Is Marriage a Sacrament, a Civil Right, or Bull Crap?
“I’m here today about Adam and Eve.”
— Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, House Judicial Committee Hearing to overturn gay marriage in New Hampshire
Right now, America is enjoying its first case in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans. Before you refuse to read my next sentence, I’ll plead a Ron Paul clause here.
The Honorable Ron Paul is not a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which for years now has not garnered a majority to pass. He’s got a simple reason. He says the government has no role in regulating marriage. Amen, brother!
Well, he says the feds should have no role. The federal courts shouldn’t rule on it. Why that means state legislature and state courts should bother in it, I don’t see, either.
Maybe I’m blind, but there’s no article in the Constitution that says, expressly: States shall determine the Unions of its Citizens by legislative or judiciary Powers. What does come into play in Article IV is that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Further, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
To me this sounds like Tough titties, what is legal or illegal in one state must be respected by all states. But I’m no lawyer, and luckily, over the years, we’ve made a bunch of clarifying amendments to the thing. After all, maybe you don’t consider marriage a privilege.
Marriage As a Civil Right
Let’s go back to a 1967 trial for a minute. It challenged a Virginia law banning interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia. It’s the hinge upon which the Prop 8 plaintiffs’ case works. Here’s what the chief justice for the majority Earl Warren had to say:
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Warren’s language relies on that in the Declaration of Independence, but the decision centers on the resounding protection of the 14th Amendment — guaranteeing all citizens equal protection under the law. We saw this amendment invoked with success in Brown v. Board of Education. My civics teacher in my B-more public school crowned this case with glory. The triumph over the conundrum that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal. My teacher was black, and maybe I’d have heard something less emphatic had I lived in, hmmm, Georgia or Texas. She had a devil of a time finding us a great textbook with lots of firsthand sources.
Likewise, my high school was also a profound relief to the gay teens in my class. Now that those same friends are older, they’ve got partners who would be spouses, but very few states to marry in.
Marriage: A Sacrament
Such momentous challenges in American history should be televised (or at least posted on YouTube). Filtered only through reporters and not simply broadcast live, it can easily seem as though Satan himself appeared in the courtroom to sodomize innocent children.
If, hypothetically, your god thinks it’s a sin, just don’t join in. But two men holding a marriage certificate doesn’t cheapen your own marriage in the eyes of God, so it shouldn’t bother you either. You’ve got enough work to do just staying married to the spouse you’ve got. Give “civil union” all the legal, state, and nationally recognized rights and you’ll find far less threat to your sacred word.
Let’s run through the alleged threats to the institution of “marriage.”
I put this in quotes because divorce has rendered all points on the sanctity and permanence of said union utterly and patently false. How can something be sacred if — thanks to the state — abolishing it is only a lawyer away?
All that remains, statewise, are guarantees of property rights. A friend of mine recently split with a girlfriend of 10 years. They’d bought a house together. It occurs to me that a ring would have solved this dilemma. They’d have a bona fide legal path to tread for separation. It also occurs to me, however, if one or the other had actually mandated a ring in say, Year Two, maybe they’d have just split up right there. Marriage is as much a handy threat for discontinuing a union.
OK. OK. In a perfect world, everyone has never seen porn, waits until marriage and enjoys the bliss of commitment: hard-won toil of progressing in an institution that keeps you together long beyond the be-fruitful-and-multiply period. I’m not saying there aren’t socially strengthening benefits to be reaped from good marriages and good families.
But like a church, an institution is only as good as the people in it.
What, Me Kill Marriage?
The easiest solution (except as regards the Government Paperwork Elimination Act) is to just overturn the word “marriage” as a federal or state concept. We could do this two ways. We could cut out the regard for civic benefits in marriage entirely, which is messy. Or we could declare henceforth everyone form “domestic partnerships.” Not even your golden anniversary grandparents will be exempt from this “grandfathering” into the new thing: civil union.
What’s at stake with such a change? The definition of “citizenship.” At present, marriage confers citizenship. Marriage is a universally recognized global category that is portable between states in the union and nation-states alike. Insurance companies would be very annoyed. And state and fed employers would have even more citizens on the “gimme roster.”
Keep this in mind. One nation had to be the first to outlaw slavery. (Today’s citizens fight over whose country was really first.) Saint-Domingue (which today we call Haiti) certainly was in the head of the pack. Vermont was the first state to do so. England and Denmark followed suit. But to redefine citizenship and freemen is a process that takes, oh, several hundred years. Guess we won’t rush it with this marriage thing.
Why Do We Marry Anyway?
As I can make out, the three main things marriage concerns: procreation, property rights and fear. Of the three, civic marriage concerns itself only with the first two. We make contractual agreements in business because we assume the other party is going to protect his or her own interests insofar as he or she is able and to renege as it suits. In hostile or friendly M&As alike, the suitor usually puts in place a multimillion-dollar fee in case the company chooses a different suitor.
Just so in marriage, we like strong barriers to exit. Women like it when men have to stay when they have babies. Fathers like it because their daughters cost enough to support to maturity. Men like it because they can reap the rewards of their loins and don’t have to stay in fighting lion pride form to receive favors. God likes it because he has a bigger church that actually takes time to say “hi” and “thanks” on occasion.
How about that baby making? The defense for Prop 8 plan to argue that marriage demands the ability to make babies. However, this is stupid, as barren men and women get married all the time. They spend their free time doing things other than wiping up puke and snuffly noses and nobody gets mad at them.
Also, as Sarah Palin’s daughter handily illustrates, procreation is achieved with or without the institution of marriage (unless you’d want to bring in old legal laws now off the books about “breech of promise”). Sure, many successful men and women of past ages were bastards; among that number are a pope and a cardinal. There’s Alexander Hamilton, Billie Holiday, Leonardo da Vinci, Eva Peron and William the Conqueror. So perhaps you could safely say that a marriage doth not child make. But wouldn’t we rather two loving parents for each child, instead of the old ruse: loveless marriages for the sake of children?
Give me my property rights. When we endure the stupidity (and genius) of a spouse, when we bear his young, we’d hope to keep living in our house after he is dead. It’s only nice and natural. Besides, the kids need a place to live too. And if we’ve got a farm with cattle, sheep, goats, fields of wheat, acres of corn, we want that food and the income it produces.
Of course, thanks to government carrots like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the definition of property rights has broadened. We want our spouse’s benefits to transfer. That’s not just anyone’s free money. It’s my free money. That’s the least the government can do when my spouse dies.
Fear: We don’t want to toil alone. Believe it or no, not all gays want to marry. The more radical leftists and queer scholars are direly opposed to same-sex marriage too.
They see marriage as an instrument of domination meant to keep people content so that they don’t revolt. They see marriage as an institution correlated to capitalist structures of subordination.
But I think most people want to marry — unconsciously — because A) They are not alpha males and shemales and B) because it exhausts precious resources to “always be on the market,” e.g,. exhausts heart, bank account, beer fund, gas mileage, etc.
To get back to the core of the matter, God gave Adam a “helpmate,” as Eve is called, because it was not “good for him to be alone.” Anyone you meet on the street will agree that it is not good to be always alone.
All They Really Want: Equal Protection
For gay partners, some days, what the argument boils down to is homophobic doctors and nurses standing in the way.
On the average day, this all might seem like a question of semantics. But when you say to someone who is trying to keep you from seeing your life partner, “But we are civil partners,” it’s not the same as saying, “He is my husband and I have a federal and state right to see him, and if you stand in my way, I will sue your ass.”
According to the Government Accountability Office, there are at least 1,049 legal protections that come with marriage. Even simple things are thus far denied to folks in civil unions — where they have civil unions — like the right to take off work to care for your sick partner.
So you can ignore much of what I wrote above. The case against Prop 8 is actually far less ambitious, as can be seen in plaintiff lawyer Ted Olson’s opening statement:
During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics, and political science will prove three fundamental points:
First — Marriage is vitally important in American society.
Second — By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.
Third — Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.
As I edit this, the evidence and testimony just wrapped up. Expect Judge Vaughn R. Walker to hear closing arguments come March or April. For the record, Massachusetts has had gay marriage (as granted by Massachusetts court) since 2003.
Massachusetts still boasts the lowest divorce rate in the union. In fact, its average is near the American norm circa the heyday of 1940s morality.
The difficulty with a civil union is that you can’t take it with you. It’s not portable, it’s like getting a Holy Grail you can’t take beyond the Great Seal. One lesbian blogger touched my heart with her simple request. “As Marilyn Monroe put it, ‘Let them be miserable just like the rest of us.’”
Regards,
Samantha Buker
January 29, 2010
Samantha Buker
Samantha Buker was born in Baltimore at the start of the "Reagan Revolution." She thinks Adam Smith is wrong because he believed that the individual man is a moral one. She thinks Karl Marx is wrong because he believed Man as a collective was moral. She's always wanted to write a novel on the Great Depression...and now has the chance to write one about her own time. Miss Buker is associate editor of three Agora Financial publications: Capital & Crisis, Mayer's Special Situations, Strategic Short Report. She's wanted to write for Whiskey readers since she first heard about Agora Financial.
ShareThis
samantha-
the privileges and immunities clause has never been absolute, not from the day it was adopted. For example; having a concealed carry permit from iowa will do you no good when you cross the border into wisconsin where concealed carry is illegal. Some states allow limited privilege drivers licensing as early as age 14. Don’t try to use that license in a state that licenses drivers at 16.
It is obvious that the feds have no right to regulate marriage, and since marriage is essentially a contract, no reason why states should not allow adults to enter into any contract they choose for marriage or anything else.
Having said that, it seems clear that marriage is one of those issues that the 10th amendment reserves to the states. If certain states want to limit the right to marry to a male/female pairing, i see no constitutional objection. If enough productive, creative and well-off gays and lesbians, polygamists and polyandrists abandon their restrictive states and head for greener pastures, taking their wealth, education and productivity with them, perhaps some states will rethink their limitations.
jay mose
An article that says almost all of what I have been thinking, but so much more clearly! Thank you. I see that both it, and the plaintiffs on prop 8, have steered clear of what, in my experience, has been the “reason” behind the “no good reason,” most on the mind of the proposition’s proponents, which is that there ought to be some kind of state religion, and the kind that there ought to be most resembles, in its theology, that of about about ten percent of this country’s numerous Christian sects. Have you a similar perception? I presume bringing it in would muddy the clear waters of this argument — which seems to rest on the Fourteenth Amendment rather than such thigs as the “religious test” clause. I am also thinking of Madison’s views on the tyrannies of forceful interest groups and/or mobs (uninformed majorities). How successful was FP #10 (I think that’s the one) in shaping the Constitution?
You left out the primary purpose of marriage. The purposes of marriage are: 1) companionship, 2) procreation.
Marriage is not needed to protect property rights. Contracts will fit that need quite nicely.
A marriage financial side benefit (not a purpose): it is cheaper for two (or more) to live together than to live separately.
Just my two cents!
Marriage, the government directed kind, should be abolished. Fewer are getting married. Fewer children are born in wedlock. It is not good for men. Far to often we end up supporting children not even of our seed. It is just the governments way of avoiding to support women’s unsponsored choices. More and more single parents are dumping their children and walking away. Marriage interferes with a woman’s career.
Most wealth is transferred to women when their older husbands die anyway.
As far as deviant marriage, who cares? We are just about to another world war when the current depression really shifts into overdrive and we all know what happens to deviants during wars. If you do not know, time to read a little history.
If marriage is not to support and nurture the family unit , then it means nothing to the society. Boys raised without a man can get real ugly come puberty. Girls raised without a man do not know what kind of men to choose, just look at the inner city girls walking with babies. Man without woman is a very dangerous thing.
Women will get this all sorted out soon enough. Our society has chosen to ignore history and is now doomed to repeat some very ugly laws of nature. The best example is racist Rhodesia that could feed Africa. Now, enlightened Zimbabwe cannot feed itself and babies are used to purify men with AIDS or how about Haiti? Bad examples? Please give me any examples when elemental broken family units are broken and the larger society survives. There are none.
To start off, please just stick to writing about economics and the markets. I didn’t pay to read this kind of stuff. I doubt I’ll ever see one of the staff get to post the argument of why there is a God. So lets stay on topic.
That said, I see your point of view. I can’t say I agree with it, but yes all citizens want to be covered under the law in the same way as the next guy. I’ll give you that.
The part that is missing from any of your arguments would be what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Like them or not, there are moral laws we all live by. (I know you know where I’m going with this) But we as a civilization must choose based on some moral value what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for Gays & Lesbians, this society was built on a biblical moral values. Chase across the globe and they are stuck with Islamic moral values. Pick any advanced society and you’ll find that principle to be true and that the laws reflect those values and beliefs. Christian or Islam, I don’t need to tell you that they both see, for all sorts of good reasons, Gays & Lesbians as living an immoral life style.
I know what you’re thinking, “You can’t legislate morality,” the truth is you can’t have a safe, constructive, orderly, civilization without legislated morality. Any society throughout history that lost or abandoned its moral foundation lost its freedom.
Bottom line, regardless of what the Constitution says and what it may permit, moral laws will always present a point of conflict for many in any nation. And those that choose activities and life styles that are “immoral” will always have a hard time finding acceptance from everyone and protection for that life style and activity under the law.
Like I said earlier, please stick to writing about economics and the markets
Enjoyed your comment. One thing:
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” doesn’t mean that what is ‘illegal’ in one state is ‘illegal’ in another. Only that all privileges [meaning no one else can exercise a specific right against the person holding the privilege] and immunities [meaning no one has a specific power over the person holding the immunity] must be recognized by all other states. This expands human liberty, while, ‘what is illegal in one state” being recognized by another state would shrink liberty horribly. This concept helps the argument for liberty whenever it is applied.
The State/Government/Monopoly on Violence should simply get out of the marriage business, and ‘merely’ protect property by enforcing contracts. OR get out all together and let freedom ring.
[...] Read more: Is Marriage a Sacrament, a Civil Right, or Bull Crap? [...]
[...] the rest here: Is Marriage a Sacrament, a Civil Right, or Bull Crap? tags: against-gay, america, are-thousands, author-directly, enjoying-its, like-the-rest, [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Simon, Agora Financial, Whiskey Gunpowder, Jim, emma m and others. emma m said: Is Marriage a Sacrament, a Civil Right, or Bull Crap?: What role does marriage play in society and what role shoul… http://bit.ly/bJ5350 [...]
Marriage is the domain of RELIGION.
Domestic partnership is the domain of the STATE.
The fact that state sponsored marriage exists at all is a HUGE violation of THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Would you accept a state-sponsored baptism? Communion? Faith-healing?! Hell no! These are clearly in violation of the constitution. So why would you accept state-sponsored marriage?!
This issue exposes the rampant hypocrisy on all sides.
@SJ: Even if this country was a theocracy, there would be wide differences in opinion as to which ‘biblical values’ to enshrine in law. Allow slavery (St Paul didn’t have a problem with it)? Polygamy? Prohibit divorce (Jesus would!)? Gambling? Paying interest? Adultery? Interracial marriage? Compel mentally ill people to undergo exorcism?
As there is separation between church and state, the question is simply irrelevant. The laws of a secular, multicultural 21st century republic are based (ideally) on constitutional principles and legitimate legislative aims. We have laws against murder and theft because they are necessary to maintain any sort of desirable society, not because of the Bible. Opponents of gay marriage need to show what harm it would lead to and whether it is significant enough to continue denying people that freedom.
Constitutional protection of minorities and activities that some consider immoral or distasteful is entirely the point. You are perfectly free to consider gays and ‘the gay lifestyle’ wrong and immoral, but thankfully that is not the basis on which legal protections are decided.
Marriage between a man and a woman ideally creates an optimal environment for the nurture of their offspring. This ancient relationship trumps all other alternatives. Just because there are other kinds of relationships doesn’t mean that society should abandon or weaken or dilute its basic and most valuable unit of social structure. Constitutional protection is not guaranteed to activities that society considers immoral. In fact, just the opposite. The constitution already does not protect many kinds of activities. Just because lots of people engage in homosexual activities does not make them into a constitutionally protected class. That’s the teenage argument of “but all my friends are doing it”. Mom and Dad say, “That doesn’t make it right.” Our constitution was heavily influenced by religious and philosophical tradition. Separation of church and state refers to institutions not to ideas. Our secular system of rights and laws arises from a primarily Western Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman philosophy and religion. Completely rejecting these influences is sophomoric.
Marriage is not in the scope of government. Its a religious institution. I agree that marriage is a basic building block of society, but I dont understand why the government should be involved with it at all. Actually homosexual’s could do the same thing by forming a corperation together, its just not nearly as romantic. This will have zero effect on the religious institution of marriage. As it is now approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce. This has a much larger effect on the instituion of marriage than anything else. If anything people should not be allowed to marry until after the age of 30. That would do more to strengthen the instution of marriage more than any other thing. What society considers immoral is a moving target. There were many things that society considered immoral when the constitution was signed that people today would think nothing of. There are things people did back then which if done today would be immoral. BTW Greco-Roman philosophy was not rooted in Christian beliefs. They worshiped many Gods and homosexuality was not against their belief system. Our society was based on the natural rights of man. One of which is the freedom to pursue happiness. The freedom to marry who makes you happy is one of the best examples of pursuing happiness. To deny this right to any consenting adults is a travesty of the bedrock of our country. Our country was not set up to tell people what they can do for the good of the country. It was set up so that people had the freedom to follow their own mind and as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. We have strayed from this goal many times in the past but just like a marriage reality is usually not quite like the ideal. That dosnt mean we dont keep striving for the ideal, we just have to correct ourselves and move forward. The best thing for people to do to strengthen the institution of marriage is to love your spouse and do what is in the best interest of the family at all times. Become an example of a good marriage, the rest will fall into place.
Dear Oldmanriver,
Why should government care about marriage? 1. To protect the historical record: who lives with who, who has children and who do they belong to, and who is responsible for them. 2. To protect the medical history of families which is important to the well being of the children and hence the society. 3. To protect the financial rights of families and children relating to inheritance. 4. To protect the rights of children in their pursuit of happiness. Being a product of a marriage accepted by society contributes to the child’s pursuit of happiness. Being a product of a marriage not accepted by society impedes the child’s pursuit of happiness. 4. To protect innocent members of society by refusing to sanction certain marriages: adults marrying children, children marrying children, bigamous marriages, and polygamous marriages. 5. Other reasons.
Many times our own pursuit of happiness turns into a impediment to our own freedom as well as the freedom of our fellow citizens. Sensible laws governing marriage are designed to maximize freedom. even though it may appear that some people are denied a pursuit of happiness.
Bill,
I completely agree with you that the best for any child is to have two parents who are married. Its pretty obvious that life gets exponentially harder when there is only one parent or none as is the case with many kids these days. Your points all make good sense except that these things are not being protected against now. I was in no way promoting adults marrying children. We have many laws against child abuse so i dont think that is going to be an issue. The point I was making is that 50% of marriages between men and women now end in divorce and a large percentage of children are born into homes where the parents are not married. There really are not any stigmas left anymore for children born out of wedlock or for people having children out of wedlock. People live together on and off all the time with no more commitment than being friends with benefits. Marriage sanctified by the state is not required for procreation. This is what I mean about societies mores being a moving target. We have other laws already on the books that protect children from predatory adults. Yes sometimes we are our own worst enemies but does that mean that the government should step in and say no thats not how you are going to live? As long as it is two consenting adults that are not infringing on the rights of others who am I to tell them they are wrong. Its basically a non issue.
Your points:
1. we have birth certificates and people who do not support their own children are already brought to task for at least financial obligations
2. you dont have to have married parents to know your family medical history. There are already many children out there who dont know their family history. These kids came from married families that split up or one of the parents runs off etc etc.
3 We have wills for that as well as numerous other legal routes.
4. Its simply not true this day and age. No one thinks twice about divorce or children being born out of wedlock.
5. I understand what you are saying but I dont think its something that the state should dictate. Now if you say that the government should not encourage people to have children by giving people tax cuts for having children and for social support programs I agree completely.
Dear Oldmanriver,
Thanks for thinking about this issue. I guess you want government out of family life. I want government to protect family life. Government protects many natural rights. Should not a child have a natural right to be united with its natural parents if possible and if it is in the best interest of the child, that is, if the natural parents are minimally capable, non-abusive married adults. If our society hence our government does not protect children from the irresponsibility and moral breakdown of parents then I guess we should just cut them loose because that is what we are doing anyway with our fingers in the dike approach to solving family related problems. Just repair the dike and it won’t spring the leaks. Governmental protection of marriage is essential to the stability of our culture. Sure, there should be limits on what the state dictates, but state dictums are already in place that regulate many family behaviors much to the advantage of society, for instance, laws against domestic violence and abuse( which differ from laws against non-domestic violence and abuse). Unless you are in favor of some type of it takes a village approach to child rearing, then doesn’t it make more sense for the state to protect the institution of the family as its essential unit and then back off as much as possible allowing families the freedom to flourish within a secure environment.
Bill,
Well I think we basically agree just the way we go about it is different. Im not a fan of it takes a village a la hillary clinton but in essence it does take more than parents. I had teachers and neighbors that made sure my parents were up to date on my activities and made sure I toed the line when I was growing up. Most of the folks around had basically the same outlook on life. I did actually grow up in a village on a farm so it was a pretty conservative area. I think that the family will flourish if its left to its own devices. I think we would be better off if schools just taught facts and stayed out of the belief department and let families worry about that. I think that as long as society provides a relatively safe environment with access to opportunities families will do fine. I have family members that are homosexual, neighbors that are homosexual. For the most part they just wanted to be left alone and to have the same access to life as what anyone else has. I do not believe it is a choice as in all the cases they denied it for a very long time. All of them said that they knew they were different at a very young age. The way I see it government is not interfering with children living with their natural parents except in cases of abuse now. The thing is you cannot force people to be good parents. You can only be a good example and hope that others will follow suit. If they dont its unfortunate but unless they are abusing their children not much can or should be done. I should say that I am not married nor do I have any children. I am fairly certain that at this late stage of the game I will never have children and I will never marry. So my views might be different if I were. I do have many years of observing life and other people. I have traveled to other countries and know many people abroad. I can say without a doubt that even in places like the former Soviet Union where the state was almost actively working against the family the family survived and is even stronger than it is in the USA. The basic unit still exists and is perhaps more important than it is here as the grandparents parents and children many times live under the same roof and take care of each other. They have much greater respect for their elders than we do here. They would never think of putting someone in a nursing home or an orphanage if they can help it. Although alcoholism and drug abuse ravages many families and is a significant cause of many of the troubles they have there. So I think that the family needs no protectors as the family itself is its own protector. As far as letting homosexuals get married, I dont understand how this would weaken marriage or family. Homosexuals are still part of families, they still have significant others in their lives, they are all part of the family unit. By denying them what basically amounts to a legal contract we dont accomplish anything except to cause pain where it does not need to exist. If it acts like a family it is a family regardless of a slip of paper. It is a shame to deny this.
Dear OMR,
Your arguments and observations are very persuasive and I agree with most everything you have said in your last post. I, too, have friends and neighbors who are homosexual and that does not prevent me from enjoying their company. My wife and I are particularly fond of one man who we have known for several years and of another man and his partner who I have been friends with for over forty years. I still remain unconvinced that heterosexual marriage should be made less significant by the action of broadening the concept of marriage to include same sex couples. I would ask you to consider that homosexuals, even though they clearly do not choose their fate, are incapable of the some of the essentially important activities and responsibilities engaged in by heterosexuals. Remember, many individuals in society, through no fault of their own, nevertheless, are unable to participate fully in some activities and responsibilities that more capable people engage in. For instance, children are prohibited from participating in many adult activities, the blind and handicapped are unable to obtain licenses to operate certain machines and vehicles, alcohol abusers can’t drive legally, certain people are not allowed to carry firearms, illegal immigrants are in theory shut out of US society, etc. My point being that the precedent exists for excluding certain classes of people from freedoms that others enjoy. Now, what activities essential to the social fabric can heterosexuals accomplish that homosexuals can’t? I believe that a man and woman by marrying and learning to live together in harmony produce a blueprint for the rest of society and for their children that details the steps required to become a fully functioning man or woman and therefore someone worthy of being called a father or a mother. A family depends on sexual procreation. Human beings don’t arise any other way. Sure you can do it artificially, but what about the natural rights of the child?
Dear oldmanriver,
I wrote a considered reply to your last post and submitted it, but it has not been published to the site. I am not sure why. It was no longer than others. Twenty-four hours have passed. I can’t spend time writing only to have my words rendered mute. Thanks for the intelligent conversation.
Bill
Traditional Judeo-Christian marriage evolved over time finally sanctifying heterosexual monogamous unions and prohibiting homosexual and polygamous relations. American culture has taken this highly evolved social pattern for granted until recent attempts to broaden the concept of marriage and to turn back the clock to pagan practices which took thousands of years to eliminate. Why did heterosexual monogamous marriage evolve, not only in the West but in most successful complex societies, for example China and India? My analysis tells me that such a structure( a heterosexual, monogamous nuclear family within the close proximity of its extended family) is the ideal form for child rearing. Of course, many would argue against heterosexual monogamy as the best environment for children, but there are many reasons to support its recommendation. In all this discussion of marriage, the natural rights of children should be the most important consideration when thinking about benefits to society. Just because a society holds up one form of marriage as ideal does not necessarily mean that it should outlaw other less desirable forms. Civil unions should be encouraged, but society has a self-protective right to legislate and nurture heterosexual monogamy as the preferred form of marriage.