Recently another sciforums member asked me to participate in a thread regarding same-sex marriage on another bulletin board. One user in particular, by the name Aaron was being particularly block headed about the issue, and I suppose our fellow sciforumer was familiar with the fact that I've got about 3000 posts arguing about this particular topic, so he wanted to bring me in and make my case.
The particular board upon which this was originally posted seems to be libertarian of the right-leaning variety in persuasion, and my post reflected that nature, trying to appeal specifically to the major issues I felt them likely to be concerned with.
It's rather strange that anyone branding themselves as a libertarian should be in favor of continued government regulation against liberties of a specific segment of the people, but then, I don't think that right-wingers ever think that deeply into their own political premises to find anything amusing about the idea. We'll probably have to find some way to link gay marriage to the spread of global capitalism before they want to hop on board.
I felt that the post took me too long to write for me to just dump it on one board that I'll likely never return to, so I decided I'd cross post it here just to get that extra mileage out of it.
The post is as follows:
Hi there! I figured I’d quit lurking and pop in for a word or two, as this thread doesn’t yet seem to be anywhere near it’s quota.
Aaron, I could not agree more that homosexuals are simply not worthy of special treatment, period. I think that we’d all be quite better off, however, if those in power saw it the same way. It is because I feel so strongly that this point is true that I ardently support same-sex marriage.
Equal protection under the law is not special treatment, and frankly I find it absurd that you could be so dense as to make such an accusation. I’ll admit that it’s a charge I’ve heard many times, it’s a rather weak piece of social conservative rhetoric, appealing to the traditional republican demon of nasty special interest groups that want to take more of your tax money than they’re entitled too, and make it illegal for you to say things like “moon cricket”. In that sense, I suppose I can forgive you, after all you’re only feeding at a troth of shit that’s been put in front of you, and not necessarily thinking up these comically absurd notions on your own.
In all fairness, of course you’re entirely right to feel a bit outraged and self-righteous when you assert that special treatment of homosexuals must end. It’s a noble thing to say, and I couldn’t agree more, this is why laws which specifically target homosexuals for discrimination must be taken off the books at federal and state levels. I realize that many who aren’t particularly involved in the battle for homosexual rights may not be familiar with exactly what I’m talking about here, so I’ll take a moment to give a bit of clarification.
Being that, at least from the opinions I’m seeing expressed in this thread, there seem to be a fair number of right-leaning individuals here, I’ll try to do my best to tailor this explanation to your concerns. I’m well aware of the pantheon of right-wing demons spooks and bogeymen, and that generally any minority group seeking to strive for an equal footing in society is treated as a threat which is trying to attack straight white (usually Christian, though that’s probably not a big concern on this board) men. When I talk about homosexual rights, I do not mean to advocate any law that would put you in jail for calling someone a faggot, or support any penalty for disliking homosexuals in general. That instinctive “ick” factor you get in your gut when you see two guys holding hands is entirely your right, and if you don’t want to get over it, then I certainly don’t think that there’s any authority (outside perhaps of a trusted liberal friend) that has any authority to tell you different. I’m also not advocating anything like affirmative action for homosexuals, or that “it should be taught in the schools” whatever that means, at least not beyond a few brief words in a sex ed class to remind kids that anal does “count”, and can still spread disease. I would further submit that this is true of nearly all advocates of homosexual’s rights, and anything to the contrary is nothing but smoke from the reactionary right-wing spin machine, or evangelical Christian fund raising events, though certainly getting deeper into that ascertain is certainly a thread in and of itself, if not several.
Now that I hope I’ve made myself clear about what I do not mean, allow me to clarify just what the hell it is that I do mean when I talk about campaigning for homosexual rights. The single largest thing I’m talking about is purging the law books of measures which specifically target homosexuals for the purpose of exclusion and limitation of freedoms granted to everyone else. Quite simple, really. I should expect that you might have a bit of apprehension as to what exactly that means, or what I would qualify as a law targeting homosexuals, so allow me to clarify. Right now, the United States is less than two years away from the days when homosexuality itself could be criminalized. Yes, that’s right, it was only 2003 when the Supreme Court heard a case and over-turned a previous ruling which allowed states to make laws which would fine and or imprison citizens for having had sexual relations with a member of the same gender. This is the kind of atmosphere we are still dealing with in this country today. I realize that if all one does is watch television, or movies, and sees the media, and society’s apparent greatly increased acceptance of homosexuals in this country, then it can seem as if perhaps homosexuals don’t need a civil rights movement, that they’re already there, and any protests marches, or organizing is just a bunch of whining silliness. However, like so many things you see on TV, this is simply not true. All over the country homosexuals are still denied some fairly simple rights based purely on the fact that they love members of the same gender, and on no other grounds. In Florida for instance, same-sex couples are banned from adopting children; the armed forces of the United States can and do dishonorably discharge hundreds of highly trained personnel under their “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in which if ranking military officials are made aware, by any means, that one of their rank is a homosexual, they are obligated to then get rid of that person. It is these sorts of institutional and governmental acts of discrimination based entirely on who a person likes to date which I feel need to be changed, and I do not mean to imply that anything else beyond these are fair game.
Now, onto the greater issue at hand, same sex marriage. This falls easily into the category of “laws which must go”. One must accept that in the United States, if same-sex marriage is not specifically prohibited by law, then it is, by default, legal. You can see this principal at work in Massachusetts right now, and it is similarly evident in the flurry of state constitutional amendments to prohibit same sex marriages (which were already illegal in most every state to begin with, as well as on the federal level since 1996). The reason for all of these state constitutional amendments (and for the proposed federal constitutional amendment) in order to ban something which is already illegal is because, in general, these laws are extremely vulnerable, as they are blatantly an abuse of legislative power. As homosexuals have gained more visibility in our society, these prohibitions against allowing them to partake in the same legal rights as any other citizen begin to seem rather blatantly an abuse of majority rule to legislate against the rights of a minority, rather like reconstructionist era gym-crow laws in the south – something which is trumped by many state and certainly the federal Constitution. As such, these constitutional amendments are really the next logical step for anyone with any grudge against homosexuals. How does one protect one’s imaginary interests from the highest law in the land? Change it!
You may notice that I qualify traditionalist interests in same-sex marriage as being imaginary, and I suppose that warrants a few more words of explanation. The fact is that the only people with any true interest – anything to gain or lose – any real stake at all in the legalization or prohibition of same-sex marriage, are the homosexuals themselves. The rest of the populace can continue living out their lives as though nothing has changed, because in every practical and metaphysical sense, nothing really has. Advocates of same-sex marriage are night fighting to make the Catholic Church recognize their unions, they are not looking to be legally entitled to perform their wedding ceremonies in your local Baptist Church, were this the case, I’d be standing right along side the traditionalists and crying that advocates of same-sex marriage are simply asking for too much. All that this battle is about is for homosexual couples to be able to go to a government clerk, and obtain a legal marriage license. This is not a battle about religious beliefs or social acceptance, this is a battle over a simple bundle of legal rights, and considerations, which our nation as deemed appropriate to a committed long-term pair-bond between two consenting adults.
It is true that the law currently describes this bond as only between one man and one woman, but this is a relatively recent development in this country. Not so long ago it used to be a bond between one man and one woman of the same race, and before that between one white man and one white woman who was his property. The fact is that the differentiation between a legal marriage between a man and a woman, and a legal marriage between two persons of the same gender is practically meaningless, and does a fair bit of harm to same-sex couples who are living in such a relationship regardless of what legal considerations are afforded to them by the government.
Another thing which few people seem to recognize is that from a religious, social, and anthropological perspective, same-sex marriage is already a reality. Same-sex couples are living together in relationships which are precisely the same as an opposite-sex marriage, save for the rather meaningless destination of the gender of one of the participants. Like heterosexual couples, married same-sex couples share property, pay taxes, make money, receive health-care, receive social security when disabled or aged, own land and property which they may wish to leave to their spouse (a thing which legal case history shows that wills can not be counted on for), even raise children and yes, now and again, get a divorce (though at shockingly lower rates than heterosexual couples). Homosexual couples already exist, and all of the things which I mentioned as well as hundreds more aspects of married life are effected by being able to get that piece of paper, a marriage license, which tells society and the government that two people are legally wed.
Furthermore, the destination of a marriage as being only between one man and one woman simply has no logical secular basis. It’s a phrase that has come into parlance only recently as the battle for same-sex marriage has begun to come into the forefront of national debate and politics in the United States, and was crafted by the religious right, with no backing other than theological dogma. It is true that for many societies through out time one man and one woman has been fairly standard, but so have many other qualifiers which we have thrown to the wayside, a few of which I mentioned earlier. In this democratic society of ours, where equal protection under the law is one of the most powerful and fundamental founding principals, an issue over which we have fought several wars, and social battles, striving desperately to keep ourselves true to it’s promise, why should it be that one single group is singled out for special treatment, and prohibition of the same simple rights to which every other citizen is entitled? It simply doesn’t make good sense, especially when there is no harm to be done by it, and such great good to be done by leveling the playing field for those currently marked for a sort of second class citizenhood. Marriage was first and foremost a civil and economic institution, it was only later that so much religious emphasis was put on it. This is why, for instance, we can not say that Muslim peoples, or those who follow Shinto, or atheists can not marry. Today marriage is both civil and religious, but our government should not be concerned with the religious aspect of it, that’s simply not a secular governing body’s territory. However, the previsions and legal considerations which it has set for the civil institution of marriage are entirely our secular government’s territory, and being that it is an institution which is supposed to work for all of the people, not just the majority, and that equal protection under the law was set into our constitution as a measure to help protect the rights of a minority against the potential unreasonable tyranny of the majority, I can see absolutely no reason why same-sex marriage should be prohibited in the United States of America. The enraged cries of a religiously inspired body of the populace whom have absolutely nothing to gain or loose in the decision of this matter seems to me to be a rather weak reason to betray one of the more noble ideals which America is supposed to stand for.
That, briefly, is my argument for same-sex marriage, though admittedly it’s no where near comprehensive on the issue (I firmly believe that such an argument can only be made with lengthy debate, as I have found that many people bring concerns and points to the table that seem to come entirely out of the blue, and are not easily anticipated in this otherwise rather clear-cut issue). I recognize, however, that there are a few major points which are regular part of the larger national social discourse which my statements thus far do not address, so I shall try to briefly pay a few of them lip-service at the least.
Firstly, being that the issue of same-sex marriage is (or at least rightly should be, and is on the side of advocates) a purely legal matter, many have suggested the sort of work-around legal compromise of creating an institution of “civil-unions” to grand same-sex couples the same benefits of marriage. I must admit that when this possibility first came up I was quite preferential toward it, however after thinking about the prospect a bit more, I realized that it is essentially a compromise which offers nothing more than token offerings and leaves the core problem of a lack of adherence to equal protection entirely undressed. Simply put, a “civil-union” is a non-entity, and even at it’s best can not offer all the same protections and legal considerations as a marriage license. It is far form “marriage under a different name” as some sources of political commentary have put it. Among the differences between the two is that marriage is a federally defined and protected institution with certain bare minimum guarantees and recognition; civil-unions on the other hand have no history (save in the state of Vermont), there is no federal outline of what constitutes a civil-union, no real solid precedent for what they’re even supposed to look like, and absolutely no requirement that the protections of one would carry over across state lines (some would think that the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause would handle this, but as the DoMA of 1996 shows there’s no real feeling of obligation to adhere to that part of the constitution when it comes to the issue of marriage). Also, I would submit that even if a hypothetical equivalent of marriage would be drafted, enacted into law, and named “civil-union” as many people seem to take for granted is exactly what people mean when they talk about civil-unions, it still could not offer the same protections as would a standard marriage license. Take, for instance a case in which an employer provides health-care coverage to an employee and an employee’s spouse, having two separate institutions, one with one group of people, and another institution designed specifically for another sort of people which society looks down upon, and you’d have to ask yourself if that same benefit would be extended to an employee’s “civil partner”. I realize many of you on this board have libertarian leanings, and may well feel that it’s the right of a business owner to discriminate against their employees in that manner, and I’ll have to concede that point to you, as it’s a topic which would disserve another thread still, but despite this fact I would still have to say that I see no reason why America should return to the standard of enacting “Separate But Equal” institutions for some social class we don’t particularly like. We already have an institution which grants all the protections of marriage, we call it marriage, now why can’t we extend it’s legal protections to persons living in a lifestyle for which the institution was created, but happen to be of the same gender?
Another issue that I’d like to touch on briefly is why homosexual activists are now rising up for this particular battle after so many hundreds of years of having seemed to be sufficiently “in their place”, or at least unconcerned with this particular battle. The answer to that one is simple: homosexuals have simply never had a more opportune time than now. Any fight for inclusion of themselves in a legally protected institution would have fallen rather flat while it was still acceptable to tire them and chemically castrate, fine or imprison them simply for being homosexuals, luckily the dark-ages of the early 00’s have lifted, we’re now in the mid 00’s and those days are nearly two whole years behind us (look up the Supreme Court Ruling on Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, if you’re uncertain of what I’m talking about).
Finally, a few words an the issue of government having anything at all to do with marriage in the first place. I’ve seen here that a few of you are sympathetic to the idea of government getting out of the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place, and certainly the virtues and drawbacks of such an idea are another topic of debate all together, and worthy of yet another thread all together, I would ask of you to look at this argument from the perspective that, so long as our government is in the business of licensing marriage, shouldn’t same-sex couples also be included (at least until the whole legal institution is done away with anyhow). I know that expanding protections aren’t something that you’re likely to be too keen on, but for the sake furthering the agenda of promoting a more egalitarian society, I do hope that you’ll be honest enough with yourself to admit that it’s really the only sensible choice to be made.
In summation, a secular democracy with protection of minority’s rights at the hands of a petty and punitive majority as one of it’s founding principals simply has no logical reason for saying certain persons engaged in a certain form of relationship are eligible for special legal consideration, however another group of citizens are not eligible for those same protections.
Oh, and one last closing note, Aaron, if you don’t believe in a God, and feel that empiric evidence gathered via the scientific method is the only proper way to come to a conclusion which would lead you to lend your provisional agreement (on the grounds that no contradicting data is reproducible and as such a theory stands) to any idea, and this fact leads you to withhold provisional agreement to the idea of there being any supernatural creating deity, then that makes you an atheist. Those of us with dictionaries, such as it would seem mountain_hare does, can see that quite easily enough. So do have the courtesy to quit running around in semantic circles with him, and start doing some straight talking. Thank you.
Oh, and I feel the need to amend one more preemptive blow to the end of this post. This one goes especially to Aaron, being that he seems to proudly label himself as a homophobe, but I suppose it also applies to anyone else that might be of a similar mind about the matter of homosexuals “shoving it in our face”. Ok, you don’t like queers, we get it, and yes, they are loud, and they do protest and hold rallies and organize political campaigns. Rather unfortunate when seeing a man hold another man’s hand in public makes you feel sick, I can understand that, but please try to be mature and level headed about these issues, and not simply behave as if every time some homosexual stands up to say that they don’t particularly enjoy being legislated against that it’s somehow an attack on you. You like to throw around terms like “the victim class” but you wind up behaving as if you yourself are somehow being victimized by someone else’s civil rights struggle. Also, be honest with yourself, if you oppose gay marriage just because you don’t like seeing gay activists on TV, then admit to yourself that your opinions are based on nothing more than an indignant self-righteous feeling of victimhood and desire for petty punitive action against those whom you perceive to be victimizing you. No more of this silly “Proud to be a disaffected white male” silliness that everyone can see right through, and is secretly giggling at you for.
Now that’s all, I swear!
The particular board upon which this was originally posted seems to be libertarian of the right-leaning variety in persuasion, and my post reflected that nature, trying to appeal specifically to the major issues I felt them likely to be concerned with.
It's rather strange that anyone branding themselves as a libertarian should be in favor of continued government regulation against liberties of a specific segment of the people, but then, I don't think that right-wingers ever think that deeply into their own political premises to find anything amusing about the idea. We'll probably have to find some way to link gay marriage to the spread of global capitalism before they want to hop on board.
I felt that the post took me too long to write for me to just dump it on one board that I'll likely never return to, so I decided I'd cross post it here just to get that extra mileage out of it.
The post is as follows:
Hi there! I figured I’d quit lurking and pop in for a word or two, as this thread doesn’t yet seem to be anywhere near it’s quota.
Aaron, I could not agree more that homosexuals are simply not worthy of special treatment, period. I think that we’d all be quite better off, however, if those in power saw it the same way. It is because I feel so strongly that this point is true that I ardently support same-sex marriage.
Equal protection under the law is not special treatment, and frankly I find it absurd that you could be so dense as to make such an accusation. I’ll admit that it’s a charge I’ve heard many times, it’s a rather weak piece of social conservative rhetoric, appealing to the traditional republican demon of nasty special interest groups that want to take more of your tax money than they’re entitled too, and make it illegal for you to say things like “moon cricket”. In that sense, I suppose I can forgive you, after all you’re only feeding at a troth of shit that’s been put in front of you, and not necessarily thinking up these comically absurd notions on your own.
In all fairness, of course you’re entirely right to feel a bit outraged and self-righteous when you assert that special treatment of homosexuals must end. It’s a noble thing to say, and I couldn’t agree more, this is why laws which specifically target homosexuals for discrimination must be taken off the books at federal and state levels. I realize that many who aren’t particularly involved in the battle for homosexual rights may not be familiar with exactly what I’m talking about here, so I’ll take a moment to give a bit of clarification.
Being that, at least from the opinions I’m seeing expressed in this thread, there seem to be a fair number of right-leaning individuals here, I’ll try to do my best to tailor this explanation to your concerns. I’m well aware of the pantheon of right-wing demons spooks and bogeymen, and that generally any minority group seeking to strive for an equal footing in society is treated as a threat which is trying to attack straight white (usually Christian, though that’s probably not a big concern on this board) men. When I talk about homosexual rights, I do not mean to advocate any law that would put you in jail for calling someone a faggot, or support any penalty for disliking homosexuals in general. That instinctive “ick” factor you get in your gut when you see two guys holding hands is entirely your right, and if you don’t want to get over it, then I certainly don’t think that there’s any authority (outside perhaps of a trusted liberal friend) that has any authority to tell you different. I’m also not advocating anything like affirmative action for homosexuals, or that “it should be taught in the schools” whatever that means, at least not beyond a few brief words in a sex ed class to remind kids that anal does “count”, and can still spread disease. I would further submit that this is true of nearly all advocates of homosexual’s rights, and anything to the contrary is nothing but smoke from the reactionary right-wing spin machine, or evangelical Christian fund raising events, though certainly getting deeper into that ascertain is certainly a thread in and of itself, if not several.
Now that I hope I’ve made myself clear about what I do not mean, allow me to clarify just what the hell it is that I do mean when I talk about campaigning for homosexual rights. The single largest thing I’m talking about is purging the law books of measures which specifically target homosexuals for the purpose of exclusion and limitation of freedoms granted to everyone else. Quite simple, really. I should expect that you might have a bit of apprehension as to what exactly that means, or what I would qualify as a law targeting homosexuals, so allow me to clarify. Right now, the United States is less than two years away from the days when homosexuality itself could be criminalized. Yes, that’s right, it was only 2003 when the Supreme Court heard a case and over-turned a previous ruling which allowed states to make laws which would fine and or imprison citizens for having had sexual relations with a member of the same gender. This is the kind of atmosphere we are still dealing with in this country today. I realize that if all one does is watch television, or movies, and sees the media, and society’s apparent greatly increased acceptance of homosexuals in this country, then it can seem as if perhaps homosexuals don’t need a civil rights movement, that they’re already there, and any protests marches, or organizing is just a bunch of whining silliness. However, like so many things you see on TV, this is simply not true. All over the country homosexuals are still denied some fairly simple rights based purely on the fact that they love members of the same gender, and on no other grounds. In Florida for instance, same-sex couples are banned from adopting children; the armed forces of the United States can and do dishonorably discharge hundreds of highly trained personnel under their “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in which if ranking military officials are made aware, by any means, that one of their rank is a homosexual, they are obligated to then get rid of that person. It is these sorts of institutional and governmental acts of discrimination based entirely on who a person likes to date which I feel need to be changed, and I do not mean to imply that anything else beyond these are fair game.
Now, onto the greater issue at hand, same sex marriage. This falls easily into the category of “laws which must go”. One must accept that in the United States, if same-sex marriage is not specifically prohibited by law, then it is, by default, legal. You can see this principal at work in Massachusetts right now, and it is similarly evident in the flurry of state constitutional amendments to prohibit same sex marriages (which were already illegal in most every state to begin with, as well as on the federal level since 1996). The reason for all of these state constitutional amendments (and for the proposed federal constitutional amendment) in order to ban something which is already illegal is because, in general, these laws are extremely vulnerable, as they are blatantly an abuse of legislative power. As homosexuals have gained more visibility in our society, these prohibitions against allowing them to partake in the same legal rights as any other citizen begin to seem rather blatantly an abuse of majority rule to legislate against the rights of a minority, rather like reconstructionist era gym-crow laws in the south – something which is trumped by many state and certainly the federal Constitution. As such, these constitutional amendments are really the next logical step for anyone with any grudge against homosexuals. How does one protect one’s imaginary interests from the highest law in the land? Change it!
You may notice that I qualify traditionalist interests in same-sex marriage as being imaginary, and I suppose that warrants a few more words of explanation. The fact is that the only people with any true interest – anything to gain or lose – any real stake at all in the legalization or prohibition of same-sex marriage, are the homosexuals themselves. The rest of the populace can continue living out their lives as though nothing has changed, because in every practical and metaphysical sense, nothing really has. Advocates of same-sex marriage are night fighting to make the Catholic Church recognize their unions, they are not looking to be legally entitled to perform their wedding ceremonies in your local Baptist Church, were this the case, I’d be standing right along side the traditionalists and crying that advocates of same-sex marriage are simply asking for too much. All that this battle is about is for homosexual couples to be able to go to a government clerk, and obtain a legal marriage license. This is not a battle about religious beliefs or social acceptance, this is a battle over a simple bundle of legal rights, and considerations, which our nation as deemed appropriate to a committed long-term pair-bond between two consenting adults.
It is true that the law currently describes this bond as only between one man and one woman, but this is a relatively recent development in this country. Not so long ago it used to be a bond between one man and one woman of the same race, and before that between one white man and one white woman who was his property. The fact is that the differentiation between a legal marriage between a man and a woman, and a legal marriage between two persons of the same gender is practically meaningless, and does a fair bit of harm to same-sex couples who are living in such a relationship regardless of what legal considerations are afforded to them by the government.
Another thing which few people seem to recognize is that from a religious, social, and anthropological perspective, same-sex marriage is already a reality. Same-sex couples are living together in relationships which are precisely the same as an opposite-sex marriage, save for the rather meaningless destination of the gender of one of the participants. Like heterosexual couples, married same-sex couples share property, pay taxes, make money, receive health-care, receive social security when disabled or aged, own land and property which they may wish to leave to their spouse (a thing which legal case history shows that wills can not be counted on for), even raise children and yes, now and again, get a divorce (though at shockingly lower rates than heterosexual couples). Homosexual couples already exist, and all of the things which I mentioned as well as hundreds more aspects of married life are effected by being able to get that piece of paper, a marriage license, which tells society and the government that two people are legally wed.
Furthermore, the destination of a marriage as being only between one man and one woman simply has no logical secular basis. It’s a phrase that has come into parlance only recently as the battle for same-sex marriage has begun to come into the forefront of national debate and politics in the United States, and was crafted by the religious right, with no backing other than theological dogma. It is true that for many societies through out time one man and one woman has been fairly standard, but so have many other qualifiers which we have thrown to the wayside, a few of which I mentioned earlier. In this democratic society of ours, where equal protection under the law is one of the most powerful and fundamental founding principals, an issue over which we have fought several wars, and social battles, striving desperately to keep ourselves true to it’s promise, why should it be that one single group is singled out for special treatment, and prohibition of the same simple rights to which every other citizen is entitled? It simply doesn’t make good sense, especially when there is no harm to be done by it, and such great good to be done by leveling the playing field for those currently marked for a sort of second class citizenhood. Marriage was first and foremost a civil and economic institution, it was only later that so much religious emphasis was put on it. This is why, for instance, we can not say that Muslim peoples, or those who follow Shinto, or atheists can not marry. Today marriage is both civil and religious, but our government should not be concerned with the religious aspect of it, that’s simply not a secular governing body’s territory. However, the previsions and legal considerations which it has set for the civil institution of marriage are entirely our secular government’s territory, and being that it is an institution which is supposed to work for all of the people, not just the majority, and that equal protection under the law was set into our constitution as a measure to help protect the rights of a minority against the potential unreasonable tyranny of the majority, I can see absolutely no reason why same-sex marriage should be prohibited in the United States of America. The enraged cries of a religiously inspired body of the populace whom have absolutely nothing to gain or loose in the decision of this matter seems to me to be a rather weak reason to betray one of the more noble ideals which America is supposed to stand for.
That, briefly, is my argument for same-sex marriage, though admittedly it’s no where near comprehensive on the issue (I firmly believe that such an argument can only be made with lengthy debate, as I have found that many people bring concerns and points to the table that seem to come entirely out of the blue, and are not easily anticipated in this otherwise rather clear-cut issue). I recognize, however, that there are a few major points which are regular part of the larger national social discourse which my statements thus far do not address, so I shall try to briefly pay a few of them lip-service at the least.
Firstly, being that the issue of same-sex marriage is (or at least rightly should be, and is on the side of advocates) a purely legal matter, many have suggested the sort of work-around legal compromise of creating an institution of “civil-unions” to grand same-sex couples the same benefits of marriage. I must admit that when this possibility first came up I was quite preferential toward it, however after thinking about the prospect a bit more, I realized that it is essentially a compromise which offers nothing more than token offerings and leaves the core problem of a lack of adherence to equal protection entirely undressed. Simply put, a “civil-union” is a non-entity, and even at it’s best can not offer all the same protections and legal considerations as a marriage license. It is far form “marriage under a different name” as some sources of political commentary have put it. Among the differences between the two is that marriage is a federally defined and protected institution with certain bare minimum guarantees and recognition; civil-unions on the other hand have no history (save in the state of Vermont), there is no federal outline of what constitutes a civil-union, no real solid precedent for what they’re even supposed to look like, and absolutely no requirement that the protections of one would carry over across state lines (some would think that the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause would handle this, but as the DoMA of 1996 shows there’s no real feeling of obligation to adhere to that part of the constitution when it comes to the issue of marriage). Also, I would submit that even if a hypothetical equivalent of marriage would be drafted, enacted into law, and named “civil-union” as many people seem to take for granted is exactly what people mean when they talk about civil-unions, it still could not offer the same protections as would a standard marriage license. Take, for instance a case in which an employer provides health-care coverage to an employee and an employee’s spouse, having two separate institutions, one with one group of people, and another institution designed specifically for another sort of people which society looks down upon, and you’d have to ask yourself if that same benefit would be extended to an employee’s “civil partner”. I realize many of you on this board have libertarian leanings, and may well feel that it’s the right of a business owner to discriminate against their employees in that manner, and I’ll have to concede that point to you, as it’s a topic which would disserve another thread still, but despite this fact I would still have to say that I see no reason why America should return to the standard of enacting “Separate But Equal” institutions for some social class we don’t particularly like. We already have an institution which grants all the protections of marriage, we call it marriage, now why can’t we extend it’s legal protections to persons living in a lifestyle for which the institution was created, but happen to be of the same gender?
Another issue that I’d like to touch on briefly is why homosexual activists are now rising up for this particular battle after so many hundreds of years of having seemed to be sufficiently “in their place”, or at least unconcerned with this particular battle. The answer to that one is simple: homosexuals have simply never had a more opportune time than now. Any fight for inclusion of themselves in a legally protected institution would have fallen rather flat while it was still acceptable to tire them and chemically castrate, fine or imprison them simply for being homosexuals, luckily the dark-ages of the early 00’s have lifted, we’re now in the mid 00’s and those days are nearly two whole years behind us (look up the Supreme Court Ruling on Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, if you’re uncertain of what I’m talking about).
Finally, a few words an the issue of government having anything at all to do with marriage in the first place. I’ve seen here that a few of you are sympathetic to the idea of government getting out of the business of issuing marriage licenses in the first place, and certainly the virtues and drawbacks of such an idea are another topic of debate all together, and worthy of yet another thread all together, I would ask of you to look at this argument from the perspective that, so long as our government is in the business of licensing marriage, shouldn’t same-sex couples also be included (at least until the whole legal institution is done away with anyhow). I know that expanding protections aren’t something that you’re likely to be too keen on, but for the sake furthering the agenda of promoting a more egalitarian society, I do hope that you’ll be honest enough with yourself to admit that it’s really the only sensible choice to be made.
In summation, a secular democracy with protection of minority’s rights at the hands of a petty and punitive majority as one of it’s founding principals simply has no logical reason for saying certain persons engaged in a certain form of relationship are eligible for special legal consideration, however another group of citizens are not eligible for those same protections.
Oh, and one last closing note, Aaron, if you don’t believe in a God, and feel that empiric evidence gathered via the scientific method is the only proper way to come to a conclusion which would lead you to lend your provisional agreement (on the grounds that no contradicting data is reproducible and as such a theory stands) to any idea, and this fact leads you to withhold provisional agreement to the idea of there being any supernatural creating deity, then that makes you an atheist. Those of us with dictionaries, such as it would seem mountain_hare does, can see that quite easily enough. So do have the courtesy to quit running around in semantic circles with him, and start doing some straight talking. Thank you.
Oh, and I feel the need to amend one more preemptive blow to the end of this post. This one goes especially to Aaron, being that he seems to proudly label himself as a homophobe, but I suppose it also applies to anyone else that might be of a similar mind about the matter of homosexuals “shoving it in our face”. Ok, you don’t like queers, we get it, and yes, they are loud, and they do protest and hold rallies and organize political campaigns. Rather unfortunate when seeing a man hold another man’s hand in public makes you feel sick, I can understand that, but please try to be mature and level headed about these issues, and not simply behave as if every time some homosexual stands up to say that they don’t particularly enjoy being legislated against that it’s somehow an attack on you. You like to throw around terms like “the victim class” but you wind up behaving as if you yourself are somehow being victimized by someone else’s civil rights struggle. Also, be honest with yourself, if you oppose gay marriage just because you don’t like seeing gay activists on TV, then admit to yourself that your opinions are based on nothing more than an indignant self-righteous feeling of victimhood and desire for petty punitive action against those whom you perceive to be victimizing you. No more of this silly “Proud to be a disaffected white male” silliness that everyone can see right through, and is secretly giggling at you for.
Now that’s all, I swear!
