Except for one or two detailing people saying that charging anti-abortion protestors with extortion and racketering is wrong (it is), all of the articles deal with pro-abortion forces suing on obscure laws than limit a handful of abortions at most. (And there are also a couple of articles that made me shake my head, but that's neither here nor there).
Similarly, a Lexis Nexis search on "gay marriage lawsuit" with the added term of Mass., has no listings on at least the first two pages (sue me I'm lazy) for a lawsuit when gay marriage is allowed IN SPITE, of the clear will of the people.
You're just flat out wrong here. The anti-gay marriage crowd just won't fight this, as the anti-abortion crowd didn't abortion. The only example I've been able to find (so far) that even remotely supports your claim is that in Penn., 12 lawmakers sued a homosexual couple…for trying to get married (and making a public ordeal) despite the state's DOMA laws. It's on the ever popular http://www.athiesm.com, which in turn sources the even more credible gay.com.
So, no massive lawsuits. Mass. passes a gay marriage law with some grumbling and little action.
Furthermore, you're claim that the contradiction of the state is "insulting" is also silly. While an employer may not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, they also can choose whether or not to grant homosexual employees the same benefits of married heterosexual couples. This is not contradictory, it is the same way teh government looks at things. And it falls under the true libertarian umbrella (as opposed to the ACLU's liberal "libertarian" agenda) of "do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't mess with me". The employer has no right to not hire someone just because they are gay, but they don't have to provide them benefits and pretend they're the same as a married couple, even if that goes against their beliefs. No hypocracy.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 8, 2006