Nov 03 2008

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, even for heterosexuals

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 10:29 am

John Mark Reynolds makes the case that the denial of gay marriage is not discrimination in the sense of “denial of a basic right”.  (It’s worth reading it all, it isn’t long.)  Key graphs:

Traditionally, the government has supported marriage as a benefit to encourage the formation of strong families to produce future citizens. There may be other good relationships (friendship for example), but the state hands out no special benefits for them because it has no compelling reason to do so.

The hidden assumption of the Feinstein case is that marriage is a right and not a privilege. We should not discriminate in cases of human rights, but marriage is not one of those rare and precious things.

You don’t have the right to get married . . . not even under California law. You cannot, for example, marry a plant, a comic book character, or your mother. We (rightly) discriminate regarding the privilege of marriage.

I would just add that there are quite a few people I cannot marry, even if we decide we are “in love”.   And I would add that I can’t legally marry TWO women in the USA, even if we all are “in love”.   In fact, even under current California law, three men who are “in love” cannot all marry each other.

When marriage is untethered from its traditional meaning, no reasonable case can be made for not allowing 3 men and 2 women to marry, to have various bisexual arrangements within the group, to raise children AS a group, etc.   And while we’re at it, since parents may give permission to a child under the age of 18 to marry, there is no reason why parents could not legally give their blessing for 6 teenagers to marry each other in a group marriage… won’t the prom be fun?    These are not “scare stories”, or “extreme cases”, they are the logical result of the line of reasoning now used to support gay marriage, that “being in love” trumps all other considerations.  If there is no applicable traditional standard, then there is no standard at all, and anything is allowable, if people are in love, right?

Let’s face it:  the age of 18 for majority is a purely social construct.  It has been different and IS different in many other societies.  I’m entertained by gay activists who righteously assert, because they are sensitive to the accusation of “recruitment” of children and teens, that they would never support or encourage sex between “under 18” and “over 18” partners.  Well, why NOT?  What arbitrary reasoning is involved in picking the age of 18?  Why not 17?  Or 16?  Or 15?  Especially if they’re “in love”?  How can we deny them, in good conscience?  Aren’t we just imposing our values on them?

The funny part about this is that these people have decided that this fairly arbitrary number deserves enshrinement in law and must never be challenged, rather as if it is received wisdom from on high, while the REAL received wisdom from on High is ignored.

My point here is not to suggest that most gays are incipient pedophiles, not at all.  I know better.  My point is to suggest that their utter faith in age 18 as the magic boundary is largely opportunistic, and is a way of trying to seem in agreement with society on one norm (the age of majority, which has varied from culture to culture), while completely challenging another (heterosexual marriage, which is the only type that has ever existed anywhere) that has even firmer roots in tradition and biology than the one they are challenging.

John Mark Reynolds’ point is that since marriage is privilege, not a right, it is reasonable for society to place restrictions on it that serve society’s best interests (essentially the encouragement of children and families), and not to be swayed by particular circumstances of particular individuals, however sympathetic they may be.

You can vote YES on Prop 8 and continue to love your gay friends.  I plan to do exactly that.

7 Responses to “Marriage is a privilege, not a right, even for heterosexuals”

  1. Hello says:

    I agree, marriage is by no means a ‘right’ that is guaranteed by American society, and unfortunately too many people (on both sides, I think) use ‘rights’ language to talk about marriage. The big question for American citizens, then, is this: how will gay marraige (or even heterosexual marriage) benefit or hurt the greater Californian (and, by extension, American) society? The assertion by the pro-gay marriage side is that it will not in any meaningful way harm the Californian society, and may even end up benefiting it. The other side, of course, maintains that this will not be the case.

    Proponents of Prop 8 should be careful, though, because slippery slope arguments tend to be their pet arguments: ‘If gays are allowed to marry, then what will stop my neighbor from marrying a horse??’ This is a slippery slope and is bad logic (a logical fallacy, actually). So, when your neighbor does bring his request before the court to be wed to his horse, the question will again be asked, “how will this affect American society?” If that day comes, the choice will be made and if Christians don’t like the outcome, then hopefully it will serve as one more reminder that this American society can never and should never be their first priority or concern.

  2. harmonicminer says:

    It is not a logical fallacy to point out that when a definition, true for essentially all of human history, is abandoned, then we have no logical grounds for resisting any other changes that someone suggests.

  3. Hello says:

    You are right, but that is not what is going on here. The question is not of definition, but of convention. The Yes on 8 folks try to make this proposition about a definition, but it is not. No court or country has the ability to change the nature or essence of something abstract like marriage, only the way that it is used in its particular context. So, the point of resistence that you desire for future changes to marriage is not ‘this is what it’s always been’ (definition) but ‘this is what works.’ (convention) Laws by nature deal in convention, not in definition.

  4. Trannon says:

    WRONG!!!!!!! According to the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia (1967), “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.” PERIOD. THE END.

  5. harmonicminer says:

    Ah, but the right to marry anyone you want is NOT a “basic civil right.” You have the right to marry anyone it is legal for you to marry. A tautology, of sorts, of course. But you can’t marry your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your horse, your cat or anyone who is already married. All “rights” have limitations… in this case, the “right to marry” means you may marry someone if you’re not already married, and you want to marry someone else who isn’t already married, you’re old enough to get married, and you’re of opposite gender to the person you wish to marry. THAT is all that was meant by “basic civil right” in this connection.

  6. Daisy says:

    Re: “WRONG!!!!!!! According to the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia (1967), “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.” PERIOD. THE END.”

    Supreme Court rulings can be overturned. And they should be when wrong. What the Supreme Court did re: “Loving vs Virginia” was declare Virginia’s anti-miscegenation act unconstitutional thus overturning “Pace vs Alabama” ending all race based restrictions on US marriages. That was a good thing. The Civil Rights Act made this decision redundant. Moreover, marriage is NOT a basic civil right for anyone who feels like marrying just anyone else. It’s a contract willingly entered into by one man and one woman. Not by a man and his dog and not by a woman and another woman or a boy and a man, etc.

  7. LK says:

    “It is not a logical fallacy to point out that when a definition, true for essentially all of human history, is abandoned, then we have no logical grounds for resisting any other changes that someone suggests.”

    I see what you’re getting at, but it’s not necessarily logical.

    While it is logical that in order to have a discussion regarding a term, we need to agree on the definition of the term, so that we are discussing the same thing. However, the definition we agree upon doesn’t need to be the same definition in the dictionary.

    For example, we’ll use “gay” as you use it here. If we’re discussing the idea of “gay” we first need to agree on which usage of the word “gay” we’re using. Are we using the classic dictionary definition of happiness? No, we’re not. Why? That word has changed and it now can represent more than one definition. Language is fluid- it changes with the times and common usage.

    Now, I pose this question: When you speak of “marriage” are you speaking of a legally binding contract which the American government honors by granting the participants privileged rights? Or are you using “marriage” to describe a spiritual and romantic union between two individuals? or between a man and woman? All of the above? Some may not agree on your definition of “marriage”, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    We must first agree on the meaning of the term before we can have this argument. It seems that the general discourse on “marriage” does no justice to the issue at hand:

    Do gay couples want to be socially and spiritually acknowledge and respected by their communities in the same way heterosexual couples are? Yes.

    Do they want the government to grant them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?

    What I’m saying is, until we’re all talking about the same topic with the same operative definitions of “marriage” , this discussion is useless.

Leave a Reply