Same-sex marriage

A huge issue that hasn't gone away is same-sex marriage. A couple of months ago I saw a letter to the North County Times that gushed over a future in which gays would be able to marry. I wanted to respond in a way that didn't paint me as a religious nut, so I tried to use other arguments to show there are plenty of reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. Here's the letter I sent. Hope it helps you if you engage someone who doesn't share your beliefs.



Community Forum
North County Times
February 11, 2009





A recent letter by Peggy Hart (February 9th) looked forward with delight to the possible overturn of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that rejected same-sex marriage in California. She suggested the proposition passed only because churches “intimidated their flocks by telling them the Lord does not want gay people to have the same rights as straight people.” Hart later claimed Prop 8 supporters were “threatened with damnation” if they didn’t back the measure. Is that why the proposition passed? No, of course not. There were solid, non-biblical, non-theological reasons why California should have voted no to same-sex marriage.

First, Prop 8 didn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay/lesbian domestic partnerships. California Family Code 297.5 says that “domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law.” Gays are asking for a special right, namely to wed someone of the same sex. It is not a violation of the equal protection clause to deny this special right. If it’s not really about rights, what is it about? In one word—approval. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to force society to approve a lifestyle that many oppose for various reasons.

Secondly, the proposition established a positive type of discrimination. We discriminate all the time. For example, we don’t let blind people drive. We are simply making a legitimate distinction in that case between sighted and blind individuals. We think it’s better for society to limit drivers based on vision. The same is true for marriage. We discriminate between two types of marriages for legitimate reasons that benefit society. Researchers have found children do best having both a mother and a father, an arrangement that occurs in opposite-sex marriages. However, same-sex marriages deny children either a mother or a father. Therefore, government protects and sanctions opposite-sex marriages, which produce the next generation and creates civilization itself.

In addition, Prop 8 recognized that any change in the institution of marriage opens the door to all sorts of odd and potentially destructive relationships. Once we have redefined marriage to include a gay or lesbian couple, how can we exclude any arrangement? What’s to keep three men from wanting to have a “marriage”? Why not a 10-year old girl and a 50-year old man? A brother and a sister? There’s no logical or legal reason why any other grouping should be excluded.

If people wish to reconstruct an institution and its legal definition, the burden of proof for the change is on them. It’s unfair to attack those who simply hold the traditional, legal, social, and linguistic meaning of a word. It’s especially unfair to do what the letter writer did—assume the Prop 8 supporters were religious bigots, carrying out the commands of their church leaders. Instead, there are plenty of logical, non-theological reasons to oppose such social engineering. Gays and lesbians have the liberty to live as they choose, and that’s as far as the law should go. [499 words]