Same-Sex Marriages

[Csitri]

This response is to Xilk’s post, which was a well-stated and conscientious addition to the discussion. Quoted sections are from his post.

You could say marriage is a 'RITE' but its really not a "RIGHT". … Marriage is a freedom. Marriage is a privilege. [sic]

What is the difference between a freedom and a right? Can we agree that a right is a freedom with Constitutional backing?

Who gets to decide what is a right? You? Me? I'm not a constitutional scholar, yet I believe marriage is a right. Is there a reason one of our beliefs should be given more credibility?

We have differing opinions, but the legal standard lies with the United States Supreme Court. They haven't yet ruled on same-sex marriage, but they have ruled on interracial marriage. In this ruling they applied a passage of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution to marriage, and wrote that … 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 … and that … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

This ruling struck down the ban on interracial marriage. I am not claiming here that it should apply to same-sex marriage—that is a separate argument entirely. However, it shows that the US Supreme Court has in the past considered marriage a vital personal right and a fundamental freedom. It's unlikely they would overturn this in future rulings.

What homosexual has ever been denied the choice to marry? Any man or woman of legal age is free to marry another.

In 1967, prior to Loving v. Virginia, a black woman could marry a black man and a white woman could marry a white man. Today, a gay woman can marry a man and a gay man can marry a woman. In both cases you can ask, who is being denied the choice to marry?

Loving, a black woman, asked, "Why can a white woman marry a white man, but not I?" Today, the gay woman asks, "Why can a man marry a woman, but not I?" The Supreme Court declared marriage was a "vital personal right essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Loving’s happiness was a white man. A gay woman’s happiness is a woman. Neither was being denied the ability to marry, but the ability to marry the person who would make them happy.

The Supreme court ruled that limiting a person’s options by racial classification subverted the principle of equality in the fourteenth amendment. They have not yet ruled on whether limiting a person’s options by sex classification does the same.

What is contested is forcing everyone else to call a same-gender union a marriage. With that everyone else must respect it the same as they respect a real marriage.

Redefinitions are a byproduct of human society. Language, and law, evolve as we grow and learn. Marriage law has undergone changes in the past, and it will undoubtedly undergo changes in the future. Public perception, depiction, and understanding of gay relationships have shifted over time. Human beings have a tremendous capacity to learn, to adapt.

Many people would dislike this change. And there would be a great deal of change, if there were not marriage and same-sex marriage, but only marriage. Dictionaries would be reprinted. Wikipedia would update pages. Countless legal forms would be redesigned. Database tables would be restructured. Language and conversational assumptions would shift, realign. There would be a long period of adjustment both in infrastructure and social discourse.

However, the role of the court is not to make sure people are happy with every change. The role of the court is to act as a check on executive and congressional power, to ensure that the passage of new laws, or alterations to existing ones, adhere to the principles of the Constitution.

If there wasn't a clear economic advantage to marriage in the form of taxes, insurance, and other legal stuff, it wouldn't be an issue.

edit: I reread Xilk's post and saw this section was a quote. My response therefore is not to Xilk but to the quoted passage

The economic advantages of marriage certainly are an incentive, and I don’t doubt they played a part in speeding along the challenges to marriage laws. However, I disagree that without them the issue would not exist. If we accept that the ability to marry a person we love is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness—as discussed, this fundamental right business is for the court to decide—then it should be an issue even without the financial benefits. People marry for many other reasons—religious, social, spiritual, and emotional—and having your friends, your community, your laws, your society, your country backing your relationship, saying, “This is a good thing. We support this,” is a big part of it.

In the US there are certainly economic benefits given to married couples. These are not a right. ... These benefits were developed because raising children benefits society tremendously, and its very demanding and difficult. Its a kind of 'pay it forward' approach. [sic]

I agree with everything you say here.

A same-sex couple does not procreate. If they try to form a family w/ same-gender parents at the top, it is an experiment, not a proven benefit to society.

Same-sex couples have been raising children via adoption, surrogate pregnancies, sperm or egg donation, or past or transsexual partnerships, for many years. The 2000 Census figures reveal a third of gay women-headed households, and a quarter of gay male ones, were raising children at that time. Undoubtedly these rates would go up if same-sex marriage were legal.

At what point does the experiment end? What is the definition of proven benefit? Clarification on these points is necessary for your argument to hold. I argue that children raised in same-sex parent households grow up and contribute to society just as do those raised in opposite-sex parent households, and thereby benefit society.

You can demand tolerance for things that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, but you cannot demand acceptance. That is the point where you are infringing upon others rights. … Changing marriage to include same-sex partnerships is requiring the law and the rest of society to accept a belief.

You are right. You cannot demand acceptance, only tolerance. The court can pass a law that allows gay people to marry each other. It cannot make people like it. That attitude, that perception, that belief, that personal acceptance will only happen as society evolves over time.

However, passing a law does not require every person to accept a belief. When Loving v. Virginia was passed, a huge portion of the country continued to believe that marriage between blacks and whites was wrong. There are people today who believe this. Changing a law changes a law. People change at their own pace.

Marriage is so much more than that. Marriage is an agreement and a commitment between a man and a woman, god and their society.

God only comes into the picture if the couple desires. The distinction of man and woman in your definition is the issue on the table, and so must be omitted; the argument “marriage can’t be between two women because marriage is between a man and a woman” is like saying “women can’t vote because voting is something only men do.”

Marriage has been shown to be the best environment for children to grow up healthy. Marriage shows commitment of love between the partners, yes. However it also tells society what to expect from married persons. … Marriage is useful to all of society even if you are not a direct participant. Marriage forms the family, raises the next generation. This generation provides all the human elements of continuing art, economics, etc. Society does not continue w/out procreation. Children do not grow into healthy productive adults without help.

If marriage strengthens the family, benefits children, and helps them grow into healthy, productive members of society, why should we bar same-sex parents from marrying? Do you believe that a partner or child in a same-sex household is better off unmarried? That the rank ordering of “healthiness” is (child in opposite-sex household) > (child in unmarried household) > (child in same-sex household)? Every relevant accredited organization, such as the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, has concluded otherwise—they support same-sex couples raising children, and have found no evidence that same-sex parenting causes harm, that this belief is merely a social prejudice.

It seems we agree in game same-sex marriage is not going to happen and would not be worth it for SE to make happen.

I would love to see them implement it, but I’m not holding my breath. In any case, this discussion is healthy, and I thank you for adding to it a thoughtful and considerate contribution.