Voting Against Marriage Amendments

[Green Gaia]

Civil marriage is a personal choice that should not be denied by our government to couples just because they are of the same sex. Marriage is commitment between two people. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples grow up dreaming of meeting a partner, getting married and growing old together. They should not be denied their portion of the American dream simply because their chosen partner is of the same sex.

Religious communities would be the first big losers, because religious freedom would become increasingly hard to defend. Even if exceptions were initially made so that religious communities would not be forced to marry gay couples, these exceptions would eventually be challenged in the courts.

That is simply not true.

Access to legal marriage is completely unrelated to the right of religious institutions to decide whom they will marry, just as various religious institutions have always made those decisions in regard to heterosexual couples. No church or other religious institution will be required to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple, although some religious communities do perform marriages for same-sex couples and have done so for many years.

If we were to argue that equality permits no exceptions, moreover, then we would be both morally and legally obliged to oppose current laws against polygamy.

If you want to go down the slippery slope, then so will I - if gays and lesbians are denied legal rights, what's next? Voting rights? Housing rights? Civil rights? Are you going to take our children away? If we're not trusted to be able to make a legal contract with another adult, how can you trust us with children?

Let's stay off the slippery slopes, shall we?

It is by no means outlandish, therefore, to suggest that the demand for polygamous marriage would follow directly from the demand for gay marriage, especially in view of the fact that some Muslims and Mormons would approve.

I think the Mormons on the forum would tell you otherwise.

First, consider the individual and the community.

I think I have given many examples already of how the marriage amendments hurts individuals, couples, family and the community.

Marriage has never before been so heavily associated with the wants and needs of adults as individuals. On the contrary, it has always been heavily associated with the needs of both children

GLBT people have children they want to be able to legally protect too.

Second, consider parents and children. At first glance, it would seem that gay marriage and gay parenting would symbolically strengthen the bonds between all parents and children. On closer examination, though, this is unlikely to occur. It should be clear to everyone by now, for instance, that advocates of gay marriage are interested primarily or even only in the interests of gay adults. This is inadequately disguised by disclaimers. Yes, some gay people want children enough to make use of surrogacy or other reproductive technologies. And yes, some gay people have children anyway from straight relationships. But the primary beneficiaries are still adults, not children.

This is absolutely and completely false. The primary beneficiaries of heterosexual marriage are adults, not children as not every marriage produces children. So why use this against gay parents?

According to the 2000 census, there are more than a million children being raised by same-sex couples in the U.S. and they deserve protection as well. Currently, the children of same sex couples are needlessly deprived of the protections that most families take for granted. Is this better than than allowing their parents the legal protections they need to provide stability?

 

[Green Gaia]

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

 

[Booko]

Religious communities would be the first big losers, because religious freedom would become increasingly hard to defend. Even if exceptions were initially made so that religious communities would not be forced to marry gay couples, these exceptions would eventually be challenged in the courts.

That is simply not true.

Hi Maize:

This leapt out at me too, until I realized that the author is Canadian. Maybe there's something in their law that would lead one to believe this would be a possibility. I can't imagine it being an issue here. Even the people most vehemently against same-sex marriage haven't trotted out this argument yet in the US. If it were even a remote danger, I'd expect to hear it all over the place.

This is absolutely and completely false. The primary beneficiaries of heterosexual marriage are adults, not children as not every marriage produces children. So why use this against gay parents?

fwiw, I'm not sure this argument holds water. What is the percentage of heterosexual marriages that produce children? I'm pretty sure it's a majority, and suspect it's a pretty hefty one.

In both religious and secular terms, I view marriage as a means to support the raising of the next generation, so for me, yeah, it's more about the kids.

(And you already know I realize there are kids involved in LGBT families, so I hope you *know* I'm not going to that place you've seen others go before...)

According to the 2000 census, there are more than a million children being raised by same-sex couples in the U.S. and they deserve protection as well. Currently, the children of same sex couples are needlessly deprived of the protections that most families take for granted. Is this better than than allowing their parents the legal protections they need to provide stability?

Even if I were vehemently against same-sex marriage I would still advocate measures to protect the children. I think society has a responsibility to assist in the raising of the next generation, and if some of that generation are in GLBT families, then so be it. The alternative would be to take measures to ensure no GLBT couples had children at all -- talk about draconian!

 

[Green Gaia]

This leapt out at me too, until I realized that the author is Canadian. Maybe there's something in their law that would lead one to believe this would be a possibility. I can't imagine it being an issue here. Even the people most vehemently against same-sex marriage haven't trotted out this argument yet in the US. If it were even a remote danger, I'd expect to hear it all over the place.

You basically only hear it from those who wish to scare religious folks into supporting the marriage amendments. The argument is not grounded in reality and I was quite surprised to see it used here.

fwiw, I'm not sure this argument holds water. What is the percentage of heterosexual marriages that produce children? I'm pretty sure it's a majority, and suspect it's a pretty hefty one.

I don't think I explained my objection very well to what the article was saying (more implying) about gay parents and their children. But that's neither here nor there. In any case, it's no reason to deny legal rights to gays and lesbians.


Thanks Booko.