Homosexual Marriage – The Constitution (Part 3)

There is, obviously, a lot of dissent when it comes to legalizing or not legalizing homosexual marriage.  Many people seem to miss the point of the arguments, and continue to focus on marriage simply being a right, without looking any further than that.  If you support homosexual marriage, do you agree with the following:

An individual in America does not have the freedom to choose not to participate in a ceremony he or she finds morally abhorrent.

Parents in America do not have the right to choose when and how to teach their children about sexuality.

Religious agencies in America do not have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs when performing charity and service.

Citizens in America do not have a right to physical privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms.

Any consenting adults have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, including polygamous and incestuous groups.  (Supreme court precedent in Romer v Evans)

If you disagree with any of these statements, you should think carefully about what your support for homosexual marriage indicates.  These are actual occurrences, not speculation.  No one is telling homosexual couples that they can not build a life and family together.  They can legally set up many of the same benefits granted to heterosexual married couples.  There are no laws infringing on their right to choose who to be with, how to spend their time, how to live.  There are some benefits reserved for married couples that they may not receive, and some that may be more complicated to obtain.  I think that some freedoms, like an individual right to physical privacy and freedom to practice religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) trump a couple’s desire to receive marriage benefits.

There will continue to be people who think their individual civil right to marry trumps other’s constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.  My perspective is irrelevant to any religious beliefs I may or may not have.  The examples I use typically deal with Christians, because that isthe predominant religion people affiliate themselves with in America and thus that is where the most examples of religious rights being infringed will be found.  That said, my perspective comes from my respect for constitutional rights.  If there is a law in place that limits an individual’s right to practice their religion as they see fit, it is unconstitutional.  If a woman does not want to photograph a wedding for a lesbian couple based on her religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional to force her to.  If this seems trite to you, that is your opinion.  The rights granted to the GLTB movement have demonstrably proven to infringe on Constitutional guarantees.  I believe that the Constitution needs to be protected in all forms in order to keep this nation free.  If the government can come into a religious institution and dictate their practices, that is an unconstitutional infringement on the free practice of religion.  If one portion of the Constitution can be disregarded in the name of civil justice and equality, then so can others.  If one constitutional freedom can be found negligible, then what protections do our other freedoms have?  Whether or not you have strong religious beliefs should be irrelevant; the important question is whether or not you believe that the Constitution should be protected.  If some couples loose what they perceive to be their civil rights in order to protect the Constitution, that is the side I will err on.

Advertisements

About whyimconservative

I'm a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom with a Biochemistry degree living in Austin. I love my kids, my husband and my country. I want to explain why I'm conservative.

Posted on June 21, 2011, in Homosexual Marriage and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.

  1. weldon lasseter

    i enjoyed the read, if you can contact me i would like your perspective (perhaps you are already working on it) for the military and the acceptance of the repeal of dont ask dont tell. i did not see a link to send you email directly so if you would like to chat via email i would appreciate it. I am active military so that is why i ask your input. i have my own discussion points, but you have given more than what i have used on the civilian side, and they are great avenues i never thought of. thank you for this posting.

  2. “An individual in America does not have the freedom to choose not to participate in a ceremony he or she finds morally abhorrent.”

    They do. Every state that has established marriage equality, whether through the courts or legislature, has included a morality clause clarifying that religious institutions do not need to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. This covers them in a way where, say, a Catholic church does not need to perform a marriage ceremony for a Jewish couple.

    “Parents in America do not have the right to choose when and how to teach their children about sexuality.”

    But they do. Parents have the right to remove their child from the public school system and have them home schooled or schooled in an private, religious institution. If in public schools, parents are aware that their kids will have to, as a part of state curriculum take courses and lessons on sexual health and on acceptance of diversity.

    “Religious agencies in America do not have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs when performing charity and service.”

    Yes they do. What they cannot, however, is practice their religious beliefs while in violation of state law. One example was in D.C. and Maine where a Catholic organization stepped out of the social services area and shut down homeless shelters and soup kitchens… because of gay marriage… What was it about gay couples getting married that would prevent them from housing and feeding the homeless? They could always continue the charity. They chose not to. As it stands, they have the right to their religious beliefs. Running an adoption agency in violation of state law is not a part of said beliefs. No religious beliefs were violated here. The leaders of said organizations who shut their doors obviously still had their freedom of religious belief intact.

    “Women in America do not have a right to physical privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms.”

    This is a shock statement. Why? Well, if you flip it and say “Men in America do not have a right to physical privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms”, it wouldn’t be nearly as shocking. As it stands, there is no established right to privacy. Gender separation in bathrooms and locker rooms is courtesy separation. Furthermore, you’re writing in an obvious distrust of transgender people. Do you even know a trans man or woman? If you are to stick with their right to privacy, does it not matter? Must a trans women use the men’s restroom or men’s locker room even after full gender reassignment and hormone treatment? “You were born a man and even though you now identify as and appear as a woman you still need to use the men’s room. Sorry. All the stalls are taken. You need to squat in the urinal.” Does that make sense?

    “Any consenting adults have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, including polygamous and incestuous groups. (Supreme court precedent in Romer v Evans)”

    Slippery slope argument is always irrelevant. It’s fear-mongering for the sake of fear mongering. Why not throw on there human-animal marriage also? You might as well have.

    “There are no laws infringing on their right to choose who to be with, how to spend their time, how to live.”

    Believe it or not, until 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, this was not the case. Gay men, in this situation, did not have the right to do this due to anti-sodomy laws. Gay men and women in the military did not have this right unless they wanted to risk facing discharge and having their military careers halted. Even today in the area of housing discrimination, gay couples do not have this right, coinciding with the ability to rent or purchase any apartment or house they desire.

    ” I think that some freedoms, like an individual right to physical privacy and freedom to practice religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) trump a couple’s desire to receive marriage benefits.”

    Again, I’ll ask you: What of the religious beliefs of gay men and women? What of their freedom to practice religion? Does that not matter? Are there religious beliefs less than that of other citizens because it does not adhere to the norm? Is that the nation we live in? Where one religion (*sic* your religion) is more significant in the eyes of the law than others?

    • You seem to repeatedly disregard the examples of infringed rights presented. I show an actual case where an actual Christian woman made a choice based on her religious beliefs, and the government interfered and told her that it was illegal for her make that choice. Why should a free person be forced to perform acts they feel are wrong?
      You say that parents do have the choice to choose what their children are taught, and yet the government run schools are openly refusing to respect requests to notify parents before teaching homosexuality and gender diversity. You accuse me of ignorance because I say that male and female are the only human genders. My degree in Biochemistry (as well as high school, and elementary school, because gender really isn’t a difficult thing) taught me that gender is a biological and genetic trait. The few genetic anomalies (XXY, XYY) still result in either a male or a female. If a child is born a hermaphrodite, do you not think the parent will take the responsibility to explain that? It’s certainly no responsibility of the school, and if that is the only additional gender to which you refer, its infrequence makes it negligible in regards to this topic. That certainly wasn’t what was being taught as an additional gender to the children; they were being taught about actions and feelings in regards to ‘gender diversity.’ It is being taught to Kindergarteners that there are more than two genders. This isn’t true. Emotions, feelings and inclinations do not determine gender; genetic make-up does.
      You say that religious organizations, adoption agencies for example, have freedom to practice what they believe, but “What they cannot, however, is practice their religious beliefs while in violation of state law.” If a state law prohibits the free exercise of religion, it is unconstitutional. They have their beliefs, they are trying to perform service, and they are shut down by the government because they are following their beliefs. Adopting to married heterosexuals forces you to do nothing. Homosexuals have freedom of choice and can use other adoption agencies. But, instead they would have religious institutions shut down.
      You say that, “Gender separation in bathrooms and locker rooms is courtesy separation.” Yet the law puts a monetary penalty on a father who protect his daughter’s privacy by standing by a bathroom door and not allowing men to enter while she is there. You claim it’s shocking, and yet that is the law.
      You will dismiss Supreme Court Justices saying that a law passed allows for polygamous marriage. Why? If a polygamous marriage consists of consenting adults, there is no legal distinction.
      You say you’ve asked before, what of the religious rights of homosexuals. What of them? Have you given an example? What actions have you been forced to perform because your religious rights have been trampled? If you were a photographer or caterer, would you like to have the choice not to work at an anti-gay rally or a Ku Klux Klan gathering? Should a Quaker have the right to decline serving at an NRA rally? The laws being passed are forcing people to support and work with causes they believe are wrong, or be sued or disbanded by the government. Forcing. This is a free country, and no one should be forced to do anything they do not want to. If you believe that anti-discrimination laws supersede Constitutional rights, make that argument. I stated plainly that some rights will be infringed, because they overlap. Someone has to decide which rights are more important. I will choose to defend the Constitution, because it is the supreme law of the land, and once constitutional rights are considered disposable for the sake of social justice or equality there is no protection for any of our rights.

      • weldon lasseter

        very well put.

      • “You seem to repeatedly disregard the examples of infringed rights presented. I show an actual case where an actual Christian woman made a choice based on her religious beliefs, and the government interfered and told her that it was illegal for her make that choice. Why should a free person be forced to perform acts they feel are wrong?”

        I did not disregard this. I pointed out that the woman was found in violation of her state’s Human Rights Act. I conceded in another post on a point you and I will agree with: the lawsuit is cold and somewhat pointless. I am not lawsuit happy and would have been more than glad to take my business elsewhere and support someone who would gladly accept my business rather than paying money to someone who is more than willing to turn around and donate part of said money to an organization or church who would use it in an anti-gay campaign.

        “You say that parents do have the choice to choose what their children are taught, and yet the government run schools are openly refusing to respect requests to notify parents before teaching homosexuality and gender diversity.”

        Correct. Parents do have the choice in what their children are taught. They can teach their children anything. Whether their children will or will not believe them is up to the kids. They can also remove their children from said public school, send them to another public school, home school them, or send them to a private school or charter school.

        “You accuse me of ignorance because I say that male and female are the only human genders. My degree in Biochemistry (as well as high school, and elementary school, because gender really isn’t a difficult thing) taught me that gender is a biological and genetic trait.”

        You’re correct, but gender is not quite as binary as you make it out to be. Scientific evidence shows that there are children who are born with genetic defects and abnormalities that result in them possessing both sets of genitalia. It is also shown that brain structure and chemistry can differ in such a way where a person is born in such a way so that their external gender and internal gender are not in sync – hence Gender Identity Disorder. This is not to be confused with being intersexed. Your degree in biochem is in a different field than this. You say gender is male and female. The medical field accurately points out that in humans, it isn’t quite so binary. These children were also shown that in nature, there are, in fact, more than two genders and, in some species, members play a role in being both genders or even no gender.

        “You say that religious organizations, adoption agencies for example, have freedom to practice what they believe, but “What they cannot, however, is practice their religious beliefs while in violation of state law.” If a state law prohibits the free exercise of religion, it is unconstitutional. ”

        You’re jumping the proverbial broom here. There is no prohibition of free exercise of religion. Specifically, individuals that are a part of this Catholic adoption agency are providing a service, perhaps because of their religion. In no way, shape, or form is the adoption of children into households considered practice of their religion. They can still pray. They can still hold services. They can still preach their beliefs on the streets. They can still have their household religion, receive the sacraments, tithe, etc. etc. etc. What they cannot do, however, is violate state law when it comes to the adoption of children into households. The state, in this instance, isn’t telling them what they can and cannot believe as a part of their religious teachings. It is, however, drawing a line in what they can and cannot do when it comes to performing a public service. They can adhere to the law and place children in households despite gender composition. They can also close up shop. Either way, their personal, religious beliefs remain intact.

        “Homosexuals have freedom of choice and can use other adoption agencies. But, instead they would have religious institutions shut down.”

        No. I would have said adoption agency follow state law. Plain and simple.

        “You say that, “Gender separation in bathrooms and locker rooms is courtesy separation.” Yet the law puts a monetary penalty on a father who protect his daughter’s privacy by standing by a bathroom door and not allowing men to enter while she is there. You claim it’s shocking, and yet that is the law.”

        You run the risk here of said father obstructing, perhaps, a trans woman from entering the bathroom because she appears as a man. This may result in verbal harassment or physical assault. It is shown here that fathers can’t do this – such is vigilante justice. It’s important to note that no one is going to stop said father from entering the room himself should he feel his daughter is in danger. My original claim is still intact: in most states and municipalities, gender separation of bathrooms/locker rooms is a courtesy separation.

        I for one have been in many a bathroom and locker room that was not gender separated. You know what happened? Absolutely nothing. Just pointing that out.

        “You will dismiss Supreme Court Justices saying that a law passed allows for polygamous marriage. Why? If a polygamous marriage consists of consenting adults, there is no legal distinction.”

        I have little concern for this. Polygamous couples who wish to marry in groups must stand on their own and fight their own fight. This is, of course, irrelevant. Polygamy transcends sexual orientation. Polygamy is a type of relationship. Sexual orientation is not. You deny polygamy, you deny a type of valid relationship. You deny gay couples, you deny all valid relationships.

        “You say you’ve asked before, what of the religious rights of homosexuals. What of them? Have you given an example? What actions have you been forced to perform because your religious rights have been trampled? If you were a photographer or caterer, would you like to have the choice not to work at an anti-gay rally or a Ku Klux Klan gathering? Should a Quaker have the right to decline serving at an NRA rally? The laws being passed are forcing people to support and work with causes they believe are wrong, or be sued or disbanded by the government. Forcing.”

        Countless times, religious leaders of varying faiths have desired to serve over marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but have been unable to legalize them as they would a straight couple because of the religious beliefs of another religion. That is example enough.

        Your KKK, NRA, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc. are all shady analogies. Do you not know how to make a valid comparison? When it comes to the KKK, I would have a valid reason not to attend: based on my own personal safety. NRA is a free-speech based, lobbying organization. Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee freedom to force others to participate in said speech. As for religious groups, if I were a business owner (which I plan to become later in life), I would provide service. I would, however, document any examples of disruption or interference with other clients and deny service if a disruption to other clientele occurred. In the future, I plan to operate a guest house. I will advertise as an LGBT friendly space, but accept anyone wanting accommodation. If they proved disruptive, I could then document and deny service including the filing of a police report. Anything else is really bad for business.

        ” If you believe that anti-discrimination laws supersede Constitutional rights, make that argument.”

        You flipped it a bit. When it comes to court cases involving various local and federal Human Rights Act claims, it is found that adherence to anti-discrimination laws supersedes INDIVIDUAL rights. It has not been found that one is constitutionally protected if he or she makes a business decision to deny service to a protected group. For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to accommodations outweighs individual liberties involved.

        This is not a perfect system. You cannot rationally deny rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities to a minority group because the majority is more important. You end up doing example what you are doing now: building a mountain out of a mole hill.

        When it comes to education, “I don’t want my kids to learn that there are gay people” is not a right. What is a right is selecting how and where you will educate your child. When it comes to religion, “I don’t want gay couples to get married because their doing so will infringe on my religious beliefs” is as silly as it is wrong. When it comes to business, we let the courts decide. That is why the courts are there.

        Anyhow. Cons, I’d recommend that you take a step back and have a talk with some LGBT men and women. There are so many colors that you’re not seeing in the spectrum of this argument, including the significant amount of hostility and violence faced by gay men and women throughout this country – perpetuated by the very same type of animus and belittling present at the very core of your opinion.

  3. Jacob Sullum explains these issues further in this article “ Gay By Force

    Such fears played a conspicuous role in the Proposition 8 campaign, and the eHarmony case shows they’re not fanciful. Eric McKinley, the gay man who filed the civil rights complaint that forced eHarmony to start matching same-sex couples, says the company’s straights-only policy was “very hurtful,” making him feel like “a second-class citizen.”

    Unlike a government that claims exclusive authority to approve adoptions or marriages, eHarmony has plenty of competitors, including online matchmakers that advertise themselves as gay-friendly. Yet McKinley could not bear the thought that one of many dating services chose to focus on heterosexuals. Such intolerance undermines the struggle for gay rights by feeding fears that equal treatment by the government means equal treatment by everyone.

  4. – An individual in America does not have the freedom to choose not to participate in a ceremony he or she finds morally abhorrent.

    Of course he/she as freedom to choose whether or not to participate. However, there are anti-discrimination laws that prevent people from discriminating on things such as race, color, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, etc. Sounds like it is really these anti-discrimination laws that you seem to be against.

    – Parents in America do not have the right to choose when and how to teach their children about sexuality.

    This is the case today and sex education has been taught in schools for sometime. I remember taking the class back in the early 80s when I was in school, I remember it a big deal back then because religious people did not approve of it. Further, I think parents have the right to opt their children out.

    – Religious agencies in America do not have the freedom to practice their religious beliefs when performing charity and service.

    Again, SSM has nothing to do with this but rather anti-discrimination laws. Further, performing charity and service are social services and not religious necessarily religious in nature.

    – Citizens in America do not have a right to physical privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms.

    Fail to see what this has to do with SSM but you don’t have a right to privacy in any public place today. Allowing SSM won’t change that.

    – Any consenting adults have the right to enter into the contract of marriage, including polygamous and incestuous groups. (Supreme court precedent in Romer v Evans)

    Polygamy and the marrying of relatives has been part of the marriage for most of man’s history. Problem with marrying close relative is the potential harm to off-springs. As for polygamy, that is a whole argument onto itself. My opinion, who really cares how many people you marry, problem would be the divorce.

    • You should read the other posts that display the legal evidence to the contrary to all your assertions. If you believe that anti-discrimination laws take precedent over Constitutional rights, then you should make that argument.

      • They don’t anti-discrimination laws dictate punishments for ACTIONS against various groups involved. Whether you act against someone based on religion, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation, your civil rights are not violated.

        In particular, freedom of religion exists in such a way in this country to call for our government not only to protect each individual’s freedom to express and practice his or her religious beliefs, but also to protect those from harm done to them by others of different religious beliefs. It exists to protect freedom as well as to prevent religious persecution.

        In all of this, the only thing that can be said is freedom of religion and speech is not violated. Sure, Christian men and women can believe that gay couples should not be able to marry. The fact that they can in some jurisdictions does not hinder their ability to have their religious beliefs: only their ability to use said religious beliefs to cause harm to others of different religions and faiths.

        See the difference? When a gay couple gets a marriage license, those opposed to gay couples marrying are not impacted in any rational way. When those opposed to gay couples marrying for religious reasons prevent that from happening, they cause very real and direct harm to gay couples seeking to marry. It’s a modern manifestation of religious persecution that squashed all that is different in its path.

        This is not exaggeration. It is observation manifest both from the pulpit and from a very real and present social hostility LGB men and women face on a regular basis on the streets in America.

  5. When those opposed to gay couples marrying for religious reasons prevent that from happening, they cause very real and direct harm to gay couples seeking to marry. It’s a modern manifestation of religious persecution that squashed all that is different in its path.

    That might be a harm if there was no roughly equivalent alternative for same-sex partnerships (which would not necessarily be sexual in nature).

    • There is no roughly equivalent alternative for same-gender couples. Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships are neither equivalent or subject to full faith and credit. If I were to have a civil union in one state, it would be worthless in another. It would also not be recognized by foreign municipalities, making travel, both domestic and international, higher risk. That is only on the legal side. On the social side, it creates an environment where the relationships of gay couples are seen as transitory, temporary, not celebrated and solidified by the very same social institution that everyone understands.

      If you were to channel the romantic and sexual energy of gay men and women towards marriage, society will greatly benefit. Gay couples will have stronger households, more secure and happy relationships, less propensity to undergo the stresses of living two lives and hiding what is, for many, the most important aspect of their lives (the person they love), more secure finances, and an overall attitude to fully participate in American society and culture rather than to withdraw for self-preservation.

      I speak of a social transformation of marriage. In this, marriage is not redefined. It is not diminished. It is enhanced. If you want to protect and strengthen marriage, society needs to start not by preventing gay couples from marrying, but teaching and guiding people to marriage for the right reasons and with more insight and conviction rather than jumping into marriage with someone who will ultimately not work out in the long run.

      • Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships are neither equivalent or subject to full faith and credit. If I were to have a civil union in one state, it would be worthless in another.

        The same is true regarding same-sex “marriages”.

        A same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts is not valid in Texas. In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. , 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tx. 5th Cir Ct. of Appeal 2010) petition for review pending No. 11-0024 (Tx. Sup. Ct.)

        It would also not be recognized by foreign municipalities, making travel, both domestic and international, higher risk.

        Neither France nor Iran would recognize a same-sex “marriage” from New Hampshire or Vermont.

        If you were to channel the romantic and sexual energy of gay men and women towards [a committed union], society will greatly benefit

        Perhaps.

        But why would it be much more effective under the name “marriage” than under a different name?

      • Irrelevant, Michael. This is why most countries are working towards marriage equality and why we’re attempting the repeal of DOMA at the federal level.

        “But why would it be much more effective under the name “marriage” than under a different name?”

        I described this in another comment. You needn’t re-ask it on multiple posts. Either way, another problem is the normalization of CU/DP laws. While harm is being caused to gay couples, their households and their children, marriage equality is the best solution. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships always fall short as I explained in a comment on another part of this post.

      • Irrelevant, Michael. This is why most countries are working towards marriage equality and why we’re attempting the repeal of DOMA at the federal level.

        It is relevant to the issue of whether same-sex unions, whatever they are called, are recognized in foreign countries.

        Surely no one familiar with Iranian, Nigerian, or Chinese culture would believe those countries will recognize same-sex unions as marriages anytime soon. No legislation passed in America will change that.

      • On the social side, it creates an environment where the relationships of gay couples are seen as transitory, temporary, not celebrated and solidified by the very same social institution that everyone understands.

        The problem is with your argument is that “everybody” understands that marriage is “a union for life of one man and one woman” Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45. The male-female dynamic is at the very core of the social meaning and cultural meaning of marriage.

      • “It is relevant to the issue of whether same-sex unions, whatever they are called, are recognized in foreign countries.

        Surely no one familiar with Iranian, Nigerian, or Chinese culture would believe those countries will recognize same-sex unions as marriages anytime soon. No legislation passed in America will change that.”

        How is this relevant? In Iran, gay youth are hung from the neck in public. Nigeria, where LGBT couples are beaten in the street and gay women can be force raped by men to “convert them”? China – a country that has spent a very significant part of modern history suppressing individualism? You’re using these as examples and comparing them to America, the “bastion” of freedom?

        Either way, you knew that I was referring to foreign countries with established marriage equality.

      • “The problem is with your argument is that “everybody” understands that marriage is “a union for life of one man and one woman” Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45. The male-female dynamic is at the very core of the social meaning and cultural meaning of marriage.”

        Really? Most known and respected pollsters in this country show that support has grown significantly in the past decade and a half. 25-30% support in 1996 compared to recent poll results citing 51-53% support in 2011. Citing a supreme court decision from 1885 is hardly going to change the fact that our society has and is currently undergoing a transformation re: LGBT people towards the positive.

  6. By denying some people the right that others enjoy freely, is that not making them out to be lesser than the ones who have the right?

    This case with the photographer is brought up all the time. But what if it hadn’t been a lesbian couple but, perhaps, an interracial couple? If the photographer didn’t believe in interracial marriage and refused to shoot the wedding then there could be no argument. That is racism just like this case with the lesbian couple is homophobia. There is literally no difference.

  7. Looks like your blog is generating quite the discussion forum. I never got the chance to read all of your book, so I’m glad you’re posting it here. I’ll chime in every now and then – hope everything is going well for you guys!

  8. By denying some people the right that others enjoy freely, is that not making them out to be lesser than the ones who have the right?

    To understand the nature of a right, one must look to history and tradition for a careful description of that right. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 703 (1997).

    What was the careful description of that right?

    The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”

    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.

    “the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children”

    id. at *35.

    Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)

    Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the
    promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,
    and for securing the maintenance and education of children

    Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. ) (1828)

    Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man
    and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their
    joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by
    law on the relation of husband and wife.”

    John Bouvier, A Law
    Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
    105 (1868)

    “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
    necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit
    to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that
    which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as
    consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
    woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that
    is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that
    reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in
    social and political improvement. ”

    Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908)

    All emphases added.

  9. Quoting articles that date back more than a hundred years ago is not a very convincing argument. That quote from Washington vs Glucksberg (a relatively unrelated case) is actually taken from English law, where it was used to express “American tradition” in context, this quote is almost completely unrelated. Even within those definitions there is a lot of room for interpretation.

    “for promoting domestic felicity”

    “the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in
    social and political improvement.”

    “reciprocally engage to live with each other during their
    joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by
    law on the relation of husband and wife.”

    There are many more examples of this ambiguity throughout, I simply do not feel like pointing out every single one.

    What your argument appears to be is “it only says man and woman in all these definitions, therefore, it most only apply to a man and a woman” whereas the argument for gay marriage is “let’s change the definition to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman.” you may be right, but it doesn’t really prove anything.

    You have also left my example of exchanging sexual orientation with race unanswered.

    • Michael Ejercito

      What your argument appears to be is “it only says man and woman in all these definitions, therefore, it most only apply to a man and a woman” whereas the argument for gay marriage is “let’s change the definition to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman.” you may be right, but it doesn’t really prove anything.

      It does prove the scope of the right to marry. Under the principle reiterated in Glucksberg , any definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman is not protected by the due process clauses of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, an infringement on the ability to “marry” someone of the same sex will not be subject to strict scrutiny like an infringement on the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex would.

      As for race and sexual orientation, race is a suspect class, while sexual orientation is not, and in fact the suspectness of sexual orientation was rejected in every circuit to address the issue. See e.g. Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 at 62 (1st Cir. 2008), Witt v. Department of the Air Force , 528 F.3d 42 at 62 (1st Cir. 2008), High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office , 895 F.2d 563 at 574 (9th Cir. 1990), Rich v. Secretary of the Army, 735 F.2d 1220 at 1229 (10th Cir. 1984)

  10. I find your continued desire to find reasons to discriminate insulting and prejudicial – to say the least.

    In all of your arguments you are basically starting from your own personal or religious beliefs (about homosexuals) and looking for ways to justify discrimination. It is obvious that you do not truly look at this topic with an unbiased view. I see not attempt at this.

    The US Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly indicate that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority. Yet, there are so many people that are looking for 1,000 ways to deny equality to two gay people who desire the same LEGAL rights that heterosexual couples currently receive. If you were truly a conservative you would place the US Constitution before your own opinions. But, it is apparently that you start with your bias – and then try to get everything around you to support that bias.

    You can continue to speak forth your views, trying to defend them, trying to justify them, looking for some sort of reasoning that will justify your prejudice. But, as I said, it is apparent that you truly are biased and have no interest in looking at equal rights as the US Constitution affords each and every American, whether Christian, atheist, gay or straight. Yes, the US Constitution applies to all Americans, not just those you want it to.

    Twisting the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is not a conservative virtue. If you truly are a conservative, put your own views aside for a moment and stop pretending to be someone who wants to uphold our founding documents.

    • Michael Ejercito

      The US Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly indicate that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority. Yet, there are so many people that are looking for 1,000 ways to deny equality to two gay people who desire the same LEGAL rights that heterosexual couples currently receive. If you were truly a conservative you would place the US Constitution before your own opinions. But, it is apparently that you start with your bias – and then try to get everything around you to support that bias.

      The fallacy of your argument is that you assume that same-sex “marriage” is a right protected by the Bill of Rights. No court has ever held that. To the contrary, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a “substantial federal question.” 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972) (Mem) In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a State statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated federal due process and equal protection principles. The court found no “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage, 191 N.W.2d at 186-87 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971), and concluded that the traditional definition of marriage effects no “invidious discrimination,” and that the definition easily withstood rational-basis review. Id. at 187. The Baker plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court under their then-mandatory appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Such dismissals are decisions on the merits. Hicks v. Miranda , 422 U.S. 332 at 343-344 (1975) The Court further explained the significance of summary dismissals in Mandel v. Bradley , 432 U.S. 173 (1977) (per curiam)

      Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal
      question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the
      statement of jurisdiction and do leave undisturbed the judgment
      appealed from. They do prevent lower courts from coming to opposite
      conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided
      by those actions.

      id. at 176

      The statement of jurisdiction in the Baker appeal thus contains the issues that were presented to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the denial of a marriage license on the basis of their sex “deprive[d] appellants of their liberty to marry and of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment . . .[and] violate[d] their rights under the equal protection clause of the
      Fourteenth Amendment . . . [and] deprive[d] appellants of their right to privacy under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
      Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement at 3, Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
      (No. 71-1027) Thus, by dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court necessarily rejected these arguments that the denial of the marriage license impermissibly denied the appellants their liberty, property, privacy, and equal protection.

  11. First of all, I just love the fact that miss “Why I’m Conservative” stirs up the pot on issues of conservatism (in this case same sex marriage being the closest to home for me) but then doesn’t even bother to much defending of her own thoughts or dialoguing about them in the comments of her blogs—-isn’t that an intrinsic part of creating a publicly accessible blog? (or at least common courtesy). If I were to guess from the comments section and discussion here, I’d think this was Michael Ejercito’s blog and not the stay-at-home mom in Chicago who authored the original blog).

    Now…on to the entire ridiculous notion of how “wrong” it is to “force” people, including those engaging in public commerce and social life, to participate in something they find “morally abhorent.” I was linked to this blog through some discussion on the NOM blog (another interesting and enraging read for any progressive person who might need to increase their blood pressure! LOL)—-where they are bemoaning the cruelty of the fact that many town clerks and other public servants in NY State are now feeling they should resign their jobs rather than ever grant or sign a gay marriage license…..and calling for better “conscientious objections” protections for SECULARLY EMPLOYED individuals.

    What a crock of baloney….If we grant permission for town personnel not to uphold the law of same sex marriage because they’re religiously opposed (or in the even more stigmatizing and offensive language of the author of this inane blog—-because they find those marriages “morally abhorrent”), then what else would those “reasonable accomodations” include?

    If I am a cashier at Babies R Us and an openly lesbian couple comes through with their infant to buy some baby clothes or a crib but I am opposed to LGBT parenting, am I within my right to tell them, “sorry this is the no gay families line” and send them to the next register? Or out of the store?

    If I am a cable repairman and I get called out on a service call and the man who answers the door is wearing his gay pride t-shirt and it is clear that he lives there with his same sex partner but I am opposed to same sex couples (or let’s say even that I arrive at the home of a cohabiting unmarried heterosexual couple but I am religiously opposed to premarital sex), am I within my rights to say, “Sorry, I don’t do service request at the homes of those who are living a sinful lifestyle. I’m going to have to send someone else out”? (And then, of course, because we all know how cable and phone repair works…that other staff would not come that same day…it would be another day or a week later….leaving the residents of the home without reliable service and/or requiring that they take an additional day off work to be home to let the repairman in!)

    If I am a server at a restaurant and a same sex couple comes in and one partner asks the waitress to put an engagement ring into a glass of champagne because they want to surprise their partner and “pop the question” but I don’t support SSM am I within my rights to refuse to accommodate them? (even though I would have done it for a straight couple) Or to ask them to go through the public humiliation of being moved to a different server’s section? Or just plain ask them to leave the restaurant? (And let’s ask the same question about a straight couple whose marriage I might be religiously opposed to. So let’s say that I’m a Catholic and I don’t support marrying of those who are divorced….can I ask the groom if he’s ever been divorced before proposing marriage to this current female partner and if he responds affirmatively say, “sorry, I can’ participate in your engagement because you’re divorced and that’s morally abhorrent”…..or if I’m an evangelical who believes firmly that it’s a sin to marry a person outside your own faith and the groom is wearing a cross and the bride is wearing a star of David, am I allowed to ask if they are the same religion and if htey confirm they aren’t can I refuse to help/participate?

    Or what if I’m a server in a restaurant and my religious views tell me that drinking alcohol (or eating certain meats?!?!) is wrong—-am I allowed to refuse to serve people who order items I’m religiously opposed to off the menu?

    I’m sorry….but this “conscientious objections” stuff is a farce. If you want to be able to use your religion as a sole predictor of how or when you will do your job….then you should get a job in your church!! It’s as nonsensical as someone like me who has no desire to be around religious imagery or values applying for a job as the custodian or secretary of a church or parochial school and then complaining that the environment is religiously oppressive.

    My firm belief is that if you take ANY secular job then you should be expected to do all that that job requires and set your religious views aside….and if you can’t do so, then find a different job where that conflict won’t arise….and while some people may not LIKE that, that the laws of this country should uphold that as the standard!

    • I don’t know what you think I’m not defending. I explain my perspective in three posts, and say pretty much all I have to say. I think that if a religious institution, let’s say a college, church building or adoption agency, wants to serve those following their religious tenants, that is within their rights. That’s where the cases all lie; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 lists several cases of homosexuals suing for religious institutions to accommodate them. Not to be served in restaurants or grocery stores.

      If you were working at Baby’s R Us and didn’t want to serve a lesbian couple, I imagine your boss would fire you. If someone doesn’t want to do something, they shouldn’t be forced to, and if it negatively effects business the business will take care of it. I can’t imagine the uproar if a Baby’s R Us employee did what you suggested. They would be immediately fired, and the company would issue an apology and statement saying how much they love diversity and equality. If they don’t, homosexuals can (and do) take their business elsewhere. I’m a fan of the free market and freedom; there is no need for the government to force individuals to do anything.

      • I think there is a lot of misinterpretation around the phrase, “Individual freedom.” When I say that, I mean the freedom to choose what you do, for yourself, without forcing anyone to do anything for you. The GLBT lobby seems to think that their freedom is being denied when people discriminate against them, but have no respect for those individuals and their desire to act by their religious convictions, something protected by the Constitution. So I want to propose a scenario:

        Let’s say you are a photographer in California. A Mormon couple contacts you and asks you to photograph their wedding. You feel that the Mormon church has deeply damaged you, has worked hard to prevent you from having all the rights you deserve. You would rather not be involved in their wedding. Should you have that choice? Should you be able to say, “No, thank you, I don’t photograph Mormon weddings, but thanks for contacting me”? I think you should. I think that you should be able to choose who you work for, when, and for whatever reasons you choose. I do not think you should be forced by the government to be involved in their celebration. I do not think they should be able to win a lawsuit against you, accusing you of discrimination. I think you should be able to choose, because I believe in freedom. Likewise, I think that individuals should be able to decline similar services to anyone they choose, for religious or personal convictions.

        As an aside, why would you want someone working for you who doesn’t want to? If a doctor or photographer didn’t want to work for me because of the color of my skin, or my political party, or whatever, I would rather they decline their services and refer me to someone who would be happy to serve me. I wouldn’t want my money going to a bigot. There are plenty of corporations out there that could care less who someone is sleeping with and will provide whatever service they desire. Why not just go to them, and let the close-minded religious bigots alone until they come around? Continually forcing and suing them will only prolong the bad tension.

      • Michael Ejercito

        Let’s say you are a photographer in California. A Mormon couple contacts you and asks you to photograph their wedding. You feel that the Mormon church has deeply damaged you, has worked hard to prevent you from having all the rights you deserve. You would rather not be involved in their wedding. Should you have that choice? Should you be able to say, “No, thank you, I don’t photograph Mormon weddings, but thanks for contacting me”? I think you should. I think that you should be able to choose who you work for, when, and for whatever reasons you choose. I do not think you should be forced by the government to be involved in their celebration. I do not think they should be able to win a lawsuit against you, accusing you of discrimination. I think you should be able to choose, because I believe in freedom. Likewise, I think that individuals should be able to decline similar services to anyone they choose, for religious or personal convictions.

        If the photographer is also the CEO of that business, she has that absolute right.

        If not, it depends on the nature of the employment agreement. In general, the photographer working for someone else should only have the right to do this and be protected from termination had she informed the employer of her objection before being hired.

      • Then would you say that you do NOT support the uproar that NOM and organizations of its ilk are creating over town and city clerks in NY state who find themselves needing to resign their positions as civil (NON-religious) wedding officiants and issuers of marriage licenses? And that, in fact, you support the premise that these people who find themselves at an impasse between the responsibilities of their job and their religious convictions SHOULD indeed be either required to perform their job or to leave their position (either of their own choice or have that choice made for them because they refuse to perform their job functions)? I was reading your thoughts above about “forcing” people to participate as including civil servants like town clerks who would, under legalized gay marriage, be asked to provide marriage licenses to same sex couples.

        I, for one, don’t entirely disagree with you about religious institutions. I don’t think that a minister should be forced to perform a religious gay marriage that is against their faith (my father is a southern baptist minister and has already refused to marry my partner and i when we get married this weekend when marriage in NY becomes legal for us). (Please note….that doesn’t mean I don’t think that viewpoint isn’t wrong-minded and bigoted, but I do acknowledge that that’s part of freedom….the freedom to have views that oppose my own even if I wish you didn’t). And, in fact, you’re right…..my father didn’t even really have to refuse to perform the ceremony because we had no intention of asking him because we don’t WANT to be married in a religion that hates us or by a representative of a faith that hates us. And would I want a homophobe to photograph our wedding? Of course not……

        …..but I think the issue gets greatly complicated by conversations about allowing civil servants like town clerks to have te right to deny marriage licenses simply because they don’t agree with them. ….and I think you even tread on some very thin ice when suggesting that doctors should be allowed to do so…or that as queer people we shouldn’t WANT to be treated by a homophobic doctor or have ourmarriage license issued by a homophobic town clerk…..but what if we have no choice or power in the matter? What if we live in a very rural small town with limited options? And the only town clerk or doctor we have available to us ALSO happens to be the one whose homophobia and “relibious convinctions” prevent tem from providing us a necessary (and legal) service?

      • I’m glad we can find some common ground. If a public employee doesn’t want to perform marriages, it would be up to their employer to decide if they would rather fire them or allow them to just perform other functions. When they took these jobs, performing SSM was not part of the description. I don’t think clerks are denying people licenses, just referring them to a different clerk (or a different employee, in a different industry). If they live in a rural area, then there may be difficulties. But that’s just a result of the choices they make. I’ve been told that if I don’t want my children taught about homosexual sex in the schools, I can just home school them. That seems less simple to me than simply asking for notice before such topics are taught, but that’s the kind of thing you deal with in life. If I want to choose to teach my children about homosexuality when and how I want to, then I’ll have to make hard choices, maybe even move to a different school district that will accommodate me. The government doesn’t exist to ensure everyone has an easy, convenient life, free from offensive interactions and hurt feelings.

        Those just deal with some of the religious factors, though. There are other reasons I don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed. As mentioned in my other posts, I really can’t see how we can fight for marriage equality without opening marriage to polygamy and incest. People think that’s extreme, or inflammatory, but Justice Thomas has said that Supreme Court precedent has been set for such things.

      • I would also like to say; not supporting SSM does not mean an individual or group hates you. That word is used a lot, and it’s simply inaccurate. There are surely some, just as there are some that hate any group of people. But just because someone has differing views on this issue, enough so that they would fight against your desire to marry, does not in any way indicate hate. There are plenty of opposing groups on every issue, but fighting against congress’s right to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t mean I hate them any more than fighting against legalizing marriage laws means I hate those who want them passed. I’m sincerely sorry if you honestly feel that it’s true, but it’s not. I’m sure discussion would be much improved if such extreme words were not used.

      • Then would you say that you do NOT support the uproar that NOM and organizations of its ilk are creating over town and city clerks in NY state who find themselves needing to resign their positions as civil (NON-religious) wedding officiants and issuers of marriage licenses? And that, in fact, you support the premise that these people who find themselves at an impasse between the responsibilities of their job and their religious convictions SHOULD indeed be either required to perform their job or to leave their position (either of their own choice or have that choice made for them because they refuse to perform their job functions)?

        One problem is that many of these town clerks took their positions before the law was enacted. At the time of employment, they did not expect having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

        Another problem is that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the NYPD rountinely deny pistol permits to people who have no statutory impediment in possessing pistols. In many of those “May-issue” jurisdictions, applicants are often required to demonstrate “need” before being issued a permit, and in many cases celebrities and the politically-connected are found to be in n”need” of pistol permits far more often than everyone else. If Bloomberg and the NYPD have discretion in issuing and denying pistol permits, why should not town clerks have that exact same discretion in issuing marriage licenses?

  12. Really loved the article here as it addressed the matter. This is the biggest reason why I oppose SSM. It does violate our Constitution in giving others what you do not have. The whole homosexual argument is based on a faulty pretense. They get one intrepretation of the Constitution while everyone else has to abide by it. The simple fact of the matter is if the homsexuals were forced to abide by the same rules and intrepretations of the Constitution there whole argument would collapse completely.
    Take any so called gay right argument and take out the word gay and substitute someone else. For example a nudist or a Mason. If they made the same identical arguments do they pass constitutional law? No. Sorry Americia only we the priviledged homosexuals get this special intrepretation of the Constitution.
    You mentioned polygamy. Notice how these arguments do not apply to them.

  13. Yes Alex I have read the Constitution. You ignored my whole post and its point. The homosexuals are very deceitfull. They use the same Constitution but demand an intrepretation exclusively for themselves.
    For example the civil rights laws in regards to being equal apply to people and not circumstances, actions, or conduct. Yet they demand just that. They demand something that no other American can have.

  14. I’m just going to leave this here.

  15. Don’t bother and waste your time on this worthless video. It is just the same old lies that we have proven wrong over and over again. Besides redefining marriage they wish to redefine equality and minority to something that it is not. A definition that only applies to them and no other American.
    These people are also demanding an intrpretation of the Constitution that only applies to them and no other American.

    • It just burns my heart that anyone could think less of a person just because of who they are attracted to. Do you also think that homosexuality is a choice? If so, please tell me about how you chose to be straight.
      In replying to Pamela’s response to alex p. a bit above this (which for some reason I’m not able to reply directly to), what on earth does the first amendment have to do with marriage? Are you saying that others should be denied happiness (I may add that the right to the pursuit of happiness is also in the constitution) just because you worship a reportedly homophobic sky fairy?
      “Declared rights trump assumed rights” well yes, I agree. 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      Madam, you are abusing your freedom. Yes, you have the freedom to have a gun. Yes, you have the freedom to have religion. But you are not allowed to use your gun to take away the freedom of others. You are also not allowed to use your religion to take away the freedom of others. (In a similar anecdote, religion is like a penis: It’s fine to have one and be proud of it, but don’t force it on anyone else.) The top of your page says “Basically, I like my freedom.” Don’t you think that others like their freedom too?

      Now back to you, JN. You disgust me. Your unrefined hatefulness disgusts me. I doubt you even watched the video. I attempted to give a helpful point of view, clarifying the legal issues of homosexual marriage. The script for that play IS the transcript from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, the landmark trial of California’s Prop. 8. And you, like a child singing with his fingers stuck in his ears, trash the video, claiming “lies that we have proven wrong.” You may think that, but only because you so puerilely refuse to listen to any counterargument at all.
      “Besides redefining marriage they wish to redefine equality and minority into something that it is not.” I have three issues with this statement:
      1) Exactly where, in this video that you didn’t watch, did “they” say this? When at all did anyone actually try to redefine any of those things?
      2) Just your general lack of grammar leaves you seeming a bit uneducated. This is the internet, that sort of thing actually matters.
      3) Okay, dictionary, here we go.
      equality: n. The state of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
      minority: n. a group differing, especially in race, religion, or ethnic background, from the majority of a population.
      What were they trying to change it to? How it this not true? As for equality, how does giving homosexuals the right to legal marriage make anything unequal? Or how does preventing homosexual marriage preserve equality? It doesn’t. At all. And as for minority- I can’t tell exactly what you mean by that. Are they trying to say that they are or aren’t a minority? And either way, how does it help your argument to say that they are a minority? Being a minority does not change a person’s rights. Back to amendment 14- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. (Even if they’re not heterosexual caucasian christians.)
      “These people are also demanding an intrpretation of the Constitution that only applies to them and no other American.”
      I despise that this even has to be said: No. “These people” aren’t demanding their own personal version of the Constitution. How do you even get that idea? They want an interpretation different than the one that you have personally chosen, but fear not; it would apply nationwide, not just to gays. You, too, would have the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, if that’s what floats your boat. But you just blindly assume wrongdoing to those whom you just as blindly oppose. You spout lies and bigotry. That, sir or madam, makes you a bully. Just as bad as the middle school jocks pushing around the skinny kids, or the high school cheerleaders trashing the girls who don’t “fit in.” A bully, plain and simple.

      I do have hope, however. Once upon a time, not so long ago, black people had fewer rights than white people. Through many years of struggle, however, they were finally accepted as full citizens of the United States, and as such were granted equal rights. Back then, people who supported equality were frowned upon and dismissed, just like you are dismissive of me and my point of view. But as a nation, we grew, and eventually accepted all races as equals. Some day soon, we will grow as a nation to accept all sexual orientations as equals, and grant their rights as such. Until then, I can only hope that people learn to respect the beliefs of others and not be as ignorantly rude and hateful as you have shown yourself to be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: