How Does Gay Marriage Harm Traditional Marriage?

Great Debates
81

Homebrew, the answer has certainly been presented. It was described in the Kurtz quote I included in my first post (just little ways up), which instigated Apos’ seminal quote.

In an attempt to paraphrase it: Many American citizens are religious, specifically Christians. Many Christians (and other religious people) view homosexuality as immoral. For example, Catholic doctrine teaches that any sexual activity outside (heterosexual monogamous) marriage is “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.” For these individuals, they accept this premise on faith - it is not to be questioned.

I would presume that such individuals are concerned that homosexuality may “rub off” on their kids. They may be concerned that it will lead others to promiscuity or wild sex orgies. It may even lead to the decline of civilization as we know it. Or it may lead to cultural depravity the likes of which haven’t been seen since Sodom and Gomorrah (or at least Rome).

Now, I don’t believe any of that. But it is difficult to argue when people accept such a premise on faith. And it is difficult to not respect another’s deeply held religious beliefs (no matter how illogical). Even if you found someone here to debate with, I doubt you would find it productive.

82

For you perhaps, but I have no problems not giving respect to beliefs that don’t merit it, regardless of how deeply religious they are. Based on many of the debates here, I am certain there are many others on this board who don’t respect religious beliefs simply because they’re religious.

83

There’s not an inherent contradiction there, Homebrew. If I am pledged (as I am) to “strive for justice and peace among all peopl, and respect the dignity of every human being,” then it becomes my obligation to treat you and your struggle for equal rights and the honoring of the love you may bear your beloved with the same dignity that I would extend to anybody or wish them to extend to me. It also means that I am honorbound to respect the right of His4Ever to believe that the Bible’s strictures against homosexual acts are binding today and apply regardless of the nature of the situation. But it obliges me to stand by you in resisting the efforts of people who think as she does to impede you in gaining recognition of your legal rights on the basis of their belief. (For me personally, it also requires me to witness to her as a sister in Christ on what Christ commanded us to do toward our fellow man and how her stance as expressed here in the past fails to do that, something I’ve actually had some success in bringing across to her in particular elsewhere.)

'Zat make sense?

84

I have to agree in principle. It doesn’t make sense to me to respect someone’s beliefs based on how fervent they are, religious or otherwise. Some people fervently believe others should be killed. I don’t respect that and I don’t think it deserves respect at all.

85

Marley23: My take on that is that I respect people’s right to believe, even if I don’t respect their beliefs because I think they are a load of righteous crap.

A variation of “love the sinner, hate the sin” perhaps?

:smiley:

86

If the state recognizes same-sex marriages as legitimate, then in a sense, mainstream society has accepted that notion. Therein lies the biggest issue — the idea just goes against the mainstream notion of marriage for probably religiously motivated reasons, and the legislators are not going to risk their careers.

But, that aside, the slippery slope argument I have heard relates to raising children. By recognizing same-sex marriage, the state/society might be inadvertently close to recognizing same-sex couples as legit parents. That sparks the claims about children being brought up amidst confusion and ridicule etc. While this argument is actually pointing “shame-worthy” fingers at those who make it, the slippery slope can be justified easier.

87

Here in Massachusetts, gay couples have adoption rights but no marriage rights; this is one of the things that’s brought up to counter the whole “No gay marriage! It’s for the sake of the cheeeldrun!” arguments. Here, it’s quite arguably the case that one of the oft-cited Traditional Purposes of Marriage <tm>, the raising of children and the ensuring of guardianship for those children, is actively harmed by the inability of their parents to enter into the marriage contract.

88

Mainstream notions of marriage? What exactly does that mean. Does it take a marjority of people or a significant portion? I ask because a AP poll found that a third of Americans support marriage or civil unions for gays. Is 1/3 of the people enough to be considered mainstream?

89

Besides which, Homebrew, unless you subscribe to the Dewey Cheatem Undhow school of constitutional interpretation, which loosely says that a majority of voters can do anything they goddam well want to, provided that they exercise due procedure in doing it, there’s one good reason why whether a majority or not approves is not adequate grounds for discussing this. Probably 70%+ of Americans think that Louis Farrakhan and David Duke are people whose opinions are abominable and who should just shut up. But their right to express themselves without government interference is enshrined in the same Constitution that allows you and me to say in public what we think about this or any other issue. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed.

According to Loving v. Virginia, the right to marry is constitutionally protected. Doesn’t mean that states can’t restrict it on sound grounds – the 40-year-old and the 8-year-old who decide to get married are SOL – but those grounds need to be related to a legitimate government objective.

Which brings us back to the OP – exactly what legitimate governmental objective is achieved by prohibiting gay people from marrying each other?

90

Those who oppose the notion of same-sex marriages could claim that adoption is a different scenario from creating a child (using the same sex couple’s genes). Adoption does benefit the otherwise uncared for children and as a result, society in general.

But, I do see your point. If same-sex couples are legally allowed to be parents, why can’t they be parents!?! Yet, we must note that obtaining adoption rights has been a struggle and still is in many states. So, as it stands now, the think-of-the-children argument is a prevalent argument.

91

Which brings us back to the OP – exactly what legitimate governmental objective is achieved by prohibiting gay people from marrying each other?

***The re-election of legislators :slight_smile:

92

Poly, you know damned well that this is a gross distortion of my position on constitutional interpretation. You are perfectly aware that I do not think “a majority of voters can do anything they goddam well want to” – they are properly restrained by the text of the constitution. The majority cannot, for example, pass a law outlawing certain types of political speech because the first amendment clearly forbids it. For that reason, I agree that the constitution protects Farrakhan and Duke as per your example. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

Just because I do not think the due process clause ought to be a blank slate upon which the judiciary can write their own policy choices into law does not mean I think the constitution is meaningless.

Your characterization of my position is fundamentally dishonest, and unbecoming of someone held in such high regard on these boards.

93

Dewey, I readily admit to being a wise-ass in that rather tongue-in-cheek remark. However, here are my reasons for the remark I made, based on my understanding of stances you have taken in various threads dealing with constitutional law:
[list=A][li]Rights may not be presumed to exist unless explicitly spelled out in federal or state constitution or statute.[/li][li]Extreme deference is to be given the legislative presumption of constitutionality.[/li][li]Strict construction of a constitutionalally-spelled-out-and-guaranteed right is called for; the extension of such rights into grey areas constitutes judicial fiat of new rights.[/li][li]Due process is confined to procedure, and any judgment that ensures that not only proper procedure but the substance underlying the rules of procedure is “substantive due process,” to be avoided due to its susceptibility to abuse by “activist judges.”[/li][li]Controverted readings of abstract principles of law should always be decided by the legislature rather than the courts; for the latter to impose their own understanding constitutes judicial legislating.[/li][li]If the present state of law needs to be changed, the will of the people, expressed through their legislators, is the appropriate means, rather than judicial concurrence an assertion that a given phrase of law extends to cover a given asserted right.[/li][li]Judge-made categories of determining what government intrusion into claimed rights is acceptable are to be preferred over a literal (and therefore too-broad) reading of the text of the law. (This one seems to contradict the attitude characterizing the remainder, but I see how it fits in a political sense.)[/li][li]Extreme adherence to precedent is to be preferred over any clear statement of broad legal principle that might at some future date be used as precedent for something distasteful.[/list][/li]
I am quite willing to admit my possible incomprehension of your actual stance, but that is what I’ve gathered from your posts in re constitutional law. And I will grant that in every specific case you have often discussed nuances. But I submit the above points as my broad-brush understanding of what you’ve expressed your stance as, and I welcome your correcting any misperceptions I have made in generating it.

And I trust you see how a few of these points go together in my mind to constitute a stance of which my admittedly sardonic comment above is a loose summary.

94

I was trying more to avoid the religious aspect of this debate to prevent opening any more strawmen arguements. A same sex marriage is prevented by law and in this country that automatically precludes any religious reasons.

You must abmit that tho only 30 percent approve of same sex marriage, a greater majority than that accept the homosexuality lifestyle. It is not illegal for homosexuals to exist, why should it be illigal for them to live their lives happily and with each other. I see no real reason to keep archaic and patently unconstitutional sodomy laws and with its removal, make way for legalizing same sex marriage.

95

(insert sound of crickets HERE)

I think that answers the question, really. There is no reasonable grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage.

Of course, you’ll hear all sorts of answers from various groups. Personally, I think the biggest red herring is: Marriage is about children!

I’ll agree one of the big reasons aboug being married is raising children, it’s not the only one. I think this is a red herring, distracting from perhaps the most important reason two people get married, they’re in love!. Taking the love factor out of marriage and you reduce it to a biological function; procreation. I’d like a show of hands from the married heterosexual out there, how many of them married their partner just for procreative purposes?

If you dispose of this red herring, then there’s really no sound, legal argument against same-sex marriage. If there is, I’d love to see it.

96

Your post specifically implied that I would find constitutionally permissible a law gagging David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. This in spite of the fact that I’ve very clearly told you this is not the case in no uncertain terms in other threads. Since I take free speech protections quite seriously, I am particularly offended by that implication. You should have known better.

As for your specific points:

A. Accurate as a practical matter. I care not whether rights exist in a metaphysical sense; I only care what rights are afforded legal protection in our constitutional scheme. If man has God-given rights not delineated in the Constitution, then man will have to turn to God to secure them.

B. An overstatement. While I do think laws ought to be considered presumptively constitutional unless proven otherwise (a view I share with even the most liberal members of SCOTUS, I might add), I don’t think there’s anything “extreme” about that position.

C. An overstatement. For example, new technology always requires the fresh interpretation of constitutional terms. Even the strictest of strict constructionists agree that a wiretap falls under the ambit of “searches and seizures.”

D. Accurate, though not because it is “susceptible to abuse” – rather, because use of SDP is abuse of a judge’s constitutional obligations, by definition. If a judge has to reach for SDP to find a right, then that right is virtually by definition not found within the constitutional text.

E. Simply false. As I’ve repeatedly noted, I recognize that judges have to interpret constitutional terms. The degree and scope of “free speech” or “searches and seizures” or “just compensation” are things properly within the power of a judge to decide. I just don’t think they should write their own terms into the constitution wholesale.

F. Partially false. As noted, judges properly have considerable leeway in interpreting the constitutional text; they just should’t write in things that aren’t there already. It is only in writing in such nontextual things as a broad “right to privacy” that democratic action becomes required.

G. I’ve read this three times and can’t make head or tail of it.

H. Again, this begs for clarification.

97

Freyr: While I have little problem with legislation permitting gays to marry, I think your romantic-love notion as a basis for legal recognition of marriage is a little misplaced.

Let’s face it: the notion that “falling in love” is a vital prerequisite for marriage is a relatively recent invention in human history. I think historically romantic love has played second fiddle to things like money, prestige, and yes, procreation. I think those practical concerns (“who gets the land?”; “how should children be raised?”) are the central basis for legal recognition of the marital relationship.

If it was just about falling in love, the law would have nothing to do with it. People would just shack up, possibly after a religious ceremony, and that would be that. There would be no reason for the law to tilt itself so as to encourage that type of arrangement.

98

Not a blank slate. I see it as competing government interests in taking away freedom versus individual liberty interests.

I don’t think it would apply to affirmative action by the state though. The state doesn’t have to approve or sanction gay or polyamorous relationships, they simply can’t drag you away by force and put you behind bars for doing so.

99

Resolving those competing interests in places where there is not a clear textual constitutional commitment to a particular resolution amounts to a policy choice. Those choices are properly made by the legislature.

100

Dewey, thanks for the clarifications – though I personally see some inconsistencies in your POV, I’d as soon not hijack this thread further to debate them. Kindly accept my apologies for misrepresenting your stance, and I’ll try to grasp your perspective better in future (though I request your indulgence as and when further explanation might be required).

Point (G), however, is directly applicable to what you’re discussing with Blalron in the subsequent posts. On what constitutional commitments do you found your acceptance of the various degrees of scrutiny, which to me smack of clearly judge-made distinctions not based in any aspect of textual law? This is not intended as antagonistic, but seeking clarity on that point: with your commitment to the propriety of legislated law over judicial activism, how do you justify what (at least to me) appear to be reasonable distinctions but ones that appear to have no constitutional or statutory basis for which categorizations are subjected to which degree of scrutiny? And (to avoid a total hijack) how do you see that as applicable to matters such as Lawrence (and Garner) v. Texas and the question of how FF&C applies to DOMA and the Vermont civil unions law?