In the debate about gay marriage, several questions never get asked. by Beatnik
(libertarian)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The marriage issue in the United States is far from over. It may be a back-burner issue now that we're losing our jobs. It's currently in the same drawer as Social Security reform and flag burning. But pieces like the recent article from Dan Clore continue to show up and obfuscate the issue.
Proponents of gay marriage seem invariably drawn to the argument that there is nothing wrong with it. Evidence is collected and presented, and that's expected to be the end of it. But like so many other issues in the US, only one side of the debate seems to be getting out in the open.
I'll not get much into the counter-debate here, as that isn't the purpose of my writing today. Suffice it to say that there are sound, logical arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage. Even if there weren't, you're in many cases proposing to staunch Christians that God got it wrong. You're not going to win with that argument.
What surprises me most about this issue is the fact that both sides dance so close to the real issue at hand and never address it. The real issue is simply put: who defines a marriage?
On both sides, the answer seems to be loud and clear: THE STATE.
Those who defend "traditional" marriage rely heavily on an argument that goes like this: if homosexuals are allowed to marry, they essentially force society to lend legitimacy to their relationship. And as God-fearing churchgoers, they refuse to be part of a society which accepts homosexuality as normal.
But the real question to pose to them in response isn't "where did you ever get the idea that it's not legitimate?" The real question is "where did you get the idea that society, via the state, is what lends legitimacy to YOUR marriage?"
Why is it that amongst all the God talk, you never hear something along the lines of "well, God defines my marriage, so quite apart from this gay thing, I resent the state trying to take that job from Him"?
I can't speak much for the gay marriage apologists, except to point out that they're winning the culture war. There are church bodies which claim Christian status which will happily perform gay marriages today. Find a time machine, go back to the 1950's, and find me a church with the word "Christian" on it somewhere which will perform a gay marriage. You won't.
In half a century, homosexuality has made incredible headway in becoming accepted in society. What, then, is the purpose of pushing for laws to change? The only reason I can see to have the state weigh in on the issue is because of the benefits marriage brings a heterosexual couple. So why is the emphasis on getting the state to confer upon homosexuals the same benefits it bestows upon heterosexuals?
Surely they can see the benefit of working with, not against, the defense-of-marriage crowd on the issue.
So they're opposed to homosexuals getting a tax break. Well, why are heterosexuals so in love with taxes? How about if we spent all this energy getting rid of the taxes, making it so nobody is treated specially, and everyone therefore benefits?
And about the hospital visitation rights... has anyone ever tried to visit your best friend in the hospital with your two-year-old along with you? They treat heterosexuals the same way - they don't let us in. Just like with taxes, the system is preposterous, but we refuse to focus on that.
Both sides seem to be less interested in getting their way than they are in beating each other over the head with the state. We are, in fact, both married to the state. And we are both repeatedly abused by our spouse, and like clockwork, we fall into the pattern of excusing our spouse's behavior, relying on it for our needs, and refusing to believe that we can live without it.
Both sides need to stop the silly arguments for and against gay marriage, and refocus their efforts on a divorce.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Beatnik only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Beatnik is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
While I agree that addressing taxes and other such things would be a great idea for everyone, certainly that doesn't solve the problem of equal rights for all. Regardless of how much one would like God to be in charge of marriage, the simple fact is, religion is NOT a required part of marriage in the United States and never has been. You can have all the religious ceremonies you want but without state permission i.e. a license, it just isn't legal. Certainly visitation rights in health care are an important part of this legal recognition but comparing being able to visit your dying partner of 30 years is hardly the same same as visiting a sick friend with a two year old in tow. I'm sure much of what Beaknik writes is done tongue in cheek, but the fact remains that same sex marriage is important to many and should be the law of the land.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-09 10:43:20
Hi Beatnick,
Â
I liked your analysis of the arguments. I think you are correct that most folks think that the government defines marriage. If the California Supreme Court was right in citing marriage as a constitutional liberty, then marriage can’t be defined by the state. Like the right to self defense or the right to free speech, no constitutional liberty exists because of government. Instead, government exists, solely, to protect such liberties.
Â
Because the anti-marriage, equal civil unions for all crowd, seems to largely believe that only the government can make a marriage available, they insist those that vote not to call civil unions marriage are refusing to let them “get married.” This would be funny in a way, but the effect on our government is actually very serious. The court of California, for instance, where I live, has recently defined marriage out of existence in California. People in California are no longer recognized as “husband” and “wife” on their marriage licenses. Instead, they are “Party A” and “Party B.” I thought only my wife says that our marriage isn’t about sex. Now the state of California is on her side. It’s hopeless…
 Anyhow, precisely because governments do not make a marriage, as an inviolable constitutional liberty they may not “mess” with that word or change it in its essential statutory or historic nature. Marriage gets its special dignity from what it is, not from the state. Having the government make stuff up doesn’t really confer that dignity on same sex couples, but it makes our government a laughing stock… and worse, a system of oppression bringing monetary pressure and the threat of physical force in order to force people to lie
"Suffice it to say that there are sound, logical arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage."
 Does this mean, "there are sound arguments for marriage (generally)" or "there are sound arguments for one man-one woman (hetero-only) marriage" or ... what, exactly? It is not clear ...
"You can have all the religious ceremonies you want but without state permission i.e. a license, it just isn't legal."
MickeyC, you completely missed the point.
Appealing to the state to define a marriage in the first place is wrong.
Go back and re-read that last sentence a couple times, then re-read the article.
I am not being tongue-in-cheek. The example of a 30 year partner vs. me visiting my sick friend is only a matter of the emotions involved. The entire policy is bogus, regardless of which one of us cries more bitter tears in the end.
I agree that it's not fair that I am rewarded by the state for being in a heterosexual marriage. The answer is not to reward homosexuals for being married as well - it's to stop rewarding heterosexuals for being married.Â
What sense is there in recognizing that homosexuals were persecuted by government for hundreds of years, and then turning to government for the solution to this problem? Do you not realize that as long as we allow majority rule to dictate the law, someone is always going to be persecuted? Or are we only worried about gays?
Personally, I will not recognize gay couples as being married regardless of whether or not the state weighs in on it. That is MY right. I define marriage a certain way. Don't think it's a gay thing - it applies to secular heterosexual marriages as well. As I stated in the article, you're arguing with God on this one.
You can continue to try get the state to beat some sense into my head (and it will only be beating, suppression of my religion, and education camps for my children, which will do it), or you can realize that my offer to burn my own state-issued marriage license is genuine.
As suggested in the article, I will gladly give up all the benefits my marriage offers me, and fill out a bunch of contracts to get them back - if I get something in return. That's what the tax talk was about.Â
The title says it all. The issue isn't gay marriage. It's statism. You've lost the battle for my heart. But I'm willing to work toward our common betterment. I think other Christians would agree to this idea. So stop fighting, and start working with me.
Paul Benedict, thanks for the input - that is in essense exactly what I was getting at.
Steven - I agree that's not clear. I was meaning to imply that there is quite a bit of thought going into the opposing argument that heterosexual marriage is the only valid marriage. Not all of it comes from the Bible. But they are arguments like pro- gun rights arguments and gold standard arguments. They will not be presented to you, you have to look for them.
Posted By: Floyd w. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-09 15:49:49
RE: Beatnik's posted comment:
"Personally, I will not recognize gay couples as being married regardless of whether or not the state weighs in on it. That is MY right."
Actually, your claim to this "right" is incorrect, regardless of your own personal "will" to ignore the designated status.
Article IV, Section 1 and Section 2 of the United States Constitution expressly tells you that you cannot personally assume this right:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
And, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Unless the Supreme Court weighs in on this matter, your personal definition has little merit, because you are, and remain, a citizen under the authority of the United States Constitution...until that binding legal document is amended or repealed in its entirety.
Options are limited to the citizenry on "recognizing" homosexual "marriages". Those options grow more limited with each passing day.
Homosexual advocates and activists have bettered their opponents in the use of the Constitution as an instrument of leverage to wedge their agenda into American jurisprudence.
At this point, one of the few avenues remaining to those who oppose them is a Writ of Supersedeas to the Supreme Court by the citizenry, and make appeal under the authority of the common law as the precedential legal authority, which it is.
The common law is and remains authoritative in these United States, regardless of whether the citizenry is adept in the use of, or even knowledgeable of, its statutes.
It is because the citizenry does not exercise it rights under the common law that they have lost a good many of them by degrees.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-10 07:14:08
I honestly don't see how anyone can put the tax issues aside. Married couples simply pay less in taxes than non-married couples. Period. Having been single most of my adult life, I appreciated the slight tax advantage that came with finding my wife.
Of course, my wife is far more important to me than the tax advantage, but we shouldn't pretend that the tax advantage doesn't exist or isn't really important.
While I'm not gay (or even bi), I think it's atrocious that Federal government and many of the state governments have chosen to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, which forces gay people to pay higher taxes. It's a clear case of sexual discrimination by the government.
Yes, I agree that my marriage with my wife is not the state's business nor anyone else's business, but so long as the state makes marriage its business (wrongfully), it is shameful that taxing decisions are being made based on marital status when the option is not available to all adults...only to heterosexual adults like my wife and I.
My piece was originally written when some states had measures on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriage. I intended it as on op-ed for mainstream newspapers. That should make it clear why I didn't deal with issues like whether the state should be involved in marriage.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-10 11:08:31
RE: Walt Thiessen
You apparently fail to understand the law, or better said, are selective in its useage.
From William Blackstone's Commentaries:
"with respect to rights, the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others."
I would argue, and indeed society itself has long held, that sodomous behavior, certainly some of it at any rate, falls under just such a proscription of law, especially since quarantine is, remains, and has since time immemorial always been, a legitimate interest of the State. In short, behavior can indeed be limited by the at-large society.
Your argument falsely attempts to legitimize the illegitimate under a 14th Amendement causal action...e.g. "It's a clear case of sexual discrimination by the government" or "forces gay people to pay higher taxes."
You claim: "it's atrocious that Federal government and many of the state governments have chosen to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman".
But in fact, common law obtains through precedence in this matter. The common law is the procedural and precedential law governing all persons and States within this Union (excepting under caveat the State of Louisiana's French Code), and it governs the Federal State as well, again under the proviso of its extent if otherwise specified by the United States Constitution.
Yes. The State does indeed have an interest in these affairs. Again, quoting from Blackstone:
"Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them."
Your arguments, and those made by homosexual special interest groups and "transgender rights" advocates, attempt to ignore the precedential foundation of our judicial system.
Worse still, these arguments are an attempt to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 and Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1) on enacting ex post facto legislation to alter not only the licensing of marriages, but also (in the case of transgender radicals) this nation's vital statistics themselves.
The very rights upon which the American nation was founded were described by Blackstone. It was Balckstone, above all other souces (in my opinion), who lent justification to the American cause of Liberty.
To conclude, you will not find anywhere in Blackstone support for your attempts to legitimize proscribed relations in your revision of claimant "rights" under the 14th Amendment.
For "every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. "
And this, irrespective of Justice Kenndy's recent outrageous finding (i.e. Kennedy v. Louisiana 07-343) that our laws rest upon "evolving standards of decency".
This "finding" by Justice Kennedy is cause alone to have him impeached from the bench for gross judicial incompetence. For it it were true, by extension, there would be absolutely no need to retain any legal case histories whatsoever. He wrongly found.
Stare decisis under such an "evolution" would be meaningless. And as such, law itself would be incapable of measuring justice.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-10 11:23:19
RE: Dan Clore
Be that as it may, nevertheless, your article serves as a vehicle of furthering the discussion of what constitutes legitimate or illegitimate State interests over the behaviors, actions and affairs of it citizens.
Hopefully, I demonstrated the utilitarian purpose of this vehicle in the legal discourse above .
If there is one single thing in which I disagree with Libertarians it would be their apparent concept of "State-less" jurisprudence and authority.
Such a construction is not possible.
It is completely incongruent reasoning...especially when also claiming that there exists, or should exist, a "rule of law".
It is sad that the gay community chose the road of violence / government to get their rights respected. Instead of fighting for governments to change their legal definitinions of mariage, they should be fighting for government to stop defininig mariage.
All the technicalities (taxes, social security...) that would make it difficult to repeal right away all definition of marriage just point to the impossibility of government in a free society.
I long to enter the business of mariage licenses.Â
This is a ludicrous argument. There arent 2 benefits that the federal government gives to heterosexual couples... there are hundreds. I wish it were that people took care of their marriages in private, and all of these legal benefits were handled on a private level without all the fuss, but it just wont happen. Homosexuals need to be treated the same way. If we want to start putting marriages up for popular vote, I can tell you dozens of heterosexual marriages right off the top of my head that wouldn't have been allowed to happen. Fortunately for those couples, we have this thing called liberty in America. Please remember that, beatnik.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
