The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
For Mr. Kolasinski’s full column: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Note from James: Regardless of your stance on this issue, this column is one of the best that I have read that gives a great perspective.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 16, 2012 at 6:51 am
Stothes
According to his logic, all marriage that doesn’t result in offspring should be prohibited. If that were the case, shouldn’t we be denying marriage licenses to all post-menopausal women and men with low sperm count? Perhaps we could require a happy couple to prove that their reproductive organs are in proper working order before they can be legally wed?
May 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm
JAMES
That is not quite the take he was presenting, at least from my perspective. I believe he was showing the foundational reasons for the “benefits” of marriage with regard to the states. He clearly states that while procreation is assumed, it is not always the case.
I believe that this argument is presented by this student to show that one can make a case on a secular basis. There is always the rebuttal, and I await a well written rebuttal to contrast it.
I do believe that to change the definition of marriage will open the doors to others wanting a new definition, such as polygamists.
I am searching for an article emailed to me two months ago (approx) wherein the EU stated that gay marriage is NOT a right. I am curious as to their analysis.
Someone commented on another site that they didn’t like being “2nd class” citizens… actually said they don’t pay taxes to be treated as 2nd class citizens. The response was that they are not. They can marry, as the law prescribes.
Every benefit a gay couple desires can be achieved in a legal means, even social security benefits, etc. It does not require using the clearly defined term marriage.
It is said that polls show that more than 50% now agree with gay marriage. That may be the case UNTIL the same people are asked to VOTE on the issue, and it is then predominantly 60/40. Hell, even 60% of the states have now had the people vote on the matter. The only states where gay marriage is permitted have passed the laws either by the judges or by the Legislature.
Stothes, one of the biggest problems I have with the pro-gay marriage advocates, and groups/sites like “No Hate” is that if one disagrees with the idea of gay marriage, one automatically is homophobic and a hater. Yes, there are some who simply are, but for the most part, that is completely wrong. I for one despise being tagged as a hater and homophobic just because I do not believe in gay marriage.
On “Huckabee” last week, Sally Kohn was debating with Gov. Huckabee. He told her that he resented the idea that Obama invoked “Jesus” and the Bible in his decision to support gay marriage, to which the liberal base did not flinch (because it suited their purpose), but Huckabee is maligned as a hater when he uses the same Jesus and Bible to defend his anti-gay marriage stance. You can’t have it both ways (oh… there you go… another definition!!)
May 17, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Stothes
I still fail to see where the original author proved his “secular” point. He was trying to argue that marriage is a right the government bestows on a male and female because of their ability to procreate and further society. That argument is false on its face. We allow any male and female to marry one another for whatever reason they choose without procreation being of any concern whatsoever.
The whole statement about “changing the definition of marriage” is just ridiculous. Did allowing interracial marriages affect your marriage or your definition of marriage? Same for inter-faith marriages…does that personally affect your marriage?
Why should same sex couples have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to obtain documents that aren’t transferable to other states and are easily contestable just because a religious group doesn’t like it?
If you don’t like the idea of gay marriage that’s fine….don’t marry a homo. But when you start to advocate and/or vote for people that would restrict someone else’s right to marry who they love just because you find it so objectionable….eh, that makes you a bigot
I didn’t hear Mike Huckabee talking about Jesus, but if I had I would wonder why he was since Jesus never discussed homosexuality or gay marriage. I would wonder why all these supposed Christian “family” organizations are railing against gay marriage when Jesus and the Bible have much more to say about adultery and divorce than they do about same sex unions.
May 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm
JAMES
It is a justification for the state’s interest in promoting marriage based upon the biological order of things.
What I am finding truly interesting in the conversations occurring on this subject is the number of gay people who are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage. They want the same benefits of married couples, but that it doesnt have to be called “marriage”
May 20, 2012 at 10:08 am
Stothes
Here’s a rebuttal that appeared in the same publication:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N6/saffordlet.6c.html
May 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm
JAMES
Thank you Stothes. I will read that and posit it to.