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: 03-23-2003
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 8:55pm

Welcome


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2004
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 11:40pm
I DONT SEE WHAT ALL THE HOOPLAH IS. I HAVE TO FIRST CLARIFY I AM A REPUBLICAN I DO BELIVE IN MANY CONSERVITIVE POINTS OF VIEW AND I AM A HETERO SEXUAL FEMALE, HOW EVER I'M DEAD SET AGAINST THE BANNING OF GAY MARRIGES. HOW DARE THE GORVERMENT THINK THEY CAN TELL US WHO WE CAN LOVE AND WHO WE CANNOT. HOW DARE THE GOVERMENT NOT ALLOW PERSONS TO EXPRESS THIER LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER, MARRIGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND NOT ALLOWING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIGES WOULD BE LIKE BANNING INTERRACIAL MARRIGES. WITH THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY SHOULDNT WE ATLEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITED ENOUGH TO EACHOTHER TO WANT TO MAKE THAT KIND OF COMMITMENT.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-28-2004 - 1:52pm

Welcome to the board allie!


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2004
Sat, 02-28-2004 - 4:04pm
I'm Well Aware of what caps mean, I was typing from work and it's the only way i can run all my programs so i didn't bother changing them. So Sorry for the Inconviniece.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 02-28-2004 - 7:15pm

Sorry!


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-27-2004
Sat, 02-28-2004 - 9:54pm
No Big.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 03-01-2004 - 9:13am
The main difference between marriage and cival unions is that a cival union doesn't have to be recognized across state boundaries.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Sun, 03-07-2004 - 6:31am
I personally don't care what YOU call it. I will still call it a marriage. When our two children ask if we are married, we will say "yes".

We can have a ceremony performed by pretty much any religious denomination we chose. The rest is the legal ramifications and that is what concerns me. Call it what you like, just give me the over one thousand benefits that go along with "marriage".

-=Seawyt

Pages