The ever-heated discussion of same-sex marriage just keeps coming up. Here in Colorado, voters put down two separate bills, one seeking to define marriage more loosely than solely between a male and a female, and the other asking for civil unions for same-sex couples. I just want to illustrate the difference between these two.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That definition is fine with me, and I think it's the only really logical and moral way to look at it, when one considers the primary purpose of marriage: procreation. Gay couples cannot of themselves produce offspring, obviously; therefore the marriage is invalid from the outset. This, however, is strictly a religious (and/or spiritual) concept entirely; in and of itself it has nothing to do with the state.
There is, however, the fact that marriage is a social contract. Details like insurance, medical proxies, etc., deal specifically with the state, but are priviliges granted to married couples. In other words, privileges granted solely to male-female couples. However, these privileges are based on basic human rights, and that's where civil unions come in.
Every human being has the right to life; that's stated right away in the Declaration of Independence (the foundation for this country's law, as if i need remind you). And so in that sense, the privileges like insurance and medical proxies, etc. stated above, as corollaries of that right, ought logically to apply to all human beings, including same-sex couples.
In a civil union, one gets all the privileges (based on human rights) of marriage without actually being married. This makes it fair for everyone and provides everyone with the ability to have the same legal rights, without affecting religion. In other words, no one is forcing churches to approve of, or even accept, same-sex marriage. All it is asking is that the state recognize that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
good, I agree. I seriously doubt the Church will ever "decide to make it legal" as marriage, but this Civil Unions thing is a better option.
Hi Julia,
I would like to take a moment and respond to a few of the things that you said.
> the primary purpose of marriage: procreation
This is a red herring when it comes to the legal institution of marriage (at least in the United States). The simple fact is that there is not a single jurisdiction in this country that requires that applicants for a marriage license be fertile as a requirement, nor even that the state their intention to have a child. In fact, the institution of marriage in this country is REGULARLY applied without restiction to couples who are medically incapable of having children, as well as to those who intentionally structure their marriages so as not to reproduce. As such, I don't think that you can rationally argue that a requirement that is no in ANY way applied to heterosexual couples suddenly becomes valid when a gay couple decides to exercise their fundamental rights.
> In a civil union, one gets all the privileges (based on
> human rights) of marriage without actually being married.
This is factually incorrect in the context of civil unions as they exist in this country. In those states that DO permit civil unions (not just for same-sex couples), those arrangements have been consistently held to carry less weight than marriages in a legal sense. But let us suppose for a moment that we COULD somehow navigate through the complex maze of the Law to arrive at a destination which provided for a civil union that was in fact equal in every legal sense to a marriage.
What you are suggesting is that we adopt a system which is "separate but equal." Does that phrase ring any bells for you? If not, perhaps you should review the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Eduction. An established principle in our Laws is the fact that there really isn't any way to achieve a "separate but equal" arrangement, since the very act of separation represents an invidious act of government, and the imposed categorization of citizens in this matter INHERENTLY regulates the targetted class to an inferior status. As such, institutions which are desiged to be "separate but equal" are unconstitutional. If all citizens are to be afforded the "EQUAL protection of the laws" which the Fourteenth Amendment REQUIRES, then it is not permissible to implement a system wherein SOME citizens are allowed to access the institution of marriage, and others are not.
> This makes it fair for everyone and provides everyone
> with the ability to have the same legal rights, without
> affecting religion.
First of all, it is erroneous to refer to the concept of "marriage" as a strictly religous term. The institution of marriage as we know it in this country today was originally a secular arrangement that originated in the common law of England, and was in practice for more than a century before christianity even became a part of the common law after the conversion of the first king of the Heptarchy in 598. Nor in fact did the institution of marriage in a broader historical sense originate as a religious expression. Even in christian lands, marriage did not become a sacrament of the church until somewhere between the tenth and thirteenth centuries.
Secondly, even if we were to accept your premise on face value, you have just suggested (quite literally) that we enact a religious establishment in our laws. The First Amendment states quite clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", and I can't think of a more obvious violation of the relgious freedoms of our citizens than to tell them that ONLY the marriages of ONE particular sub-set of religious sects should be given preference over all others. For you see, even the argument that gay people should be prevented to marry on religious grounds fails when you consider that not even all christian denominations prohibit same-sex marriages, and in fact there are (only a few, granted) majory christian denominations that perform and recognize our marriages.
The Episcopal Church in this country (i.e. the ECUSA) is an example of a major religoius denomination in this country that performs same-sex marriage. And though not technically "christian," the Universalist Unitarians likewise perform same-sex unions with the full acceptance of their denominational beliefs. There are dozens of smaller denominations as well, but it would only take ONE to render your objection moot. Thus, whether your rejection is religious or not, it is utterly untenable to suggest that we should prevent same-sex couples from accessing institution of marriage simply because SOME (not all) religious sects have a problem with it. In fact, the refusal of many states to accept the marriages of these other, more tolerant sects is ITSELF an unconstitutional establishment.
> In other words, no one is forcing churches to approve
> of, or even accept, same-sex marriage.
No one (with any credibility, at least) is suggesting that churches be "forced to approve of" same-sex unions. I am sure that there are a lot of christians who don't "appprove" of the marriages of buddhists, or muslims, or jehova's witnesses, but they are still permitted to marry in this country. Heck, even ATHEISTS can get married in this country, with no church involvement at all, and it is still legally considered a marriage. I really don't see how it is rational to object to someone's marriage (either as a legal contract or even as a religious union blessed by their own sect) just because they don't ascribe to the beliefs of YOUR religious sect. The only level of acceptance that is required of you and your religion in regards to the marriage of same-sex marriage is the EXACT level of acceptance that everyone else is required to afford to YOU and YOUR marriage in return.
Of course, this is not the first time that we have heard this kind of argument. It was not so very long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in United States, and these same arguments were common-place in THAT discussion as well.
The following is a quote from the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that struck down the laws making interracial marriages illegal. The passage is taken from the written opinion of the trial judge who sentenced the loving to jail for the "crime" of a white man marrying a black woman...
> "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow,
> malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
> And but for the interference with his arrangement there
> would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
> separated the races shows that he did not intend for the
> races to mix."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=...
It never ceases to amaze me how often people are want to recycle a bad argument. I suppose this is what George Santayana meant when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The bottom line is this. No religiously based argument is sufficent to overcome the constitutional protections of the First and Fourteenth Amenedments. And in my humble opinion, positions which oppose same-sex marriage from any non-religious source that can be defended in any rational, objective fashion.
Have a nice day,
percivale
"This is a red herring when it comes to the legal institution of marriage (at least in the United States). The simple fact is that there is not a single jurisdiction in this country that requires that applicants for a marriage license be fertile as a requirement"
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Under & over inclusivness has never been determanative of Constitutional Rights.
Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.
They are fully capable of producing children, just like other men or women. A lesbian with two ovaries, a uterus, and a cervix is under most conditions perfectly capable of having a child. Just as the woman who just plain hates men and goes to the sperm bank to have a child is capable of having a child. Being gay does not eliminate fertility.
Of course, in order to have children together, male couples have to find a surrogate mother at this point (who knows... 50 years from now, we might not even need the uterus anymore;), and lesbian couples either have to use a sperm donor, or do in vitro fertilization. Though two men having a flesh and blood baby is more complicated than two women having a flesh and blood baby, because the woman contributes the most to it. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.
And, again, there are plenty of children whose biological parents don't want them for one reason or another, and these couples are a great resource for them, should society deem them 'acceptable' parents.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
strange... I use words with precision. Then you come in and both try and obfuscate while at the same time re-affirming the point you originally contradict (?????)
(I write)
Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.
(Then you write)
They are fully capable of producing children, just like other men or women. ,
But of coarse they are not. My original statement stands un-refuted. This is a matter of elemental biology.
(you then go on to write)
Of course, in order to have children together, male couples have to find a surrogate mother at this point and lesbian couples either have to use a sperm donor, or do in vitro fertilization.
In either case the couple having the child is not the same-sex couple but rather a male + female couple.
Obfuscation, sophistry, semantic games, elision, and such does not help clarify but rather confuse. But I suppose that’s the point is it not?
There are four basic flaws in this argument. The first (and in my opinoin, the most obvious) is the dual fact that married couples are not required to procreate contingently to their right to marry, nor are other similarly situated couples who are also incapable of reproduction together similarly denied access to the instituiton. If infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, then this argument fails to satisfy its own premise, adn thus fails.
The second flaw is the assumption that familial rights in this country are in some way contingent on a biological connection between parents and their children. The laws already afford legal equality to parents and children who find themselves related through non-procreative avenues. Adoption, in vitro and similar parent-child relationship are referred to in the law as de facto families, and to suggest that gay parents and their children who have relationships that are similarly based should not be afforded the same protections as other families likewise damages the integrity of your argument. If the goal is to provide stability to the relationship to parents and their children, then the logical argument would be to allow all similarly situated families to do so, rather than invidiously denying those protections to the families and children of same-sex couples.
The third flaw is that your argument relies on a fundamental untruth, which is that gay people cannot produce biological children. Similar to the de facto recognition I mention above, second parent relationships are already recognized in the law, and children and families that find themselves related through second marriages, civil partnerships and similar relationships are already afforded the same sorts of protections in the law. Again, if the goal is to provide stability to the relationship to parents and their children, then the logical argument would be to allow these marriages rather than to deny them.
The fourth flaw is that your argument relies on a line of reasoning which the Constitution (as interpreted by the Courts) rejects. The landmark precedent of Perez v. Sharp (1948) notes that...
In determining whether the public interest requires the prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state. Thus, disease that might become a peril to the prospective spouse or to the offspring of the marriage could be made a disqualification for marriage... Such legislation, however, must be based on tests of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or races, and must be administered without discrimination on the grounds of race.
To attempt to argue that "men and women are members of a class that can produce children" is to engage in exactly the kind of impermissible argument that the Court has consitently rejected. Such a restriction is arbitrary, and serves no rational purpose. The citizens seeking marriage in this case have already qualified as candidates for marriage as individuals. To then step in and restrict their feedom to marry from any other qualified individual is a clear abrogation of this principle.
To begin with, it is disigenuous for you to cite a case that has not be settled as an authority. In fact, this case is currently before California's State Supreme Court, and that Court has not as of yet issued its decision regarding the lack of validity in these arguments. Also, there is a major flaw in the comparative argument being presented. Since gay people can if fact have children and form de facto families that the law would recognize without question absent the invidious categorization that is at play, it seems inconsistent to assert that these families do not exist as such, simply because a statute-driven definition does not currently include them. Invidious classifications are not permissible in the Law, and the real arugument here is whether or not the statutes that define marriage in California as "one man and one woman" are invidiously framed. I contend that they are. Whether or not the Court will agree reamains to be seen.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Multnomah County, Oregon, offer little or no benefit to the couple.
TIM marriage problems
Not true. Civil Unions offer their members much fewer rights than the partners in a marriage had. If the only difference between the marriage and civil union was a name, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
~Violinstef