Home > Law Group > Discussion Board

Just playing devil's advocate here, not trying to say what I believe or don't...

Freedom doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything you want.  If we're a free country, how come a woman can't choose to charge a man to have sex with her (except in a couple places)?  If we're a free country, how come one man can't marry two women or two women can't marry one man?

Some of our laws, at least, are based on the morals of the society's majority.  When that happens, some people get their freedom to do what they want trampled.

If you think that's wrong, you have to explain why the two things I mentioned can be banned but gay marriage can't be.

Before we can discuss meaningfully the legal rights and needs of same sex couples to marry we need to have clarity on what do we mean by marriage. By marriage do we mean the various rituals associated with solemnising a marriage, or there are some special rights conferred by the society on the married couples that the same sex couple desire to have.

As I see it, the marriage as traditionally practiced in all modern societies is intended to create mutual relationships and obligations between husband and wife. It is a mechanism to put pressure of society on individuals couple to continue and make a success of their relation once they accept it by way of getting married.

Is the same sex marriage intended to put same kind of social pressure on same sex couples. If not, in what way legal marriage between same sex couple is intended to make a difference for them?

By the way, as I understand, it is not as if it is illegal for same sex couples to get married. It is just that, there is no mechanism for marriage of same sex couples. I am sure there is no legal prohibition for same sex couples to enter into some kind of mutual agreement, similar to the implicit agreement between husband and wife. I personally that such mutual agreement and commitment is the soul of any marriage rather than the various rituals and legal procedures associated with marriage.

Krishna, you ask "in what way is legal marriage... intended to make a difference for them".  Two answers:

1.  Advocates of gay marriage see it as an important symbolic acknowledgement that their sexual orientation is as valid as that of straight people.  If they can't marry, the implication is that society disapproves of unions such as there's.  That's clearly hurtful.

2.  Here in the US, at least, there are a great array of privileges that come with marriage.  For example, if I die without a will, my property goes to my spouse.  If I am badly injured or ill she has the right to visit me in the hospital.  There are also tax benefits.  All of these things are not available to same-sex couples who wish to marry.

There are many reasons people SAY they are opposed to gay marriage, but are these the REAL reasons more than half of Americans think it best to deny someone their right to marry? A major thing like denying rights should call for major reason behind it, and none of the supposed ones hold any water. There is only ONE reason they are really against it: narrow-minded fear. Many people are just plain uncomfortable with homosexuality altogether, and do not want to see it becoming accepted by society. Some are downright disgusted with the mere thought of two men sharing a life together, and disguise that fear with something that comes off as a valid claim. There is no reason whatsoever to deny a tax-paying American the right that so many enjoy. This should not even be an issue today. This country is supposedly free, but until same-sex marriage becomes legal, this country, in actuality, is NOT free

Accepting the reasons cited by pohnpei's in post#4 as objectives of legalizing same sex marriages, I give below my views.

1. Should we use law as just symbol?
2. Some people in society may still disapprove of gay relationships. They have as much right to their disapproval as gay people have the right to their relationships.
3. Some of the legal implication (or privileges?) of marriage can be effected by same sex couple by mutual agreements. For example, by making an appropriate will or by appropriate contract the couple. I am not sure to what extent same sex couple demanding legalizing their marriages are taking any such steps.
4. Things like tax benefits and rights to visit your partner in hospitals is important. But is marriage the only route to these benefits. Perhaps, it will be easier to change change specific laws granting privileges to married couples to make similar provision for same sex couples also.

According to the state, marriage is a legal contract that confers certain legal rights to a married couple, including property rights. (Divorce, therefore, becomes a matter for the court.) According to the church, marriage is a sacred union blessed by Jesus in the New Testament, one of the sacraments, like baptism. These two interpretations of marriage make the issue of gay marriage very complicated and frequently emotional.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage reject homosexuality as an aberration. Some view it as not only an unnatural state, but a sin, as well. Some politicians oppose gay marriage because endorsing it would mean the loss of political support.

The bedrock opposition to gay marriage represents the rejection of homosexuality. To accept homosexuality would require a major change in personal attitudes, and therein lies the current controversy. Some believe that homosexuality is an inherited biological condition; some believe it is a matter of choice. So, the issue of gay marriage is complicated not only by religious beliefs, but also by conflicting beliefs about the biology of homosexuality.

Gay marriage should be addressed as two issues, one civil and one religious. It is up to the church to decide whether or not to bless gay unions (and some churches do). For the state to deny a couple the right to enter into a civil contract, however, seems clearly discriminatory.

States should not issue "marriage" licenses to anyone; they should issue civil union contracts that would confer the same legal rights to every couple. Marriage licenses should be issued by churches. Taking the element of religious belief out of the controversy would simplify the issue tremendously for all--except for those who will continue to reject homosexuality as a sin. The rights one one individual, however, should not be trumped by the religious beliefs of another.

mshurn -- a question for you:

If the state should do what you suggest, what is the legal basis for limiting this legal right to a "couple?"  Why should it not be possible for three people in love with one another to enter into such a relationship?  Similarly, if they would promise not to procreate, would it be okay to allow such licenses to siblings?

I'm not arguing against gay marriage, but I wonder how one could argue against the situations I've mentioned without having the law enforce one person's moral values against another's.

This is a really interesting question . . . For the purposes of discussion, consider this. If the concept of a civil union to confer legal rights to property, etc. were completely divorced (no pun intended) from the concept of marriage as a religious sacrament, then civil unions would be available to all who were of age to enter into legal contracts. These contracts would have nothing to do with love or morality--they would be legal instruments, just as the state now views marriage contracts. (When a couple takes out a marriage license, they aren't asked by the clerk if they love each other!) The issues of love and morality inherent in marriage then would be left to the church.

This is surely a complicated issue. It always gets complicated when the moral values of one group collide with the rights of individuals.

Yup, sure is.  That's why I think our discussions of it are too black and white.

But you still didn't tell me why it has to be a couple and not three, four, however many... :-)