« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gay Marriage: the End of an Institution

File:Silhouette or a pregnant woman and her partner-14Aug2011.jpg

Thorndike-Barnhart states [Marriage | Define Marriage at Dictionary.com] is the legal union between man and woman. Matrimony actually applies to the spiritual or religious bond in that union. To get married, partners must be of correct age, correct sex, not incarcerated, no animals, and no multiple partners involved (in most cases).

Because 7 states (including DC) have legalized gay marriage, any further erosion of marriage is being closely watched. North Carolina continually allows domestic partnerships and civil unions, and is the only Southeastern state without a limit on alleged ‘marriages’.

Gays continually scream discrimination, and their ‘right’ to marry anyone cannot be interfered with.

It’s a fact that any marriage is not a right. It’s not listed as a right in the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Constitution of the US. It’s always been an earned privilege.    

Many earned privileges exist in the US: 1) voting; must be citizen, not existing felon; 2) airline pilot: must have flying experience, handles emergencies well, able to swim; 3) professional baseball player: must be relatively fast, coordinated, and strong, must be able to hit a moving sphere (@>75 mph); 4) professional horse race jockey: small, light-weight, good relationship with horses, 5) policeperson: pass academy requirements, reasonably good shape, no past felony record, etc., etc., etc…

The privileges are endless if one has the attributes to meet those privileges. Marriage is another privilege, never spelled out as a right. For marriage, those attributes involve another person as well. Both have to be of the opposite sex to have kids, they have to be the appropriate age, they can’t marry a close relative, and have to meet certain marriage license requirements.

There is no discrimination towards anyone not receiving those privileges. If they meet the necessary requirements, they can get those privileges as well. Fortunately, you don’t hear of a bank robber voting, an airline pilot panicking with an approaching thunderstorm, a professional baseball player needing glasses to see, or a fat jockey.

But you continuously hear about the attempts to redefine marriage—to change the requirements for including everyone. People demand monetary advantages for all those in civil unions and partnerships sanctioned by various activist judges and lawmakers. You hear so many yell discrimination, when most Christians live and let live without interference. Yet gays always seem to be convinced discrimination is the root of the inability to marry someone of the same sex.

Maybe one needs to explain how the main purpose of marriages is to produce additional population. Gays cannot do this. So we’re going to provide funds for doing whatever they may want to do. For all-inclusivity status, we’re willing to redefine marriage and give those not intended to marry, monetary payment for it.

No, let’s condemn all those who have dogs, as being discriminated against because they don’t get the accolades and monetary advantages like Ron Turcotte for winning the TRIPLE CROWN WINNERS – HorseWorldData, on Secretariat.

If you blink hard enough, the state might let marriage evolve down to marrying your pet. Asheville would be a good place to start, with North Carolina likely the next state to accept gay marriage. Simply  put, you don’t change the requirements of a privilege, an institution, and a sacrament, just to assure some that they’re not being discriminated against.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

COMMENTS

  • zachv

    Is irrelevant. Who cares? Gays should be allowed to get married – there’s no reason not to allow them whether it qualifies as a right or a privilege.

    You offer only one counter argument against same-sex marriage: Maybe one needs to explain how the main purpose of marriages is to produce additional population.

    This is false. Civil marriage is an institution offered to legally bind two people together, providing them with spousal benefits. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance, pension benefits, etc. Just because someone is gay, they can’t enjoy these benefits?

    Further – It’s not about procreation. If it were, wouldn’t you think there would be explicit benefits for procreating? And, why are marriages allowed in situations where the spouses do not wish to produce children or cannot produce children (elderly, sterile).

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      An institution can be designed to accommodate a condition without requiring that everyone fit.

      By analogy, just because a house can accommodate a family of 6 doesn’t mean that a childless couple can’t buy it and live in it.

      Now it’s perfectly acceptable for you to argue for disconnecting marriage from accommodating the needs and rights of progeny, but it’s not okay for you to create an irrational requirement of universality to exclude the diary author or anyone else from defining marriage to include the contingency of pregnancy and children.

      Most laws in fact cover a variety of contingencies that exclude certain classes of people without thereby being invalidated.

      • zachv

        It substantially weakens your argument by distracting from your point with unnecessary words.

        One of the “main purposes” of marriage is not procreation. One does not need marriage to procreate, nor does marriage encourage the production of children. Four out of ten children are now born out of wedlock.

        Secondly, the diary author uses the ‘procreation’ argument as validation of his belief to disallow gays from marriage. If that is his rationalization, he should be fully prepared to defend allowing sterile couples to marry when they too ‘cannot do this’.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          Of course you don’t need marriage to have babies, as countless couples testify throughout history. Sex suffices. But I never argued differently.

          What I am saying is that marriage is an institution with a key purpose of encompassing children that do arise from sex – protecting and nurturing them and giving them their place in society, and a structure for passing down cultural values to the next generation.

          Bottom line, marriage is as much if not more about the next generation as it is about the two principals.

          You can argue that only the latter matters today in terms of who can get married, but you can’t make the former disappear by fiat.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            and again, an institution does not require that every individual must be covered by every purpose of that institution in order for that purpose to be valid – or for them to participate in that institution. The fact that some couples are infertile does not mean that children are irrelevant to the marriage institution.

          • zachv

            Let’s accept the notion then that children are not irrelevant to marriage as an institution … Why are we still marginalizing same-sex relationships?

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …that complaining about marginalization.

            I, and other gays, want to get married because we want to partake in an institution that stresses long term commitment, fidelity, honor and public recognition.

            Well, whatever is discussed here, we have a real-world laboratory experiment in progress now to see whether gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage: several states (whose numbers are increasing) who have instituted gay marriage, and other states that have not.

            And if allowed to freely continue, we may reach societal consensus over time as we see the results.

            Should the courts raid the game from the instigation of certain gay activitists, then it will be “might makes right” and perpetual denigration for which we all will be poorer.

            I am reminded of Digory’s choice in the Magician’s Nephew regarding the apple and the cosmic consequences of his decision.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            I’m for gay marraige, but not the imposition of it by court fiat.

            http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/cheney-on-marriage-equality-i.html

            I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. And, as many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don

          • SoFiMil

            I dont’t support gay marriage, but if that’s what the people want and institute through the legislative process, that’s what they should get.

        • Jack_Savage

          “One does not need marriage to procreate, nor does marriage encourage the production of children. Four out of ten children are now born out of wedlock.”

          And if marriage is no big deal, and any family structure is perfectly fine to raise children, or really no family structure is needed to raise children properly, then who cares? Right? Marriage is anything, and nothing.

          Or maybe you should ask the four out of ten in about eighteen years what their view is of what a “family” should be.

    • jamesm

      Real Simple. Perverting American values weakens the country. Go to Saudi Arabia and talk to them.Maybe they would find a way to deal with it. Next someone is gonna want to marry their pet poodle.

      No matter how you package it homosexuality is a deviant choice. I wouldn’t bring this garbage here. Keep your private life private like most decent people do.

    • SoFiMil

      I hope your answer is no. If so, this shows society can legislate moral standards for what is deemed a marriage. You personally may not find anything wrong with homosexual marriage, but many others find the concept revolting.

      • zachv

        … and (2) not a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage. Just because others find me revolting does not reserve them the right to bar me and my partner enjoying the rights of a civil partnership.

        I find straight sex revolting. I find women anatomy particularly off-putting. But I don’t use that as a reason to condemn women, or heterosexual relationships. That sort of reasoning is the reasoning close minded and intolerant people use.

        • Martin Knight

          In light of your belief that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, do you think John and Jamie, both consenting adults, brother and sister (or brother) should be allowed to get married?

          If not, why not?

          • zachv

            Two consenting adults should be be allowed to marry. Never have.

          • SoFiMil

            You don’t believe any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry or two consenting adults who are close blood relatives?

            If the later, why not? They’re consenting. Isn’t that enough, and why are you imposing your morals on others?

          • zachv

            Polygamy, incest (blood relatives) and such is detrimental to society in ways that two partner marriage is not. I

          • Martin Knight

            There is no fundamental nexus between incest, polygamy and abuse of women.

            And I believe you’ll find people in those sort of relationships – who entered into them as fully conscious consenting adults – just as offended as you’d be when someone (historically) links pederasty to homosexuality or says that homosexuality is unhealthy.

            PS: Glenn Reynolds just linked to this story …

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      The “who cares?” is emblematic of what gay marriage debate brings. The attitude that marriage is not an institution, a responsibility and a social structure, but a ‘right’, leads to the dangerous conclusion that marriage can be flippantly changed without any regard for the social structural degradation that it brings.

      “Who cares?” vs “Marriage is sacred” IS the crux of the matter – whether you view marriage in terms of its BENEFITS to those married versus the view of marriage as an institution that serves a social purpose. Whether marriage exists for much longer will depend on stepping away from the red herring of “Why cant you let gay couples get equal chance at a few benefits?”

      “Civil marriage is an institution offered to legally bind two people together, providing them with spousal benefits. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance, pension benefits, etc. Just because someone is gay, they can

      • zachv

        I, and other gays, want to get married because we want to partake in an institution that stresses long term commitment, fidelity, honor and public recognition.

        As for my rights — my rights are never a red herring, Sir. Do you have absolutely any idea how many gay partners get downright screwed because intolerant people refuse to let gay marriage and/or civil unions become law?

        Gay men and women who get refused pension benefits, or get kicked out of their homes, or lose their parental rights or a hundred other things. Marriage offers protections that no amount of “legal arrangements” can even come close to offering.

        Finally, I just can’t argue with you about your view on my capacity to raise children are. I’ve been bantering back and forth on gay marriage for two days now and I’m literally about to lose it at the next person who declares me mentally unstable, or ill, or any of the ridiculous stereotypes and prejudices that one has to put up with.

        • snowshooze

          nt

  • lapert

    You should read the Loving and Skinner decisions both of which make it clear that marriage is a basic civil right of man.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

      …other than close relatives, as defined by law. The decisions do not touch on whether a married couple can be of the same sex. Now you may argue analogy as an argument to extend the franchise, but that’s not the same as saying that it’s already been decided in these decisions.

      And I’m not clear personally on exactly what the “right” to marry would incorporate in any case – nor against whom that right is being claimed.

      • lapert

        Of course that it is a right does not imply that there are no limits that the state can apply to it. But, the entire diary was premised on marriage being a privilege not a right and that is incorrect and it does impact the way courts look at potential equal protection and due process questions.

    • Martin Knight

      [nt]

      • lapert

        Not under whatever terms you want – just like you have a right to free speech but it has its limits.

        • avgjo

          And so there is a right to marriage for everybody now. Any ‘gay’ person can marry, so long as it’s a person of the opposite sex. As you said, there are limits.

          Just as you assert there are limits for free speech, defenders of traditional marriage assert there are limits for marriage. And in most places, legally, that limit stops at marriage between two sufficiently unrelated adults of the opposite sex.

          • lapert

            That is currently the point of contention – whether equal protection/due process requires that right be extended to same-sex couples. I’m not going to pretend to know how it will turn out but if forced to bet I would say within two generations it will be accepted that it does.

            It is a similar trajectory to the anti-miscegenation laws and we are at some point (I don’t mean literally from a jurisprudence standpoint but from a philosophical one as a society) between the notion in Pace that restricting interracial marriage did not violate equal protection because the punishment for both races is equal and Loving.

            Whether we ever get to Loving will turn on how persuasive people find the arguments that gay marriage threatens the underlying state interest in marriage – and while momentum can be a swiftly changing thing it is currently on the side against those arguments. Particularly as the years pass in MA and elsewhere without the seeming collapse of marriage generally.

          • Martin Knight

            I mean, a Chinese man could marry a Black woman, an Arab man could marry a Native American, etc.

            The only interracial marriage that was really illegal was between people of two different races where one party was White.

            PS: How Loving applies to same sex marriage remains a mystery to me.

          • lapert

            I believe Oklahoma’s law prevented marriage of any black with any non-black. But you are right, the laws were typically about who couldn’t marry whites.

            As for how Loving may be applied to cases of same sex marriage – that is fairly obvious. If at some point the court determines that sex of the partners is an unsupportable basis to deny the fundamental freedom to marry as they did with racial classification than they will conclude that laws precluding same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment.

          • SoFiMil

            n/t

          • societyis2blame

            The courts will only allow one result.

          • SoFiMil

            .

          • lapert

            Absolutely, within some limits of reasonableness states are free to set the boundaries of what is acceptable for marriage. For example, we allow states to have different rules regarding cousins or age of consent, however we have decided that limitations based on race are an unreasonable violation of equal rights.

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    but to flesh out the record, why do you feel that increasing the amount of people eligible for marriage (albeit gays) will diminish traditional marriages? 50% of traditional marriages already end in divorce. How will letting other groups “marry” hurt traditional marriages?

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      by the liberal crowd to further demean traditional marriage. I’ll be happy to provide links that show this is the case later, but for the moment, I’m off to an all day closing.

    • zachv

      I can’t speak for those who defend traditional marriage, because I want to get married to the love of my life one day. The fight to be able to marry will make the institution ever more so special for me.

      • SoFiMil

        Why don’t you travel to a state that allows for this, then come back to your home state. I understand you’d be somewhat in legal limbo, but would the emotional satisfaction at least be enough to outweigh the cost of the travel?

        Thanks.

        • zachv

          These states not my home. Put yourself in my shoes … If you had to hop on a plane, leave your home and get married in a foreign state. Would that be satisfactory to you if you had to do that with your husband/wife?

          • SoFiMil

            Speaking only for myself, yes it would, as it would be better than nothing.

  • dave148

    Here we have another example of a group trying to change the definition of a word. It happended to “liberal”, “gay”, and many others. But I can’t help but wonder if there would ever have been a push for this if the government wasn’t involved with marriage. I am still waiting for a convincing argument as to why government, at any level, needs to be involved.

    To me marriage is a promise to my wife before god. Those who claim government needs to license marriage to protect offspring forget kids can happen without marriage.

  • renny

    in the window when CA had “legal” homosexual marriage, maybe they will become disenchanted with the institution. They don’t really want marriages anyway. They are too classical. They want weddings. They are romantic.

    Maybe the laws should be changed to allow anyone to hold weddings. Then they could go on honeymoons and dissolve their attachments with no further legalities.

  • lapert

    Because the only data I have seen suggests the opposite – divorce rates so far have been lower among same-sex marriages than the general population (not that I would suggest any causal link for many reasons I think it would be too early to draw that kind of conclusion).

  • Jack_Savage

    Seems that “marriage” is really, really being redefined by gays to mean…. absolutely nothing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

    Looks like it was all about the sex anyway, not all that faithfulness garbage the straights are so hung up on. Shhh – don’t tell anyone though…might hurt The Cause….

  • tomrt

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

    And, it presently costs about $25,000 per year to provide life-saving healthcare to HIV+ carriers.

    Those are two severe social costs of male homosexuality, in addition to undermining the time-tested social and civilizational institution of heterosexual marriages and unions. There is also the possibility of potentially harming the strength and preparedness of the military over time when the percentage of people in homosexual lifestyles exceeds a certain threshold level (apparently, one of the factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman empire was widespread homosexuality among its troops.)

    Therefore, the spread of homosexual lifestyle adoption should not be encouraged. Making “gay marriage” legal, and subsequently teaching kids that gay sexual behavior is the same as the normal and natural heterosexuality, will positively encourage kids to seek homosexual lifestyles, especially in the case of less socially adept school boys who have a difficulty in “getting girls” (my advice to them: they should just wait till college, where the situation improves significantly for everyone.)

    At the individual level (i.e. outside of the social costs), the argument that is often made that making “gay marriage” legal poses no threat to the heterosexual marriage of an individual fails to capture the following generational aspect: if that person’s children and grand children are exposed to an environment that encourages the adoption of homosexual lifestyles, then the chances of them seeking those lifestyles and being exposed to 25x (for male homosexuals) greater risk of getting infected with AIDS rise, and thus there indeed is a probabilistic personal cost at the individual level as well to making “gay marriage” legal.

    Although every human being is entitled to “universal” human rights, marriage is a nature-aligned social construct, and not a human right, as long as homosexual behavior and lifestyles aren’t themselves outlawed and homosexuals are not persecuted, something which happens in countries governed by Islamic Sharia and other forms of fascist dictats, but not here.