Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
28
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 9:20pm
Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Read the rest below:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html


Edited 2/20/2004 9:59:16 PM ET by independentgrrrl

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 10:17am

Comparing the "kissing cousins" limitations to marry, in some states, & the argument against gay marriage doesn't fly. Other than stating there are some restrictions for obtaining a marrage cert. The former is for a practical reason, the potencial

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 1:18pm
The courts must be very careful in how they handle the issues regarding the same sex marriages.

If they cite the reason that they will be allowed is due to the anti-discriminatory / equal protection laws, then you will have polygamists, and others filing for marriage licenses under this same guideline, and no matter what any lawyer says, the rule will apply the same way.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 1:51pm

>"then you will have polygamists, and others filing for marriage licenses under this same guideline"<


This is religious right scare rhetoric. They're the only ones I've heard spout this on talk/debate shows.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 2:25pm
>> If the marriage/union is clearly defined as between two people.

I am playing devils advocate with the point, but it will still fall under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

>> Who/how many would support such measures?

Who knows. I am sure in Utah, it would go over pretty well.

>> How many polygamists do you know?

I have never asked.

>> How many gay couples do you know in long term relationships?

One. I know several gay people, but only one that is in a long-term relationship, and they do not support same sex marriages, but instead legal unions with the same benefits, which I agree with them.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 3:50pm
A gay friend of mine said that those going to SF to get married are from OUTSIDE of the state. Most SF locals have no desire to marry, they believe it is a "het" thing.

It seems that within the gay ranks there is separation on the issue. Some want civil unions to get at least something, or feel they may end up with nothing....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 5:20pm
Just out of curiosity how does a "marriage" differ from a "civil union". If the only difference is the name, then why is there all the fuss about it from either side?
Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 5:39pm
It's legal definition, I believe, is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The words that separate the two is *man and woman*.

As for the fuss, I don't know why the gay community is so intent upon using that term to define their union. Obviously, theirs is *not* a union of *man* AND *woman*.






Edited 2/23/2004 5:41:00 PM ET by independentgrrrl

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 10:08pm
In at least one state -New Mexico, I believe - gender is not apecified in the legal documents even though tradition has allowed marriage only between one man and one woman. Do you agree then, the difference between a marriage and a civil union is primarily semantics?
Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 02-23-2004 - 10:46pm
I don't agree that the difference between a marriage and a civil union is primarily semantics. To me, it goes much deeper than that. It is an institution that has withstood the test of thousands of years. Marriage, in it's timeless and traditional definition, played an important role in the development of civilizations. Many cultures and religions have defined marriage to be between a man and a woman through the centuries. Just because a tiny fraction of humanity want the definition of marriage to include their alternative lifestyle doesn't make their lifestyle a *marriage*.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 02-24-2004 - 2:42pm
But fortunately we have gone past some of the traditional things that some cultures have included in marriage. We don't generally accept a man's right to say some gibberish three times, stomp his foot, and thereby divorce his wife! We no longer find it appropriate for a woman to die on her husband's funeral pyre. A brother in law is no longer required to marry his deceased brother's wife. Heck, we don't even turn a woman'as property over to the husband in most of the States anymore. Things change, times change.

Personally, I think "civil union" should be enough legal entanglement for any couple. Marriage should be left to the religious and should include all of the rights of the civil union. That way, if your church or mine wanted to "marry" a couple or deny the right to "marry" a couple based on gender, color, race, fertility, or whatever if would not involve the law.

Pages