Marriage is a social construct. Society can set its own rules for it. Reject the term "gay marriage" whenever it appears. It's "same sex marriage", a legal and historical innovation; being gay has nothing to do with it. by Richard in Japan
(conservative)
Thursday, June 30, 2011
We All Know Marriage is a Universal Right . . .
But It's Not!
Before we begin, don't let my political label fool you. Unlike many if not most conservatives, I have nothing to say on the topic of homosexuals getting married. (Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives allow their religious and personal views to color what should be a perfectly straightforward states rights issue.) I know it's a cliché, but in my case it's absolutely true: some of my best friends are gay. When they someday invite me to their wedding, I will go. I will dance with the bride. I will kiss the groom. Other than that, I have no opinion on how the argument turns out, provided both sides follow the rules. (You'll find that to be a recurrent theme of this essay.)
Thanks to the ongoing debate on marriage rights, including the recent decision in New York, many misrepresentations are prevalent in our national dialogue. I will attempt to identify them in this article.
First of all, the term "gay marriage" is meaningless. At best, it's journalistic shorthand to describe marriage between two men or two women. All too often, I'm afraid, it's a deliberate deception intended to infuse the debate with an emotional element it does not contain (sort of like when James Carville successfully portrayed the Clinton impeachment as "just about sex.")
The debate is not about letting gays participate in marriage, because they already are. There is no need to push for equal rights for homosexuals, since they already have it. All Americans, gay and straight, can already get married -- PROVIDED THEY FOLLOW THE RULES.
Any man, gay or straight, can get married, as long as he gets married TO A WOMAN.
Any woman, gay or straight, can get married, as long as she gets married TO A MAN.
I'm not being facetious. I'm proving that the law treats both gays and straights the same, and that therefore there is no discrimination. The rights being demanded here are not gay marriage, but SAME SEX MARRIAGE which, except in a handful of states, is illegal for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Again, there is no discrimination as long as both sides are treated the same. Reject the term "gay marriage" whenever and wherever it appears. The discussion is over "same sex marriage", a legal and historical innovation requiring a complete redefinition of what marriage means; being gay has nothing to do with it.
Many proponents frame the issue of same sex marriage as a universal, civil, or constitutional right. THIS IS FALSE. No one has the right to get married --NO ONE. Marriage is a social construct -- a tradition that has undergone many permutations over the years and in every culture on earth. Consider:
Marriage to a close relative, or between a grown man and an adolescent girl, was once common in the United States, and still is in places around the world. However, these ancient practices have given way to modern animosity toward incest and pedophilia. Likewise marriage to more than one woman at the same time was once the rule, and still is in many places, but we in the United States have decided that's not what marriage is. All of these customs, as old as marriage itself, have been rejected, because we redefined marriage to exclude them. If we do ultimately legalize same sex marriage, as New York has done, it will have to be because the citizens of those states agreed to do so, not because undemocratic leaders exercised executive or judicial fiat.
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject of marriage, and therefore explicitly reserves the decision to the individual states. President Obama recently stressed this very point. The President and I don't often agree these days, but on this point, he's exactly right: it's up to the states to decide these matters. New York has just voted to legalize same sex marriage; that decision must be respected. Several other states, such as California, have voted to preserve the tradition of "one man, one woman"; this decision deserves equal respect. In either case, they are following the rules set down in the Constitution, by which we as Americans have agreed to abide.
The true enemy here is those who refuse to follow the rules. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court both attempted to unilaterally impose their views on their respective states without the input of the voters. Likewise the federal judge who declared California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional took the decision out of the hands of the citizens and placed it in his own, unelected, hands.
Republicans share in this tendency to break the rules: the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional (and unconservative) federal power grab of states rights. Those who wish to amend the Constitution to restrict marriage to one man/one woman are within their rights, but still violate the spirit of the document which was intended to limit, not enhance, the power of the federal government.
Marriage is a custom, like saluting the flag. Society can set its own rules for it, and has, for as long as there has been marriage. If the rules are to be changed to include same sex couples, it will be because society is ready for that step, not because we got bullied into it by the undemocratic forces of political correctness. Marriage is not a universal right. It's a private club, open to anyone willing to follow the rules.
(c) Kublai Khan Unlimited 2011.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Richard in Japan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Richard in Japan 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.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 2, 2011 06:48:41 PM
I applaud your analysis of the way the law on marriage applies equally to all.
The "right" to marry is certainly, philosophically, open to debate. If one allows that the "Adam" and "Eve" of each nation, tribe, or family were married without a government or even a preacher to oversee the marriage, then marriage like free speech arises without government, and as a good human thing, it is a right. If one holds that the only reason for marriage is a social statement, then it is not a "right."
In practice it seems to be a little of each. Men and women are joined biologically without government; however, government, some say, have an interest in marriage to the extent it benefits society.
In any case, your recognition of the meaningless of the term "gay marriage" is my beef also. There is no such thing. It is simply another element of modernistic, relativistic insanity. Wasn't it Caligula who made his horse a proconsul?
People have the "right" to be free to do whatever with whoever they want whenever they want, as long as they do not agress against other humans who have the same right.
You or the state have no jurisdiction over this basic human right. That is the right to freely associate.
Marriage is a non issue for anyone who claims to be a Libertarian or anyone who values human freedom.
The debate that you are partaking in is for those who wish to control the freedom of others either by restricting who can associate with who or forcing associations upon others.
Typical of the left, typical of the right. When intellectually cornered, rationalize.
Can no one be honest?
I have no opinion on how the argument turns out, provided both sides follow the rules.
That's swell, Rich, but you've got an extremely poisoned view of what those rules are. And yes, I did find that poisoned view to be a recurrent theme in your dishonest, rationalizing essay.
Any man, gay or straight, can get married, as long as he gets married TO A WOMAN.
Any woman, gay or straight, can get married, as long as she gets married TO A MAN.
That's a fine rule. But it reminds me of the other fine rule created by Virginia [et al]:
Any black can get married ... as long as he marries a black.
Any white can get married ... as long as he marries a white.
Voila!! Equal rights.
Right?
Hey! It's the rule, and that's all that matters, isn't it?
We have all kinds of rules here, bub, and some of them are superior to others. Among those superior rules is the one about "free association". Blacks had the right to freely associate with whites - and vice versa - under the same allowances the law made for blacks to freely associate with blacks, and whites with whites.
Why is that? Because of another of those superior rules called "equal protection of the law".
If you allow one person to get married, you must allow all persons to get married. You may require them to jump through hoops, do belly rolls, stand on their heads and get VD tests, but you must allow all. And because there is "free association", you have to allow them to choose who. You can't decide for them. You can't limit their choices to anything other than one to whom the Constitution also applies. [...so no farcical marrying my goat digressions allowed].
"same sex marriage", a legal and historical innovation requiring a complete redefinition of what marriage means
Yeah? and?
"Liberty" doesn't require you like what other people do; "liberty" only requires that you allow it unless there is a seriously sustainable argument against it. You aren't making one. You're issuing the same facile retread that so many others have tried before you.
And yes, since we are a constitutional democratic republic, we have a legitimate expectation of having the government and laws that the majority of us wish to have. That's the democratic part. And that's perfectly fine until the laws the majority wishes to have deprive someone in the minority of the liberty they were promised - that's the constitutional part.
You cannot ignore the constitutional part.
And what's more, you cannot disingenuously reference the constitutional part as you have done.
Yes, the Constitution is silent on marriage. But it's not silent on the rights possessed by citizens. We have the right to do everything that the Constitution doesn't grant to the feds [which is no marriage, as you note] and which the states don't take for themselves. The Constitution clearly grants citizens the right to marry.
The states took marriage for themselves, but THEY still have to follow the rules. And among those rules are:
1] if you allow one person to marry, then you must allow all
2] you must not improperly limit their choices among those considered under law to have a lawful choice themselves
The true enemy here is those who refuse to follow the rules
Truthfully, Rich, I'd consider you in that group. You've predetermined which rules you like out of those which exist, and you're constructing a rationalistic house of cards to explain why those who would follow the rules you dislike and are superior are wrong.
That is monumentally dishonest.
Dishonesty is a formidable enemy, yes.
If the rules are to be changed to include same sex couples, it will be because society is ready for that step, not because we got bullied into it by the undemocratic forces of political correctness
You are correct that it is an undemocratic force which made rulings in Iowa and California [etc]; but that is in accordance with our rules.
We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional democratic republic. Forces of democracy - while good for some things - are also good for imposing popular bigotry and convenient tyranny. When what the majority wants violates the superior rules of the Constitution, then what the majority wants loses, period.
It has to work that way in our system.
It has to work that way in our system whether you like the results of it or not. And when it works that way in our system and you decide that you don't like it, when you waste your intellectual capital to create the vomitous mess of anti-intellectual rationalization ... then you are the enemy of what you claim to support.
