At 3/30/13 03:46 AM, Feoric wrote:
Okay, I think I get it now. So, you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, the benefits from joining the institution of marriage as a homosexual couple was never part of the original design. Thus, a redefinition of the institution is required or having the government out of the institution altogether.... Well, the definition of marriage has changed numerous times so I don't see what the problem here is.
It isn't simply a redefinition, it is the undermining of a government program. Polygamy, "interracial" marriages, and arranged marriage all still operate within the intended function of the institution (population increase). SSM, however, is a change which does not. All of these have their respective supporting/opposing arguments which may (have) result(ed) in a redefinition of "marriage." SSM is unique in that it lacks an equivalent return to the state. Its introduction opens the possibility for further alterations to the institution itself. I argue that SSM demands its own government program (open to heterosexual couples as well) - the purpose consisting of the arguments in favor of SSM.
He starts off with the claim that recognition of marriage is not a fundamental right. For starters, marriage itself need not be the "universal right" as much as the conditions included in protecting the marriage contract with the state if it's going to be a part of the institution. Courts have the ability to say that having one kind of couple being discriminated against in law represents an unacceptable contravention of their rights.
Agreed. But, "couple" means two individuals who meet the application requirements for the institution. So yes, declining this couple positive rights given to other applicable couples is discrimination.
however, the legal basis it found for extending equal protection to interracial marriage applies precisely as well to same-sex marriage.
It does not apply to SSM because SSM does not meet the requirements to apply for the institution. It is similar to the difference between denying an able-bodied African American from joining the military and denying a handicapped African American. One (the Loving example) is clear discrimination because the applicant meets the universal requirements set in place. The other (preverbal denial of SSM) is not discrimination because the applicant does not meet the universal requirements set in place.
Changing the institution to to apply to gay couples would then make denial of SSM discriminatory. Rejecting unfit candidates is not akin to rejecting fit candidates who are unappealing.
The "subsidies" both you and Adam talk about arrived from the ideology that the family is the fundamental unit of society at the time of their conception. The marriage benefits were originally thought to be incentives which would sustain what was deemed to be basic elements of American society, which is what I presume is what you were trying to say when you referred to the "American race" so I understand what you meant by that now.
How is this ideology antiquated? I, and countless sociologists still see a great necessity to strengthen the American family unit because it is the primary emotional, psychological, physical, and perhaps spiritual resource for any future citizen. It has been long observed that children who grow up in the traditional household are more likely to become confident, responsible, contributing members of society. By contrast, children who do not grow up in a traditional home are more likely to be socially impaired, anxious, depressed, irresponsible, and even less intelligent. A young human being requires the mother and father - as proven by recorded history, let alone evolutionary studies and simply observance of nature. The fact that Biblical followers support this vehemently does not make it incorrect or even outdated.
In psychologic and anthropologic studies, this observation is hardly revolutionary. The standard marriage structure is key to ensuring the development of children. Without it, the next generation becomes statistically poor, inefficient, and reckless - plus, they pass these hinderances onto future generations. I, personally, cannot see how any amount of monetary revenue can account for the decline of American society at its foundation. If a figure absolutely must be given to prove the product of traditional marriage, one would simply need to Google "Economy in the United States of America."
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
First off, it's absolutely irrelevant whether or not homosexuals relationships serve any interest to the state.
State institutions are designed to perform certain functions in order to better the community as a whole. Otherwise, they would be wasteful spending, and placed on the conservative chopping block daily. Marriage is government-sponsored only because it benefits the state - otherwise, it would still be a pure religious practice and these arguments would be moot.
Secondly, the state does not grant rights. No level of government grants rights. You have rights by virtue of being human.
An infringement upon a gay couple's right to have sexual relations or relationship would be an infringement upon a negative right or freedom. The government is not doing this. Marriage is not a negative right which is acquired from birth. It is a positive right, privilege, and institution which by its very definition cannot be discriminatory to applicants who do not meet the universal requirements.
Being "more passionate" and upset about an institution does not make it unconstitutional or obtrusive upon human rights.
Lastly, possibly the most absurd of all, is the notion that SSM advocates have the burden to prove what interest the state has in gay marriage. Consider how absurd of a notion this is -- this effectively implies that any level of government should have the ability to withhold rights to citizens until said citizens return something of equal or greater value back to the government.
It sounds absurd because SSM advocates are demanding an aid program on the basis of "human rights" which cannot apply to this topic. Institutions are meant to serve a purpose to the state. SSM does not serve a viable purpose beyond taking money from taxpayers so gays can call their relationship something more sentiment.
The U.S. Marines won't accept people without arms and legs just so they can say they are marines. Even if the USM were to enlist a handicap, what makes you think the act of denying him the same status as fully able marines constitutes discrimination? Handicaps cannot serve the same function to the Marines as a soldier. In the same way, gay couples cannot serve the same function to the state as married couples.
I understand that people think this is a rights issue. But, I have yet to hear an argument which would definitively indicate this. The lack of one is the reason the Supreme Court is tackling the issue.