Ok, before I start writing, let's get the inevitable personal opinion out of the way: I believe that marriage is, and always will be: a Holy Sacrament of total commitment made by three persons: a man, a woman, and God. But my opinion on whether same sex marriage is morally wrong or right is not what this article is about. This is a look on whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized.
I view the legalization of same sex marriage as a freedom of religious practice issue. Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Also, the general rule in America is that we have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Since same sex marriage does not infringe on the rights of others, and is also the exercising of one's personal beliefs, than I see no reason why the government can prohibit same sex couples from getting married.
Even though I don't believe that a same sex marriage is a true marriage, there's nothing for me to stop people who do and I absolutely understand that. However, my problem here is that we cannot simply redefine the legal definition of marriage to include members of the same sex. Because if we can just wake up one morning and change the laws regarding the sex of each member of a legally married couple, why can't we just change the laws regarding, say, the number of people in a single marriage? If we can change one variable in our definition of marriage (the sex of each member), why can't we also change another equally important variable (the number of people) at the same time? If we can recognize same sex marriage as a legal form of marriage in this country, than why can't we recognize something like polygamy as a legal form of marriage? If we can only redefine marriage in regards to the sex of each member, than all we're doing is keeping the same rigidly strict barrier we put on the definition of marriage in the first place and just moving it slightly. That is still nowhere near true marital freedom, so what's the point of moving it in the first place?
What it all comes down to is this: can the law define what marriage is or is this something that should be left up to individual belief? If the law can define marriage, than there's no real reason to change anything, as no change of the definition of marriage will allow for true marital freedom. If the law shouldn't be defining marriage, than people should be free to define it however they want, and practice it freely just as the constitution intended it. But the middle ground argument that marriage should be limited to a couple of either homosexual or heterosexual persons really makes no rational sense, as all you would be doing is moving an old barrier and solving nothing in the process.
I know this is extremely controversial, but feel free to post your opinions on it!
See, now, this intrigues me because it's a very different argument from the one you've been giving me all these years. You'd think I'd know your points by heart by now, but I have to say, this one kind of threw me for a loop.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well I sat down and thought about it and this is the conclusion I came to. My perspective on the morality of gay marriage hasn't changed one bit, but analyzing its potential legalization has lead me to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteWell, good on you for putting this back through your logic meter, especially for separating it from your moral view of it. I mean, if our country had been established by Jewish people, maybe pork would be outlawed, or if Amish people established the US, cars wouldn't be legal. You know? There are so many different moral codes in the world that to legalize (or outlaw) things according to just one of them would cause immense problems. Anyway, this is a really interesting viewpoint, regardless.
ReplyDeletehahaha also, I just saw this and thought of your blog entry :P
ReplyDeletehttp://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2715/66/39/52800670/n52800670_31519295_3938878.jpg
Kudos to you for being able to separate religion and politics. Since the idea of marriage being between a man, woman, and God (as you said) is a religious one, it clearly can't be enforced by the U.S. government.
ReplyDeleteBeth - Your comment "...if our country had been established by Jewish people, maybe pork would be outlawed, or if Amish people established the US, cars wouldn't be legal" is really interesting and I definitely agree with it. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. was NOT established as a Christian nation: the founding fathers were (mostly) all atheists or deists who denounced Christianity. There are WAY more religious people today than there were when our country was founded. So yeah, using the "our-nation-was-founded-on-Christian-principles" argument against gay marriage is definitely not a solid one. :P
Nice post Nick, really diplomatic argument!
"Because if we can just wake up one morning and change the laws regarding the sex of each member of a legally married couple, why can't we just change the laws regarding, say, the number of people in a single marriage?"
ReplyDeleteHey, first of all, America's not even ready for that yet. Second of all, WHY CAN'T WE? Why CAN'T three or more people be in a marriage? People should be allowed to do as they please as long as they're not bothering anybody. And besides, you know how many people would do that? Like 4. 4 couples that is, so in the end who really gives a fuck?
There will never be a big enough demand to actually get a bill like that moved so let's not even bring it into the conversation.
"However, my problem here is that we cannot simply redefine the legal definition of marriage to include members of the same sex."
Yes we can. Yes we absolutely can. Why couldn't we? It's the responsibility of the government and it's people to change laws based on our ever-changing moral agenda. As we grow as people we rewrite our code of ethics based on what we believe is right. We do that as a people too, so why couldn't rewrite the definition of marriage?