Thoughts On The Same Sex Marriage Debate

In a post last December that some folks still talk about, I made the case that homosexuality is not an immoral choice and questioned the morality of granting civil rights based upon sexual orientation.

In that post and others since I said that in my ideal world government would not be in the marriage business. Marriage would be a religious rather than a civil distinction and that governments should recognise civil union regardless of the genders of the individuals involved. Recently some moderates have embraced this position. I consider my position to be ideologically conservative and libertarian.

Warning: Reading the post I wrote almost a year ago could ruin your day.

Now that the New Jersey legislature is considering adapting "marriage equality" this debate is again at the forefront and it is less of an academic exercise than it was a year ago.

As is usually the case, there is too much demagoguery on both sides of this issue.

Those for "marriage equality" are railing about "civil unions" not being equal to marriages and telling stories of cases where civil partners' rights under New Jersey law have been violated. They are making a political case where they should be making judicial cases, if what they really wanted was their equal rights under New Jersey law.

Unfortunately, calling "civil unions" "marriages" won't end the bigotry and discrimination that homosexuals face daily. That will take time, law enforcement and litigation and a cultural shift. This debate is part of the cultural shift, not the end of it.

Same sex couples have been granted the same rights as heterosexual married couples under New Jersey law. The real problem is with federal law. Federal law does not recognise civil partnerships as marriages in all cases. I know a same sex couple wherein one of the partners is not a U.S citizen. She is German. She jumps through all kinds of difficult hoops to remain with her partner legally in the U.S. and she has to return "home" to Germany periodically for extended stays, forcing separations from her loving partner. This couple wouldn't have to suffer through this if they were married. This is the only case in my admittedly non-exhaustive search that I have found that New Jersey same sex partners not enjoying equal rights to heterosexual married partners.

Those opposing same sex marriage are also employing demagoguery. They argue that marriage between one man and one woman should have unique status because of those unions ability to procreate, because of a mother and father under the same roof is "the best" family unit and because traditional marriage is the foundation of our society.

The problem with these arguments is that they have already been lost. Procreation already happens other than the old fashion way. Same sex couples are already raising children. If traditional marriage and the traditional "Ozzie and Harriet" family unit is the foundation of our society, we have already crumbled. Some would argue that we have.

If our society were to embrace the philosophy of those arguing against same sex marriage for reasons of tradition, how long would it be before we were enforcing laws against adultery and sodomy. A long time, but it wasn't that long ago in our history that our governments were enforcing those laws.

The problem with my ideal, that marriage become a religious distinction rather than a civil distinction, is one of political expediency. Those political leaders who have embraced this idea are not leading a political fight to convert all government sanctioned marriages to civil unions. They are using the argument as politically correct cover for avoiding the issue.

The fact is that marriage is a civil distinction. It is probably more of a civil distinction than a religious distinction.

It seems to me that separating civil unions from religious marriage would be a boom for religions. But religions don't see it that way, as NJ's Catholic Bishops's letter to their flock would indicate. It seems to me that as government grows, religions influence in American society declines. If government were to stop sanctioning marriages, I think more people would turn to religions to explore and affirm the sanctity of the unions and families that they now take for granted or ignore.

Since religions are relying on government to define marriage, who am I to argue?

As a freedom loving conservative, I don't see how I can support the government giving me special rights because of my sexual orientation, or denying rights to others based on theirs.

The good news from the Bishops' Letter is that they seem to be affirming homosexuality as a legitimate rather than a sinful lifestyle:

"We must always remember that every person has an inherent dignity because he or she is created in the image and likeness of God, and that God loves every person as a unique individual. Like all other human beings, our homosexual brothers and sisters are beloved children of God. As a result, the Catholic Church affirms that they “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided” [Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2358].

Thus the teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended, and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against homosexual persons."

That is a cultural shift that should be nurished.