I don't know how, but that's what opponents of same sex marriage tell me. "Allowing homosexual couples to marry will destroy the institution of marriage," they say. That's a real shame. I enjoy my marriage, and love my wife very much. It's disconcerting to know that someone else can destroy my marriage just by getting married themselves.I've heard this often enough that I finally asked (on an online forum) how my marriage was in danger. The answers came as sound bites: "If anyone can get married, then the sanctity of marriage is destroyed." "First same-sex marriage, then polygamy, then animal lovers marrying their pets." "Marriage is a right given by God to a man and woman." "The United States government (and the governments of the states) want to promote the traditional husband-wife family unit as the cornerstone of society." "Same-sex marriage is not a conducive child-bearing union."
These are all powerful answers… as long as you don't ask follow-up questions. None of them really told me how my marriage would be ruined by someone else's ability to marry. After a few forum pages of pushing through the sound bites, one of the posters finally answered directly: "We don't mean that it will destroy YOUR marriage or MY marriage. But it may make other people suddenly think that their marriage is less significant if all of a sudden a gay couple can marry." When I asked the follow-up of "How?" they didn't (or couldn't?) respond.
I thought after my experience on that forum that I'd outline the holes I saw in the arguments they gave me.
Same-sex coupling is not a conducive [biological] child bearing family.
If marriages were excluded based in part on this qualification, then couples who do not have children (whether by choice or – as argued against same-sex couples – because of biological limits) would not be allowed to marry. If a couple says they will conceive, but then decide against it later, would they be subject to a mandated marriage annulment?
The government wants to promote the traditional, husband/wife family unit as the cornerstone of society.
Promoting and "making illegal" are two entirely different tactics. Our government promotes higher education, but they do not deny people the right to obtain jobs if they don't get a post-secondary level education. If promoting the "traditional" nuclear family became an eligibility requirement for marriage, then what happens to families that consist of single parents, divorced parents, or even dual-income households (Mrs. Cleaver didn't leave Wally and the Beave at home to go work in an office or plant somewhere, after all).
Marriage is a Right granted by God to a man and woman.
Assuming the government can agree on which God or Gods gave us this right, you still have that pesky Lemon Test that would make any such decree immediately unconstitutional. The Lemon Test was established in the Supreme Court's ruling of Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971), wherein three requirements were set forth in legislation concerning religion:
- The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view;
- The government's actions must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
This would also mean that any civil marriages not presided over by a member of the clergy would not be recognized by the government, including those performed by justices of the peace.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right
According to the General Accounting Office of the Federal government, there are (as of 1997, before the Defense of Marriage Act) "1,049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor".
Some examples include:
Marriage is a privilege, not a right
According to the General Accounting Office of the Federal government, there are (as of 1997, before the Defense of Marriage Act) "1,049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor".
Some examples include:
- Access to Military Stores
- Assumption of Spouse's Pension
- Bereavement Leave
- Immigration
- Insurance breaks
- Medical decisions on behalf of spouse
- Sick leave to care for spouse
- Social Security Survivor benefits
- Income Tax breaks
- Veteran's discounts
- Visitation of spouse in hospital or prison
Marital status is a factor in state laws as wells, including:
- Assumption of spouse's pension
- Automatic inheritance
- Automatic housing lease transfer
- Bereavement leave
- Burial determination
- Child custody
- Crime victim's recovery benefits
- Divorce protections
- Domestic violence protections
- Exemption from property tax on spouse's death
- Immunity from testifying against spouse
- Insurance breaks
- Joint adoption and foster care
- Joint bankruptcy
- Joint parenting (Insurance coverage, school records, etc)
- Medical decisions on behalf of spouse
- Certain property rights for married couples
- Reduced rate memberships for married couples
- Sick leave to care for spouse
- Visitation of spouse's children
- Visitation of spouse in hospital or prison
- Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
When relating to loved ones, many of these are not "privileges", but rights.
Really, when it come to the debate over same-sex marriage, it boils down to whether or not a couple who has made that solemn promise to each other will be afforded the same rights and legal responsibilities as heterosexual couples who have made the same commitment.
Laws like California's recent Prop 8 will not end homosexuality, nor will they prevent gay couples from making that vow to each other. What it has done instead is take away rights that were put in place to strengthen and protect those couples who chose to promise themselves to each other above all else.
The argument that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage is ironic considering that Prop 8 actually sought to invalidate 18,000 same-sex marriages in California (the text said the measure would make all same-sex marriages constitutionally illegal). After its passage, it was clarified so as to add exception to those who were already married.
Despite what I'm told by those who oppose same-sex marriage, I think my marriage is pretty safe from harm despite the thousands of marriages in California alone. We won't mention all of the marriages back east or in other nations.
Leia Mais…
Really, when it come to the debate over same-sex marriage, it boils down to whether or not a couple who has made that solemn promise to each other will be afforded the same rights and legal responsibilities as heterosexual couples who have made the same commitment.
Laws like California's recent Prop 8 will not end homosexuality, nor will they prevent gay couples from making that vow to each other. What it has done instead is take away rights that were put in place to strengthen and protect those couples who chose to promise themselves to each other above all else.
The argument that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage is ironic considering that Prop 8 actually sought to invalidate 18,000 same-sex marriages in California (the text said the measure would make all same-sex marriages constitutionally illegal). After its passage, it was clarified so as to add exception to those who were already married.
Despite what I'm told by those who oppose same-sex marriage, I think my marriage is pretty safe from harm despite the thousands of marriages in California alone. We won't mention all of the marriages back east or in other nations.
