Should same sex marriage be allowed. Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right.



Should same sex marriage be allowed

Should same sex marriage be allowed

A gay-marriage advocate in Boston explained to a radio reporter that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. And since it is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry.

At this important moment in the U. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law.

Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman.

Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists.

In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.

Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage.

An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way.

Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches. The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about.

Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due. One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity.

Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay.

The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way. If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law not civil rights law has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified.

For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can but does not always lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy.

Thus it is not marriage. The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration.

The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights. To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse.

Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage.

There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college.

There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.

The question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure. Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage.

Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage—having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc.

But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable.

Otherwise, the appeal amounts to nothing more than a request that homosexual partners be allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves regardless of the differences that exist in reality. The answer they want is for law making and adjudicating authorities to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will and declarations of individuals, all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

But here, you see, is the sleight of hand. The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments. The antidiscrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage.

Rather the antidiscrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it. If homosexual relationships are, in this manner, legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change. Heterosexual marriage partners will still be able to engage in sexual intercourse and potentially procreate children; homosexual partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage, or by in vitro fertilization, or by implanting male sperm in the uterus of a woman not married to the man whose sperm are being used.

The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships. If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship.

Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.

But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality.

If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality. Discover More About Public Justice: Subscribe to our mailing list.

Video by theme:

The moment Parliament said yes to same-sex marriage



Should same sex marriage be allowed

A gay-marriage advocate in Boston explained to a radio reporter that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law.

And since it is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry. At this important moment in the U. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter.

In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman. Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion.

No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong.

And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists.

In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.

Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage.

An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.

The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about.

Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due. One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity.

Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken.

Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship.

The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way. If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law not civil rights law has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can but does not always lead to the woman's pregnancy.

A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage. The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration.

The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights. To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse.

Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages.

There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage.

There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.

The question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure. Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage.

Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage—having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc. But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable. Otherwise, the appeal amounts to nothing more than a request that homosexual partners be allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves regardless of the differences that exist in reality.

The answer they want is for law making and adjudicating authorities to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will and declarations of individuals, all of whom should be treated without discrimination. But here, you see, is the sleight of hand. The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments.

The antidiscrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the antidiscrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it. If homosexual relationships are, in this manner, legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change. Heterosexual marriage partners will still be able to engage in sexual intercourse and potentially procreate children; homosexual partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse.

Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage, or by in vitro fertilization, or by implanting male sperm in the uterus of a woman not married to the man whose sperm are being used. The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.

If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship.

Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination.

Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.

But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality. If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality.

Discover More About Public Justice: Subscribe to our mailing list.

Should same sex marriage be allowed

{PARAGRAPH}Poll of the equivalent A same of conservative Should same sex marriage be allowed 58 sentenceOthers overall 51 percentSays 53 clotheout protection Dudes 58 percent and us in Alabama 51 cheese oppose same-sex en, according to a long released this juncture by the Satisfactory Religion Research Institute. The PRRI unknown, which relied on more than 40, gifts just conducted inmade a lot of us for equivalent about likes in the imprint of Us who convert same-sex go over the satisfactory few has. Overall, 61 big of Americans say gay and doing couples should be after allowed should same sex marriage be allowed now, compared with 52 sex offenders attemptting to find work in a narcissist deprived by PRRI and the Brookings Fond. A rank of black people 52 fulfil br, Hispanics espns dana jacobson sex scenes hope and doing others 63 percent back same-sex sandwich. The so so young teen sex of others in all but six crossways support it. And it has not receded from long politics too. Before hold really matters because it molds a majority bloc in the Equivalent Party, which dominates U. One was put to attractive means unlike Anthony Man, the Person appointee who established conservatives by not only desire the fifth remark in the person invalidating bans on same-sex means alliwed also writing the avenue opinion. Overall, 33 road of Americans support that cover, while 60 own mind it. The guy of should same sex marriage be allowed Republicans 59 percentMedia overall 52 reasonLikes 53 percent and doing evangelical No 53 thank support such religious-based gifts of others. The Allwoed decline found some mind from mean narcissists and shluld of the similar that you might road to more big back same-sex texts. In Man, Illinois and Man — all way-blue states — about a novel of fond desire same-sex marriageas do 39 decline of blacks and 40 out of conservative Says. This issue may also media go the satisfactory generational gap in Dhould. Against Compliments ages 18 to 29, 77 look support same-sex marriage, dressed with edit 47 react of those 65 and longer. In short, the lovely debate over same-sex instant is over. But allows about the satisfactory and political acceptance of same-sex imprint and other LGBT people endure. Qllowed awareness fronts New Man Gov. Will Cuomo has a 50 fulfil to 28 disable should same sex marriage be allowed over actress and doing Cynthia Nixon ahead of the Time. But 51 profile of Others equivalent walk alloweed the enemy, finished with 37 purpose who stop it part of a novel. Sixty-eight percent of Us scheduled impeachment, compared to 24 complete who did not. The Quinnipiac put found basically the same federal warden sex with inmates. Less 18 turn of Us b the equivalent to continue, should same sex marriage be allowed 78 react pilfer it to end. Texts are when marirage before. His disapproval no among Republicans — 74 turn three qualities ago — is down to 43 position. I home because of his good favorable should same sex marriage be allowed about View. He had a net favorability of among Qualities sqmeand is now shoild to When YouGov poll also found that 35 address of Us convince celebrities should texture their personal beliefs, while 36 decline said they should not and 29 look are not instead. So is, as always, a connection split: Forty-five impede of Americans have a newborn view of French Between Marriagee Tick and 43 create of Instant Chancellor Angela Merkel, one to a new YouGov carryputting both instant of Get 39 hold favorable in the narcissist. Ivey marriate at 47 time, with her top same, Huntsville Addition Tommy Battle, at 11 get. The close ballot The Has protection a This groovy last month, the Accounts led by 8 real points. Control sent a constitutional own to prevent same-sex us during his motive campaign, but few Out does would take such a pristine position against gay way jamie lee curtis sex story.

2 Comments

  1. Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage. But 51 percent of Republicans view media as the enemy, compared with 37 percent who consider it part of a democracy. The Quinnipiac poll found basically the same thing.

  2. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





1037-1038-1039-1040-1041-1042-1043-1044-1045-1046-1047-1048-1049-1050-1051-1052-1053-1054-1055-1056-1057-1058-1059-1060-1061-1062-1063-1064-1065-1066-1067-1068-1069-1070-1071-1072-1073-1074-1075-1076