What is the argument in favor of gay marriage?

Great Debates
281

I don’t believe that I recall anyone (in this thread) opposing the idea of allowing religious ministers/priests/pastors/whatever to act as agents of civil union simultaneously with performing their ritualistic duties. Nor do I think that allowing ministers et al to perform this function somehow causes this to be viewed as a “state endorsement of religion.” That certainly is not the Establishment Clause argument I made; did someone else make this argument, and I missed it?

The State already provides mechanisms by which both religious individuals and civil individuals may be licensed to marry couples; ministers, priests, et al, are allowed to act in the State’s behalf in the performing of civil union and Justices of the Peace as well as virtually every judge (with the exception of small-claims court judges) are entitled to perform nuptials. (And, as someone else pointed, out, there are mail-order and internet opportunities, as well.)

I am not certain, Mangetout, why you think this pertains to the EC/First Amendment discussion? Could you clarify, please? To me, as religious “providers” of this service are licensed *in addition to * civil providers, I do not see any separation of church and state issues with regard to governmental licensing of the varied providers. As I previously posted, though, I believe that there are significant EC issues called into play by the fact that those marriages that are legally recognized by the State, with all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto, are clearly a legal contract entered into between the marrying parties and the State…which in turn calls the discrimination issues into play.

Peanut50

282

It may be that I’m responding to points not made in this thread; my impression is that there are folks out there who unreasonably assume that the separation of church and state must mean something like corporate denial (or wilful ignorance) of the existence of any religious body - even to the ludicrous extent that places or people with the word ‘cross’ in their names, should be dissociated with the state or if this is not possible, renamed.

I’ve also seen arguments (again, perhaps not here) to the effect “abolish marriage and just call it civil union” - with the implication that everyone would have to apply to the state to cement their union, with the religious solemnisation of the union being nothing more than superficial decoration after the event.

I apologise if I gave the impression that anyone here was making precisely those arguments. I may be tilting at windmills (at least here).

283

As you’ve provided no cites of your own, I don’t think you’re entitled to them. However, in the spirit of edification, I would direct you to Will Durant’s multi-volume “The Story of Civilization,” which I would think is known to everyone. In particular, you might try Volume 3, “Caesar and Christ, A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their beginnings to A.D. 325.” (Copyright, 1944; renewed 1971).

pp. 89 "Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia; many rich men paid a talent ($3600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm.’ (Polybius, xxxi, 25.) (Underline emphasis added).

pp. 132 (Discussing Roman Senators): “Some of their sons dressed and walked like courtesans, wore frilled robes and women’s sandals, decked themselves out with jewelry, sprinkled themselves with perfume, deferred marriage or avoided parentage, and emulated the bisexual impartiality of the Greeks.” (Underline emphasis added).

There are myriad other references, but I don’t think I need repeat them here; hopefully, you get the point.

You would also find significant information in Volume 2, “The Life of Greece,” in which you would learn that the Ancient Greeks considered physical love between two men to be the “purest form of love.” If memory serves, that quote is attributed to Aristotle, although I could be misremembering which philosopher said it; I do not have the requisite volumes to hand to be certain (and I’m quite sure that someone on this board will correct me if I have wrongly attributed the quote; it’s been 30 years since I was in school, alas). Regardless, Serket, the Ancient Greeks most certainly did not “revile” homosexuality.

I particularly referenced Durant’s works because they were written prior to the Second World War, and cannot be viewed as “skewed” by any modern partiality to so-called “gay rights.” A widely-respected scholar in his day and prolific author, his works (although somewhat the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the History of the world) are a valuable resource; you should consider reading the entire set.

Peanut50

284

This is certainly a position I would endorse, and I probably have done so somewhere in one of the many threads on the issue, if not in this particular one.

To be more accurate, I would support the abolition of State recognition of marriage. Any church - or, indeed, any individual - should be free to carry out a religious ceremony which leads to the marriage of the participants. However, I would argue that, if the state regards some, but not all, such religious ceremonies as creating a legal relationship between the parties, then it’s committing religious discrimination (in the absence of a properly established church, of course - not an option for the USA).

In an ideal world, the state would recognize all religious marriages, and provide its own civil marriage ceremony for people who don’t adhere to one particular faith. However, in this world, there is considerable objection to using the word “marriage” to describe relationships other than the traditional one man/one woman type. I think an acceptable compromise is for the state to stop using the word “marriage” to describe a legal relationship, ignore any religious ceremony that the partners may or may not have undergone, and require them, if they want the legal benefits of marriage, to enter into a state-approved, non-discriminatory, gender-neutral “civil partnership”.

285

My point (or one of them) though, is that to do this gives substance (albeit perhaps unreasonably) to the accusation that the state of marriage is being eroded - because it’s a compromise, it expects some people to lower their expectations, and it happens to substantially overlap with that set of people who are most reluctant to do so.

I think it would be better, if it’s what they want, for those wanting same-sex unions to be called ‘marriage’, to press on until they achieve that goal, because a)why should they settle for less? and b)it is achievable without taking anything away (or appearing to) from those who already have something they call ‘marriage’.

286

I’m sorry if I’m repeating what others have said, but frankly, I didn’t have the patience to wade through pages 3 through 5 of this increasingly off-track discussion.

In regard to the cost of same-sex marriage, a 2004 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office** concluded that, federally at least, nationwide legal same-sex marriage would not cost the government (and thus taxpayers) money overall. Rather, it would slightly increase the amount coming in to the public Treasury (by less than $1 billion per year, which is slight in federal budgetary terms).

Although some same-sex married partners would get additional government benefits that they can’t get now (such as receiving Social Security survivors’ benefits or not paying estate taxes on money they inherit), other people would lose benefits (such as low-income single people who would no longer qualify for welfare or Medicaid or the earned income tax credit if their same-sex partner’s income was included in their “family” income). Moreover, since same-sex partners are currently more likely to both be earners, and their earnings tend to be more equal, than is the case for opposite-sex partners, same-sex married couples are more likely to owe higher taxes if they file jointly as a couple than they do now as two single filers (the so-called marriage penalty).

On net, CBO concludes, the government would save a small amount of money from same-sex marriage rather than spend more money. So whatever arguments are used against same-sex marriage, cost to taxpayers shouldn’t be one of them.
**See Congressional Budget Office

287

Even when I was young and cute, no one ever offered me even a fraction of that much. I was lucky if I got dinner or a lousy flower. Now I’m angry. Smash puny cheapskates. THOOM!

288

If someone already offered the following answer, then apologies (and could you please tell me which page its on?)

Here’s an argument for legalization. Sexual discrimination is illegal, and it is unconstitutional for the government to engage in it when passing laws. A law against gay marriage creates the following situation: Joe wants to marry Bob, but the government says to Joe, “No, you may not marry Bob.” “Why not?” says Joe. The gov’t’s reply: “Because Bob is a male.”

Bob is disallowed from entrance into a legal contract because Bob is male. This is sexual discrimination.

-DaHa

289

Actually, without trying to digress off-topic, everyone already does “apply” to the state when cementing their union (assuming arguendo that we are indeed still talking about legally-recognized marriages, here), and the religious solemnization of the union is nothing more than the superficial decoration before, during or after the actual legal event. Priests, ministers, rabbis, JP’s, you-name-it, are all agents of the State when performing the marriage ceremony. If you have a non-empowered individual perform the ceremony, you may well be married in the eyes of your church or god, but you are NOT married in the eyes of the law. So, there is no “implication;” it is already a fact. This is not to be dismissive of anyone’s religious beliefs about the solemnity or sacrament of their marriage vows; but, factually, the religious ceremonies are irrelevant to the legality of the marriage. Only the State is empowered to render your marriage “legal.”

Peanut50

290

We’re tripping up largely over semantics I think - I understand what you’re saying; My position is that the existing setup needs to be broadened to be more inclusive, I do not wish that the religious and civil aspects should be made completely separate, independent entities (i.e. so that the couple would have to apply to registry office as a completely separate event from their religious ceremony of marriage).