Listening to the arguments on gay marriage

Respecting the rights of the majority

Published on February 5, 2004 By Draginol In Personal Relationships

The United States is premised on the separation of church and state. But over time, what that separation means has changed. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that people were free to practice whatever religion they wanted. Moreover, they wanted to ensure that the government did not establish any official religion. You will regularly hear the ACLU refer to the "establishment clause" of the US constitution as the basis for their various lawsuits against states.

It's a sticky situation because for such a long while, the percentage of Americans who were Christians were so high that religious concepts made their way into government policy. This wasn't intentional in most cases. If you're a true believer many things that are religious in nature just seem natural, common sense, normal. One such thing is marriage.

In hindsight, it was probably a bad idea for the government to recognize marriage as anything beyond a civil union. But it's easy to understand why this happened. Marriage is such a normal part of human life that how could the government not recognize it? As an agnostic, it's never bothered me either way. I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not feel threatened by people's religions. In fact, I embrace their beliefs because it helps create a deep tapestry of culture that enriches us all.

I also believe in two social principles: 1) That the traditions of the super-majority should be respected and protected. 2) The rights of the minority should be protected.

I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely. I support the right of any two people to "get married" regardless of sex. However, the super majority don't think the government should recognize these unions. And by our constitution, that's pretty much that. Marriage isn't a "right". The 10th amendment makes pretty clear that anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution is left to "the people" (in the form of their democratically elected representatives).

That said, gays should have access to civil unions that have the same legal punch as marriage. It may seem like semantics but to millions of Americans, it's not. There is a principle involved here. The same people who argued that the Super Bowl nonsense with Janet Jackson was "no big deal" are likely to not see why people object to gay marriage. The majority of Americans believe in these traditions and they have been with us for literally thousands of years. All around us, however, small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on those traditions. Marriage is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. And as long as the majority of Americans practicing it believe it should be between a man and a women exclusively that is what it should be. It's their tradition. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

The government should work to ensure that civil unions have the same legal meaning as marriages. Two consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have the right to form a legal union. For that matter, I believe that any number of consenting adults should be able to form civil unions (whether you're into "Polyamory" or whatever). But marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

Comments (Page 1)

j swift

on Feb 05, 2004

"1) That the traditions of the super-majority should be respected and protected. 2) The rights of the minority should be protected."

Brad, just what is the distinction then? What does respected get the super-majority (as opposed to merely the majority?) that the minority does not get?

What if the majority's traditions are immoral? Is this not moral relativism? Do we respect immorality for the benefit of the majority at the expense of minority?

PoetPhilosopher

on Feb 05, 2004

By your line or reasoning, can I assume that if the super-majority supported marriage, then you would whole-heartedly support the passage of laws ensure that right where trampled upon?

Interestingly enough, the "separate but equal" theory played a large part in the Mass judges ruling.

The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.

They have legal precedent here with the civil rights laws and I actually think this was a deliberate attempt to head off that argument. Will it work?

JeremyG

on Feb 05, 2004

Gay marriage will eventually come to be simply because lawyers stand to make money from the divorces.

Lunaticus Minimus

on Feb 05, 2004

Hey, you people, wake up and smell the caffiene! Majority rule is just that. The MAJORITY RULE. Too often ANY minority group steps up and says "Hey, by law my beliefs are protected, so you..over there..STOP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING..it isn't MY Belief, so feck off and stop or we're going to court!"..
Whatever happened to "If I can't beat em, I can stay the hell out of the way"..But oh no, 9 people who want a gay parade surely has the right to trample the 9000 people who don't want it. Bah, whether it be religious, political, social, or racial.. To make exceptions for ONE person that inconviences MANY people..How isn't THAT IMMORAL?

Chris

on Feb 05, 2004

Many of the polls I've seen don't show a super-majority to be oppossed to gay marriages. Also, the numbers are changing pretty significantly year by year as a generation grows up realizing the emotional baggage that their parents have is just that...baggage. Its not useful to discriminate against gays and not only that, its illegal.

I'm sorry Brad, but you toe the line here on clear discrimination. Your making the same case that racists used against the blacks in the 20th century. Well, "The vast majority doesn't want it so...piss off." Umm, wrong. It clearly states in the constitution that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALLY. The courts have interpreted that to mean that everyone should have the same rights (though obviously this doesn't apply to teenagers but thats a side problem).

Here your stating that yes, gays and straights should have the same rights and frankly I agree. However, the SECOND you make the case for giving it a different name you discriminate and show that there will never be "equal rights" and "equal protections" until its called...just plain marriage. The second you create a different name, you create a different class. You create an obvious divide. In the end, the public will speak if Congress decides to declare marriage to be just that of "between a man and a woman." I don't think it will ever pass and the courts would strike it down. Again, it clearly violates what this country is built on.

Or atleast, I would hope that common sense (and legality) shows that. Every day I hold less hope for the "common" part though.

InfoGeek

on Feb 05, 2004

I have a question. When you go to the Justice of the Peace, does he/she officiate a marrige or a state accepted civil union. If it is a marriage, does he mention "now in the sight of God" or words to that effect?
Do we have any state official that does a religious marriage or do they just sign off on a marriage license? What legally is the difference between a non-religious marriage and a civil union? Does one grant better benefits? Could'nt we just make sure that the non-religious marriage and civil union were equal?
Would a constitutional amendment (yeah, right) defining marriage affect a civil union?

Jalbert

PoetPhilosopher

on Feb 05, 2004

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Coming to a theatre near you! A SUPER-MAJORITY!!!

Oct 03 CNN:

quote

The greatest differences among the two groups appear to be on social issues, especially gay marriage and ethnic diversity.

While a majority of younger Americans -- 53 percent -- support same-sex marriages that are recognized with equal rights under the law, 32 percent of the older group backed such a concept.

/quote

Younger Americans were considered <30yrs.

It frightens me mommy

bakerstreet

on Feb 05, 2004

This is the main flaw of a 'constitutional' system. Kind of like Biblical theology, it can be reinterpreted to say just about anything you want. In this case, Homosexuality is interpreted as some kind of ethos, or ethnic group, when in actuality it is just a sexual practice. Granted, no one should be live in fear because of they are homosexuals, but to reinterpret a 200 year old document as if "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was somehow foreseen by the founding fathers is silly.

Can you imagine one guy having to mail alimony to some other guy? The potential for fraud and benefits abuse is insane, as well. You can't change your status as an African American, but people tend to change their mind about their sexual orientation. How does that effect the legal micromanagement of discrimination? Any twisted mess that a normal marriage can become will suddenly be possible with homosexuals as well, greatly increasing the number of twisted messes... "Honey, I'm sorry, but I am abandoning you and the kids. I have to face the fact that I am straight, and there's nothing I can do about it." Jeez...

I don't believe for an instant that the founding fathers ever intended the Constitution to protect homosexuality as a practice, nor do I believe they would have even considered homosexuals a 'group' worthy of legal definition. It is a practice, not a "lifestyle" that defines someone... or at least it shouldn't be.

Times change, sure, but there has to be a limit to how far you can twist someone else's words to say what you want them to.

Andreas

on Feb 05, 2004

Hmm.... I find this article odd, but then I did find the fuss about Janet Jacksons breast very strange as well. However, I'm European and have probably a more liberal approach to nakedness.

Perhaps I do not understand the difference between marriage and a civil union if religion is not considered. It's in the semantics? As societies develop, old traditions are put to rest. After one or two generations have died off, I am quite convinced that the majority will have switched sides.

j swift

on Feb 05, 2004

I have been a witness at many JOP type marriages in CO. They are performed by judges for a fee. They are secular but they use a standard "Marriage license" issued to a couple whether they are married in a church or otherwise.

Exactly what a "civil union" would be I do not know, maybe just the same license with the "Marriage" replaced with civil union.

Oh and Lunaticus...

We have a representative form of government in he U.S., as was made so very clear in the last presidential election. Even referenda are really majority minus the apathetic rule.

Also your hyperbole is clouding your vision, no one is suggesting that a minority of one should overcome a super-majority of the rest. This is just silly.

stevendedalus

on Feb 05, 2004

Brazen public display bothers me. However a Gay parade is a sincere openness to get results, just as the civil rights and Nam movements in the sixties and seventies. I would not equate gay marriage as in your face with Janet's boob in my face.

Wahkonta Anathema

on Feb 05, 2004

"In hindsight, it was probably a bad idea for the government to recognize marriage as anything beyond a civil union. "
Herein lies the key to solving the problem.
I think we should eliminate the archaic 'Family Court'. All claims filed there are capable of civil remedy by other Courts. The kid tried for crime there is either guilty of crime or not, forget all the subtle differences. He sits in a cell like an adult if he is punished. We can still expunge the record at 18. Adoptions are largely done by agency and the Court signs off on them. The divorcees are only after each others money, and the kid is used as a way to get money by alimony, support rulings. This could be handled by a civil claim for money as any other contract. It would also make the kid a person for purposes of the divorce and they'd get a say in who they live with, or share equal time with both if not. All could be done in a civil court.
Brad is correct to see it as a 'civil union'. Let the church assume jurisdiction over the divorce if they want to, and let the jurisdiction be bound by the 'marriage contract' with parties agreeing to its jurisdiction at time of signing. If they opt for governmental contract as a civil union, then they can file a civil claim for property like anyone else. That means no appeal to the civil courts by church contractees for an adverse finding, as we have separation of church and state. To get an idea of how many people marry because God is an issue to them, watch how many would file for marriage in a church as opposed to a civil court.
Understand that by this, we also eliminate the marriage tax-credit and alter the income filings. Again, something I support. The tax credit was but a expedient political bribe anyhow, not philosophically based. The gays want money, not to be approved by God. Monetary claims should be in a civil court with the rest of them. By eliminating the tax-credit we take away thier incentive to seek validation.
Finally, it's always so refreshing to read Brad and his 'democratic' principles as opposed to 'republican' ones others have. Chris makes the point we would never have had an end to slavery if we abided States rights. It was a republican idea to grant freedom from slavery by the Feds over the objection of States and a 'super-majority'. Did you know that technically no person of any State is entitled to any form of rights in a criminal procedure? The right is found only when the State creates rules of procedure, thus it is a statutorily created right. How do we get from there to a gay from Hawaii( I think it was from Hawaii, but may be mistaken) has a right to protection in the several States because he has a right in Hawaii? Because the feds are going to MAKE us abide it. Oh what tangled web we weave...

Draginol

on Feb 06, 2004

Slavery is abolished because the states passed the 13th amendment. It was abolished because of popular support.

Don't try to rewrite history that some "super majority" supported slavery. It required a super-majority to abolish it (by definition).

So the comparison between slavery and gay marriage is not apt.

Lunaticus Minimus

on Feb 06, 2004

Swift..Tell me that next time you can pray in school.

fugmulch

on Feb 06, 2004

I think that there are problems with the way the whole issue is being handled, on both sides.

First, I think many who argue the case (for and against) blur and merge the concepts of marrage as a civil contract versus a religous sacrament.

Second, as it stands today, civil unions (I don't like the term, reminds me of PC claptrap) do not provide equal protections under the law.

Third, homosexual couples have been adopting and raising children for years and children raised in those households have no higher rates of abuse, criminal behavior or mal-adjustment when compared to children raised in hetero households.

Fourth, as to arguing against agy marrage due to the potential for fraud and abuse, the system is already rampant with fraud and abuse, how will allowing a small number of gay marrages make it worse?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!