Equal Rights Already Exist
One argument being made in favor of same-sex marriage is that we should provide equal rights to marriage for gay people and straight people. Here is an insightful comment from Lt. Smash’s site that is such a simple answer to this argument that I’d overlooked it.
By not being able to marry, gays are not being denied any rights that I have. Listen carefully now… As a straight man, I am allowed to marry one woman. A gay man is allowed to marry one woman. As a straight man, I am not allowed to marry another man. A gay man is not allowed to marry another man. Therefore, WE ARE BOTH BEING TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW!!! It’s about individual rights.
An argument that resorts to common sense is a rarity in this debate.
Here’s another good comment from the same post (you’ll probably recognize the argument if you’ve done any reading of my site):
It’s becoming obvious to me that any state licensing of marriage is a huge violation of the separation between church and state. But it’s been around from the beginning and most of us don’t have a problem with it, so we just let it slide. Also, the actual “marriage” laws in place don’t seem to be about religion at all. They’re about property and legal privileges, and you don’t even need have a religion to get married.
Now it’s time to face the contradiction and declare a divorce between the state and religious marriage. Let the churches control the religious state of “marriage.” Let the states control the civil contract of “marriage” or “civil union” or whatever according to state laws.
Bush’s Constitutional amendment is a different can of worms - a direct attack on the separation of church and state. He wants to codify the violation and shove it down our throats. Let his amendment go back to the hell it came from.
BTW, I’m a Presbyterian. We have our own rules for what a marriage is and we don’t need the government telling us what they should be.
Gary
Good job Gary. Mormons have their own rules too…we’d all be better off if the government got out of the business of defining marriage.
Now…enough of this topic. I’m going to try to get some pictures from New York posted today.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
OK…last comment on this from me on this…
My practical position in this argument (since it isn’t likely that we’ll get the government completely out of the marriage business any time soon) is that states should allow civil unions for consenting adults who want to have the benefits of marriage. They can call themselves married if they want…or not…but these civil unions would be the only state licensing of any unions…and they would provide the same contractual benefits for all who decided to take advantage of them.
People like me who believe marriage means something special in a religious context would obtain a “civil union license” then would be married in the manner prescribed by our religions. People who think all of that is bunk can still partake of the contractual rights and responsibilities traditionally associated with marriage.
I consider homosexuality to be immoral behavior…but I don’t think the government should get involved in that judgement. I think the government should butt out.
Comment by Jeremy — February 25, 2004 @ 9:44 am
Oh well…that wasn’t my last comment on this topic. See the new post above…
Comment by Jeremy — February 25, 2004 @ 11:09 am