Few things spark controversy as much as the topic of same-sex marriage. With the recent passage of Proposition 8 that outlawed gay marriage in California by popular vote, the debate has only inflamed further, if anything. The view prevalent in media is that those who oppose gay marriage are bigoted and intolerant. Respectfully, that is the actual bigoted and intolerant view. This article intends to state the position of those who are opposed to gay marriage, in fair, unbiased language, as inflammatory phrases only serve to obscure the truth.
To begin, the maxim “Judge not, that ye may not be judged” is a perfectly true statement. There is no justification for those opposed to gay marriage to state that an individual who declares him- or herself to be gay is somehow not as much of a person as a straight person. Gay people as individuals should be respected and treated just as much as any other straight person. The only difficulty that arises is when that position is flipped so that a minority may impose their views on a majority in clear contradiction of democratic principles.
The proponents of gay marriage are guilty of obscuring the issue itself. Ironically enough, the issue is not marriage itself, at least in the sense marriage is usually regarded. There are numerous institutions willing to marry same-sex couples, mostly churches, such as the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, and various others. And the American government, following the true, tried, and very correct policies of separation of church and state, does not interfere with these procedures. The issue that the proponents of gay marriage are actually discussing is the lack of any laws in most of the United States that compels third parties to recognize same-sex marriages.
As of now, it is up to the individual discretion of businesses, companies, and institutions as to whether they should recognize same-sex marriages. In fact, many companies offer domestic benefits to same-sex couples. What gay marriage activists are attempting to realize is a law that forces all third parties to recognize these marriages as legal. Whether or not an individual or corporation regards same-sex marriage as binding and legal or not, they would have to recognize it.
There are several problems with this. The first is that such a law would represent a massive increase of government intrusion into private lives. In effect, a blacklist would be created, one resembling the witch hunts of the 1950’s, in which those who were suspected of not recognizing gay marriage as a real marriage would be persecuted. This has already occurred; it is not merely inflammatory language. The Mormon Church, in California and Utah, has received many attacks from a variety of sources for contributing to the Proposition 8 campaign. Obviously, such a blacklisting violates the traditional precepts of liberty upon which America was founded.
The second problem is that although most people are perfectly willing to allow the current situation, in which third parties engaged in dealings with same-sex couples, such as insurance companies, are allowed their individual discretion, a minority is attempting to violate the principles of democracy by imposing the will of the few on the many. Proposition 8 passed by popular vote, while the previous legalization of gay marriage only passed by a margin of one justice in the California Supreme Court. Democracy is not the decision of a number of people smaller than ten; democracy is the organized votes of representatives, and the current situation is not representative of a true democracy. The popular opinion in America is not to legalize gay marriage. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center Survey, 55% of Americans supports not legalizing gay marriage, while only 36% support the idea. This is not the opinion of a bigoted America; it is the decision of Americans to not have to be forced en masse to regard gay marriage as binding and legal - it should be left up to individual discretion.
That is the true crux of the matter. It is a matter of individual discretion, just as much as sexual preference, religion, career, anything is. And if it is individual, it should not be judged. However, once it steps over the boundaries of individual decision, to where it becomes a legal matter that could potentially force millions of people to recognize something as legal which they are not comfortable agreeing to, then it is unjust.
Comments
If there is a national law accepting gay marriage, there isn’t going to be any “blacklisting” of those who do not support it. If Proposition 8 hadn’t passed, there wouldn’t have been any opposition to the Mormon Church. And why? Because people wouldn’t have a reason to be so emotional. In fact, the reason why they are so emotional is because they are being discriminated against.
A recent gallup poll stated that 47% believe that same sex marriage should be allowed, while 47% said it shouldn’t and 7% didn’t know. BUT, when asked whether there should be an amendment banning it, 35% would favor that amendment while 58% oppose. That is pretty substantial. And why? Because we are good people. We can skate over the issue when it isn’t official, but when it becomes a part of the constitution, that is a big step. We are deathly afraid to go there, yet we aren’t afraid to give them the rights they deserve?
It’s a little insane, isn’t it?
“In fact, the reason why they are so emotional is because they are being discriminated against.”
No, they’re not. Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and woman. Until that definition changes all this outrage and protest is completely misplaced. THey need their own word I think. Or maybe they can steal the word “marriage” and straight men and women will be forced to come up with another one to describe their unions. Like the word “gay” was stolen and can’t be used to mean “happy” any more.
The fact that there would be a law would not mean there would be no blacklisting. Rather, it’d be exactly what I say it would be, a denial of an individual’s right to choose. They are not being discriminated against by anyone - it’s up to the third parties’ choice. It comes down to poll vs. poll. It’s interesting how you don’t really answer the main argument of my article - that legalizing gay marriage actually denies the role of individual choice. It’s also interesting how Democrats seem to align more and more with bigger and bigger government.
This subject is a touchy issue for several good reasons. Namely that this is a case in which the tyrrany of the majority comes into play, the framers of the consitution recognized that it was not always appropiate for the majority to dictate the rules to the minority. An example of this would be the First Amendment Issue of the atheistic signboard in Olympia. At its worst it is a meanspirited attack on the significance of theological thought in the development of human history, at its best it is a couple of pretentious pricks on a buzz kill mission. The majority would probably think one of the two (if the protests are any indication). However, the majority in this case cannot override their rights to be pretentious pricks through free speech. The same thing (without the pretentious prick part) arises in the issue of gay marriage, can a majority of Californians (or at least voting Californians) who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman really impose their will on gay and lesbian residents of that state? Tough call. However, at a certain point the majority has to exercise control. An extreme example: If a person decided, that it was their right to break the law, smoke crack and run around the streets naked they should be arrested. The question is At what point does the majority retain the right to exercise control over the minority? It is a balancing act we have had to deal with throughout the history of this country and will continue to deal with.
The majority vs. minority is based on two principles: the principle that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the greatest good, and self-interest; i.e., people do what is best for themselves en masse, which means law and order and stability. The only problem with these principles is that the self-interest principle can be notoriously shaky morally; for instance, segregation is an example of how a majority of people can be raised to believing some things are all right, when clearly they are not. This is why the absence of a moral force in politics is missed, and why in the Middle Ages the Church and kings worked together. However, that system was too prone to corruption. Thus, the Church should not work with the state in matters political, but should rather be separated. However, I do think that if a political matter involves morality, then something should be established to safeguard a common morality. It is a problem in this country.
In response to the first “anonymous”: To call it anything other than marriage would sound awfully similar to a “seperate but equal” philosophy.
Marriage has meant a whole lot of things. It’s existed without any religion, it’s extremely different between cultures, it used to be soley a ceremony for two families exchanging property (which included the wife), interracial marriage wasn’t allowed, divorce wasn’t allowed. So basically any definition you use of marriage is a modern definition. It’s meaning, it’s use and it’s image have all changed over the years. What same-sex marriage advocates want to change is the definition of civil marriage, not any religions definition. Civil marriage is a legal ceremony that people can choose to intertwine with religion, but they can just as easily be married by a judge in a courthouse. It gives thousands of legal rights. To not allow two people of the proper age to enter into a civil marriage is blatant discrimination, and is unconstitutional. While I respect that people are hesitant to support same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, I would ask them if they believe their religious beliefs, or anyones, should be able to keep people from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. Sexual orientation isn’t a choice. If you treat people differently, if you deny them legal rights, thousands of legal rights, for a characteristic that they can’t control, it’s discrimination. It’s on the same level as racism and sexism. It’s unfair, it’s immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional.
Sexual orientation is a choice.
I would ask anyone who says that when they chose their sexuality. I would also ask why anyone would choose a life where they’re discriminated against, where they have unequal rights, and where they’re downright hated by some people. Why would some one choose it. So many people I know, including myself, so desperately tried to deny their sexuality, to shut it away, to try and change it, to convince themselves that they were straight. So many people didn’t want to be gay or bi. It wasn’t a choice. It isn’t a choice. So to deny some one rights based on an uncontrollable characteristic paralells racism.
I am both sterile and impotent.
Take that ya stinkin’ sexuals!
In response to the Anonymous who believes sexual orientation is a choice.
Have you made that “choice” yourself? How can you know whether or not it’s a choice?? And why would anyone choose to live a life where they are discriminated against? Hell, I went through years of crying multiple times a week, or trying desperately to convince myself I liked girls. Because I didn’t want to be gay. I still fight it sometimes. It is certainly not a choice. I can assure you of that. If it was a choice, I would have a girlfriend right now.
As for Garrett.
This same argument could have been used to prevent interracial marriage. The issue isn’t imposing our will on others. It’s exactly what Ben said. It’s fighting to get rights that should not be denied. Honestly, I don’t think I will every end up getting married. But I don’t care. It’s the idea that people think they can deny the rights of a minority that disturbs me.