This one goes out to our friends in New England. Legally "marriage" is a contract supported by the government between two people allowing for mutual risk management and shared property. It's sexually discriminatory to allow one person to enter into this agreement but not another, based solely on who they find attractive or the shape of their bodies (and when was the last time a court clerk, much less a clergyperson, actually checked?). It's comparable to requiring both parties involved in a title transfer to have different eye color. If a church wants to withhold a certain blessing or religious status for a relationship, so be it, but laws pronouncing the "sanctity" of marriage (as in "sacredness") are unconstitutional. The government shouldn't be involved in sacredness.
The best solution: Everybody gets the same type of relationship contract regardless of gender. Whatever we call the legal contract, "civil union" or "marriage," it should offer exactly the same benefits to the Americans involved regardless of the shape of their bodies and who they find attractive. So let's make ALL of these contracts legal partnerships in the eyes of the government, which they already are, regardless of gender, and let churches, if they so choose, bestow or withhold some special religious status at their discretion. People who adhere to those belief systems can abide by their churches' expectations as they see fit. But what about the opposing views? Let’s have a look.
"The government must protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’ by restricting it to couples of the opposite sex."
There is nothing sanctified about the legal aspects of marriage. Legally, marriage is nothing more than a business arrangement. No ceremony is required and no promises must be made other than the covenants embedded in the statute authorizing the contract. To be married in most if not all jurisdictions, both parties simply pay for and sign a license, in the presence of an entity authorized to witness their signatures, upon which is appended the signatures of witnesses to the parties' signatures. Whether you go through a two-hour cathedral ritual with all the bells and whistles or get together with your pastor to sign the paperwork at your kitchen table with the minimum number of witnesses, you are just as married legally either way. A marriage is just as legal whether it's solemnized by a clerk at the courthouse or by the Pope himself.
How about all those marriages between loveless partners staying together for the sake of the kids, or out of habit, or for financial security only? These marriages are not suddenly less valid legally because the romance is gone (if it ever existed).
Governmentally, "marriage" is executed by several signatures on a piece of paper, with no ceremony or other ritual usually required. What exactly are the marriage traditionalists trying to preserve? The right to sign a piece of paper with somebody whose genitalia differs from their own?
"The Bible condemns homosexuality."
Leviticus is one Old Testament book condemning homosexuality as an "abomination." Leviticus also states it is an abomination to eat shellfish and pork. It also condemns wearing clothing made from two kinds of material. Don't many people who use the Bible to justify calling homosexuality a sin enjoy bacon and oysters or wearing cotton blends?
Many people using the Bible to oppose gay marriage turn exclusively to the New Testament for doctrinal reasons, especially the writings of Paul. But if you think everything he wrote was infallible, you should abide by ALL these instructions, not just the ones that conveniently support your personal aversion to gay people.
Do you allow women to speak in church? You violate 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Do you spend any time with non-Christians? You violate Romans 16:17 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.
Does your wife cover her head in church? If not, you should shave her head, says 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
Do you approve of women wearing braids, gold or jewelry? If so, you violate 1 Timothy 2:9.
If you drink water, you violate God's law according to Paul, because 1 Timothy 5:23 says "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."
So, how do you continue justifying your condemnation of gays by using the New Testament? You can't use it to bash the gays while allowing hatless, talkative hairy women in church. Are you a cherry-picking hypocrite? Or do you obey ALL the precepts in the Bible?
Don't blame the Bible for your discomfort with gay marriage, unless you strictly adhere to ALL those other prohibitions. In any case, the government should use only the Constitution, not other literature, to develop our laws. In your private family and church life, do whatever your heart, or your pastor, desires, but leave your religious moralizing out of our tax-funded government.
"Marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
It seems a little bit suspicious when the first reaction to something new is "But it’s always been done this way!" We can be conservative about many things, and we can respect tradition, but not at the expense of civil rights.
As we matured as a nation, consider how our society has changed what it does and doesn't approve of: women voting, people no longer owning other people, legal contraception, legal alcohol consumption by adults, women owning property, marriage between people of different races.
Those who claim gay marriage or civil union somehow restrict the rights of those who believe marriage should be only between one man and one woman are never able to explain how their rights are specifically being violated. Nobody is taking away anyone’s right to believe what they wish to believe.
"It’s the will of the people to prohibit gays from marrying."
Our nation is a constitutional representative republic, not a pure democracy. Our Constitution established our nation, and serves as the supreme law of the land. It is interpreted as needed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Elected legislators represent us to make laws at the state and federal levels, but local and federal laws may be deemed in conflict with Constitutional principles by the Supreme Court, even in some in cases where majority public opinion seems to disagree. The majority does not always rule in civil rights issues. We adhere to the rule of law, not the rule of man. This is basic 8th grade social studies material.
In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court (by a healthy two-thirds majority) struck down the law criminalizing sexual activity between gays. This decision voided all state laws in America criminalizing gay sex. The one incontrovertible determining factor of "gayness," sexual activity between same-sex partners, was itself deemed by the highest court in America to be LEGAL activity. Being gay has become NORMAL according to the rule of law. When a case questioning the validity of a law against gay marriage finally arrives at the Supreme Court, the same result will probably take place. How could any reasonable legal mind expect support of a ban on gays having the same rights to a legal contract as heterosexual citizens do, when the very physical behavior defining homosexuality has already been deemed legal?
If you don’t like the Constitutional arrangement of representative government and Supreme Court oversight, the Constitution provides a means for amending itself and I suggest you begin efforts to follow that procedure. Good luck and have fun. Relevant Constitutional references (the final reference is especially important here):
Article 1, Section 8: "No State shall ...pass any ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."
Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Amendment 14, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That’s "equal protection of the laws," in case you missed it.
"The heterosexual family is the building block of society because it can procreate."
Does this mean you would invalidate the marriages of infertile couples, couples who are child-free by choice, and senior citizens who marry for the companionship of a loved one because they cannot "procreate?" Of course not. No churches require a fertility test before solemnizing marriages, and the government certainly doesn’t either.
If marriage exists primarily to encourage procreation, then why is it a government issue at all, and why allow non-procreating couples to enjoy the benefits of marriage?
"A mom and dad are the best solution to raising kids so that they have the best chance of turning out to be normal, productive citizens."
How about the gay couples who adopt and rear healthy well-adjusted children? Do you have scientific evidence to support this claim, in light of the very high number of divorced/single parents who have reared children who become productive and emotionally healthy adults? What about all the dysfunctional or criminal adults reared by two-parent families? This whole "protect marriage" thing seems especially silly when we consider that the biggest threat to heterosexual marriages are the heterosexuals themselves. This is the institution that ends in divorce over half the time. Remember the impulse marriages of Britney Spears? Is this what we’re protecting?
"If we allow gays to marry, why not allow multiple partners in marriage?"
Certain legal contracts supported by the government are already limited to only two participants, such as 50-50 business partnerships. Another contributor is the percentage of citizens affected: I suspect there are relatively few oppressed polygamists out there, compared to the percentage of gay citizens in America. Eliminating the use of tax dollars to discriminate on the basis of physical attributes should be the first item on the agenda. The government should allow every adult American couple exactly the same opportunity, regardless of the shape of their bodies, to sit down and sign a legal contract for mutual risk management and shared property.
"What about the person who wants to marry a child? How do we prohibit that if we allow gays to marry?"
It is absurd to even hint at equating homosexuality with pedophilia despite all the scientific evidence indicating gays are less likely to abuse children than straights are.
The marriage agreement does in fact allow teenagers to participate in many cases, with some states allowing citizens to enter into the contract at 17, some even younger. Recognizing full citizenship rights at a certain age is constitutional (18 for voting rights, for example). Requiring adult status for this contract is appropriate, but limiting the contract benefits to only certain citizens on the basis of the shape of their bodies is discriminatory. How do you support this discrimination, other than due to religious beliefs which have no place in government?
"If we allow gay marriage, why not let a person who loves their pet to marry their pet?"
Despite Bill O’Reilly’s silly pet turtle question, the entire argument is absurd. Participants in legal contracts must be sentient citizens. We all know this.
"If we allow gay marriage, why not allow relatives to marry, too?"
The question about consanguinity is a good one. The marriage contract is a legal one rather than romantic or sexual. Our cultural aversion to incest, even between adults, makes the matter of close relatives legally marrying unlikely, even more so than the aversion many citizens have toward gay marriage. Concerns about spawning unhealthy children are part of this aversion, but there's that faulty assumption that marriage is all about children! In practice, I fear we'd be surprised to learn just how much adult incest goes on (even outside of the Jerry Springer Show). In a nod of respect toward the assertion that community consensus should have some weight as our nation's laws evolve, I'm willing to support equal relationship contract rights for gay couples and any straight couples who are not related by parent-child or sibling connections (having at least one parent in common). Let the cousins love each other.
"A civil union or power of attorney can provide similar benefits to marriage, but let marriage remain between a man and a woman."
A same-sex couple in a civil union cannot get the "married filing jointly" federal tax breaks. To gain the same shared property and medical authorizations afforded to straight couples by marriage, same-sex couples must pay for extensive legal services. Hardly "equal protection of the laws." And if the power of attorney option is such a good solution, then let's just require all contract-minded couples regardless of the shape of their bodies to get powers of attorney and leave "marriage" to the churches.
"Gay marriage is unnatural."
We cannot allow "nature" to serve as the basis for our laws. In nature, creatures murder each other all the time. It's NATURAL, but we prohibit it for sound reasons of societal protection. Shall we be so quick to base our laws on nature as we observe it, or do we evolve as a civilization and continue to refine how to coexist with many people effectively and respectfully? Some natural behavior is counterproductive and we discourage it. Gay marriage isn't dangerous to society or individuals.
Besides, nature has offered many examples of same-sex mating, especially in various bird species. And dolphins, arguably the second-smartest mammals on our planet, very often engage in homosexual play as adolescents before settling into a mated pairing. Being gay is natural after all!
"Gay sex is disgusting and shouldn’t be encouraged."
Oh, come on. Do you have any idea the kinds of freaky stuff consenting straight adults get into? This one is a non-starter.
"Gays are always demonstrating sexual behavior in public at pride parades and protests."
It’s bigoted to judge an entire population by the behavior of a fraction of that population. Lurid examples of public lewdness by some small portion of the gay population have nothing to do with gay people and straight people getting the exact same legal contract benefits, which is the original issue. Many people are understandably equally appalled by straight couples making out in public.
"America is a Christian nation and therefore should abide by Christian principles, which include condemnation of gays."
The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation, although it might have been founded by people who were predominantly Christians of one denomination or another. The nation was founded upon the Constitution. The words "Jesus," "church" and "Christian" do not appear in the United States Constitution. The word "religion" appears only where Congress is expressly prohibited from making laws establishing a state religion. The word "religious" appears only where it is decreed that no specific religion is required to get elected in America.
Our leaders may profess whatever faith they choose, or none, and we decide who to vote for. Many of our leaders, past and present, have spoken about or written about their beliefs, exercising a right which is supported by the First Amendment, but they were acting as CITIZENS, not setting policy.
Perhaps gay people make you personally uncomfortable? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps you believe your God has condemned gayness? If so, that should have nothing to do with our tax dollars either. If we finally recognize we have evolved beyond the religious origins of much of our legal system, we can see the value of letting churches and other religious institutions mandate the behavior of their adherents while separating "marriage" as a religious function from "civil union" as a legal function. In many ways, we already have done so.