Same Sex Marriage Prohibition

[mrmufin]

Currently, at least eleven US States have laws which codify marriage as exclusively heterosexual unions. I suggest that prohibiting same-sex marriage can be reduced to gender discrimination, rather than good ol' fashioned republican party line homophobia. To make my case, I'll introduce two (perhaps not so hypothetical) same-sex couples, Robert and Russell and Rhonda and Roxanne. Consider the following premises for my case:

1. There are real government-sanctioned benefits associated with being a party to a marriage certificate. Though the benefits may vary slightly from state to state, they exist just the same.

2. Though some US states prohibit same-sex marriages by definition, none of the several States actually test marriage license applicants to determine their sexual orientation. This being the case sexual orientation has absolutely no bearing in the marriage process.

3. During the marriage license application process, there are no tests for love, respect, commitment, etc. Whether or not these traditional components are included in marriage vows or the ceremonials is entirely up to the couple getting married. Quite a few couples enjoy the minimalist ceremonies officiated by local magistrates prior to commencement of civil court.

Robert and Russell are involved in a loving, committed relationship with each other. The same can be said for Rhonda and Roxanne. All would like to shore up their emotional ties to their respective partners with the legal commitment and government-sanctioned benefits associated with marriage. Since Russell or Robert could legally marry either Roxanne or Rhonda (but not each other) and Rhonda or Roxanne could legally marry either Russell or Robert (but not each other) it appears to me that the only thing prohibiting such marriages is the gender of one of the marriage license applicants. Discrimination based solely on gender is pretty unpopular her in the USofA (recall women's suffrage), yet this seems to be overlooked when it comes to marriage, perhaps due to the passions raised when discussing homosexual issues.

So for debate:

Can prohibitions against same-sex marriages be effectively reduced to gender-based discrimination? Feel free to point out any flaws in my argument and/or the premises listed above.

Why should/shouldn't governments get a free pass to discriminate on the basis of gender when it comes to marriage?

Given past gender-based discrimination arguments and court decisions, is there enough legal stock in my premises and arguments to unset the heterosexual marriage definitions in the eleven US States?

Regards,
mrmufin

[1John2_26]

Marriage is a word that should not be abused for this subject matter. Religions ands religious people are not the bad guys in this. Legal unions does both give rights to any people without the offensive nature of an attack on religious people (that number in the multi-millions). There is no reason to not follow Britain in the example that homosexuals or any two adults no matter sexual classification, should be allowed to form a partnership between themselves. Marriage though would be a word that would suffer damage even worse than it has now. There is no definition of family that does not accurately mean mother, father, children, in their own home structure. That shouldn't be redefined either. The way you put it if people don't want to have children in a marriage then why not ask; why the need to call it a marriage at all? Do people get married in Las Vegas for example, or just get a civil union in reality? This subject is loaded but it can be rationally worked out. Marriage is exclusive to man-woman and it should be. Who is the husband or the wife when two people have the same sex in a marriage. Silly situation really. It appears that same-sex unions/marriage is a new thing by defintion. Then give it another title. The world will not be changed by people that choose to live their life outside of normal boundaries anyway. Why all the fuss?

The amount of mentally ill children being raised away from, or out of, nuclear families far outweigh the numbers coming from a normal situation. Some of my family members work as teachers and one is a nurse in the midwest who works in a hospital with a psychiatric wing. The really troubled kids come from broken families redefined outside of the nuclear family. There is a sensibilty to thinking that families and marriage has a worth that should not suffer being reclassified. Children are not doing all that well since diviorce also redefined unions. More reclassification does not give a good handout to the future. But we'll have to wait and see.

[micatala]

Marriage is a word that should not be abused for this subject matter. Religions ands religious people are not the bad guys in this. Legal unions does both give rights to any people without the offensive nature of an attack on religious people (that number in the multi-millions).

I guess I don't see the proposal to make same-sex marriage as an 'abuse' of the word, nor any kind of attack. It would be an extention of the definition of the word.

I have no personal stake in the issue, and think that if legal unions which provided all the same rights as marriage were enacted, that this would take care of what I see as a discrimination problem. To the extent that proponents of same-sex marriage think the actual term 'marriage' is important symbolically, then you are really just fighting over what should be accepted as common usage. I personally don't see the point in making this a part of a legal battle.

Would you be in favor of such a scenario?

I think many of those who oppose same-sex marriage would not be, and might make arguments similar to what you are saying in your second paragraph. They try to link same-sex marriage to the problems that currently exist with respect to heterosexual marriage. However, it seems to me that these arguments are highly speculative (based on a lack of experience with what might actually happen if same-sex marriage were made legal) or make a lot of invalid or suspect assumptions.

The argument seems to be

1. currently, non-standard family situations including single parenting have negative impacts on children
2. same-sex marriage would be non-standard
3. therefore same-sex marriage would have negative impacts on children.

To me, this argument is fallacious. The first problem is that if we include same-sex marriage in group of non-standard family situations, we have enlarged the latter group, and so the statements that might be true of the smaller group are now automatically open to question for the larger group unless we can specifically show the statements also hold for same-sex marriage families.

Those who make this argument could address this fallacy to some extent by finding the reasons why non-standard families have negative impacts on kids, and then showing that these reasons also would apply to same-sex couples. I have not seen any credible evidence to this point to suggest that this link can be made. This link is often simply assumed by those who oppose same-sex marriage.

[ST88]

Marriage though would be a word that would suffer damage even worse than it has now. There is no definition of family that does not accurately mean mother, father, children, in their own home structure. That shouldn't be redefined either. The way you put it if people don't want to have children in a marriage then why not ask; why the need to call it a marriage at all? Do people get married in Las Vegas for example, or just get a civil union in reality? This subject is loaded but it can be rationally worked out. Marriage is exclusive to man-woman and it should be.

So what is the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a childless homosexual couple? After all, not everyone who gets married in Vegas remains childless, and not everyone who has a full cathedral wedding has children.

Do you also favor changing the official name of Christmas to something like Winter Holidays because the religion has gone out of it?

[1John2_26]

It is a silly argument in most cases about changing marriage nowadays. Marriage is anything but special so my views about marrid couples not having children is pointless. IF people want children they should get married and be committed to those children. It should in fact be an inforced law. If people want to form a life-partnership outside of religious institutions than who cares? If I wanted to form a union with my brother whose business is it? But, if we wanted to call it a marriage than I do believe it is anyones business, because once you make something a public matter than the public has the right to say anything they want. If it becomes a matter of legislation, then the populace gets to weigh in. The problem with same-sex marriage is the word marriage. Would anyone care what gay people do if they didn't force a new defintion onto the word marriage? I bet not. It seems the first stone thrown was from the side that wants to change marriage.

[mrmufin]

Marriage is a word that should not be abused for this subject matter.

Eliminate all government-sanctioned benefits associated with being a party to a marriage certificate and you can abuse the word marriage all you'd like.

Religions ands religious people are not the bad guys in this. Legal unions does both give rights to any people without the offensive nature of an attack on religious people (that number in the multi-millions).

?
Thus far, no one has asserted that religion is the "bad guy." No one has attacked any religions, nor their participants. It is my understanding that "civil unions" do not enjoy the same protection and recognition as marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

There is no reason to not follow Britain in the example that homosexuals or any two adults no matter sexual classification, should be allowed to form a partnership between themselves.

This isn't about sex. This is about marriage. And the fact that when two persons apply for a marriage license, sexual orientation is irrelevant. Nobody checks that out. Thus, when a person is denied participation in the marriage process, the denial is made as a matter of gender, not sexual orientation. Government exists to serve and protect all citizens, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, political affiliation, hairstyle, etc.

Marriage though would be a word that would suffer damage even worse than it has now. There is no definition of family that does not accurately mean mother, father, children, in their own home structure. That shouldn't be redefined either.

Why should you get a monopoly on definitions?

The way you put it if people don't want to have children in a marriage then why not ask; why the need to call it a marriage at all?

And if after the marriage the couple finds out that she's infertile, should they divorce, or just redefine their arrangement as a "civil union"? And if two people do have children out of wedlock, should they be compelled to marry?

Who is the husband or the wife when two people have the same sex in a marriage.

Maybe some marriages can have two wives. Or even two husbands. Why should it matter to you?

Regards,
mrmufin