|
So much going on in this thread. I am not sure I know where to begin.
I think that as long as marriage remains a legal, civil matter, same sex individuals should be recognized. Part of the freedoms in this country IMO are that just because something is permitted, you do not have to support it or do it. If your religious beliefs or personal morals say that it is wrong, you are free to speak out against it, to not support it, and advise others against it. Your church can choose not to perform these ceremonies. At the same time, others may. This is my opinion on the legality of gay marriage (and a few other controversial topics.) I think we have the right to campaign for our beliefs but not to demand that others live by them.
Overall, I believe that individual liberty is supposed to be the basis of our Constitution. Although this country’s forefathers did not fully grasp what that should have meant, I do think that is what that document (once we stopped being 3/5’s a person) is supposed to say. I know this sounds fairly libertarian but behaviors that are not detrimental to others should not be prohibited by law.
I know another poster argued that children raised by two gay parents are damaged. Another posted an article that purports that gay men abuse children at a higher rate. I found the first contention anecdotal and the second questionable,( but that may be because it is not enough details about the full study, the sample, the controls that the data accounted for, etc.) Generally, I do not see a well demonstrated harm where this matter is concerned.
I do not buy slippery slope arguments for just about anything. (If we do A, B and C are sure to follow.) As a lawyer, I see them made all the time. They divert attention away from the issue at hand by throwing what you hope is more frightening in the way. It is easy to allow only A to happen- limit your remedy to A. By defining marriage as between two consenting adults regardless of gender, you do not open up marriage to children. Why? Children under the law cannot consent. You do not open up marriage to animals. Why? Animals cannot consent. (And I think there is a good argument that sex with an animal would be cruelty to animals as it is a one sided act in which the animal did not consent and already being illegal for other reasons)
Even in very old documents and historical data you find there was always an economic factor to marriage. Marriage being about love is a modern concern. In the past, marriage has been about the accumulation of wealth (and, in many respects, about the control of women). Women were married off to the husband’s family. In the US, our entire society has been built around the economic value of marriage. Personally, I believe that the state of the American family is what it is because the economic incentives to marry have greatly diminished over the last four decades. Even with our modern history of courtship, the social construct was influenced by the economic factors. Fathers have rights to children without marrying the mother now whereas they did not in the past, women are allowed to work and be successful professionals en masse negating the need for a husband to come and “get her” out of her father’s home. It is acceptable for women to live on their own and be financially independent. And the ability to be financially independent does not require she stay in a less than desirable marriage for the financial support. As many of us that believe in marriage in the religious sense, that it is my proclamation to God about my bond to this person and our obligations to each other and God, for many, many people, marriage is functionally the expression of that legal contract and the combination of assets. Now, do not get me wrong, I do believe that women should be free to do whatever they choose (work, not work, marry, not marry) I also believe that our reality and our true social construct of marriage have evolved at very different rates. The fact that we delay marriage until much later ages is as much about professional success and economic self determination as it is longer life span, an ”extended childhood” and “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.”
As far as whether religion should factor into the argument- I do not think you can expect it not to. All of our decisions and opinions are going to be filtered through our own personal and moral beliefs. Still, I think sometimes there is a need to articulate an argument on more than just a religious basis for the sake of being persuasive. If my goal is to get you not to do something, sometimes I need to have more than one reason why you shouldn’t do it. What is the reason I don't do it may not be the reason you don’t. And your audience may not always share your moral beliefs but that does not mean they might not agree with you on that topic given the right reason.
My bottom line, everything I disagree with should not be illegal. Because the law allows it, I do not have to do it.
Now would it make any difference if there was a legally recognized domestic partnership rather than marriage? Basically conveying the ability to assign certain rights but not defined in the framework of marriage? I have seen this proposed to apply to straight and gay couples as a result of the increasing number of people who cohabitate.
|