A Week of Victories for Marriage Equality
Statement from Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director Jennifer C. Pizer
This is a week we all will remember: first Iowa, then Vermont, then D.C — all emphatically embracing equality, respect, and consistent treatment of all families under law. We have turned another critical corner in this equal rights movement.
A decade ago, Vermont opened an important back door when it created civil unions for same–sex couples. Now, after years of experience with that two–tier system, the Green Mountain State has decisively rejected the harms that come unavoidably with any class system and is inviting lesbian and gay couples in through the front door of marriage, just as it does for their heterosexual relatives, neighbors and co–workers. We congratulate the courageous elected officials who voted to over–ride the Governor's veto and our tireless colleagues at Vermont Freedom to Marry for their years of education and advocacy. We also congratulate our friends at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, whose victory in Baker v. Vermont made today's success possible.
Just four days ago, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Lambda Legal's case that same–sex couples cannot be excluded from marriage. They learned the lessons of Vermont, Connecticut, California, New Jersey and other places where civil unions and domestic partnerships reduce some of the harms to same–sex couples, but also marginalize and humiliate them by relegating them to second–class status. And today the District of Columbia Council acted on that lesson, too, by unanimously voting to recognize marriages of same-sex couples and moving closer to fairness.
Most Americans understand the degrading injuries of class systems. Our country always has been about a commitment to ending them. As Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia make crystal clear this week, understanding is dawning for more and more people that unequal treatment of lesbian and gay couples is just another caste system, and it is becoming increasingly obvious to people of good will that fairness, decency and the Golden Rule demand marriage equality for all.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
First, I think its important to understand the origin of the concept of marriage. Why does marriage exist at all. Logically, it is to preserve a family unit designed by nature to consist of a mother, father and children . Why then, is it necessary for same sex people to be married? Its not. EVERYONE IS EQUALLY entitled to marriage. Its just that the definition is that that institution (as defined by history and tradition and not by one faith alone) is between a man and a woman. Everyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. If you are born gay (something that is not provable at this point) you aren't able to get married to someone of the same sex just as someone who is born a bisexual can't marry a man and a woman or someone born a pedophile being able to marry a child. No one is saying you can't love one another. No one is saying you can't engage in whatever you want with whomever you want within the law. We're just saying that marriage, by historical and natural definition is between a man and a woman.
"If you are born gay (something that is not provable at this point) you aren't able to get married to someone of the same sex just as someone who is born a bisexual can't marry a man and a woman or someone born a pedophile being able to marry a child."
Yet, before, you said this:
"EVERYONE IS EQUALLY entitled to marriage."
According to you, opposite-sex marriage is not intrinsically heterosexual. Gay people can be in an opposite-sex marriage, right?
However, for some reason, you say same-sex marriage is intrinsically homosexual . But straight people could get in a same-sex marriage, right?
Which is it, Ericsl44? Is sexual preference tied or not tied to marriage? If sexual preference is tied to marriage, then you've just admitted that homosexuals do not have the same right to marriage. If sexual preference is not tied to marriage, then you've just admitted that marriage has nothing to do with sex (and therefore procreation).
Your move. ^ ^
Yes, people who engage in homosexual behaviors can be in a heterosexual legally defined marriage. Straight people cannot get into a same-sex marriage because the term same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. So there is no contradiction. Same-sex marriage does not exist by definition because that paring cannot reproduce without the aid of expensive science .
A couple of additional items to chew on:
1) I have no problem with gay people pursuing the same rights bestowed upon married people (hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc) as I believe any person should have the right to determine these things gay, straight, green or blue.
2) Do you believe that pedophiles should be entitled to marry children ? What about those with bestiality tendencies? What about polygamy? What about three way marriages for bisexuals? The point here is where is the line? Altering the definition of marriage certainly opens up a can of worms...
See, here's a very curious thing. Whenever I invoke Perez v. Sharp, people think I'm comparing same-sex marriages to interracial marriages. In a sense, I am, but I'm not equating the two. Let me explain.
"Yes, people who engage in homosexual behaviors can be in a heterosexual legally defined marriage."
The problem is that somebody who's -in love- with a person of the same sex would never want to do something like that. The only terminology from Perez v. Sharp I wish to invoke is the idea of marrying a "person of one's choice" (which I admit, I did not make explicit earlier).
Defining marriage from an opposite-sex perspective limits the "person of one's choice" part. That's not to say that all limitations are unreasonable, though. That's to say that we need to understand the meaning of marriage in order to understand its limitations.
"Same-sex marriage does not exist by definition because that paring cannot reproduce without the aid of expensive science ."
Opposite-sex couples who are sterile cannot reproduce without the aid of expensive science, and yet they're not barred from marriage. Why? Because clearly, marriage isn't about reproduction.
And if marriage isn't about reproduction, then it must be about that other thing you've conceded: love and commitment. Obviously, a same-sex couple can give just as much love and commitment to one another and to children as an opposite-sex couple can.
Re: Pedophiles, etc.: That's irrelevant to this discussion. Pedophiles, etc. will have to make their own case somewhere else.
That is the whole point. As for your court case - where in our Federal Constitution are all entitled to marriage - it doesn't say that. It says the inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means, yes, you can love whoever you want. But it doesn't mean that society has to create an institution that acknowledges that love and even better embraces that choice.
Now, on to your dodge. The theme of your and many other argument depends on a few premises the most significant of which is that people are born gay , don't have a choice and therefore cannot do anything about their current condition. My comparison to pedophiles is that if you believe homosexuals are wired that way innately, it stands to reason that pedophiles would be born that way as well - by the same logic. If that is then the premise, then why can't they marry the ones they love? Is that fair? The same can be said for many other types mentioned previously. That's how this is relevant.
If marriage is about reproduction, then why is it that sterile couples can get married?
How will you know if someone is sterile before they get married? Force them to try and reproduce before getting married? That then defeats the whole premise.
Oh, you mean, you don't want to administer a sterility test? Don't most states already require a blood test? What's one more test on top of that?
Only some states administer a blood test. But still, why can't we administer a sterility test?
These kinds of tests are much more expensive and invasive then a blood test. You seriously think its practical to implement them? Also, who's to say advances in medicine in the future wouldn't allow for a reverse of the sterility condition. This line of thinking is really absurd.