the gay marriage conundrum
by Brady Burr
Published: April 14, 2008
What do you picture when you hear the word marriage? Most people think of white dresses, tuxedos, people crying and most importantly - cake. Marriage is more than that. It is a time-honored cultural tradition where two people promise to be faithful to each other and share their lives. The big question that has arisen over the years is which people are we talking about?
Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions, while California and Oregon offer benefits to same-sex couples that resemble civil unions. Forty states define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Even in states that allow civil unions, gay couples are feeling the sting of stigma. When filling out forms, they must often explain they are in a civil union, not married. Many feel embarrassed and outraged at having to do so. Additionally, most insurance companies don’t offer the same life insurance packages to gay couples, and gays cannot file jointly for federal income tax returns. These disadvantages are just a few of many.
When it really comes down to it, I don’t think that gay couples are really worried about insurance benefits are tax incentives. The gay community is looking for approval. They do not want to feel like their relationships are any less valid than heterosexual relationships. It’s not my objective here to convince anyone about the right or wrong of the matter. I think that is a task better left to personal introspection. I want to make the argument that legally, it is permissible to restrict usage of the term “marriage” to a man and a woman.
Gays claim that disallowing gay marriage denies “equal protection of the law” as guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. There is a fundamental misunderstanding embedded in this argument. Just because a right is guaranteed doesn’t mean someone can use that right any way he/she chooses. We have the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean we can do it by text message or when we’re minors.
The same principle applies with marriage. Polygamy and incest are against the law. Hypothetically, it is possible for a woman to love a man and freely choose to marry him even though he has other wives. Likewise, it is also possible that a brother may fall in love with his sister, or even a father with his daughter. Society does not choose to recognize these types of relationships because, to put it bluntly, we think it’s wrong and gross. Society has always placed limits on rights and the way they are exercised. Just because I have freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have the right to yell “Fire!” in a theater.
If gays want to argue that they have a Constitutional right to marriage, then they must accept that polygamist and incestual couples also have that right. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court noted that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” Of course our society is evolving. Slavery and racial segregation are no longer legal when they once pervaded nearly all aspects of public life. Extending marriage to same-sex couples clearly has not reached that point with many states defining marriage in their state constitutions. Our legal system is set up to keep the majority from oppressing the minority, but there have always been certain matters left to the people. Marriage has always been this way. You don’t go to federal court to get married; it must be recognized by the state. This is a matter best left to the people.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I just love how he basically admits that society has evolved to the point of getting ride of segregation, but that society hasn’t evolved enough to allow gay marriage. As if some day we will evolve that far, but for the time being we’re supposed to just let the knuckle draggers have their way because they are the majority, even though they’re wrong.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
You clearly missed the point I was trying to make. If society were realizing the error of its ways, you would see a different trend than most states defining marriage as between a man and a woman in their constitutions.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:11 am
But given your examples of incest and polygamy, it seems like you *don’t* feel like society is erring.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“I want to make the argument that legally, it is permissible to restrict usage of the term “marriage” to a man and a woman.”
Just because something falls within the perview of the law, is that in itself a justification?
Why don’t you actually take up the point of whether or not it’s a GOOD law.
It seems you have sympathy for gays wanting baseline acceptance…but then you go on to say that it’s OK for the nation to not call what they want marriage, therefore rejecting social acceptance. You’re confusing.
And while we’re at it, let’s just leave segregation to the people…along with legalization of currently illegal drugs, campaign finance reform, and what sources of energy to use as a nation (or as a state).
Oh wait, most people don’t care or are too dumb to handle those things. The same is true with gay marriage. The oppression of groups has been a social trend forever. This is just another example.
I appreciate what you tried to do in this post, but I’m not sure it’s a valid argument.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I disagree. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
April 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“If society were realizing the error of its ways, you would see a different trend than most states defining marriage as between a man and a woman in their constitutions.” - Brady Burr
So what you’re saying is that society hasn’t realized the error of it’s ways yet, and that’s why they are still banning gay marriage. You are essentially admitting that banning gay marriage is wrong, but saying we should be allowed to do it anyway. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I agree that this article seems self-contradicting for the above stated reasons. For a more coherent perspective on the issue see:
http://www.therebuttal.com/2008/02/27/america-married/
April 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify a poorly worded argument. I am saying that in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court stated in dicta (not a binding part of the decision) that people can change laws when they feel they were misguided in the past. That was the case with slavery and segregation, hence the 13th and 14th amendments and the civil rights act. That is not the case here. We see an opposite trend. When I said “if society were realizing the error of its ways” I meant that most people do not believe society is in error. If you want my personal opinion, I do not think society is wrong. Thus, the current trend is factually distinguishable from the trend associated with the civil rights movement. Unless marriage is guaranteed, in any form people want, under the constitution, then the issue is reserved to the states. It’s in the 10th amendment to the constitution, check it out it’s good reading
April 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Marriege, as it has been since the dawn of time, means a certain thing. Man and Woman joined together. If society falls to a point that it no longer recognizes that, then we might as well just through out the entire constitution and bill of rights, and every law that has ever been written. Civility itself is at stake with the maintaining defintions. We try to hide the real context of the problem by renaming everything and attaching it to political correctness. Bottom line is if society fails to recognize a real family unit for what it is, Man and Woman with maybe children, then society itself will cease to exist. Beacuse one thing after another no longer means anything. Murder would be replaced with words like life infringement. With no historical context or moral definitions we have nothing but anarchy. There is no oppression here folks, these people can be gay all they want and live however they like. But there must be solid fundamental anchors of truth for a society to exist, and one of those is a Marriege is between Man and Wife. End of story.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Marriage….I know, I have been watching too much CNN
April 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
So your saying that it’s ok for them to be gay, but as soon as we change the definition it self it will destroy all life on this planet as we know it. That’s really funny.
This isn’t like changing the definition of murder to life infringment, it’s like having the definition of murder only apply to straight victoms, calling it homo-slaughter if it’s done to gays, and having a different penalty structure for people who commit first degree homocide.
If religious people don’t want to acknowledge a marriage between two guys, they don’t have to. No big deal. But as far as the United States Government is concerned you can’t hand out certain priveledges to some people and not to others based souly on sexual orientation.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Now I am not expert on the law, but I do think there have been a few good points made in these threads. Let’s just say I am quite familiar with research on family (all types) and couple (all types) relationships. The truth is, we do not know much about how homosexual relationship interactions affect both partners and potentially children of the couples. That unknown factor is scary. Recent findings highlight the often unstable, and non-monogamous nature of these relationships. Additionally, recent data are showing elevated levels of domestic violence in homosexual relationships, even greater than that of heterosexual relationships. Granted, heterosexual relationships do not fare all that well in the grand scheme of things with about 35-40% of first marriages ending in divorce. But the truth of the matter is we know more about the effects of heterosexual relationships on relational partners and children, thus, something can be done about it; that is, we know more about marriage between a man and a woman. We have been studying marriage for years. Thus, redefining marriage and family units holds more of an impact than simply the names themselves; this could mean a complete restructuring of the way that we study and help marriages and families. This would also limit our effectiveness to understand how homosexual and heterosexual relationships interact and how those interactions potentially affect partners and children. And, with recent findings on homosexual relationships raising cause for concern, I do not believe that this is a beneficial enterprise. Certainly, homosexual relationships are gaining identity, and if we study homosexual relationship, we study these relationships according to their identity. Yet, I agree with the former comment made by Perry, that if society fails to recognize a family unit for what it is, Man and Woman with maybe children, then society itself is under peril. The terminology looses important meaning, meaning that has been rightfully given to these terms. All of the work, research, effort, and money put into studying and helping relationships and families suddenly looses structure. For me, protecting relationship and marital partners and the well-being of children in families in the best way possible certainly would classify as “GOOD law.”
April 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Ok so powertothepeople’s argument is that we can’t give gays the right to marry, because it will mess up a study? Are you serious?!
This boils down to one pure and simple fact. Giving two dudes a peace of paper that says they’re married, and giving them the same tax breaks, the same social security benifits as we gave to Britney Spears and Kevin Federline does absolutely now harm what so ever to anyone ever!!!
Not you, nor any other person in America, other then the two dudes getting married, will ever in anyway be injured, or have you’re freedom tarnished by it at all. This is simply and issue of you think it looks weird you don’t understand it, so you want to ban it.
You people are making the exact same stupid incoherent arguments that were made generations ago when people tried to ban things like interacial marriage, giving woman the right to vote, giving blacks the right to vote…
We look back on that time in history and we say “Wow! I can’t believe people were narrow minded enough to think that made sense.” 25-50 years from now your kids, and your grand kids will look back on you people and say the exact same thing.
I’m not gay, and in fact I think that being gay is a choice that you make. A choice I can’t possibly fathom why anyone would ever want to make. It seems like the dumbest thing in the world to me. But that fact of the matter is if two concenting adults think they love each other enough to spend the rest of their lives together, it hurts nobody else but them.
This is the whole point of living in a free country. If you’re not hurting anyone, you should have the ability to live your life how you want to, and not have some idiot in a big hat and a white robe tell you it’s wrong. People like you need to go back to the dark ages were you belong, you don’t deserve the priveledge of living in America.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Okay, so here is where it gets frustrating. Simply sharing an opinion becomes cause for attack. An open venue for sharing differing opinions is one of the many beautiful pieces of America. But, alas, it can be hard to get past one’s own perspective to truly see that of someone else. I admit that can be hard for me.
Obviously, ischuldt missed the main point of what I was trying to say. But, I do not have the time to explain, for my argument, in its true form, may not be fully understood by someone else–especially someone with a perspective quite different than my own. This is fine, as this is a foundational component of American society. We should be able to share opinions peaceably with one another. Yet, for some reason, through sharing my opinion, because it may be different than that of someone else, I do not deserve to live in America? The list of “Characteristics one Must Ascertain to Live in America” that this idea came from is in need or serious revision.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
What’s frustrating is that people on the Right waive their flags all day and talk about loving freedom, but they fundementally don’t understand what it is. They seem to believe that freedom means you have the freedom to do what they think makes sense. In a free country you need a reason to take away freedom not a reason to hand it out. You don’t have a reason. None of you do.
You simply don’t like it, you don’t understand it, and you think it’s wrong. You can’t tell me why you think it’s wrong without referencing a magical being in the sky, but you still seem to think you have the right to ban it.
If not liking something, not understanding something, or believeing something to be wrong were reasons for banning things, I would have lead a charge against country music a long time ago.
If you want to prevent someone from getting a drivers license you have to show that they are a danger behind the wheel. If you want to prevent someone from getting a gun license you have to show they might hurt someone with it. And if you want to prevent two people from getting married you have to give reasons why it might hurt you.
The problem is you can’t give a reason, because there are none.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“to get past one’s own perspective to truly see that of someone else”
That is gold right there. Stepping outside of oneself to understand “why” someone believes what they do is beyond remarkable - it puts you in a place that you could even defend them, based on their vantage point. The friction that exists between viewpoints is pretty much a result of not understanding each other, and/or not taking the time and humility to.
OR the friction is a result of flat out not being tolerant - and that’s just rude.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Exactly.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
But this is my point, you aren’t doing this. I was raised christian. I was taught being Gay was wrong. I still believe it’s weird, I don’t know why anyone would want to do it, and I believe that it is a concious choice that people make.
I was raised to have the perspective you have. The difference is I grew up, opened my eyes and tried to see things from the perspective of someonen other than myself, and I realized that if you want to be gay, if you really think you want to marry another dude, then there is absolutely no reason why I should try and stop you.
This is the whole point of freedom. Not everyone can agree on everything. We all think certain things are weird and or wrong. There are always going to be things we don’t understand. When you live in a free country, and you encounter these types of issues, the default position you should have as an American is give people freedom, give people liberty, let them live their life how they want, and unless I can provide real evidence to show that how they are living their life hurts me, let them live it.