{"id":442,"date":"2008-11-03T10:29:15","date_gmt":"2008-11-03T17:29:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.harmonicminer.com\/wordpress\/2008\/11\/03\/marriage-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-even-for-heterosexuals\/"},"modified":"2008-11-03T10:30:59","modified_gmt":"2008-11-03T17:30:59","slug":"marriage-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-even-for-heterosexuals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.harmonicminer.com\/wordpress\/2008\/11\/03\/marriage-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-even-for-heterosexuals\/","title":{"rendered":"Marriage is a privilege, not a right, even for heterosexuals"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Mark Reynolds makes the case that the denial of gay marriage is not discrimination <\/a>in the sense of “denial of a basic right”.\u00a0 (It’s worth reading it all, it isn’t long.)\u00a0 Key graphs:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I would just add that there are quite a few people I cannot marry, even if we decide we are “in love”. \u00a0 And I would add that I can’t legally marry TWO women in the USA, even if we all are “in love”. \u00a0 In fact, even under current California law, three men who are “in love” cannot all marry each other.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0\u00a0 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?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 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.\u00a0 If there is no applicable traditional standard, then there is no standard at all, and anything is allowable, if people are in love, right?<\/p>\n

Let’s face it:\u00a0 the age of 18 for majority is a purely social construct.\u00a0 It has been different and IS different in many other societies.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Well, why NOT?\u00a0 What arbitrary reasoning is involved in picking the age of 18?\u00a0 Why not 17?\u00a0 Or 16?\u00a0 Or 15?\u00a0 Especially if they’re “in love”?\u00a0 How can we deny them, in good conscience?\u00a0 Aren’t we just imposing our values on them?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

My point here is not to suggest that most gays are incipient pedophiles, not at all.\u00a0 I know better.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

You can vote YES on Prop 8 and continue to love your gay friends.\u00a0 I plan to do exactly that.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>