Is there a fundamental right to marriage? That, we’re told, is the basic question behind the same-sex marriage business.
Unfortunately, that question doesn’t go far enough. Is there a fundamental right to marry whomever one chooses? That’s the real issue. And the answer is no. One can’t, for example, marry someone who can’t consent to marriage—a five-year old, for instance, or an insane person. Nor can a person marry someone who is already married to someone else, or otherwise marry more than one person at a time. And, at least in most places right now, a person can’t marry a member of the same sex.
In short, there is a fundamental right to marry, but there are all kinds of provisos and prerequisites having to do with whom one may marry. The fact that many same-sex marriage proponents continue to speak as if “the fundamental right to marry” has no qualifications betrays their fundamental confusion or disingenuousness on the subject.
Continue reading. On a related note, see Bill May's piece in the Catholic San Francisco, "Guest Commentary: Judge overreaches in declaring voters irrational" (Aug. 11, 2010).
And, from a legal angle, check out two posts on the NRO blog, Bench Memos, written by Ed Whelan:
• Judge Walker and Supposed Lack of “Evidence” of Marriage’s Procreative Purpose (Aug. 11, 2010)
• Judge Walker’s Phony “Finding” Versus Defendants’ Modesty About Predicting the Future (Aug. 12, 2010)
What is becoming quite clear is that Judge Walker not only presented incredibly weak legal reasoning in his ruling, he purposefully provided misleading, skewed information in his ruling about what the Proposition 8 proponents argued and presented in court. But, of course, this is the usual modus operandi of those seeking to undermine and destroy traditional beliefs and commonsense ideas about family, marriage, sexuality, etc.: misbrand, misrepresent, mislead, misinform and misfeasance, leading to mischief, misery, and the miscarriage of justice.
What a telling insight (npi). Am thinking about more this already. Thanks. Very much.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Watch for the "fundamental right to marry" to soon extend to any combination of persons, animals, or inanimate objects. The legal ground for forbidding some unions has been fatally undercut.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel | Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 02:54 PM
Mark's comments are ones I agree with, however... I believe we lost this fight eons ago.
The essential reason gay marriage is wrong is because gay sex is wrong. And the state should not be institutionalizing immoral behavior. But you can hardly ever hear those sentiments expressed now. Thus the triumph of gay marriage. The procreative arguments are true but secondary. If you have to try to argue against gay marriage outside of moral concepts, in our rights-driven, feel good culture, you will lose. It is that simple. I think gay rights advocates sense that, and the drift of sentiment proves them right. If gay sex is not wrong, what is the harm in letting them play marriage, whether it is a bona fide marriage or not, right? It's only a small percentage of the population, and it feels mean to deny them equal status as one of us.
As for the morality of gay sex, once pre-marital sex became the norm, who is going to argue that sexual morality is a big deal without incriminating themselves? I think the essential problem is that the common person is being bombarded with messages that boil down to sex is no big deal, and certainly nothing God is too concerned about outside of cheating. Religious people are hung up on ancient norms. What you do in bed, and what a family looks like, is all up to the individual, witness all the happy Hollywood types that defy all traditional norms. Witness "The kids Are Alright," and "Ellen," and Anderson Cooper and...
Meanwhile, every messed up priest gets headline attention.
This link is on target:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/gay-marriage.php
Posted by: joe | Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 07:23 PM
I am not certain what the entire range of the practical consequences would be, but I have heard others with a libertarian bent in secular media make a similar case, ie. get the state out of the marriage business altogether.
Having listened to some of the activists campaigning for same-sex marriage, I don't believe that solution would be satisfactory to them. Many tend to be statists/socialists and the idea of the government staying out of anything other than the abortion mills is an enathema. Moreover, in terms of motivation, I get the sense that this push for same-sex marriage has more to do with forcing society to say they are normal than it has to do with the practical benefits they claim are at the root of the demand.
In either case, I think that from the practical standpoint of our faith, whatever the state decides to do in the end, even getting out of the marriage business, we still need to be vigilant against the next act in this play. That would be the state's attempt to coerce the Church to perform, bless or endorse these so-called marriages.
Even in the event that Mark Brumley's hypothetical comes to pass, ie., the withdrawal of the state from marriage, the danger would still be there of a discrimination suit against the Church down the road, because the Church will be the only entity left in the marriage business. Even though it would then be simply a sacrament in the Catholic Church, it is a safe bet that someone will try to claim exclusion.
One way or the other, I think that is where this entire debate is headed. Like tyrannies of the past, the leftist tyrants will always have the burning irrational compulsion to bring the Church to heel. Following the example of the emperors of Rome, the Christians must be forced to bow at the altar of the state god.
Posted by: LJ | Friday, August 13, 2010 at 12:57 AM
Error begets error.
Posted by: Nancy D. | Friday, August 13, 2010 at 07:46 AM
Just to be clear: my argument was neither prescriptive nor predictive. I was attempting to describe the rational result of undercutting the rational grounds for state recognition of marital unions. The state has an interest in privileging the kind of union in which procreation occurs, i.e., the union of a man and a woman, because it has an interest in the next generation of citizens, who come into existence through procreative acts. The state as such has little or no interest in privileging unions of people who decide they want to live together, as such, just as it has little or no interest in privileging friendships.
Will the logic of that state of affairs, should same-sex "marriage" be legally recognized, result in a rethinking of the civil law place of marriage per se? I doubt it. If I had to bet, I would say that the force of statism, which is being employed right now to compel people to accept same-sex unions, will be further used to try to force compliance by religious communities and others with conscientious objections to same-sex unions.
Posted by: Mark Brumley | Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 08:22 AM
It is a rhetorical and logical mistake -- made by many opponents of same sex marriage -- to pose the issue as one of a "right to marry." "Marriage" and "legally recognized permanent heterosexual unions" are the same thing. Homosexuals today have, and always have had, every right to enter into marriages, i.e., legally recognized permanent heterosexual unions. The issue is, thus, not the "right" to marry but, rather, whether to abolish marriage as we know it.
Posted by: Dan | Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 02:55 PM