Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[D.W.Washburn]

If Christians want to rule the nation according to their own lights, and those lights do not include gay marriage, then they should oppose gay marriage civil marriage.

If Christians want to live in a pluralistic society that protects the civil rights of all of it's citizens, including the Christians themselves, then they should favor gay civil marriage.

Personally, I take the latter tack.

 

[Polycarp1]

Marksman...thanks for the clarification.

A couple of observations on the subject. First, we Americans have never had the right to vote for or against a given proposition as a nation. The closest we've ever come to that is Repeal of Prohibition, when we chose delegates to state conventions for the purpose of voting for or against ratification of the 21st Amendment. Other than that, everything we do as a nation, we do through our elected representatives in Congress and the President, and his appointments to his Administration and to the courts. Further, the decision of who may or may not marry has always been a state power, the only exception to which I know of is that it shall not be exercised in a way to deny citizens equal protection under law -- the point behind the Loving case.

Now, the right to marry the person of your choice, without reference to whether he/she is of opposite gender, either is or is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. If it is a right, as many here including me have argued, then voting it in or out by statute or referendum is inappropriate. You certainly don't think it's appropriate to subject people's rights to join a Pentecostal church or speak criticism of the President to law -- those are rights guaranteed under the constitution. If the right to marry the (single, unrelated) consenting adult of your choice is similarly a right, then it's similarly guaranteed. If not, then state by state legislation is appropriate.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Right now there is no right to gay marriage so this right you are saying is guaranteed does not exist.

There is in Massachusetts and California and in New York same gender marriages from elsewhere are recognized.

It's a dream. Since it does not exist yet then why can't it be voted on?

The idea of the majority voting against the rights of a minority is abhorent.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Geez, I have not branded you a "Hater" just because you disagree with me, so why do you do it to me?

You didn't answer the question.
How is your demand to vote on the equality of a minority not hate?

Right now there is no right to gay marriage so this right you are saying is guaranteed does not exist. It's a dream. Since it does not exist yet then why can't it be voted on?

Prior to the Supreme Court decision in 1967 there was no right for interracial couples to marry in the state of Virginia

Prior to the Supreme Court decision in 1954 black students didn’t have the right to attend their neighborhood public school

Prior to the passing of the civil rights act of 1964 minorities had no right to stay in hotels or eat in restaurants

Prior to executive order 9981 signed by Truman in 1948 minorities did not have the right to serve in integrated units.

Prior to the voting rights act of 1965 blacks didn’t have the right to vote in thousands of precincts in the south.

Rights exist even when they are denied to minorities.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I never said there was one. What is your point?

The point being you want to vote against the equality of a minority while not exposing yourself to the same possibility. As Polycarp 1 explained (and explained so well) constitutionally protected rights are not subject to popular vote. The people of the United States do not have their rights, their liberties or their protection under law subject to the whims of popular vote. The rights are guaranteed.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they hate you or they are bigots. I also never said they have to leave. They can choose that or fight for what they feel is right.

“either fight for them or move” your words
So once again…Why should anyone have to leave the country just because bigots cannot see beyond their petty hatred?

Again, you are trying to suppress my opinions with your reverse bigotry, and reverse hatred. I'm not expressing hate or bigotry.

You want a “vote” to deny an entire minority equal rights and equal protection under the law and you pretend that this isn’t prejudice?

I'm expressing that I want freedom to have a voice in how my government is ruled. Why do you want to put me down and take away from my "right" to do that?

I asked you before (and you didn’t answer) why should you have the special right to vote away the equality and legal protections guaranteed to an entire minority?


And by the way the Supreme court has said you don’t have the right to vote away the rights, the equality, the equal protection of a minority Ref: Romer vs. Evans. The state of Colorado tired to do exactly what you are proposing, vote away the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians

Also, how can this be discrimination when it is following the law? Legally it is not discrimination by not allowing gay people to marry. You can always try to get the law changed. A vote is just one way to do that.

Discrimination is discrimination even if you pretend rights don’t exist. By your position Richard and Mildred Loving did not have the right to marry because in Virginia interracial marriage was illegal therefore when police broke into the Loving home, arrested and jailed Richard and Mildred they weren’t REALLY being discriminated against because they could have left the country or married people of the “correct” skin color.
By your position Rosa Parks did not have the right to sit at the front of the bus because blacks didn’t have equal rights in 1956. and because blacks didn’t have equal rights there is no possible way she was being discriminated against

As I have stated before, if gay marriage wins, then it does. At least marriage will be the same in every state no matter what the outcome is.


I feel really disturbed and downright offended that by bringing up the idea of a vote in America (Yes, the United States), that so much hate is being brought back on me on one of the freedoms Americans have. Now that does not make any sense.

And I am disturbed and offended that you would propose voting away the rights of a minority

You didn’t answer the question (is anyone surprised?) do you really think hatred, bigotry and discrimination are “acceptable morality”?

 

[David Brider]

Right now there is no right to gay marriage so this right you are saying is guaranteed does not exist.

Yes there is. In Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, and (as of the start of next year) Norway, and also in Massachusetts, California, and the Native American Coquille Nation.

Also, Andorra, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary (as of the start of next year), Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay allow civil unions and registered partnerships of gay couples (i.e. gay marriage in all but name), as do regions within Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the USA.

More information here. Suffice it to say, things are improving.

David.

 

[David Brider]

It was not my intention to make it appear that I would lose rights if gay people were allowed to marry. Essentially the arguments held against me by wanting a vote are to silence my "right" to have a voice in my government. Are gay people the only ones that can decide what my government should be like?

No, but the only people who are in any way effected if gay marriage is allowed - or if it isn't allowed - are those gay couples (and same-gender bisexual couples) who desire to formalise their relationship by getting married. Those people who don't wish to allow gay marriage may have very sincere, deep-seated, faith-based moral objections to allowing gay marriage - but ultimately, those people are not going to be effected one jot if gay marriage is allowed. So should their objections be allowed to be a deciding factor in whether gay couples should be allowed to be married? Well, I don't think they should.

David.

 

[Brennin]

There is a lot of debate, on these subforums and in other places on the Internet, on whether gay marriage should be allowed. It is clear from these forums that many Christians believe that gay marriage has no place in church. It is also clear that some Christians disagree with them. However, that is not the topic I wish to discuss.

What I would like to ask is whether there is any justification for Christians opposing gay marriage in civil (secular) society. The people of California will soon be voting on this question, and it will eventually be debated throughout the United States. Most gay people regard marriage as a civil right that has been denied to them. However, some Christians believe that gay marriage should be disallowed, even in civil society (e.g. the people of MassAction, Concerned Women for America, Americans for Truth, David Daubenmire). Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry, provided that the law does not force churches to marry such couples if those churches do not want to do this?

If you respond, could you please refrain from saying that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then the next step would be to allow marriage between a human and an animal? This argument is often made, and it is ridiculous. Animals cannot be consenting partners in a marriage, while two adult human beings can. And could you also refrain from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? I am talking about consensual relations between adults. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what people have to say.

There is no constitutional requirement for gay "marriage," the eisegesis of brain dead activist judges notwithstanding. However, if Prop 8 is defeated, then I will accept it as the price of democracy. (There are many low-watt bulbs in my state, unfortunately.)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

However, if Prop 8 is defeated, then I will accept it as the price of democracy. (There are many low-watt bulbs in my state, unfortunately.)

What, specifically, would your problem be with secular society recognising homosexual marriages?

 

[Texas Lynn]

if Prop 8 is defeated, then I will accept it as the price of democracy. (There are many low-watt bulbs in my state, unfortunately.)

I'm not sure how smart = conservative is any more valid than smart = liberal.

 

[BigBadWlf]

There is no constitutional requirement for gay "marriage," the eisegesis of brain dead activist judges notwithstanding.

There was no constitutional requirement for interracial marriage but those darn activist judges defied the Christians of the far right and ruled in favor of equality

However, if Prop 8 is defeated, then I will accept it as the price of democracy. (There are many low-watt bulbs in my state, unfortunately.)

Can you explain how the rejection of a proposition designed to do nothing but discriminate against a minority and voted against by a majority of the people endangers democracy?

 

[dies-l]

There was no constitutional requirement for interracial marriage but those darn activist judges defied the Christians of the far right and ruled in favor of equality

Couldn't one argue that the 14th Amendment basis for interracial marriage is stronger than the same constitutional basis for same-sex marriage, especially when you consider that the court has always held race-based distinctions to higher scrutiny than gender-based distinctions? And, after all, when you argue that some right is violated by the definition of marriage that says "1 man + 1 woman" aren't you really arguing that that is an unreasonable distinction based on gender? On the other hand, claims against laws forbidding interracial marriages are essentially claims of an unreasonable racial distinction. Thus, in all honesty, it seems to me that the constitutional argument is different than the one for same sex marriage.

In addition to arguing based on the differing levels of scrutiny, one could also argue that sex-based distinctions are justified by the anatomic realities of the sexual. If we believe (as many Americans do) that the central purpose of marriage is the creation of families, then the fact that same sex sexual relations do not create children, while opposite sex relations do, becomes compellingly relevant to the discussion. The counter argument to this point would be that we allow elderly people and people on birth control to wed. But, one could argue back to this, that the mere fact that they are recipients of privileges stemming from the rights of others does not make a universal right for all. One also argue that the fact that the historical definition of marriage has, in nearly every human society, involved some combining of male and female, is also quite relevant. The idea that gender is irrelevent to the right to marry is a rather new notion that has never been widely accepted by any human society, when combined with the anatomical reasons for this distinction, is also quite compelling.

On the other hand, the same arguments cannot be made to justify banning interracial marriage. A black man and a white woman can make a baby just like a couple of the same race can. Also, the notion of people marrying outside of their cultural boundaries is not a new or novel idea in the history of man. In fact, we see this happening several times in the Old Testament.

I just want to provide some more food for thought, because nobody seems to be arguing intelligently against your posts regarding the inherent right to marry and your analogy to interracial marriage. As I have said before, I am not strongly opposed to same sex marriage, but I do believe the topic should be addressed intelligently from both sides (and there do exist good arguments on both sides of the discussion). Furthermore, I do think that we need to be quite careful when we start claiming that certain unenumerated rights exist that transcend the democratic process. How are we to decide which "rights" make the cut and which ones don't? One of the beuatiful things about our constitutional democracy is that we already have a list of such rights and we have the right to democratically amend our Constitution when we, as a society, decide that there exist rights, which we have forgotten.

 

[BigBadWlf]

As I have said before, I am not strongly opposed to same sex marriage, but I do believe the topic should be addressed intelligently from both sides (and there do exist good arguments on both sides of the discussion).

I have yet to hear an intelligent argument for discrimination against same gendered couples.

The two positions you provided here wouldn’t hold up to even passing scrutiny.

Specifically:
“If we believe (as many Americans do) that the central purpose of marriage is the creation of families, then the fact that same sex sexual relations do not create children, while opposite sex relations do, becomes compellingly relevant to the discussion.”

If we take this argument as a justification for discrimination against same gendered couples then we must accept the argument that infertile heterosexuals must be also discriminated against by marriage law.
This is not the case. There is no requirement of fertility or even the requirement of having children in marriage laws. Childless couples, whether childless by choice or happenstance, are not denied the right to marry and to say that fertility is a requirement for marriage but ONLY for one minority of people is to put in place a double standard.
Further, despite “the anatomic realities of the sexual” you refer to one out of every three same sex couples have children.
In the end all you have done is present a logical fallacy in this case special pleading


“One also argue that the fact that the historical definition of marriage has, in nearly every human society, involved some combining of male and female, is also quite relevant. The idea that gender is irrelevent to the right to marry is a rather new notion that has never been widely accepted by any human society, when combined with the anatomical reasons for this distinction, is also quite compelling.”
Here you present a logical fallacy specifically an argument an appeal from tradition.


Logical fallacies just wont cut it

 

[Brennin]

Logical fallacies just wont cut it

Medice, cura te ipsum.

 

[OllieFranz]

Couldn't one argue that the 14th Amendment basis for interracial marriage is stronger than the same constitutional basis for same-sex marriage, especially when you consider that the court has always held race-based distinctions to higher scrutiny than gender-based distinctions? And, after all, when you argue that some right is violated by the definition of marriage that says "1 man + 1 woman" aren't you really arguing that that is an unreasonable distinction based on gender? On the other hand, claims against laws forbidding interracial marriages are essentially claims of an unreasonable racial distinction. Thus, in all honesty, it seems to me that the constitutional argument is different than the one for same sex marriage.

Actually the difference is not in the level of scrutiny, which is the same, but in the strength of the "compelling government interest" in allowing or even promoting the discrimination. Of course that just means that we (those of us responding to this post) have to take your next point all the more seriously. Do the physical differences between the sexes provide the same kind of compelling government interest that, for example, means that we have segregated bathrooms for the different sexes?

In addition to arguing based on the differing levels of scrutiny, one could also argue that sex-based distinctions are justified by the anatomic realities of the sexual. If we believe (as many Americans do) that the central purpose of marriage is the creation of families, then the fact that same sex sexual relations do not create children, while opposite sex relations do, becomes compellingly relevant to the discussion. The counter argument to this point would be that we allow elderly people and people on birth control to wed. But, one could argue back to this, that the mere fact that they are recipients of privileges stemming from the rights of others does not make a universal right for all.

Recognizing that we are looking at the government's compelling interest in the discrimination, the fact that we do allow other marriages that we know will not be producing or raising children provides a severe blow to the case for discrimination. When added to the fact that the child-rearing that the government's endorsement of marriage is meant to encourage is focused more on raising children to become good citizens, rather than merely focused on childbirth, and that fostered and adopted children are as important, if not more important to be included in any such determination, any claim that same-sex marriages do not produce children can be made only if same-sex couples can not not foster or adopt children. That, of course, is a separate discrimination issue, both here on the forum, and in court, and so that is as far as we can take this point at the moment.

One also argue that the fact that the historical definition of marriage has, in nearly every human society, involved some combining of male and female, is also quite relevant. The idea that gender is irrelevent to the right to marry is a rather new notion that has never been widely accepted by any human society, when combined with the anatomical reasons for this distinction, is also quite compelling.

Actually many non-Western societies have always had provisions for stable same-sex relationships. Some of them have even endorsed marriage, or institutions that it would be hard for a person outside that culture to distinguish from marriage. It was one of the "Satanic" features of some Meso-American cultures that the Spanish used as an excuse to wipe out those cultures.

On the other hand, the same arguments cannot be made to justify banning interracial marriage. A black man and a white woman can make a baby just like a couple of the same race can. Also, the notion of people marrying outside of their cultural boundaries is not a new or novel idea in the history of man. In fact, we see this happening several times in the Old Testament.

But, even if we were to concede your points, are these compelling reasons for a government pledged to equal treatment under the law to allow or promote the discrimination?

I just want to provide some more food for thought, because nobody seems to be arguing intelligently against your posts regarding the inherent right to marry and your analogy to interracial marriage. As I have said before, I am not strongly opposed to same sex marriage, but I do believe the topic should be addressed intelligently from both sides (and there do exist good arguments on both sides of the discussion).

I, for one, do appreciate the greater point that you are making. That we need to consider the question rationally, from all angles, rather than to go off half-cocked and blindly emotional.

Furthermore, I do think that we need to be quite careful when we start claiming that certain unenumerated rights exist that transcend the democratic process. How are we to decide which "rights" make the cut and which ones don't? One of the beuatiful things about our constitutional democracy is that we already have a list of such rights and we have the right to democratically amend our Constitution when we, as a society, decide that there exist rights, which we have forgotten.

Actually I worry about that as well.

For the most part, judges are chosen because they have proven themselves to be stable and deliberative, and respectful of the law and its precedents, and not the wild-eyed activists that those who do not like their more controversial decisions claim them to be. Many of the jurists on the panel that decided the Goodridge case (that mandated same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) were personally against the idea, but they recognized that the wording of the Massachusetts constitution, and the precedent of the SCOTUS decision in Loving outlining marriage as a basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution left them with no choice in their verdict.

Still, even with every precaution that we can take, a lot of controversial issues wind up being determined by small bodies of men that are often unelected by and unaccountable to the the voting public. We trust in the government because we trust in the Constitution, that it's system of checks and balances will nip most abuse of power in the bud. The biggest check on the judiciary branch is that they can only rule on issues specifically brought before it, but once such an issue is brought, they are the ones who interpret the Constitution. All it takes is for one panel to abuse its priveleges to start a process that could topple the government from within.

 

[OllieFranz]

Medice, cura te ipsum.

Actually, I don't see how "Physician, heal thyself" is an answer to BBW's post quoted.

In the post he accused someone (presumably you, since you responded), of logical fallacies. The quote seems to imply that he also makes logical fallacies. I don't see it.

Beyond his blind adherence to the assumption that the only cause of prejudice and bigotry is active hatred (as opposed to the idea that some prejudice and bigotry can be attributed to ignorance and bad teachers and role models) I have not seen any fallacies.

The closest I've seen is calling bigotry "hatred" -- in a different argument on a different subject calling the opposing position "hatred" could be Ad Hominem ("Don't pay any attention to their argument -- they are just haters"), in this case, he is claiming that the position itself is one of hatred.

As I said, it is possible for someone who does not hate to accept a hateful position out of ignorance, or bad education. So to argue that a position is hateful, giving reasons for that opinion is not Ad Hominen.

If you have noticed any fallacies in BBW's arguments, please show them.

 

[dies-l]

I have yet to hear an intelligent argument for discrimination against same gendered couples.

I am really not sure what benefit there is to be had in making a blanket insult of my arguments. I have intended my extensive comments to be a compliment to your ability to argue your viewpoint. After all, I usually don't waste my time with idiots. But, the strangest thing about this comment is that it seems to intentionally misframe the argument.

I am not arguing for discrimination against same gendered couples. I am only arguing that the matter in question is not a matter of rights that transcend the right of the people to make the decision through established processes. In this regard, I will point out that most of the rights that have been obtained for other minorities have been achieved through democratic channels. The Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment , the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 23rd Amendment, and the 26th Amendment are all examples of this. If the rights of women, minorities, former slaves, the residents of D.C., older people, and younger people can be recognized by the democratic process, I would ask why you believe that we should not allow the same process to determine what rights do or do not exist for same sex couples.

The two positions you provided here wouldn’t hold up to even passing scrutiny.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. I suspect that if this were true, then we would not be having this discussion, because the Court would have already decided it for us. After all, the above statement is a purely legal argument, is it not? On the other hand, I will grant you that I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I am sure that there are better arguments than mine and yours being made on both sides by those who are.

Specifically:

“If we believe (as many Americans do) that the central purpose of marriage is the creation of families, then the fact that same sex sexual relations do not create children, while opposite sex relations do, becomes compellingly relevant to the discussion.”

If we take this argument as a justification for discrimination against same gendered couples

Let me say this once again, so that we can be crystal clear: I am not arguing for, nor have I ever argued for, discrimination against same gendered couples!!! Rather, I am arguing against the notion that the right of same gendered couples to marry transcends the right of the rest of us to be trusted with participating in the decision about whether such a right exists. If there were a vote on it today, I would vote in favor of same-sex marriage, and I tend to vote for politicians who support same sex marriage. Eventually, I believe that there will be a majority of people who share this view, and when that happens, the right that you are claiming will be recognized legally. But, I do not think that it is beneficial to insist that we recognize an heretofore unenumerated right, simply because a significant minority of the population believes that such a right exists, even if I am a part of that significant minority.

then we must accept the argument that infertile heterosexuals must be also discriminated against by marriage law.

This is not the case. There is no requirement of fertility or even the requirement of having children in marriage laws. Childless couples, whether childless by choice or happenstance, are not denied the right to marry and to say that fertility is a requirement for marriage but ONLY for one minority of people is to put in place a double standard.
Further, despite “the anatomic realities of the sexual” you refer to one out of every three same sex couples have children.
In the end all you have done is present a logical fallacy in this case special pleading

[/quote]The fact that you call it a "logical fallacy" does not make it one. I have already addressed your counterargument. But, let me clarify again what I was saying. The fact is that we do not know whether or not the right to marry is constitutionally protected for the infertile, because, at least to my knowledge, nobody has ever challenged the right to infertile couples to marry (or those couples who choose not to have children). To my knowledge, there are no major segments of our society that believe that it is morally wrong for infertile couples to marry, which could help to explain why this issue has not ever been seriously discussed. But, the fact that it has never been made illegal by a democratically elected body does not mean that there is an established right that would transcend the right of the people to make such a law through their elected officials. There are lots of things that are not illegal, but which are not protected as a "right" in the sense that you are talking about, and justifiably so. But, for any such things, if the people were to decide that they should be illegal, it would be prerogative of the people, through their elected officials, to say so. I don't believe that we should prevent infertile couples from marrying, just like I don't believe that we should prevent same sex couples from marrying. But, by the same token, I believe that it is strongly inadvisable to claim that a right exists, even though it is neither historically recognized nor created by any legally or morally binding document, simply because a significant minority (which I say, because if there were majority support, you would not question the ability of the democratic process to achieve your desired results) believes that such a right is inalienable.

Furthermore, I would say that if you sincerely believe that sexuality and our understanding of it is not influenced by the "anatomic realities" of gender, it would be fair to ask why homosexuals don't just choose people of the opposite sex to have relationships with. Is it because they are just trying to be difficult and challenge the status quo? After all, if not for the "anatomic realities" of sexuality, men are just people and women are just people, so it should not be hard to just go with the flow, right? Of course not! Homosexuals engage in relationships with other people of the same sex because they are attracted, exclusively so in the case of homosexuals and lesbians (as opposed to bisexuals), to people of the same sex. Why? For the same reason that a heterosexual cannot just will himself into same sex sexual attraction. There are very real differences between men and women, especially in the area of human sexuality, and your assertion to the contrary is patently absurd. One of these differences is the ability to procreate. Just because not every married couple chooses to procreate does not mean that procreation is not a significant historical reason for marriage (and, because marriage is a product of history and tradition, I do think it reasonable to look to history and tradition to determine what marriage is and why it exists). I would argue that the fact that so many married couples are choosing not to have children and that so many unmarried couples are choosing to have children points to a societal shift in our understanding of marriage that will, someday soon, open the door for a majority of people in our country to recognize marriage, or at least something very much like it, as something that ought to be available to same-sex couples. But, this fact does not justify imminentizing this eventuality by claiming as an inalienable right something that has never been recognized as such.

“One also argue that the fact that the historical definition of marriage has, in nearly every human society, involved some combining of male and female, is also quite relevant. The idea that gender is irrelevent to the right to marry is a rather new notion that has never been widely accepted by any human society, when combined with the anatomical reasons for this distinction, is also quite compelling.”

Here you present a logical fallacy specifically an argument an appeal from tradition.


Logical fallacies just wont cut it

Your repeated use of the phrase "logical fallacies" over and over again does not discredit anything that I have said. But, I would challenge you with this: If you believe that human and cultural tradition is of no relevance to the question of whether there exists a issue of human rights, such that we should disregard the democratic process in recognizing such a right, then this begs the question, "on what moral ground do you assert this right?"

Please, bear in mind (I know I keep repeating this, but you seem to have disregarded it thus far), that I am not arguing against same sex marriage. What I am arguing against is the idea that we can and should recognize new "rights" without resort to the opinion of the majority. Since the examples that you gave previously revolved around Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution, I assume that one method that you would pursue of establishing such a right would be to have the Court interpret the Constitution in such a way that it grants such a right. In other words, we would allow the most moderate member of the Supreme Court (i.e., the Justice Kennedy of whatever period we are talking about) to decide which laws ought to transcend the will of the people. Do you really think that this is the way we ought to do things? Would you feel the same way if a more conservative Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment protected the right to stone "sinners" so long as the perpetrators were genuinely acting upon their religious beliefs? After all, I am sure that there are many, even on these forums that would be ecstatic about having such a "right." But, if we decide that it is okay to call something a right simply because a significant minority of the population believes it to be so, on what legal basis can we argue that such a decision would be wrong? Rights, if the term is to mean anything at all, must be based on some authority beyond one's own beliefs and convictions.

So far, the only basis you have given for your belief that same-sex marriage is a right is your firm conviction that it is. If that is the case, what makes your conviction any more compelling than the convictions of others holding a contrary view? I want to encourage you to really articulate what you believe that this right is grounded upon.

 

[dies-l]

Actually the difference is not in the level of scrutiny, which is the same, but in the strength of the "compelling government interest" in allowing or even promoting the discrimination. Of course that just means that we (those of us responding to this post) have to take your next point all the more seriously. Do the physical differences between the sexes provide the same kind of compelling government interest that, for example, means that we have segregated bathrooms for the different sexes?



Recognizing that we are looking at the government's compelling interest in the discrimination, the fact that we do allow other marriages that we know will not be producing or raising children provides a severe blow to the case for discrimination. When added to the fact that the child-rearing that the government's endorsement of marriage is meant to encourage is focused more on raising children to become good citizens, rather than merely focused on childbirth, and that fostered and adopted children are as important, if not more important to be included in any such determination, any claim that same-sex marriages do not produce children can be made only if same-sex couples can not not foster or adopt children. That, of course, is a separate discrimination issue, both here on the forum, and in court, and so that is as far as we can take this point at the moment.



Actually many non-Western societies have always had provisions for stable same-sex relationships. Some of them have even endorsed marriage, or institutions that it would be hard for a person outside that culture to distinguish from marriage. It was one of the "Satanic" features of some Meso-American cultures that the Spanish used as an excuse to wipe out those cultures.



But, even if we were to concede your points, are these compelling reasons for a government pledged to equal treatment under the law to allow or promote the discrimination?



I, for one, do appreciate the greater point that you are making. That we need to consider the question rationally, from all angles, rather than to go off half-cocked and blindly emotional.



Actually I worry about that as well.

For the most part, judges are chosen because they have proven themselves to be stable and deliberative, and respectful of the law and its precedents, and not the wild-eyed activists that those who do not like their more controversial decisions claim them to be. Many of the jurists on the panel that decided the Goodridge case (that mandated same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) were personally against the idea, but they recognized that the wording of the Massachusetts constitution, and the precedent of the SCOTUS decision in Loving outlining marriage as a basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution left them with no choice in their verdict.

Still, even with every precaution that we can take, a lot of controversial issues wind up being determined by small bodies of men that are often unelected by and unaccountable to the the voting public. We trust in the government because we trust in the Constitution, that it's system of checks and balances will nip most abuse of power in the bud. The biggest check on the judiciary branch is that they can only rule on issues specifically brought before it, but once such an issue is brought, they are the ones who interpret the Constitution. All it takes is for one panel to abuse its priveleges to start a process that could topple the government from within.

You make some interesting arguments, which I am not disregarding. I am trying not to spend hours online arguing finer points of the law with other Christians, and I think that much of my post to BBW addresses, at least indirectly so, many of your arguments. I disagree that the only intended check on the courts is that they only decide cases brought before them. I believe that they other significant check is that they are charged with interpreting the law, as opposed to creating it. Thus far in the discussion, nobody (other than myself, ironically) has made reference to any legal basis for the claim that same sex marriage is an inalienable right. I think that your post alludes to my assumption that the legal basis, if there is one, lies in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. But, we know that Equal Protection does not mean that the government can never make distinctions between people, even distinctions based upon characteristics that are beyond a person's control. I do believe that a 14th Amendment argument can be made, and I also believe that a 1st Amendment argument can be made against polygamy laws. But, I also believe that there are equally strong arguments against both of these, and that our preference as a society ought to rely upon the democratic process to create laws. Unfortunately, I do believe that the Court has in the recent past made decisions that look more like legislation than interpretation, but even as progressively as I tend to vote, I believe that it can be quite dangerous to acheieve any agenda, even a progressive one, by "interpreting" certain ideas into the Constitution.

 

[Brennin]

If you have noticed any fallacies in BBW's arguments, please show them.

Whenever he mentions interracial marriage or blacks or Jews he is engaging in pseudo-argumentation.

 

[The Madcap]

My thoughts on it are this: If there are certain Christian churches or denominations that forbid gay marriage, then fine, but I don't see why that rules out all forms of marriages (marriage isn't just Christian), nor do I see why there cannot be secular arrangements of marriage.