Ok, I have a problem with both sides of the arguement for and against gay marriage. This is a very simple issue given a whole lot of bad press and it seems we are missing the core of problem.
The arguements against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:
The basis of marriage is about procreation: This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children. Should these marriages be negated? Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause? If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this? These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only arguement being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.
The basis of morality: This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one. Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals. If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State. This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.
The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage: This is my favorite arguement used and the worst of the bunch. There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd. And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does. This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation. Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.
The arguements for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them. Gay people want to be accepted for who they are. This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request. The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior. Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are. The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses. The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue. Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the arguement that this is a civil rights issue.
The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period. No more Marriage Licenses! A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things. But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguements listed above regarding morality or anything else. If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes. Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion. This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream. For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority population, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.
4 Comments
Chris,
I fully agree with you on this one (surprised?). I could definitely get behind legislation switching to the state only issuing civil unions, no problem there. I have one reservation though.
The GLBT community has a very vocal minority which wants nothing less than FULL equality. They have demonstrated in the past that they are not afraid of legal action in the pursuit of this (i.e. hate crime laws being applied in gay cases, etc…) So what happens when a certain pastor refuses to marry a gay couple and then gets sued? I would like to think that the court would throw out such a suit, but I am not so sure that would happen in every area.
Again, I have no issues with the GLBT community as a whole, its that vocal minority that worries me and I fear they will ruin it for the rest (as they already have in many instances).
Rich
Actually, the court has no capability to intervene in the case of a religious institution carrying out the beliefs rooted in that religion, shy of causing a person direct physical harm by action or inaction. There is so much law on the books to support it, there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level. All in all, first Amendment wins.
And complete acceptance is not the same as fair treatment. I recommend fair treatment, I am not expecting any law that will actually require people to change the way they think, just the way they act.
Chris, your argument that a court has no capability to intervene does not hold much water here in California. Experience shows that courts here pretty much intervene where it suits them and do not get corrected until a higher court (sometimes) steps in. In a perfect world, the First Ammendment wins, but we know there is no such thing as a perfect world.
I already said I support equalizing marriage for all. I still believe that a very vocal minority will not stop there and I don’t think you or anyone els can comvince me otherwise.
Rich
Again, hence why I said “there is very little a new sitting judge can use to over throw this without getting overturned at the appellate level.” I didn’t say a sitting Judge in the 9th Federal Circuit couldn’t make a ruling counter to the Constitution, standing law and precedent, I left it open to the consideration that just such a challenge could take place, but would ultimately be overturned.
Post a Comment