Separating the Arguments: Gay Marriage

So, I'm working on a rather bulky essay on gay marriage and civil rights and I wanted to write a quick blog position piece on the gay marriage issue.

As you may know, the California State Supreme Court basically legalized gay marriage in California. The turn of events has been met with the cheers of civil rights activists and the outrage of Christians. There is now more vocal calls for constitutional amendments that define marriage.

From my understanding, there are three groups: 1/3 of us think that gays have the right to get married, 1/3 don't think gays should be allowed to get married, and 1/3 believe that gays have the right for partnership but not marriage. Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as a title, as marriage carries with it many different federal rights and legal protections that aren't available in limited partnerships or civil unions.

In fact, many scholars have pushed forth the arguments that preventing gay marriage sound eerily familiar with arguments against interracial marriages.

• http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
• http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/pfds/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
• http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm

In this small sampling of articles, you can see that the primary objections have not changed and that the root cause of the objections is that there is a moral opposition to gay/interracial unions.

I think that there needs to be a distinction made by Americans between denying a person's "rightness" versus denying a person's rights. Morally, we may be opposed to some one's opinions or lifestyle (for instance, having a problem with a promiscuous lifestyle, or having a problem with someone who believes blacks are better than whites) but that does not mean society has the right to restrict someone from their civil rights. You cannot beat, maim, or kill anyone who you have a serious disagreement with. Additionally, you do not have the right to remove someone from their house over a philosophical issue, or to fire someone because of a racial distinction.

By placing marriage in the domain of a protected civil right, the California court system now has established that marriage is not something that can be denied to individuals. Good. Now, we can focus the debate on the morality of an issue rather than using the illogical route of denying people inalienable rights because we disagree with them on a moral or religious issue.

Therefore, I think that we need to separate the arguments swirling around gay marriage. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then that is a moral issue that you need to deal with...however, don't seek to legislate your morality in our society by denigrating the inherent humanity of every citizen in our great country. Marriage is a social institution (no longer religious, but you can have a separate but equal religious institution of marriage, if you like) and as a society, it is illogical and immoral to prevent individuals from having equal protection under the letter of our law.

And now, I jump off the soap box for today.