Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

[Irvine511]

Because if we are going to give marriage civil right status, then, legally speaking, there are a host of alternative lifestyles that might clamor for the same opportunity....as this thread has proven.

how is being gay an alternative "lifestyle"? or how is it comparable to what might be deemed alternative "lifestyles"?

but, regardless, the above is, i think, a misformulation. it's not that marriage is a civil right, it's that there are 1049 rights that are conferred when one gets married, and the institution itself is discriminatory towards gays in the way that it was once discriminatory towards interracial couples. thus, there are certain rights that no gay person can have access to, unless they were to marry a person of the opposite sex -- which, obviously, happens -- and it seems that such a relationship could be deemed fraudulent.

 

[nathan1977]

it's not that marriage is a civil right

but we're sure treating it like it is, with the shouts about separate but equal -- which is a misnomer, since separate but equal referred to access. If we're talking about access to those fabled 1049 benefits, that's fine -- but that's a different conversation than making marriage a fundamental civil right.

And it's probably wise to talk about those 1049 tax benefits. As I've said before, it's incorrect to argue that marriage brings with it tax benefits, since married people automatically pay higher taxes due to a different tax bracket. As I've said time and again, tax benefits really kick in with acquisition of property -- which can happen whether you're single or married, gay or straight. And in any case, when we're talking about tax issues, we're talking about benefits, not rights.

There are other legitimate issues about hospital visitations between partners, as well as estate taxes and leaving property to next of kin, but many of these issues are resolved by a good will -- which both straight and gay people should have regardless, since battles over estate issues rage as much in families where people are straight as they can in families where people are gay. (The Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears debacles, anyone?)

And as near as I could tell, of the 4 benefits that you posted in another thread (as I recall, two had to do with visitation rights and estate issues -- pardon if I'm misremembering), two were matters for private institutions as opposed to government-sponsored discrimination -- and more and more corporations are adding "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policies, which is a good thing. People shouldn't be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation.

So again, can marriage legitimately be ruled a civil right?

 

[yolland]

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that it is; that was part of their reasoning in Loving v. Virginia, the case which affirmed the legality of interracial marriage.

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.

And perhaps relevant, a personal statement from the surviving plaintiff, Mildred Loving, prepared for a press conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of the decision (June 12, 2007):

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[martha]

 

[martha]

but we're sure treating it like it is, with the shouts about separate but equal -- which is a misnomer, since separate but equal referred to access. If we're talking about access to those fabled 1049 benefits, that's fine -- but that's a different conversation than making marriage a fundamental civil right.

And it's probably wise to talk about those 1049 tax benefits. As I've said before, it's incorrect to argue that marriage brings with it tax benefits, since married people automatically pay higher taxes due to a different tax bracket. As I've said time and again, tax benefits really kick in with acquisition of property -- which can happen whether you're single or married, gay or straight. And in any case, when we're talking about tax issues, we're talking about benefits, not rights.

There are other legitimate issues about hospital visitations between partners, as well as estate taxes and leaving property to next of kin, but many of these issues are resolved by a good will -- which both straight and gay people should have regardless, since battles over estate issues rage as much in families where people are straight as they can in families where people are gay. (The Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears debacles, anyone?)

And as near as I could tell, of the 4 benefits that you posted in another thread (as I recall, two had to do with visitation rights and estate issues -- pardon if I'm misremembering), two were matters for private institutions as opposed to government-sponsored discrimination -- and more and more corporations are adding "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policies, which is a good thing. People shouldn't be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation.

So again, can marriage legitimately be ruled a civil right?

This kind of thinking, "the laws are already there" kind of thinking, is used almost exclusively to support the denial of the rights in question non-members of the group. Rarely is it used to extend rights to a group.

 

[nathan1977]

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that it is; that was part of their reasoning in Loving v. Virginia, the case which affirmed the legality of interracial marriage.

Yes, I've read various commentators believing that Loving applies to same-sex couples. This is problematic, given other rulings of SCOTUS. Reynolds v. United States, for example, was a ruling that emerged out of opposition to state laws on bigamy (the law was upheld), and in 2006 the UT State Supreme Court ruled the state ban on polygamy constitutional. (It was appealed to the SCOTUS, who sent it back to the state.) So while it seems that Loving applies to male/female marriages, there's no legal ruling yet that indicates that it applies to same-sex ones -- perhaps because it opens the door to other definitions of marriage.

Mildred Loving may wish that her ruling applied to same-sex marriages, but Norma McCorvey wishes that Roe v. Wade would be repealed, so I'm not sure what to say about that.

 

[nathan1977]

This kind of thinking, "the laws are already there" kind of thinking, is used almost exclusively to support the denial of the rights in question non-members of the group. Rarely is it used to extend rights to a group.

I'm not sure what rights we're talking about. The fundamental issue seems to be about benefits, but the benefits seem already to be there, which kind of moots the "rights" argument. (Which seems kind of thin on the ground.)

 

[martha]

The fundamental issue seems to be about benefits, but the benefits seem already to be there,

You did it again.

 

[yolland]

Yes, I've read various commentators believing that Loving applies to same-sex couples. This is problematic, given other rulings of SCOTUS, which hasn't yet granted that it is a civil right that anyone can marry anyone they choose. Reynolds v. United States, for example, was a ruling that emerged out of opposition to state laws on bigamy (the law was upheld), and in 2006 the UT State Supreme Court ruled the state ban on polygamy constitutional. (It was appealed to the SCOTUS, who sent it back to the state.) So while it seems that Loving applies to male/female marriages, there's no legal ruling yet that indicates that it applies to same-sex ones -- perhaps because it opens the door to other questions.

Reynolds v. United States was about whether a religious belief defense justifies breaking the law of the land, not about whether it's "a civil right that anyone can marry anyone they choose." No one is going to take an argument that broad to the Supreme Court. And Utah v. Holm, which I assume is the other case you're referring to, dealt with the related argument of whether it violates freedom of religion to criminalize bigamy (though personally, I'm inclined to agree with the dissenting justices in that case, who protested that the defendant hadn't attempted to secure legal recognition for any 'marriages' beyond his first to begin with, and that whether the relevant law applied to such situations was doubtful).

If another SCOTUS case concerning polygamy should arise in the future, using the line of argument that a person should be allowed to take multiple legally recognized spouses (a case you wouldn't need legalized gay marriage to make--it could just as easily involve plural heterosexual marriages only), then I think most likely the flashpoint issue there would be meaningful consent, not the nature of the parties to polygamous marriages as such.

 

[Vincent Vega]

So again, can marriage legitimately be ruled a civil right?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

 

[BVS]

but the benefits seem already to be there, which kind of moots the "rights" argument. (Which seems kind of thin on the ground.)

How are the benefits already there?

 

[martha]

And what if two men or women want to marry each other just because they love each other?

 

[nathan1977]

How are the benefits already there?

See earlier posts...

 

[martha]

If we're talking about access to those fabled 1049 benefits, that's fine -- but that's a different conversation than making marriage a fundamental civil right.

So easy to say when it isn't you.

 

[BVS]

See earlier posts...

Yes, you've tried to use the will and tax benefits argument before but you were shown it's wrong and doesn't cover everything.

 

[nathan1977]

So easy to say when it isn't you.

Regardless of whether it applies to me or not, the question remains the same. I understand the passion behind the issue, but I don't think passion should dictate the laws of the land.

 

[nathan1977]

Yes, you've tried to use the will and tax benefits argument before but you were shown it's wrong and doesn't cover everything.

What does? What we're talking about is equitability. The same matters that are contestable in civil unions are contested in married unions (as we've seen).

 

[melon]

The fundamental issue seems to be about benefits, but the benefits seem already to be there, which kind of moots the "rights" argument. (Which seems kind of thin on the ground.)

No, they're not there. For one, it is virtually impossible for an American to have his or her same-sex partner legally immigrate to the U.S., if they happen to be a foreign citizen.

Secondly, even with things like wills and other legal documents, many hospitals in "Defense of Marriage" states are known to flat-out deny same-sex partners access to their hospitalized partner.

Third, with same-sex partners partners separating in child custody cases, if one has genetic ties, the other is often completely ostracized and the courts treat them like a complete stranger, providing them with no legal visitation rights, even if the original intent was to treat them as an "adoptive" co-parent.

Those are the just the easy examples off the top of my head. So for you to just cavalierly argue that same-sex couples "already have their rights" is really just blatant willful ignorance.

 

[anitram]

I'm not sure what rights we're talking about. The fundamental issue seems to be about benefits, but the benefits seem already to be there, which kind of moots the "rights" argument. (Which seems kind of thin on the ground.)

They're not there. melon already correctly pointed out the immigration issue, but there are also things like domestic violence (not viable in some states) and other issues.

In Canada, married gay couples are actually worse off since the Income Tax Act was amended, interestingly enough.

The way that gay marriage was legalized in Canada was over a 20 year period. Essentially ALL the rights, privileges and benefits were granted one by one until there was no real reason left to prohibit marriage. After marriage was legalized, divorce followed suit and all the provincial statutes dealing with married or CL partners were amended. In the US, you are not there yet with respect to benefits granted so that the change in name is not a mere formality.

 

[nathan1977]

there are also things like domestic violence (not viable in some states)

This is an excellent point that I had not thought of. Do civil unions/RDPs not address this?

It's my understanding, addressing Melon's previous post, that inaccessibility to hospitalized partners is a legal offense and could/should be prosecuted.

 

[nathan1977]

for you to just cavalierly argue that same-sex couples "already have their rights" is really just blatant willful ignorance.

I'd appreciate scaling it back a bit, Melon. I think I've been respectful in my posts and in the way I conduct myself in FYM. You don't need to call me ignorant. If I wanted to be willfully ignorant, I sure wouldn't be in here.

 

[melon]

I'd appreciate scaling it back a bit, Melon. I think I've been respectful in my posts and in the way I conduct myself in FYM. You don't need to call me ignorant. If I wanted to be willfully ignorant, I sure wouldn't be in here.

I did call it "willful ignorance," but I did avoid calling "you" "willfully ignorant."

When I wrote it, I wrote it with the attempt to make it not about "you," in a personal sense.

Perhaps I failed, but I thought I'd explain myself here before you misunderstood my intentions.

 

[melon]

This is an excellent point that I had not thought of. Do civil unions/RDPs not address this?

Not everyone has the luxury of living in a state that provides these protections. There are no protections at the federal level, so you are left at the whims of your state's prejudices.

It's my understanding, addressing Melon's previous post, that inaccessibility to hospitalized partners is a legal offense and could/should be prosecuted.

Again, there are no federal protections and you're left to the whims of the state. A small minority of states have tried to address this, while still having a DOMA, but, again, if your state anti-gay enough to have a DOMA, why would this same state have any interest in being gay friendly at all?

There is such a thing, obviously, as the "tyranny of the majority," and we see this in action in several states around the world. It's too bad that, when the U.S. tells other nations to be nicer to their minorities, we don't always know how to set an example ourselves.

 

[anitram]

This is an excellent point that I had not thought of. Do civil unions/RDPs not address this?

You do not have a unified federal criminal code (as is the case in Canada, for example). Therefore, it depends on the definition of domestic couples in each of the 50 individual statutes.

 

[martha]

What does? What we're talking about is equitability.

Why equitable and not equal?

 

[yolland]

Not everyone has the luxury of living in a state that provides these protections. There are no protections at the federal level, so you are left at the whims of your state's prejudices.

There are only what, 9 states which currently grant civil unions? and still 18 whose constitutions ban them altogether? My understanding is that even if we had federal civil unions, that wouldn't help gay couples in states without state civil unions. That was certainly how the miscegenation laws worked: the federal government only recognized a marriage if the state did, not the other way around. I assume civil unions would work the same way?

With reference to anitram's point, I understand and appreciate the case for gay rights organizations pursuing a benefits-first,-title-later strategy, but 50 states is a long road to walk step-by-step. Good thing for interracial couples that 'civil unions' weren't around in the 1960s, since 16 states still didn't recognize interracial marriage...

 

[anitram]

With reference to anitram's point, I understand and appreciate the case for gay rights organizations pursuing a benefits-first,-title-later strategy, but 50 states is a long road to walk step-by-step. Good thing for interracial couples that 'civil unions' weren't around in the 1960s, since 16 states still didn't recognize interracial marriage...

Absolutely. And again, the comparisons to Canada are not necessarily fair, because of a number of factors. First, we are far less religious than our neighbours. Second, we have a very secular Quebec that drives a lot of policy moves (thanks to the Quiet Revolution). Third, we do have a constitutional issue of federalism that you avoid through states' rights. So in a way, we were predisposed to having gay marriage legalized here early, not just thanks to attitudes of people but the system of governance and laws in the country.

I have very little faith that the US will be a beacon of progressive thought and freedom in this area anytime soon.

 

[martha]

Good thing for interracial couples that 'civil unions' weren't around in the 1960s, since 16 states still didn't recognize interracial marriage...

 

[martha]

I have very little faith that the US will be a beacon of progressive thought and freedom in this area anytime soon.

Neither do I.

 

[maycocksean]

Not everyone has the luxury of living in a state that provides these protections. There are no protections at the federal level, so you are left at the whims of your state's prejudices.

To me it's so clear that this is absolutely a civil rights issue. It reminds me of the reason the 14th Amendment was added to the constitution--specifically to protect African Americans from being left to the whims of each state's prejudice. (Granted it took another 100 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment to come to full fruition, but still . . .)

And Nathan, I'd like to commend you on your respectful even-handed tone. However, it's important to remember that the end of the day the outcome of these issues won't effect our lives one way or the other. On the other hand, Melon has to live with the consequences of these issues everyday, so I think he's entitled to get a little hot under the collar.