I am in favor of ‘gay marriage’ in the sense that I am not against it, it’s not an issue that I (or most of America for that matter) much care about but since many in the media insist on making it the big issue of the decade I can’t help but think about it from time to time, in spite of my natural inclination to be apathetic.
The pro gay marriage side basically argue that gays should be allowed to marry because straight people have that right, it’s an issue of equality, this issue seems to be fought legally as an issue of equality. Gays should not be denied the rights that straight people have. I haven’t read anyone argue in response that gays already have the right to marry. A gay man is free to marry a gay woman or a straight woman. A gay woman is free to marry a gay man or a straight man. Conversely, a straight man has never had the right to marry another man, straight or gay.
Is this an absurd argument? Legally, it seems like it should hold some water. After all, the legal system is technical and almost mechanical. This piece seems to fit.
Back in the day a similar argument was proffered for why interracial marriage was not discriminatory, that you were free to marry inside your own race just like everyone else. It is just as eye rolling stupid in both cases.
Because the issue is not that gay people aren’t allowed to marry anyone, as if there were some magic “gay test” that the State would administer to people, with a positive test rendering the person unable to marry.
Also, I think you underestimate the fervor on this issue, both for and against.
This is very much a huge argument made against gay marriage. I’m shocked you haven’t heard it before. I’ve heard it so often that it generates spasmodic eye rolls.
As for why it doesn’t hold water, think of it this way: it’s gender discrimination. Forget the gay thing for a moment. Why should I, a woman, have the right to only marry a man? Why shouldn’t I have the right to marry a woman? You don’t even need to know if I’m gay or straight. If I was hiring for a job, I’d have to open it to applicants of both genders. If I was renting an apartment, I’d have to consider men and women. If I’m a waitron serving a table, I have to serve men and women. Gender is a federally protected class against discrimination. We don’t allow gender discrimination in employment or housing or service, why do we force it on marriage license applications?
It doesn’t hold water because the right SSM advocates are fighting for is the right to marry the person they’re in love with. That last bit isn’t always stated explicitly, because it’s assumed that anyone involved in the discussion already understands that part. Which is, for the most part, true: “Gay people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, just like straight people!” is not an argument made in good faith. It’s something said by assholes who are deliberately trying to be obnoxious.
It’s also rather similar to “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
It’s like someone giving up something they don’t like for Lent. It’s a meaningless gesture. Freedom isn’t about being allowed to do things other people want, it’s about the ability to do what makes YOUR life rich.
In response to your original argument, allowing gay people to marry straight people is not equal rights. Straight people have the right to marry the individual of their choosing. Gay people should have the same right.
Under our constitution, yes, presuming you’re not being as disingenuous as I think you are, politics trumps law. Your argument that the law is for the ‘politically weak’ is meaningless, since the law can and does change.
Politics are what our legislative and executive body engage in. They have the power to change the law. The courts uphold that changed law going forward.
How is that difficult to understand?
Just because something has always been so doesn’t mean it will always remain so. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal, women would not be able to vote, and so forth. Now we as a society appear to be coming around to the point of view (via our elected officals votes in many states, as this is a representative democracy) that we need to add to the list of huaman rights the right to marry whomever you love and wish to marry, regardless of gender. Your factual statement, therefore, that gay and lesbian people have always been free to marry a member of the opposite sex is true, but in states that have approved same sex marriage, they have an additional right to marry a member of their own gender. Eventually this should become Federal law, as it is in other countries besides the US (although sadly not yet in Australia.)
He writes in the context of a specific constitutional prohibition of sexual orientation discrimination, but the principle is the same. The right to marry makes no sense if it is not the right to marry the person of your choice (if they choose to marry you as well, of course).
I think that pushing for the “legalization of gay marriage” was a huge rhetorical misstep: much better would have been a movement for the “recognition of gay marriage”. Marriage–pair bonding, forming a single socio-economic unit–is far, far older than governments. Governments acknowledge that a marriage relationship is different, they don’t create that relationship. The law recognizes marriage for the same reason it recognizes parent/child relationships; these things exist, and are fundamental to how society organizes itself.
So the cry should not be “I should be allowed to marry the person I love”; the call should be “me and this person (who I may or may not love, honestly) are a social unit: we are a family. The law needs to recognize this, because it’s the truth”. This approach is, I think, more accurate, and less open to arguments like the OPs.
And the “astroglide” thing is really offensive. Gay marriage is about a lot more than anal sex.
It’s like saying Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the back of the bus, but not necessarily where she wanted. And Blacks were free to use their own drinking fountain, but not necessarily the one they wanted. It’s discrimination, pure and simple.
Fine, I’ll define my marriage without any reference to love, if you’ll do the same. You’re gonna take a huge chunk out of everyone’s wedding vows.
So you don’t think the government should recognize arranged marriages, even if both participants are of age and wanted it? You don’t think the government should recognize marriages made in haste because of an unplanned pregnancy, and two decent people who decide to give it a shot in the hopes that it will work? You don’t think the government should recognize marriages where the love died a long time ago, but they stay together because they are civil and make a good team and are shaping a life together?
I love my husband. Love is grand. But it’s not what defines a marriage: plenty of people are married–really married–and don’t love each other, and plenty of people love each other–really, really love each other–and aren’t married in any sense of the word. Whether or not I love my husband and he loves me is between us: the fact that we are married, we are a family, is a public matter that needs to be recognized.
That was my point. Though I’ve since noticed pit thread that addresses this more directly: I hadn’t noticed this poster in particular previously.
First analogy I thought of was that when women starting asking for reproductive self-determination some people said ‘you already have it, don’t open your legs.’