Is it Sexist to Deny Same-Sex Marriage

Great Debates
1

I’d like to create a thread dedicated to a point that I and others have been making in some of the recent threads on polygamy and the Walker ruling. It’s my position that it’s sexist for the government to deny a marriage application based on the sex of the applicants. The marriage license application doesn’t even ask your sexual orientation.

To further illustrate, consider the hypothetical example of a lesbian marrying a gay man. Would their application be denied? If not, then homosexuals are already allowed to marry, they’re just not allowed to marry members of the same sex. Therefore, the deciding factor is not the sexual orientation but the sex of the applicants, which is discrimination based on gender.

2

The intent is not sexist (merely homophobic), but the effect is sexist, yes.

3

Exactly, if we look at marriage from a contractual position (it’s not, obviously, but for this argument the focus will be there).

Marriage A=M+F
Marriage B=M+M or F+F

What is the only thing that has changed in the equation? The sex of one of the participants. Now what we’ve got a law that is based on limiting making a contract based on the sex of a participant. So, therefore this argument could be described as sexist.

4

How would you respond to the argument that it’s not sexist, because everyone (both men and women, gay and straight) have the exact same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex. (What not everyone has in this situation, of course, is the right to marry someone of the sex they’re attracted to. But that, if anything, is homophobic, not sexist.)

5

Go back 50 years or so, prior to Loving v Virginia, and ask “Is it racist that anyone can marry a person the same race but no one outside of their race?” That part of the law was based solely on the race of one of the participants.

Same formula
Marriage A=W+W
Marriage B=W+B

The only change is the race of one of the participants.

6

I think it’s a bad argument even if true, seeing as you’re likely to bog down the discussion in a side argument that has nothing to do with the main point.

7

I would have to say that argument is flawed. If it is not, is it applicable anywhere else? Replace “marry” with “hire”. Everyone has the right to hire someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex (though that would lead to some really interesting workplace dynamics).

8

I think in order for it to be sexist there has to be a difference in what the sexes are allowed to do, and I think that depends upon how it’s phrased. If one were to say that, without SSM, men can marry women but not men, but women are just the opposite, then it could be said to be sexist. If, however, one states it that a person can marry a member of the opposite sex, but not the same, then it’s not sexist. In my mind, it’s sort of like saying that it’s sexist to have different restrooms. One could say it is because a man can use the men’s room but not the women’s room and women just the opposite, or one could say it’s not because each can use their own room but not the opposite. But that’s sort of just a semantic argument, so I doubt that really means much

While sex is a determining factor, it’s not the sex of the individual, but the sex of the couple that makes the determination. It is not that a man or a woman cannot marry, but specifically the sex of both individuals, and thus depends on the relationship of the sexes of the couple. As such, it seems to me to be misrepresenting the discrimination, since it necessarily requires information about the relationship and not just the sex of one individual.

I do think that opponents of inter-racial marriage are racist, and while that seems analagous on the surface, I don’t think it is, and I think what I see as the difference might help illustrate the point. That is, those opponents don’t have an issue with two people of the same race marrying, but specifically “one of us” marrying “one of them”, there’s no problem with “one of us” marrying “one of us” or “one of them” marrying “one of them”. However, if the SSM discussion, the “one of us” is a straight person and “one of them” is a gay person, and so the opponents aren’t necessarily against “one of us” marrying “one of them”, as a gay man can marry a straight woman or a lesbian can marry a straight man just fine; hell, they’re not even necessarily against “one of them” marrying “one of them”, as a gay man could marry a lesbian. The entire issue is about “them”, and “them” is not defined by sex, but by sexual orientation.

But really, I’m not even sure what saying it’s sexist might add to the discussion. It may even be sexist in practice, but that’s almost certainly not the intent of most opponents of SSM. I think it distracts from the crux of the issue.

9

Whatever the issue, it needs to be left up to the State to decide what they want. Going after some sort of constitutional fix creates problems, as “marriage” did in order to get certain features.
They need to abolish the notion that a “marriage” allows people tax incentives, breaks or other favors granted.

10

Yeah, because that worked so well in the past.

11

The argument is stupid, because the “right” you describe itself discriminates on the basis of sex.

12

The Feds will eventually have to make a decision too, when somebody petitions the government on behalf of his or her same-sex partner for immigration purposes.

13

No. A sexist law implies that one sex is favored over another. The marriage laws do not favor one gender over another. Generally speaking, men are not discriminated against any more than women when applying for a marriage license. Gay people are discrominated against.

14

M-W.com defines sexism as:
prejudice or discrimination based on sex

The crux of the marriage laws is based on the sex of one of the participants.

15

Of course, by that standard, the anti-miscegenation laws weren’t racist, either. I think one difference (in addition to the us-versus-them mentality Blaster Master described) is that while anti-miscegenation laws might not have been precisely racist themselves, the enforcement of them probably was both racist and sexist. A white man in a position of power having sex with a black woman in a lower position probably wasn’t punished as severely (if at all) as a black man in a position of power having sex with a white woman in a lower position.

16

What’s wrong with being sexy?
[/Spinal Tap]

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find plenty of examples of “discrimination based on sex,” from having separate restrooms or dressing rooms for men and women, to casting directors who insist on casting men in male roles and women for female roles. You can call that sexist if you want, but I’m not convinced that any and all discrimination on the basis of sex is necessarily, categorically wrong.

17

Sure, there’s governmental institutionalized protocol that prevents women from combat (and combat pay), the insurance company gets a pass on discriminatory rates based on sex or age. Just because it’s rationalized or institutionalized or preferred even doesn’t make it not sexism.

I guess it could be considered sexist to date the preferred sex (gender) of one’s choosing. That would be a stretch but could be termed accurate.

18

Not sexist. Gay men and a gay women are treated identically. The differentiating factor in their treatment is their sexual orientation, not their gender.

19

No. It is based on their sexual orientation. Either you are grasping at straws or just can’t understand that.

The prevalence of people who are strictly gay is very small. Saying that marriage laws are sexist is not only wrong, but you’re forgetting the other 97 per cent of America.

20

Certainly they do; they simply favor one over another on different points. A man may not marry another man where a woman may; a woman may not marry another woman where a man may. Overall, sure, each has an advantage and a disadvantage. But those two things don’t cancel out one another. You don’t get to negate a sexist point of disfavour by granting an additional point of favour on some other issue.

It’s like saying someone has the right to steal from you, but in return you have the right to steal from them. It’s technically balanced, but you haven’t negated the first wrong, you’ve just added a new one.