Equality here can be looked at another way. I am a man. In the way it has been, if I want to be married, I have to learn to get along with a woman. It has been that way for every man. Women have needed to do the of course complimentary thing to learn to get along with a man. What is so unequal about that? This pre-requisite of getting along demands the development of social skills. A child will learn these skills from parents have the skills. That social learning expands the person. Conversely,. how "convenient" it would have been to be able to pair-up with my high-school buddies. I would NOT need to learn to get along with a woman. No development of social skills there. In this case the union becomes a "special right" because it gives something not required of traditional unions. No pro-creative ability either. How limiting! Yes, marriage and procreation go together and cause one to stretch and learn. And that is what good parents are able to do, stretch and learn. No this is not done by all gendered relationships, but should be sought for. This re-definition undermines all that. And that is just one way that it harms or effects me.
The claim that marriage is about property rights, as claimed by Anon, is patently false. Australian Aborigines traditionally did not recognise property ownership, and yet their culture observed marriage. Traditionally there were also punishments for those who violated marriage, including what we now would call adultery and fornication. Why? because they recognised the needs of children to be linked with their parents. Most Australian Aboriginal groups had strict rules about who could be married to who - rules devised to avoid inbreeding, while at the same time maintaining tribal kinship. Although they permitted divorce, they enforced parental obligations to care for their children. It is quite fascinating and complex, but one thing is clear - the rules of marriage were designed around protecting the next generation. This is a culture that existed for an estimated 40,000 years with minimal contact with the outside world, so their ways were not corrupted by concepts developed in the more "sophisticated" cultures. It would certainly appear to me that marriage as a way of protecting children pre-dates the idea that marriage was about protecting property rights.
I love love love this. Thanks for exposing the truth about gay marriage and how it affects society that no one else is reporting about! Everyone must read this.
There will always be inequality as long as government is involved in things it should not.
Rights, by their very definition, require no license or permission. Although society may falter when people do not live according to the commandments, we will get nowhere by seeking to force people to do so.But I agree that it is wise (and, indeed, an act of self-defense) to support the traditional definition of marriage in legal terms in the absence the option to remove government entirely from marriage and let churches and other institutions act according to their own religious (or otherwise) beliefs and values.- D.M. Andrews, author.
I laugh when people say lets remove marriage from the legal system. So we make everything contractual and then what? We are back in court suing for breach of contract. So much for taking marriage out of the legal system. Get real libertarians!
Actually, civil marriage (what is being decided in the Supreme Court) is not ordained by God or any other belief system.Civil marriage is ordained by the laws of the various states and commonwealths that make up the United States. Do not confuse the two.
Marriage is ordained by God. He is the Father of our spirits. When the spirit and body is seperated death occurs. The first commandment in marriage, is multiply and replenish the earth. Without people obeying this commandment society would cease to exist, period, Gods plan to send spirit Children to earth to recieve a mortal body would cease, Gods work would cease. His work is to bring to past the immortatilty and eternal life of men and women. The Proclamation of the Family is an inspiried document to protect the family and the work of God our Father. With one poll the majority of people believe in gay marriage, if half of the population was gay and married, society will cease to exist.
To Carli and Eve, There are numerous studies that show that over all, children raised in single parent households are at higher risks of social and economic disadvantages both as children and as adults. Third Way (from MIT) recently published a study on the effects of young men who were raised in single parent households. The fact that the majority of children suffer in such homes in no way precludes the possibility for exceptions to the rule nor does it mean that the remaining parent didn't love their children or do their best to raise them. Dismissing overall trends in favor of personal anecdotal experience often leads to poorly thought out decisions.
Saying that the mother-and-child bond is stronger really upsets me. My dad raised me as a single parent after my mother left us. I believe I turned out excellently (I just got accepted into a pharmacy program at the U of U), and don't think having a mother would have affected me greatly, or may have even impacted me adversely. I honestly believe the dynamic of the family unit is changing, and that single parents and maybe even same sex parents, can raise amazing children :)
I agree with Rebecca and Anon. Additionally, marriage does not guarantee that a father (or mother) will still abandon their responsibilities as a parent. There are many parents out there who willingly leave their marriage and children. Who is to say that a child raised by two men or two women or transgenders would benefit less than a child raised by their biological mother and father? I've seen and met these children firsthand and I can tell you that they are completely well-adjusted persons who contribute to society. There are so many children who are raised without their fathers, how in the world would gay marriage change this fact? It will not. Even if states are removing gender from their marriage laws this does not change who is a biological parent. Children just as much love from their non-biological parents (no matter their gender) as they would from biological parents. For those that only can wrap their mind around the idea that the word "marriage" should only be between a man and woman then perhaps we shall offer same sex couples the opportunity to create a new word with the same meaning and provides them with the same legal responsibilities and privileges as those that are "married". I think we should support traditional marriage but we should also support non-traditional unions because honestly, as long as two people love each other and are loving parents if they have children,why judge?
It is such a sad thing that people believe that marriage is only here to protect property and set boundaries for lovers. While I agree that those things are part of a marriage covenant, one who is actually married can attest to the fact that there is so much more to marriage than that! Furthermore, marriage was not invented by man, but by God. Marriage is a sacred union designed to protect and safeguard the family. Anthropologists and biologists will clearly agree that marriage is necessary to safeguard land and property. That much is obvious. But it is also obvious that anthropologists and biologists understand that most cultures believed that marriage was so much more. For example, think how much influence religion has had on marriage since the beginning of time.
Sorry, no. Marriage was not "designed" or "created" to protect those who are vulnerable (i.e., children). Marriage as an institution was invented by man to protect property (i.e., when a man died, his property went to his children). Formerly, man lived in extremely egalitarian societies (to include sharing lovers, children, etc.--there were no monogamous relationships as such). The only reason marriage became necessary was because men started to lay claim to land and eventually other property. In order to keep it in the "family" they had to institute a relationship designed to protect paternity. Hence marriage. Prior to that, the vulnerable populations were taken care of by the whole group or tribe. Try science next time... See "Sex at Dawn" for more information, or talk to an anthropologist or biologist.
Reply to Thomas Baird "Why can't we get anyone to consider the possibility of removing Marriage from the legal system? We're fools. We tie all of these legal and technical "decisions" to the concept of marriage, and they don't belong there at all"I believe the very beginning of the article addresses the need for legal marriage. Marriage brings together the idea of commitment, sex, and procreation. Why is this of public interest? Consider that the state is obligated to enforce parental obligations and rights in issues like paternity, custody, and child support. Yet, no matter what it does, the state cannot compensate through court order what both parents can accomplish when they cooperate. That cooperation and commitment is priceless, and individuals, including children, and the public bear burderns when parents deviate from that. Therefore, promoting commitment among heterosexual partners is in the indivdual and state interest. In fact, without what individuals willingly do, the state would not be able to bear the burden.
I would like to add another point. The whole gay-marriage issue revolves around what some people feel are their rights or entitlements. Reviewing The Family: A Proclamation to the World, I find references to a few rights, but only once does it list one directly: "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. "
Who is entitled to what? Children are entitled to birth in a marriage to a mother AND father faithful to each other. Contrast that to Korihor's teachings in Alma 30:27-28; he claims the people are stripped of their rights because of religion and belief in an inexistent God. Sound familiar?
I find the information put forth in this article to be chilling. Who suffers from the consequences of genderless marriage are children. I don't live in Utah or I would attend the event on Tuesday. From what is shown on TV it looks like an innocent request for homosexual marriage. There are many facets that will affect all people.
Why can't we get anyone to consider the possibility of removing Marriage from the legal system?We're fools. We tie all of these legal and technical "decisions" to the concept of marriage, and they don't belong there at all. It made sense, or so it seemed, but it doesn't work.I'm 100% for heterosexual relationships, and against homosexual on several fronts, including the welfare of the children.That said, if two friends simply share an apartment, why can't one visit the other at the hospital? If they share rent, why can't one go on base with the other? If only one works and the other takes care of a child (not married, and NOT living imorally), why can't they file jointly?Marriage shouldn't be a part of the discussion. There are ample reasons why marriage should be a religious principle, outside the purview of the courts, and protected by the sanctity of religious faith. Let anyone worship how where or what they may, at least my concept of Marriage would then not be found "legally false," right?Yes, the battle is on, but it shouldn't be. Marriage shouldn't be the yardstick for anything legal - at all.Thanks for a good article.
A license is: A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. ( Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. Bouvier
Thank you for the best legal description of same sex marriage I've ever seen published. The general public rarely understands the long-term effect of any new law. Thus, we have the potential to do great harm if we don't research long-term effects before passing ANY law.
I would like to see a follow-on to this article with more rigorous legal scholarship. There were too many "so what?" situations presented that, to me, weaken rather than strengthen the argument against non-gendered marriage. It is hard to argue a case when the opposition can just yawn and say, "so what?"
Excellent points made.
Gay activists want to promote this issue as one of civil rights, but the author is correct to frame the debate as one about the definition of marriage. And one thing that worries me is that these activists see gay marriage as only a stepping stone to their final agenda, which is to eliminate any speech that claims there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. Their end-game is intolerance, not tolerance - the squelching of any speech that might make them feel uncomfortable. That is where this gay marriage issue is headed - you can see it in states like California and Massachusetts which are two of the most "progressive" states on this issue.
Thank you so much for this article. It is starting to seem like a losing battle to support traditional marriage. With all the "compassionate" ads running I haven't known how best express my support for tradition marriage. This has really helped me.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.