This is a continuation of an essay on why same sex marriage is wrong. Click here for Part 2.
In my last post, I covered some of the problems that same sex marriage creates with regard to identity politics and politics in general. Here, I'll cover two more sets of problems, the legal and the religious. Before that, however, I'll mention another political harm stemming from the law suit against California's Proposition 8, a voter-approved law which amended California's state constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. (This is the same type of amendment passed by 31 states.)
Since the defense of Proposition 8 has made its way into the Supreme Court, gay activists have turned the issue of same sex marriage from a state matter to a federal one. The 2013 Supreme Court ruling ostensibly turned the decision of same sex marriage back to the states, then gutted DOMA, the federal law that protected marriage. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to take five state suits against same sex marriage, thus establishing same sex marriage on a federal level, without actually producing a ruling.
The result is that voter approved amendments to state constitutions have been nullified by judicial fiat, and the will and votes of the people have been overturned because the Supreme Court allowed federal circuit and district courts to dictate their will over the states.
Hence, overturning Proposition 8 on the federal level overruled all state marriage laws, much the same way that the Supreme Court overruled state laws with regard to abortion. The aftermath of such a ruling will further divide the people of the US over the matter of more federal control disguised as a social issue.
Contrary to what gay activists and misguided libertarians argue, expanding same sex marriage through judicial fiat does not reduce government control. Now that same sex marriage has been established under federal jurisdiction, all marriage, including same sex marriage, will be regulated by the federal government in some way or another. Same sex marriage will now be mandated and the rights of citizens to define their society has been stripped away. Rather than "getting government out of the marriage business," as some have argued, it has put the federal government directly into the marriage business.
We can understand the legal implications of federal control over same sex marriage by looking at two case studies: prohibition and abortion. Prohibition was a failure for many reasons, not the least of which was that it put the federal government largely in control of what was a state and individual choice to drink alcohol. The people of the United States, not completely stupid at the time, quickly realized that federal control over alcohol was a huge mistake. It took ten more years, however, to repeal Prohibition.
Abortion "rights," on the other hand, has been a spectacular success, if you count the "protection" of women's "choice" through tens of millions of aborted children as a success. In recent years, the pro-life advocates have gained traction, and more people than ever disagree with abortion as a key issue of women's rights.
Both cases, Prohibition and abortion, created, rather than prevented, monumental legal problems at the state and federal levels. Abortion became subsidized by the federal government. Religious freedoms against abortion have been limited at both state and federal levels.
Gay activists have pushed same sex marriage within the legal arena on the bases of the right to privacy (a court defined and made-up right) and equal protection (a right granted ex-slaves in the 14th Amendment). Both concepts must wrench the US Constitution from its intent in order to pass legislation "protecting" same sex marriage or to have the courts declare marriage laws unconstitutional. My post in Part 2 talked a bit about the damage done to the court systems, as well as the damage done from political refusal to defend marriage laws.
One legal harm from establishing same sex marriage stems from the gay activist argument based on the right to privacy. The Supreme Court decided in 2003 that privacy rights extended to the bedroom. Once gay activists successfully overturned sodomy laws on the basis of the "right to privacy," these same activists challenged the public institution of marriage into the legislatures and courts, citing rights to privacy, equal protection, and discrimination. Gay activists have jumped from that concept to include marriage as a "right to privacy." Yet, marriage, precisely because it is such a fundamental institution of society, is a public matter. Hence, the argument of a right to privacy now legally impinges on public institutions.
Gay activists also argue on the basis of equal protection. As I've mentioned before, same sex marriage isn't "gay" marriage in the legal sense. Even though gay activists push for "gay marriage," there is simply no legal test of gayness that would establish a legal basis.
Same sex marriage would create "gayness" as a protected class status, much like "blackness" for race or "womanness" for sex. Having no gay identity test, since gayness is not race or sex, poses no end of legal problems now and in the future. While same sex marriage would allow homosexuals to gain some legal advantages given to married couples, it would be used to create a protected class of those who self identify as gay to promote special concessions and more legal protections than other citizens. This creates a legal system, not based on equal protection, but on unequal protection of a gay class of citizens.
Simply put, "gay" is not race. Homosexuals have neither the same economic, nor political disadvantages that Blacks or women held. Same sex couples have the same economic and political disadvantages as any non-married couple. Gays have the same protections against "bullying" as any other citizen in the US, perhaps more because of so-called hate crime laws. (These laws, of course, also ignore the concept of equal protection.)
Another legal issue arises because same sex marriage would neuter marriage, as well as other institutions, establishing a legal basis that denies biology. Legally saying that there is no sexual difference between a man and a woman simply cannot change biological fact. Lost in this legal argument is the original purpose for marriage: the protection of the children.
Lastly, are the harms to religion that same sex marriage poses. It is obvious to anyone who has watched the news over the years that modern liberals have pursued an overall anti-religion ideology. Over the years, we've seen a wider breech between the state and religion. (This is not a separation of church and state, this is an attempt to remove religion from all public institutions.)
President Obama demonstrated the liberal attitude toward religion in his disregard of the Catholic church when he mandated that all insurance carriers must offer birth control. The Catholic Church since has sued Obama over the infringement of religious free expression.
Same sex marriage activists overall seem intent on pressing their definition of marriage over all others, stepping on top of churches and individuals alike. Their argument, that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, simply doesn't hold up to the present attempts to stifle church and religious authority. Gay activists even fund and push legal challenges to marriage, claiming utterly baseless ideals such as "marriage equality," or "fairness," while denying any equality or fairness to religious institutions.
Same sex marriage will continue to chip away at religious freedom, as well as harm the institution of marriage by contributing to the overall immoral attitude toward sex and procreation.
Same sex marriage also poses the risk of creating state defined morality. The people of the several states have had the law trampled by judicial fiat, and the will of the people has now been altered to become the will of the courts. State defined morality is dangerous for the simple fact that, when the government can define what is and isn't moral, then the government has the power to control all aspects of our public and private lives.
This explains one reason why modern liberalism, and especially the gay rights movement, is anti-religious. These groups of people want more control over our lives, not less.
While same sex attraction may or may not be inborn, the outward expression of sexual preference is a moral question and not a question of innate consequence, nor is it a civil right. The same is true of the outward expression of heterosexuality as well.
Here are some examples to illustrate the differences:
- Being black is not a moral question. Being a black rioter in St. Louis is.
- Being a woman is not a moral question. Being a pro-abortion feminist is.
- Having sexual feelings is not a moral question. The media's hypersexualization of children is.
- Having same sex attraction is not a moral question. Preaching an ideology based on sexual preference in order to change the definition of marriage is.
Like it or not, homosexual behavior (not just same-sex attraction) crosses the social boundaries of moral custom and moral behavior. To claim homosexual behavior is akin to race or gender is to propose a false analogy. There is no such thing as equality of morality. Yet gay activists will insist that their particular moral ideal must be the only valid moral standard and therefore must be protected by law.
This is not a question of fairness or equality. This is a question of moral dictatorship - the exact same problem gay activists accuse religious conservatives of having. It is a misguided ideal at best and duplicitous power-mongering at worst.
This is no longer a private matter of same sex attraction and private sexual preference. Gay activists have turned their ideology into a public desire to impose legally their version of morality.