Common arguments against gay marriage need to be dispelled

Mr. Garrison,
Homosexuality is a sin, m’kay?

As a Republican I should be avidly against gat marriage. As an alumnus of MSU’s public policy program I find myself realizing that social issues are really irrelevant to the administration and efficient functioning of our government. Gay marriage, particularly, has little or no effect on the function of our current system. Socially conservative Republicans often argue three points against gay marriage. One, gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Two, gay marriage would destroy the family and the rearing of children if adopted. Three, gay marriage would be abused for tax and financial reasons.

My response is: one, gays don’t destroy the sanctity of marriage, Hollywood Movie stars have already done that, besides our country supports and respects all religions including LBGT churches (who obviously support gay marriage) and ; two, don’t you think its better for a child to be raised by two gay parents who can provide for them then a single parent who can’t (besides who’s to say that a child couldn’t be biological to one of the gay parents and therefore legally theirs to raise anyway); and three, with a good accountant gays could legally get the tax beaks of a married couple without marriage, so why not just let them do it the easy way.

Basically I think that many socially conservative Republicans transfer the discontent they have with their own lives on the gay community as a scape goat. (I also think that most homophobes are just gays in the closet with a low self esteem, i.e. U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, Rev. Ted Haggard, Rev. Paul Barnes [all republican, all outspoken anti-gay advocates]). The important issues are economic issues. Quit worrying about what your neighbor is doing in his or her bedroom and start worrying about how high this administration is raising your taxes. Worry about providing for your own family and let others live their lives. This country was founded on freedom, even the freedom to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same sex. Not my interest, but feel free, because I want to feel free to do what I want to do. This country was not founded on Christian beliefs, it was founded on FREEDOM.

I agree, most of the reason i am conservative is because i do not like the government butting into our lives. Just as i would not want the gov. to come into my home and tell me what i can and can’t do, i certainly would not want them to do that to another fellow american. These people aren’t hurting anyone, just let em’ do what they want…..even if its gross.

Add me to the list of conservatives that are for gay marriage. I think there are bigger issues at hand in this country to worry about than being concerned what goes on in people’s bedrooms.

First of all, I do not oppose gay marriage, and am therefore in support of gay marriage. In other words, it is not my, or the government’s, place to dictate what marriage is on the basis of a majority religion.

I also love Mr. Garrison’s rhetoric of spelling out, and by doing this ultimately mocking and delegitimizing, common ‘conservative’ arguments against gay marriage. Having said that though, there are a few things that are either not fully explained or misunderstood by the author.

1) The U.S. News and World Report also published an article (though it may have been the same one to which you are referring) stating that Blacks are not to blame for voting yes on Proposition 8, rather it is born-again Christians who are to blame. The 70% figure is also only applicable to California’s Proposition 8; this isn’t 70% of the country’s African American population, which could easily be midread in your letter.

2) It’s not as simple as it sounds to dispel the Christian, sacred marriage argument by using separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not actually said anywhere in the constitution. The first amendment (arguably) implies separation of church and state in its establishment and free exercise clause. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

These two statements also work against each other in many cases; the establishment clause states that the federal government can’t establish an official religion, but it also says that it can’t prohibit the exercise of any religion either.

So, if (and when) a same-sex marriage ban case reaches the Supreme Court, the government cannot use the Christian interpretation of marriage in order to justify a ban on same-sex marriage. At the same time, and this is when it gets sticky.., the government can’t tell churches that they must marry homosexual couples.

Obviously gay couples are not going to walk into a Catholic or evangelical Protestant church and want to be married… but it’s certainly not as simple as a separation of church and state.

Bravo for tackling this

Be as gay as you want, just keep your tools away from mine.

Sweet bejesus .. didn’t you hear me?

CIVIL UNIONS — OK. In UK. For years.

GAY MARRIAGE — a fight to the death.

All this ridiculous arguing over one word.

I’m glad to hear there are conservatives out there that could really not care if gays were allowed to marry. Most of us hetero people may find it nasty, but hey, I bet gays find our sex lives disgusting too. I’m not going to march for their rights, but I’ll support it and vote that way.

How about this:

The GOVERNMENT grants couples (hetero or homo) a CIVIL UNION, which gives them the standard legal rights of a married couple.

The couple’s RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY grants them a MARRIAGE. If a gay couple belongs to a religious community that recognizes gay marriage, fine. If not, they’re out of luck (unless they defect to another denomination).

Bottom line: “Marriage,” like baptism or confirmation, should be viewed as a religious concept that should be conferred by a religious body. It’s none of the government’s business.

“ How can 70 percent of black voters now oppose the same rights ..”

You are out of your bloody mind. Voting rights are NOT the same as forcing African-American churches to conduct homosexual marriages.

Just try to go into an African-American church and demand they marry you and your boyfriend. Just out some life insurance first — you’ll need it. A lot of it.

Ryan,
You say, “For those who believe this second argument to be true, I believe that one phrase completely negates this misconception: Separation of church and state. This constitutional legal parlance is highly effective at mitigating biblical references.”

I challenge you to find “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.

This whole ‘Black people passed prop 8’ line is utter bullshit. Not only do the statistics show that that was not the fact, the LBGT groups did not work with the African-American groups, including churches. In cases where the LBGT groups have worked closely with Black groups and churches, there has been a very positive response from the Black community.

The line is an infantile attempt to drive a wedge between ‘the Gays’ and ‘the Blacks’ — please do not buy into it. It is a troll.

duh-
What a brilliant argument, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically create something, it doesn’t exist. Your strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution is fine, but there are a lot of legal scholars who disagree with that so you don’t just win an argument by imposing your form of Constitutional interpretation.

Try as you wish, you will not untangle the religious impact on our code of laws. The authors of the Constitution were highly religious men, albeit of different denominations, and much of our laws are based in Christian law. It is true that we are moving towards a more secular system, but to cry separation of church and state on an issue that is very much at odds with the mainstream thinking in our country is foolish.

The comparison with allowing blacks to marry is a stretch. That was a case of class warfare, with blacks being considered a socially inferior class unworthy of marrying whites. That has changed as a result of removing the class inequity – which isn’t yet perfect, but it’s work in progress. By comparison, gay marriage is something that flies in the face of evolution or divine creation (as your beliefs apply): the union of two individuals that are obviously not designed to mate with each other. That is beyond class, beyond race. It is about biology and 2000 years of marriage being between one man and one woman. This is something that will not be countered by labelling opponents as extremists, radicals, or fraidy cats. When you want someone to love and support you, you take the time to show them who you are and change their perceptions – not insult them and question their belief systems.

Regardless, I agree with the opinions above. Grant civil unions that grant all the legal rights of a marriage, but leave marriage to its religious history.

Many of the founders did not like religion especially Christianity, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Jason,
It’s not an interpretation, nor am I trying to win an argument. Ryan is the one who stated that the Constitution mitigates biblical references, and I am challenging him to back up his claim of “sepration of church and state” with a real evaluation of the Constitution rather than just throwing out the played-out phrase, “separation of church and state”.

Alex,
Should infertile people be allowed to marry? What about people who just don’t want kids? Because if you’re saying that there is a biological basis to marriage (ie, mating), then they should absolutely be excluded. So you pretty much either have to take that stand or shut the hell up. (Also, as the next comment implied, Thomas Jefferson and others were Deists, which makes Unitarianism look like Opus Dei).

Ali, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Duh,
It isn’t a played out phrase, it’s actually a pretty standard part of Constitutional jurisprudence. Thomas Jefferson was the first to refer to a “wall” and the language was subsequently adopted in several Supreme Court opinions dating back more than a hundred years. It has become used more frequently but I think that has as much to do with an increase in religious and cultural diversity as it does some sort of new fangled Constitutional interpretation.
That said, you are right that you can’t dismiss the entire argument with the phrase “church and state”.
I also don’t think this is necessarily a church and state issue as much as it is a 14th amendment equal rights argument. The problem the homosexual community faces with that argument is that they are not a protected class and therefore any laws addressing the issue don’t come under the same constitutional scrutiny as say race, gender or age based laws. Obviously it’s a complicated issue and I apologize for being a bit too snarky in my response.

I completely agree with Ed T. The concept of marriage has it’s roots and remains in the religious theater. Therefore, if your denomination or church wants to recognize a gay union, then so be it. All the government can do is recognize a civil union, gay or straight. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Oh I get it now! Jefferson’s Wall isn’t the same one Pink Floyd was singing about. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

1. The comparison to Loving v Virginia is moot. One cannot choose to be black.

2. This “mass coming out” and “numerics” doesn’t quite jibe when all we’ve ever heard is the 10 percent figure. Doesn’t sound like a mandate.

“Separation of church” and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. It was meant to reassure the church that government would not interfere with the practice of religion. But over the years this simple phrase has been misconstrued to mean that church won’t interfere with government. I honestly don’t care if gay people are married. But if a church wants to march and give their opinion let them, we let organizations like LGBT do it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion in this country and no matter how much you don’t like it we should not suppress their right to do so and call them extremists. I don’t know where people have come to this understanding that religion cannot have an opinion but organizations and support groups can, because if a religion gives their opinion its a violation of a Constitutional principle.

“1. The comparison to Loving v Virginia is moot. One cannot choose to be black.”

And you think people choose to be gay? How stupid are you, exactly?

real argument against gay marriage

Burden of proof is on proponent of changing existing law. the proof needed here is empirical data showing (1) gay marriage will not harm society as a whole and (2) gay marriage will not harm children as family law, namely marriage, is designed to promote “the best interest of children”. These are the two overarching public policies behind marriage & family law. Therefore, in short, if gays want to marry they must show how changing the law is good, or at minimum not bad, for society; and, how changing the law promotes, or at minimum does not detract from, the best interest of children. Empirical data is required to make this showing. Simply “we want it because you have it” or “it’s not fair” or “equal protection, man” is not enough to overcome the burden. I imagine that collecting the data over a long period of time is possible now that 4 states allow gay marriage.

Regarding gay marriage and churches, nobody’s asking that churches be FORCED to conduct them!!! A church is (as a general rule) exempt from civil rights statutes. For example, many Christian churches will refuse to marry non-Christians. While the government must allow say, Jews or Muslims to marry, a Christian church is under no obligation to perform the ceremony.

Incidentally, many churches today still refuse (as is their legal right) to perform interracial marriages on moral grounds.