Our Declaration of Independence asserts the principle that "all men are created equal." But this does not mean that everybody gets treated exactly the same. It all depends on whether there is a difference which the state can rationally take into account. For example, criminals go to jail, but not those found innocent. Blind people are not given licenses to drive motor vehicles. Children aren't allowed to vote. Married people can file joint tax returns and get lower tax rates than the single. Those with dependents get more of their income exempted from taxes than those without dependents.
The first question is whether there is any difference between male-female marriage and same-sex marriage. If there is, then the next question is whether that difference is a valid reason for different treatment under the law — for the law to call one marriage and confer various benefits on it, but not to apply the name and all attendant benefits on the other.
I think it is obvious that there is a difference. Same-sex couples cannot, by themselves, produce children. Only a male and female can do that.
Does the different potential for reproduction provide a rational basis for unequal treatment? It seems to me that the state can rationally want children to be born to produce the next generation; and it can rationally want them to be born into stable families in which they will be raised by their biological parents. Of course, there can be other arrangements made, case by case, to deal with situations where that is not possible or is unsuitable (death or unfitness of one or both parents, for example); and there have been occasional suggestions (cf. Plato's "Republic") that for the sake of equality all children should be taken from their parents as soon as possible after birth and raised in state nurseries. But these exceptions and alternative suggestions do not one make it irrational for the state to have a preference for biological parents raising their children in a family. Since same-sex relationships cannot satisfy these rational purposes but heterosexual marriages can, it is not irrational for the state to treat these different things differently.
This is not to say that gay couples don't love each other, aren't committed to each other, and can't love and care for children — just that it takes a man and a woman to make a child, and only a man and a woman can raise their biological children.
Some readers may not think that the procreation of the next generation within a family where the biological parents will normally raise them is important enough for the difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be the basis for unequal treatment. But that does not change the fact that there is a difference — a difference which I believe undercuts the passionate appeals based on equal rights.
So, if you want to advocate for same-sex marriage, go ahead. But please realize that your opponents don't necessarily regard gay people as inferior human beings, and don't make yourselves miserable or infuriated by seeing the lack of same-sex marriage as a denial of your humanity. We are dealing here with a question of how differently (if at all) to treat two different things.
Let me add, slightly off topic, that I think it is also worthwhile to reflect on the fact that for millenia, gay couples have been able to be happy together without being considered married in the eyes of the law. It is also worth remembering that the widespread acceptance of openly gay people as members of society is something that could only be dreamed about fifty years ago. Certainly, that acceptance needs to be upheld, and extended to pockets of society where it hasn't yet taken hold, but the progress has been little short of unbelievable.
So, yes, it is possible to be gay and to see heterosexual marriage as qualitatively different from same-sex relationships in ways that justify using different words to name each type of relationship and giving specific benefits and protections to heterosexual marriage.
11 comments:
Accepting your primary argument - procreation - then it follows that marriage should also be denied to infertile males and females, females who have gone through menopause, and opposite sex couples who prefer to not have children.
It seems to me, to be consistent, your Church should oppose marriages by these people because the purposes of such unions are sex, companionship or both - the very things that same sex couples desire.
What's the big deal, anyway? No State would require any clergy to perform a ceremony or bless a relationship in opposition to their faith. Nor should, or would, any State permit any Church to impose its beliefs on others.
Thanks for this post and an answer to my Twitter question, rather than just the one word 'absolutely' answer.
I was going to point out the whole aspect of procreation and the infertile, but Mister Ed has already concisely made that point here, so there is no need to repeat his words.
Although, there are some states that have bowed to mainly religious pressure and introduced laws to prevent same sex marriage already, which could be seen as the a state allowing a church to impose its belief on others.
There is very little I could say here, because you will not change your mind, you have decided that you are against marriage equality, no matter what anyone says, you've made that abundantly clear on the occasions where the subject has arisen. So the fight for equality here is lost.
Thanks for reading and commenting, guys.
Mr. Ed (and Jason by reference) you mistake my point about procreation. The recognition of marriage as a matter of law is not on a couple by couple basis. It is a matter of a general classification.
Let me illustrate. Take a piece of paper. Draw two circles on it. Above (or in) one put the letter A. Above (or in) the other put the letter B. Below the circle labeled A write the caption "male-female couples." Below circle B write "same-sex" couples.
Babies can be procreated by (some, but not all) couples in circle A. Babies cannot be procreated by any couples in circle B. This is why a reasonable state will only expect babies from the A couples and, for it's sake and the sake of the children, will give those couples special treatment.
The law is about classes, not specific couples. It affects specific couples only by reason of their falling in one or another class.
Granted, a state which wanted to be more intrusive could order fertility tests as a condition of marriage; but the fact that it chooses not to, does not invalidate its choice to use this classification.
BTW, it's also important to realize that the law was not arrived at in a vacuum. Couples have been getting together and having children and raising them as long as there have human beings, which is generally conceded to mean that it was happening before there were any governments to make laws. Eventually governments emerged and the rulers decided it was a good idea to make rules about the customary practice. It wasn't that they said, "Let's permit opposite-sex marriage, but not same-sex." they found the pre-existing institution of male-female bonding in a union which could lead to procreation and raising of children (called "marriage" in English) and gave it legal status because of its fundamental importance to society. Now along come gay people and say, "Hey, our relationships are no different from marriages you recognize, so you've got to redefine the term to include us." Since the premise is incorrect, the conclusion doesn't follow.
@ Mister Ed — To your final point "What's the big deal, anyway? No State would require any clergy to perform a ceremony or bless a relationship in opposition to their faith. Nor should, or would, any State permit any Church to impose its beliefs on others."
Perhaps, as long as we have the First Amendment, no state will directly order clergy to perform same-sex marriages. But, given the language found both in campaigns for same-sex marriage and, more significantly, in court decisions requiring various states to recognize same-sex marriage — language calling it a matter of equality and civil rights, it is clear that refusal to perform same-sex marriage will be regarded and treated as morally and legally no different from racial segregation.
The consequence of any church or cleric's refusal to honor a same-sex couple's civil rights will be the withdrawal of their right to perform civil marriages (which as of now their marriages are recognized as). A further development will probably be loss of tax exemption for the segregationist-equivalent churches. It is even possible that ultimately there could be a decision requiring the churches to follow civil law or even a finding that their refusal to do so has put them outside the protection of the First Amendment.
It will not happen overnight, but the loss of state recognition of the marriages and of tax exemption is inevitable. Further consequences are less certain, but definitely possible when certain churches become pariahs.
You presented the apparent rationale for the historical, and almost universal, difference in the legal statuses afforded male-female and same-sex couples in our various states as well as other societies.
But states have the authority and obligation to correct perceived inequalities in the legal treatment of its citizens. They may do so through court ruling, legislation or plebiscite.
Legal recognition of the right of same-sex couples to marry has already occurred in several of our states by all three means.
While your arguments are interesting they have no bearing on what has already occurred and will continue to occur in this country regarding marriage.
You should acknowledge that your objection to same-sex marriage is solely based on your religious faith.
I acknowledge and respect your view. I also acknowledge your right and your Church's right to publicly advocate its view. But in the United States your Church has no right to impose its views on the general population. Thank God that is so!
You may recall my comment some time ago where I suggested that this is a problem only because clergy are empowered by the State to perform civil marriages. Take that power away and civil marriages and religious marriages become separate things.
The Church can then recognize the civil status of couples without violating its religious faith.
I have so much compassion for people who remain in the closet, unable and unwilling to be out about their sexuality and victims of their own internalised homophobia.
"victims of their own internalised homophobia"
We can have differing views of homosexuality without necessarily fearing it or hating the person.
Fear, internalized conflict, being in the closet etc. are all hallmarks of what practically all homosexual men have gone through. So yes, we should indeed have compassion. But to throw those terms around against people who we don't know - it's nothing more than projection. And immature at that.
Thanks for the further comments.
John — Thanks for the support.
Mister Ed — I think my arguments do have a bearing on whether what is happening makes sense. What never gets asked of advocates of gay marriage is, "What is marriage?" I expect the answer has to be something along the lines of " a commitment to each other of two people who love each other and wish to share their lives." The follow-up is, "What concern of the state's is that?"
As for the "sole" basis of my objection, the validity of an argument is not dependent on its source. Besides, how I originally got there is not necessarily the entirety of the current basis of my position.
Jason — Whether or not I am one of those victims of internalized homophobia for whom you have compassion, the validity of my arguments does not depend on my psychological state. They stand on their own merits.
Or to another's point of view, they fall on their own merits too.
And thank you John, perhaps you did find it immature, just as I find your anonymous nature immature.
Post a Comment