Tackling A Myth of Gay Marriage
Mar 18th, 2009 by RSmitty
Yesterday, El Som put up a post about SB27, a marriage-protection act over on Delaware Liberal. Interestingly enough, on a side note, Rep John Atkins, the very one that Rep Schwarzkopf propped and elevated himself this past cycle is a co-sponsor of this bill. Interesting in that Rep Atkins is a staunch opponent of one of the bigger platforms of Rep Schwarzkopf, virtually guaranteeing Rep Schwarzkopf of a cancellation of his very own vote each time on these issues important to his platform. It’s an interesting quandry. I’ve always found political masochism an interesting study.
Anyway, back to the point of the post…
I concede that I don’t know all of the arguments opponents to gay marriage stand on. I am, however, familiar with one of the more common and vocal arguments, that being how the church will be forced into honoring and/or performing gay marriages.
This argument is completely and legally false.
Legalizing gay marriage will not and can not force a church to accept gay marriage nor redefine their religious-based definition of marriage. To do so would require an amendment of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Have fun with that.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are in fact different, it just so happens that, in the eye of the law, religious marriage is accepted as a form of civil marriage. Not any place does it stipulate that churches must accept civil marriage.
Furthering this differentiation of civil and religious marriage, I can tell you for a fact, that there are churches today that refuse to recognize civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid, so there is even further proof that churches WOULD BE UNAFFECTED.
Even the ACLU…yes, the A-C-L-U has a firm position on a church’s right to safeguard and own their definition and execution of marriage (and I am aware of a statement from an interview with the ACLU that they would put themselves in the front of a line to defend a church if that church was being forced into recognizing or executing a gay marriage):
There are many things about modern society that religious organizations disagree with, such as divorce and birth control that are now legal in this country. Civil marriage and religious marriage are different. At issue here is civil marriage - a legal institution regulated by the government that grants over 1,000 legal rights and obligations. Every year, at least 40% of heterosexual couples in the United States get married without a church, synagogue, mosque or religious ceremony. The First Amendment protects the right of people of faith to organize themselves according to their own beliefs and traditions, and no law recognizing marriage of lesbian and gay couples will limit the freedom of religions to define marriage as each sees fit.
Same sex marriage is the myth, my friend. Successful human civilization has been built by real marriage not pretend marriage. Attacking the very definition of marriage won’t strengthen homosexual couples, it will weaken society.
Abolish marriage at law. The surest way to “strengthen” marriage is to get government out of the business of defining and dispensing it.
Not sure I follow, Tyler. What you say is pretty straight-forward, but I’m trying to dig into it a bit. Whatever you do, don’t look at this as an argument. I want to understand what you’re saying.
In your opinion, by ridding government from being able to define it and, I guess you’re saying from even acknowledging it, what does it then become? A purely symbolic ritual? Would there be any legal recognition left? If not, what sort of benefits of marriage today would transcend into that view, if any?
Was I at all close to what you were thinking, or did I completely miss?
If you’re on target, Smitty, then I’m coming around to Tyler’s thinking. Let’s level the playing field and remove all the automatic benefits that come with marriage. Then people can marry, but they’ll need to take separate steps to insure inheritance rights, medical directives, health care, child custody, pensions, etc. Basically, they’ll end up understanding what they’ve taken for granted.
Tyler’s position is a purely Libertarian one, but I’m not sure if I go that far. I think the State should record only civil unions between consenting adults, and that “marriage” should become purely the province of religion as you suggest.
David’s argument that civilization has been built on marriage as we understand it today is a talking point he’s been running with for a long time now. This may be his personal belief, but it is not supported by historical evidence. Marital and family structures vary widely over time and space.
They do very over time and location, but they have something in common. They are heterosexual institutions designed to provide a stable environment to raise children. That hasn’t varied much in Human history.
There you go again (sorry, couldn’t resist) bringing children into the equation. Seriously, David, are childless couples less married?
Pandora, I have a great deal of respect and regard for you. I just don’t think that is a question worthy of my consideration. I will touch on it briefly because you seem taken by it. Marriage is an institution of covenant where an man and a woman become one for life. That union produces children most of the time. Some couples can’t have children. That does not make them less married. They also do not get some of the breaks designed to offset the cost of raising children. That is fair.
We can not mandate children, but we should encourage them. Procreation in a stable family is one of the highest contributions to society and should be regarded as such. I tell my friends who share my faith that they have a duty to replace themselves if possible. That of course can never be mandated, but it should be encouraged in tax law and elsewhere.
Marriage, civil union, tomato, tomahto.
It’s all about government supplanting personal responsibility by granting legally-recognized partnerships that would otherwise require detailed contracts — and then forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for the unplanned wreckage caused when it all goes wrong, a la family court divorce proceedings.
Pre-nup contracts detailing EVERY possible eventuality or contingency should be the minimum before any government should ever confer some sort of special status like “marriage”, with all its attendant statutory preferences.
The common sense path is to privatize any and all marriage - whatever you want to call it.
That’s the real conservative way, versus David’s way of religious socialism.
I can never understand those who would excoriate the ills of excessive government, yet they want the most personal of unions to be under its effective control.
There is no reconciling these positions. It is just rank hypocrisy driven by religious fanaticism, masked as arguments about “society”.
No one who believes marriage is “sacred” blah blah blah would want it administered by government. Period.
Plus, eliminate the silly wasteful burden of divorce proceedings from our courts and they will have a lot more resources to deal with the truly important stuff like protecting children from abuse.
Gay Marriage is an issue that I have never understood Republicans on. You say you are for small government, or limited government, and liberty. Yet on gay marriage, you are perfectly willing to tell two people how to live their lives, and you accuse us liberals and Democrats of doing that all the time.
I agree with Tyler. Government should have never gotten itself involved with the institution of Marriage in the first place. If I had my druthers, I would abolish marriage licenses issued by the government entirely. I would ban judges and justices of the peace and even Elvis in his chapel from performing marriage ceremonies. I would leave Marriage, an institution steeped in religion, to religion. If you want to get “married,” then you must find a priest willing to marry you. Thus, religions can best decide who they want to marry and what rules they want to follow. The Catholic Church can go refuse to marry divorced people, and gays, and non-Catholics. Other religions can likewise choose who they want to marry. And if a Church, like the UCC, wants to marry homosexuals, they can.
If two people want to get “married” outside the church, or at least have their union validated by the force of law, then they can go to the Court and get “Union Certificates,” which by law will be given to any two consenting adults who are not related and of legal age.
That solves the whole problem right there.
But the Religious Right will never be satisfied with that. They want control of the government, and they want to tell other people how to live their lives, all the while they do not practice what they preach in their own.
Pandora,
According to the Catholic Church (and I can speak on this since I am a Catholic with 7 years of Catholic school at Mt. Aviat), marriage’s purpose is for procreation. You are not supposed to have sex until you are married, and you are not supposed to have sex in marriage unless your intent is to have a baby.
I cannot speak for Protestant Evangelicals on that, since I really do not know their tradition. I suspect that they do not have as rigid a dogma as Catholics do, or else they would be Catholics.
This is why we live in a free society without an official religion. Because some people wish to choose to live their lives outside the dictates of the Church. Some people do not want to have children, but still love their husband or wife and want to be married. Some people are married and are desperately trying to have children but can’t. As to the former, the unwanting married couple is living in sin, rejecting God’s will for children, even though they are married. As to the former, a priest once told me at least they are trying, and it is just God’s decision not to bless them with children.
On social issues such as this, I become a Libertarian. This is a free country and if two people want to be married and not have children, they should be allowed by their government to do so. If two gay people want to be married and have a child, they should be allowed to do so. If two straight people want to be married and have as many children as they can, they should be allowed to do so.
DELETED
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY DOES THAT GO DOWN ON THIS SITE.
-DMB
The foundations of Democracy were forged in ancient Athens. Back in Athens, homosexual relationships were considered normal, even among (actually, especially among) soldiers. Would there be no democracy without homosexuality? I dunno, that sounds pretty silly, like arguing society would collapse if gays could be legally married by their Unitarian pastors. (note: Unitarian Universalism is not the only religion whose right to marry homosexuals has been denied).
PS - your poll is fixed. I voted “yes”, but it says 100% voted “no”. That’s OK, if your polling technology blocks liberals, it’s your site and your right.
I somehow think that’s not what you guys intended though.
Dave: Colossus got that “Concerned” comment too, ‘tho I was needlessly more tactful in my “explanation” why I deleted it.
They wanna politically crucify a guy just because he’s gay?? UGH.
The Universalists have every right to marry whomever they want. They are a pretty radical bunch, but I find them thoughtful and engaging. We are not stopping anyone from pretending they are married. We certainly can’t stop people from forming their own institutions which one day may get legal recognition after they have proven themselves.
What we are talking about is preserving the legal recognition of marriage the way it has been through out our nation’s history.
We aren’t changing anything. The radicals are the ones who wish to impose themselves on us and our institutions.
How is an act of government “your” institution, David? How does any other marriage affect YOUR marriage, in the slightest.
Brian Shields has it right that you have some bizarre zero-sum calculus in mind.
Nobody’s emptying your bucket to fill theirs, by any stretch. But you certainly want no one else to even have a bucket to fill.
David Anderson is an idiot.
Successful human civilization has been built by real marriage not pretend marriage.
What? That doesn’t even make sense.
Succesful human civilization? Give us a few examples of some please. I’m waiting with baited breath.
What is real marriage? Old Testament? New Testament? What about Muslim marriages? They don’t count? What about the Romans and the Greeks and their family style?
you really are an idiot. And a creepy one at that.
What we are talking about is preserving the legal recognition of marriage the way it has been through out our nation’s history.
what about the rest of civilization though David? It was all wrong until the United States came along? Our country hasn’t been around for all of “civilization” so how is our way the right way? You are a crackpot.
should people that can’t have children marry david?
either way, it doesn’t matter what David “thinks” is right. Gays and Lesbians will be able to legally marry in this country in my life time.
That is a safe prediction. They already can in one state. The last time I checked MA was still part of America.
That quirk of marriage defination may very well change in the future. The people of MA aren’t too happy about that and have been stimied by a tyrannical minority who disrespects them.
It will be pushed in couple of others than fall apart as a fad of its own excesses.
I think that the are people married if they don’t have children argument is a sign of desparation and illogic. To paraphrase the Catholic Catechism, the union of a man and a women naturally leads to procreation. Procreation is not the only function of marrital love but its supreme achievement and crowning glory.
From 1652: “Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.”
So, your supporting political arguments with the “Catholic Catechism” and declarations from 1652?
Okey dokey.
Wait, are you trying to convince me that someone in our federal government actually pays attention to what is in the Constitution and Amendments?
From my experience governments at all levels have a tendency to legislate what they want. Then someone looks back and realizes that oops, they might have violated their own founding documents. The city of Dover has violated its charter on more than one occasion and had to correct itself. The same is true of the Federal Government, but in DC they are less likely to correct the problem once they have found it. Instead they just keep on going.
boy David, it doesn’t matter how you slice it, you are full of crap and so easy to pick apart on these issues.