Gay "Marriage" Amendment

I'm not exactly jumping for joy about homosexual marriages, but do you feel this is an appropriate role of *federal* government?

Such an amendment would surely run counter to the framers' concept of the federal constitution protecting the rights of individuals no? Not to mention creating serious conflict with the equal protection clause.

Best to leave this to the jurisdiction of the states.

I don't care much for the use of the U.S. Constitution to limit rights.

JT: Well, the point of course is that gay "marriage" isn't a right.

Michael,

You don't regard voting as a right, either, even though the Consitution says it is. Anyway, I was using "right" in a more generic sense of liberties. This is the U.S. government telling the states what they can't do, a position that Republicans normally oppose.

I'm against gay marriage, but support civil unions.

When all is said and done, I don't beleive Republicans will succeed with the amendment, but may succeed in causing a lot of bitterness.

This amendment would preserve the rights of those that wish to make a distinction between socially beneficial partnerships (that ideally would last a lifetime), and relationships that can have no other purpose than the gratification of the partners.

*** RANT WARNING ***

Traditional marriage is not always socially beneficial, but when it practiced even moderately close to traditionally, it is. Changing the institution of marriage to distinguish between "good" marriages and "bad" marriages would involve too much interference, and would be extremely subjective. To deny this label (and its associated social status) to relationships that inherently fail children and do nothing to build up the society for another generation does not require any changes at all, and can be enforced with a minimum of effort.

Let's be clear about all this: marriage *is* between a man and a woman, and the homosexual community wants to *redefine* marriage. (If this was not the case, they would already be able to legally use "marriage" as a description of what they do.) As a practical matter, marriage is already available to homosexuals; it's just that they don't want to get married, instead preferring relationships with their own sex.

The "benefits" that they are seeking for their own relationships were granted to married couples out of a recognition of the commitment of marriage. If homosexual couples want those ancillary benefits, they *are* available to them - power of attorney can be assigned, a will can designate inheritance, etc. (Though hospital visitation benefits may not be available - and given the prevalence of AIDS, that may be a big issue. But if the issue coould be solved with such a minor change...) They can obviously *participate* in their relationships without calling it marriage; what are they participating in right now, after all? The squabble over these "rights" is a smokescreen... what they really want is to get an admission that their relationships are as valid and valuable to society as marriage.

Whew - glad I got all that out! Ok, folks, rant's over, you can all go home now...

I said I was gonna keep my mouth shut on this but I lied. My "objection" to the whole issue is my stance as a Christian on homosexuality. However, we have all sinned and I prefer not to judge people so I try not to think about it too much. Plus what can I do? Go around to people I *think* are gay and say, if you have a partner, don't have sex with him or her? Why would this person care what I have to say at all?

Apart from all of that though, I don't understand what the uproar is about if not from that viewpoint. Almost everyone who is against gay marriage says it takes away from marriage between a man and a woman. How? How does two gay people getting married affect my relationship with my (future) husband? I'm just asking. 'Cause I really don't understand how two people who I don't know could affect my relationship with someone I am madly in love with and want to spend the rest of my life with. And the whole civil union thing - I understand legally (insurance, etc.)how it's not identical to marriage but is there really any other huge difference between the two?

I'm not trying to start an argument but if anyone could logically answer these questions, I'd appreciate it because I really am curious.

By the way Michael, funny blog. Taranto did have a point! ;)

Petra: See my earlier post on civil unions.

I would like to think we aren't a society that rewards immoral behavior. Gay marriage is a celebration of immorality.

Petra:
If you begin to print counterfeit currency, it devalues the currency I already have. It correctly seen as a crime against society, because it devalues fundamental supports of our society, even though it directly may not affect you at all. Yes, it's fraud to pass off a bad bill as good, but it also hurts everyone *even if they never deal with funny money at all*, because they have to pay higher prices to deal with the expected cost that someone, somewhere, is being paid with paper that can't be exchanged.

Homosexual marriages are like that - it's social relationship fraud. Traditional marriages are vaulable to society, not just to the people participating, in a number of ways. They are social units that have a direct stake in the future, not only because of each other, but because of children. Marriages provide for social stability by creating a group that will not engage in courtship. And because of all the benefits of married couples in society, those people that are married are given a certain status. Married people that engage in courtship rituals with others are frowned upon, because they are failing their commitments - and they harm other married couples by reducing the general public's trust that married people are faithful to each other.

Homosexual marriages DO devalue my marriage; my marriage is easier to maintain because society in general gives me a certain amount of trust and expectation for faithfulness, commitment, and responsibility. Homosexual relationships are fundamentally self-centered; when homosexuals DO show adult behavior, it is telling that they are emulating heterosexual relationships to give the appearance of being responsible to others, yet they reject the primary core of heterosexuality (commitment to another above yourself.)

It may be argued that promiscuity in general is the factor that devalues marriages, rather than homosexuality. Consider, though: homosexual relationships in general are marked by heavy promiscuity (as shown by readily avaiable studies on the web). Hetersexual relationships may be faulty, or they may not be - and telling the difference is difficult. To add to the confusion, heterosexual marriages may become socially harmful, or grow into responsibility; determining *now* which relationships will be viable *in the future* is nearly impossible. Since society depends heavily on married couples for stability, encouraging marginal marriages seems to be worth it, especially as they may become more socially useful later.

Homosexual relationships, however, are predicated on the same basis as promiscuity; the triumph of the individual's desires and whims over self-control. Since the heavy majority of homosexual relationships are temporary, the number of long-term, socially useful relationships that can be encouraged through "marriage" is dwarfed by the number of socially destroying casual liasons that legitimizing homosexuality would unleash. And while it is socially useful to endure a few faithless heterosexual marriages, it is much less so to endure 75% of the homosexual relationships that occur. When you also consider that homosexual couples cannot model healthy hetersexual relationships (i.e., they are much less than ideal for raising a new generation), then the utility of legally approving homosexual relationships becomes sufficiently close to zero.

This is all aside from the obligation I have as a follower of Christ to reject sin in all forms. The kicker is that the marriage issue is just a smokescreen. My reasoning is buried in my earlier comment on this topic.