« Religion in schools part 2 | Main | Dawn of the Crustacean Dead »
No, this isn't a joke...
County in Oregon bans all marriages...
Raise your hand if you think this is actually going to help the gay marriage debate...
I'm still working on my homosexuality and gay marriage essay, but here's a sneak preview:
Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue.
As the law stands right now, Gays have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else: they can marry one person of the opposite sex who's over 18, not married to anyone else, and not directly related to them. The fact that a gay person might not want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't matter; the right still exists.
Example: I'm over 21, so I have the right to buy and consume alcohol under current law. I don't happen to drink, though, so that 'right' is somewhat meaningless. That's okay--it's my choice not to drink--but it doesn't mean my right to drink if I chose to doesn't exist. And it certainly doesn't mean the government should allow me to buy marijuana legally to 'make up' for the fact that I don't happen to drink alcohol. This is the difference between 'equal rights' and 'special rights'.
Gays have the same rights as everyone else (related to marriage, anyway). The government already restricts polygamous, incestuous, and under-age marriages--even among consenting adults--so it cannot be said that people have the right to marry 'anyone they want'.
Still maintain gay marriage is an equal rights issue? Then, tell me...exactly what right do non-gays have that gays do not?
March 24, 2004 | Permalink
Comments
If this comment sounds familiar, it's taken more or less directly from a letter I wrote to Salt Lake City Weekly a few weeks ago.
(I make no apology for plagarizing from myself...)
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 24, 2004 12:02:44 PM
I guess great minds think alike. LDS author Orson Scott Card also made this point in his column last month
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
"Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone."
"In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man. "
His comments have been discussed elsewhere on the Internet (typically by those who disagree) and though the idea offers no solace to those seeking to 'formalise' their iniquitous relationships, I personally agree with his/your point.
Posted by: dp | Mar 24, 2004 5:18:53 PM
Boortz has been making this argument for a while. The only real opposition I've heard to it has been the few people who call in asking why homosexuals can't marry for love. The problem I have with the love argument is that the main reasons homosexuals use for wanting marriage always seem to do with finances and money and insurance. It's hard to take them seriously when money seems to be thier only motivation for marriage.
Regardless, my inner libertarian keeps screaming that they should be able to marry. My advice is to ignore it; it's worked for me thus far on this issue.
Posted by: Jan | Mar 24, 2004 5:56:05 PM
I'm not surprised that many others have mentioned this--it seems like an obvious point. With the entire gay rights side screaming 'equal rights! equal rights!' at every corner, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more. I'm especially surprised there hasn't been more condemnation from the actual civil rights people who fought for black rights for so long (an actual equal rights issue) for the gay-rights side using them in comparison so often...
This will be clearer when I finish my essay (Note to self: finish this week), but I'm not a 'hard-liner' when it comes to gay marriage (perhaps it's MY inner libertarian talking). In a way, it's a morally neutral issue--i.e. a gay couple having sex may be immoral, but having a piece of paper with their names on it is not. While there are reasons--moral and otherwise--to oppose gay marriage (which I still do), the reasons are minor, and I recognize that instituting gay marriage is not the end of the world. I don't buy into the apocalyptic rhetoric of many church members who say gay marriage will 'destroy their families'. Really? How? Gay marriage won't affect MY marriage at all, no more than gays having sex does now. I think everyone on both sides needs to settle down a little bit...
Enough of that for now. I'd better finish my complete essay first.
By the way, Jan, I'm not familiar with 'Boortz'-- another blog, perhaps?
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 25, 2004 7:24:45 AM
Sorry. Boortz is Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk radio host. He has a web page.(http://boortz.com) He has a blog too, sorta. Though that's not what he calls it. (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html)
I think I feel the way you do. My feelings can be summed in one word: meh. I can't get worked up over this issue like I do over other issues. Mainly, I guess, because I don't see it as a big threat as others do. I'm certainly not threatened by it and I have yet to hear a convincing reason as to why I should be.
Posted by: Jan | Mar 25, 2004 12:22:06 PM
