Is Marriage Government’s to Define?
California's Prop 8 under attack
With Monday’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to place a stay on a trial judge’s overruling of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage, the social media has been tweeting debates that range from the intriguing to the patently absurd.
Here, hopefully, is an intriguing one.
We hear from the proponents of same-sex marriage that homosexuals are entitled to “equal rights”.
I agree.
I don’t believe there is any rational person among us who would seek to deny any individual the same protections under the law that are afforded any other citizen.
The idea of “gay rights”, however, has always baffled me. Inherent in the term is the idea that rights are awarded based on prerequisites. “Gay rights” makes no more sense to me than “blonde rights” and implies that heterosexuals have some sort of “special” rights that homosexuals do not share.
According to same sex-marriage advocates, the “right” of traditional marriage is being protected by the State while those who seek same-sex marriage are being denied that “right” and are thus discriminated against.
I don’t see it that way at all. Even with current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not also possess.
To wit:
A male can marry a female. It doesn’t matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share.
The homosexual will claim that he can’t marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a “want” as a “right”.
While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his “want” to marry another male, something that his heterosexual counterpart can also not currently do.
Thankfully, we do not place the burden on ourselves of guaranteeing other people’s wants. Society would crumble if it did. I “want” a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my “right” to have them.
To the contrary of the denied right argument, new so-called “hate crimes” legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don’t find proponents of gay marriage fighting “hate crimes” laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.
I digress.
To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.
Marriage, however, has a standing definition that was around long before the United States Government. It neither depends on the government for legitimacy nor should acquiesce to a popular movement to change its definition. It is not government’s to define.
It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, and this is where I believe the debate comes to its core.
On a fundamental level, the proponents of same-sex marriage believe the term “marriage” is left to government to define. Those in opposition mostly believe that marriage is a social contract between a man, a woman, and God. Government definition and intrusion need not apply.
That is what is at play here.
Those that believe marriage is a religious edict take offense to a government that seeks to change its definition.
In a manner of speaking, it would almost be a violation of the First Amendment for government to do so.
An equivalent would be government attempting to rename Hanukkah because the country’s citizens simply thought they liked another definition better. Laughable, right? Yet that is essentially what the proponents of gay marriage are fighting for.
My solution offered to homosexuals?
Stop rocking the boat and demanding that religion itself change its definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination, which sadly does exist on a person to person level, a larger problem?
Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it!
I will defend your right to establish whatever government guaranteed contract that you want, with whomever you want. It would have all the legal equivalency as a marriage contract as far as I’m concerned, it simply wouldn’t share the vocabulary.
Relieve the stress of attempting to change an entire faith’s definition by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it’s meaning.
Seems fair to me.
Great explanation except I wish it were that simple.
The curious thing to me is that financial contracts, powers of attorney, etc., between consenting adults are already part of the law. So where is the problem for homosexuals? I think this all has to do with spousal benefits, automatic insurance benefits, seamless transfers upon death, and the like. These requirements should be left up to the States. And if the States choose to not support same sex unions, should the States have that right? I think the question will end up in the Supreme Court at which point the 10th amendment is once again likely to be usurped by a Federal fiat. And that is what the left wants…so not only do they redefine marriage, but they continue to redefine the power of the Federal government and undermine the 10th amendment in the Constitution. For this reason, I think there is more at stake than just the push for homosexual marriage. It is another ‘Federal power over the States’ issue. Also, I think the commerce clause comes into play where each State will have to recognize the legitimacy of another State’s decision on the matter….so that homosexuals can move from one State to another without being denied “equal” treatment.
High stakes and complications. It’s always more than what you see on the surface. And it is almost always the U.S. Constitution under attack.
There definately is a 10th amendment component to this debate as currently phrased, which serves to reenforce the ever growing complexity of this issue.
On one hand, I think it would be rather silly for a couple to be considered married in one state but not another, but that also gets back to my point that “marriage” itself isn’t a concept for government to define. If you are married in the true sense of the word, it doesn’t matter what state, country, or planet you are on for that marriage to hold meaning.
Frankly, I don’t think government should even recognize heterosexual marriage as anything but a pure contract between two consenting adults.
The contract side is the fun part, and is where I think an interesting fight will take place. Could one state deny enforcement of the terms of a contract it didn’t recognize?
Ultimately it probably is a state determination, but contrary to where people may get the impression I stand on this issue, I would support state laws that protected contract rights between homosexual couples. I draw distinction between my personal religious beliefs and the rights of individuals with whom I disagree. I can’t demand my freedom without allowing for those I disagree with.
Not wishing to argue with you…I thought you were very even-handed in your article regarding the ‘definition’ part of it. I’m just saying this is a hugely complicated issue. Besides the States reciprocity issue, I am concerned with the slippery slope with this one. I believe chaos will ensue. If you can’t use your religious beliefs as a guideline here…then if you disagree with Sharia law, does that mean you have to agree to its implementation in our courts? How about Wiccan laws? How about no religious guidelines for laws at all? If laws are all secular based, then society is developing laws that have no basis and can be drawn at the whim of any current group of hedonists? (the doctrine which holds the standard of the good and morality as whatever gives pleasure per se. This theory substitutes ethical purpose for ethical standard, stating (in essence) “the proper value is whatever you happen to value.” Objectivism rejects this formulation.
http://www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/
Where do you draw the line? Or do you wish no lines at all? It seems to me that redefining our terms of families and changing the acceptable conditions of raising children is just another tool of the left to fracture our institutional structures. This is already being done….has been done for decades. Is there natural law as accepted by the founders? Or not? Is our country based on Judeo-Christian values? Or not? Does accepting the facts of alternative lifestyles mean you have to have legal and societal support for those lifestyles? Or can you just live and let live? Acceptance and support are two different things. As in, acceptance of the fact of Sharia law does not mean your country should adopt it as a way of life. Acceptance of homosexual unions does not mean you should elevate it to a legal status equal to marriage. Drawing distinctions is the very essence of defining a society and laws must have a basis in something other than the wants of a few people.
I don’t think your freedoms are hinging on granting homosexuals marital status. Our freedoms are at much greater peril due to the debts and tax consequences of our out of control government. In fact, I don’t think this is a ‘freedom’ issue at all. Homosexuals already have the right to live together and are free to do so, including making contracts as binding as any other. Just as heterosexuals may live together without the benefits of matrimony. Our freedoms depend on responsibilities and adherence to laws. If you want complete and total unencumbered freedom on the subject of marriage, you would have to get the government out of family law altogether. No divorce laws. No child custody or support laws. Etc. I don’t think that is going to happen…it is just going to get more complicated and cumbersome with homosexual unions thrown into the mix.
Do you want the Feds to make these decisions? That is where this is headed.
Just my opinon, Christian. It has become a conundrum for people who don’t want to draw a line and define a limit. This issue is a really big can of worms and is going to cause a lot of unintended consequences. I can accept alternative lifestyles between consenting adults, but that, in my mind, doesn’t mean it is necessarily the next step to affirm, legalize, and otherwise celebrate those alternative lifestyles as a society. Again, where does that stop? There is no good answer to that unless you are willing to define limits. Are rights limitless? Is freedom without limits?
Thanks for the discussion! 🙂
P.S…Christian…wait, but wait..
…about that “Blond rights” issue….maybe that’s a great idea!!! LOL
The sticky wickets rebuttal below…
I am against “same sex marriage” but I think that it is their freedom to choose whatever it is they like to do. If I am in the government what I’ll do is I will teach these people correct principles according to the Scriptures and then let them govern themselves =)
Thanks for the comment Bo.
I’ll reiterate that I agree with their right to do whatever it is “they like to do”. I’m not about to support the criminalization of same sex couples doing what couples do. Again though, it’s not marriage. Whatever contracts they want to sign, so be it. They are consenting adults and have the same rights as any other American citizen. But just like I can’t make it to the 5 yard line and call it a “touchdown”, so too can same sex couples understand that regardless of contractual agreements, what they have is not “marriage”.
Also, not so sure I like the idea of government “teaching” the “correct principles”. Not really government’s roll, IMHO.
Of course, governing ourselves does seem inviting… 🙂