Is there a Compelling Legal Argument against Same Sex Marriage?

[Sandpiper]

I know that conservatives are vehemently opposed to it, but their litany of reasons for the most part boils down to this:

It offends their religious sensibilities


Since we are still a secular, constitutional republic, and not yet a biblical theocracy, whose deity same sex marriage offends is entirely irrelevant to the legal question before the courts.

So in all seriousness, I'm wondering what the legal argument is for opposing same sex marriage.

If they best they can come up with is "marriage is sacred and allowing homos to marry will put their gay cooties on the institution of marriage," small wonder they find themselves on the losing side of the legal battle.

[ET Awful]

1. Well according to the fundie Christian lady I work with, it's damaging

to family values . .

Of course, she also came and told me last week that she and her husband are getting a divorce, that she's spend her vacation this week in Virginia with a guy she used to date in high school, and that "God" has been watching over and answering her prayers through her "ordeal."

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. If we allow same sex marriage...

there will be a rash of opposite sex marriage divorce. It would be a financial disaster for the economy.

(sarcasm off)

[Somawas]

3. No.

eom.

[DawgHouse]

4. I can't think of any compelling legal argument...

but my fundie coworker always says "God doesn't like that" when she sees something about it on TV. :wtf:

[ultraist]

5. no

[CBHagman]

6. No.

N/T

[evil_orange_cat]

7. no

[saltpoint]

Well of course there's a compelling argument against it.

If a heterosexual married couple is on the third floor of an apartment building and a lesbian couple or gay male couple move in to the same complex on the floor or two above them, then the mere fact that the lesbian or gay couple are engaging in consensual erotic acts in THEIR apartment eclipses the entire function of the heterosexual couple. Isn't this obvious? The local promixity or the legally sanctioned national policy of same-sex marriage is such a threat to the heterosexual couple that they are rendered emotionally and sexually unable to fulfill ANY of their marriage vows. Love, emotional bonding, mutual support, erotic exchange, mere conversation -- ALL of it is eclipsed and shut down by same-sex marriage.
_____

To respond to your question: No, there is no compelling reason against it except fear, ignorance, and a lot of smug bullshit.

[BikeWriter]

8. Yes, marriage sucks. Oh, you said "legal", nevermind!

[TWiley]

9. A local church radio station claims that

if homosexual marriage is legalized, then people will be able to marry their children, siblings, or pets. Yes, you heard it right, the fundie preacher claimed that marriage to animals would soon become legal as well.

[Johonny]

20. What would be wrong with that.

Marriage does not have to equal sex (although apparently so conservatives want kid producing marriages or else). Most people like their pets more than who they're married to anyways.

[TWiley]

22. Now that is an interesting idea.

I had never thought that through before.

I always felt that church folk were a little perverted to always equate marriage with the type of sexual activity it would likely produce. If marriage is about the emotional bond, they you are probably correct. It is likely that many people are as much or more emotionally connected to their pets than spouses.

To consider marriage only as a method to legitimize sexual activity seems off base also. It would certainly appeal to the religious "natural law" folks.

At the end of the day though, I feel we need to rise above this "farm" view of humanity. Racism has its roots in the idea that one brand of human has genetic, or God given superiority over lesser races. In their view, barnyard animals only have one appropriate use. If you were a plow horse, then you would plow untill you died, and then become glue. There would be no opportunity for the plow horse to transcend the rule of class.

Life within this type of religious ideal would actually become hell.

[ET Awful]

10. Maybe this is it . . .

[HockeyMom]

14. ONLY two arguments

Religious/Biblical, not admissible in a court of law (can't argue the Bible as much as they would like), or procreation which is moot since the reasons they site for gays would also have to apply to straights (no marriage for unfertile, childless by choice). So, that is why they push for Constitutional Amendment, which if they were to study history, they would also see where that gets them; Prohibition and what happens when they try to amendment based on religious views of "sin". Where is Probhition today?

[TexasSissy]

11. Well, it's not just conservatives who are opposed to it.

According to the polls I've seen, most Americans are opposed to it, although most Americans are in favor of civil unions.

[TWiley]

12. In all seriousness, it is about discrimination.

Homosexual wills and property wind up in probate court, insurance companies can deprive a homosexual mate of the benefits afforded to a heterosexual mate, Social Security survivors benefits do not apply to homosexual mates, a large portion of HIV medical expense can be denied by the insurance company of the working partner.

And so on.

I have also read Christian literature that claimed that the average income of a homosexual was higher than the national average. It was their position that these jobs should go to married Christian families.

Lastly, the bushtapo has outsourced social welfare programs to the churches through faith based initiatives. Recently it became legal for these organizations to discriminate on the basis of Martial status, race, gender, sexual orientation, weather someone is HIV positive, or any basis the church finds offensive. This refers to the churches that receive your federal tax money.

The world after American Christianity controls 100% of the social welfare funding:

An unemployed HIV positive single homosexual of a minority race with no insurance and no children walks in to get help. Christian answer: Well, there is a ditch over there, go die in it.

[sonicx]

13. no, all they have is...

"let gays marry, and soon you can marry your dog."

[maxsolomon]

15. i believe there is.

but its an argument against the state licensing "marriage", period. marriage should be the provenance of religious institutions, with the state only licensing civil unions, domestic partnerships, legal partnerships, etc. whatever you want to call it.

this distinction would allow small minded religious idiots to discriminate all they want, but allow equal access to the financial & legal "benefits" of state-licensed marriage to all people regardless of orientation. "divorce" could be banned, but not dissolution of the legally binding contract.

yes i am a straight white male.

[HockeyMom]

16. I agree

Civil Unions (state contract) for ALL. Leave "marriage" and all the religious stuff that goes with it for the churches and those who want that.

[WillowTree]

19. You're saying essentially what I did...

....but I'll tell you what. So long as our side insists on framing the debate by characterizing people whose religious beliefs are different from our own as "small minded religious idiots" rather than just as people who believe differently than we do, it's going to be an uphill battle and we're unlikely to get what we want (and what WE KNOW to be the right thing). I don't buy a tenth of what Islam teaches, but I wouldn't blame my Muslim friends for tuning me out and turning against me entirely if I began talking about them as "heathen religious zealots".

If we want to be heard, we do ourselves no favor by framing our end of the debate in terms that are guaranteed to make the other side want to tell us to go Cheney ourselves.

[Orsino]

17. The fascists' fundamental right...

...not to be offended by what they imagine to be going on in the house next door. All their objections come down to "Ew!"

That's it. There is no more.

The lesson of the star-bellied sneetches, however, is that that is all a majority needs.

[WillowTree]

18. The only "legal" issue that I've been able to think of...

....is that, and this is only my opinion, the government involving itself in marriage (which was a religious rite centuries before it ever became a civil right) was a violation of Church and State in the first place. But that horse is so far out of the barn that I doubt there's any chance of corralling it again.

I think one matter of concern, though no one ever says so, is that if our laws state that gay couples must be permitted to marry, sooner or later, someone's going to demand that anyone who performs marriages, which, as it stands now, have civil as well as religious implications, must marry gay couples or face discrimination charges and that would be a whole 'nother can of worms. And, to be honest, regardless of my personal views, I don't think that any minister, rabbi, priest, or mullah etc. ought to be put in that position because that would be a blatant First Amendment violation.

The best, really the only, way that I can see to resolve this is to change the wording of all laws, federal, state, and local, that have any reference to marriage to some other terminology that would acknowledge the establishment of a legal "family" for all citizens, gay or straight, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, which would go back to being solely a religious matter. That way, people wouldn't be required to get a license from the state/county/whatever in order to get married but would get some kind of a civil union certificate instead and a marriage ceremony would be a whole separate matter that has no legal implications. Likewise, a legal divorce would have nothing to do with dissolving a marriage, but would only deal with the legalities of things and the various churches would need to decide for themselves if they will then accept the civil divorce as a dissolution marriages for their purposes.

If we as a society could manage to wrap our collective brains around some concept like that, I think it would help a lot. That way, a religious institution could decide for itself if it wants to perform, or, for that matter, even recognize same-sex unions because whether or not a church approves of or accepts it will have no bearing on the couple's legal rights whatsoever. I just think that it's a way to get the churches out of the government's business and the government out of the churches' business and everyone might be able to become more comfy with the overall set-up.

But what the Hell do I know?

[Just Me]

21. Maybe, they believe they can control homosexuality by denying rights,...

,...associated with "marriage".

Maybe, they FEAR that, if rights are given to homosexual partners, homosexuality will somehow explode or something. :shrug: Of course, these so-called "Christians" are bent upon controlling their world far more than their savior.

Thing is,...homosexuality has ALWAYS existed. Moreover, wouldn't any decent person tend to believe that, homosexuals wanting to commit to a parnership is a far more desirable and responsible pursuit than HOing around by either heteros or homos. :shrug:


Fuck, I don't know. I do know, from experience,...those who focus their energies on others' imperfections, on controlling others' lives,...refuse to engage in self-evaluation, self-appraisal, self-motivation, and most of all SELF-IDENTITY!!!