There Is No Right To Marry
January 28th, 2008 . by glendeanBlue Collar Muse makes a good point in saying that “Gay Marriage Doesn’t Involve Rights“. He is right to point out that there is no “right to marry” in the Constitution. The marriage contract is something handled by states and created as a result of our religious based culture. Gay activists are just as wrong to assume that marriage is a civil right, as conservatives are to violate federalism by calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or federal statutes like the Defense of Marriage Act.
Personally, I could care less about how the state defines marriage. In fact, I would rather us just end the debate by doing away with the government sanctioned marriage contract altogether. But since our government does sanction marriage in this state, I have no problem with allowing gays to marry. In fact, I was among the 19% of Tennesseans who voted against the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment in 2006.
Having said that, most gay activists are not too fond of me. BCM explains why in his post.
It is less an assertion of the violation of their rights and more a desire to have the trappings of respectability draped over a behavior that is still seen by the majority of society as outside the norm.
It would be too broad a statement to assert that all gay people care about approval, but many of them do. Even though I am not bothered by homosexuals and am willing to give them just about any government privilege they ask for, I still think that the thought of homosexual sex is disgusting. The idea of a man sticking his dick up another man’s ass is an utterly reprehensible thought. Sorry for the language, but I don’t know of any other way to put it. By the way, I can only assume that gay men feel the same away about heterosexual sex.
In spite of all of that, I still have compassion for homosexuals and the way they are treated by society. I don’t understand homosexuality, but I don’t have to. It’s really none of my business what another man does.
But like I said, in spite of my support for their rights and privileges, I will never be popular with the hardcore gay activists, because for them, it isn’t about rights, it’s about approval.
Yes I realize I am in an odd position. The 81% that supported that amendment is not too fond of me, and the 19% that I aligned with probably don’t care too much for me either. Sometimes principles and honesty leave you all alone, do they not?
Glen -
Thanks for making the other-side-of-the-coin point that federalism requires we abandon the DOMA and attempts to forcibly include the federal government in the matter. I’m all in favor of allowing the matter of gay marriage to be a state’s rights issue.
That being said, I wonder if you can help me out with a huge problem in this area. Reciprocity. Currently, marriage contracts in one state are honored in all the others (and internationally for that matter). So if I marry in Tennessee and The Much Younger Trophy Wife and I and the kids move to Massachusetts, we’re still legally married there.
The biggest obstacle I see with having gay marriage be a state to state decision is what to do if a gay couple which legally marries in one state moves to a state which does not recognize gay marriage? I still haven’t found a solution to that.
Your thoughts?
Blue
I understand the argument. If gay marriage is legal in say Massachusetts, then people from all over the country would just flock to Massachusetts and get married, then come back home, being legally married. Perhaps rather than a federal amendment to ban gay marriage, you could just pass a federal law saying that full faith and credit does not apply in regards to marriage. I’m just brainstorming here, not really making a proposal. But that would seem more like a bridge to cross when we got to it. The constitution was just never meant to take on these questions. Of course the Supreme Court was never intended to amend the constitution either.
I don’t have the answer really, but I understand what you are saying.
[...] Glen Dean has an interesting position on gay marriage: I would rather us just end the debate by doing away with the government sanctioned marriage contract altogether. But since our government does sanction marriage in this state, I have no problem with allowing gays to marry. [...]
Glen:
While it’s true that there’s no right to marry (for anyone) per se, there is a right to equal protection under the law. It is on that basis that the “right” for gays to marry comes in. Once the state recognizes marriage, it opens that door.
It gets even stickier when you introduce the P&I stuff, in terms of the differences between how the states define/recognize it.
Perhaps rather than a federal amendment to ban gay marriage, you could just pass a federal law saying that full faith and credit does not apply in regards to marriage.
Isn’t that essentially what DOMA did?
Tgirsch, I should have said federal amendment. I realize that DOMA does that, but those who argue for an amendment to ban gay marriage, believe that DOMA will likely be ruled unconstitutional if it is ever challenged.
Honestly, I really don’t want either. I really don’t see the big deal in gay marriage. Never have.
Penny video poker online casino….
Penny video poker online casino….