Same sex marriage

Since setting up this blogspot, I've been trying to narrow down a topic to expand on. Leave it to the Holy Spirit to provide opportunies! A friend commented on a post I made regarding the California Supreme Court upholding the passage of prop 8. I'll post her response in italics and my reply below.

What Dan said. :-) I can understand you and others being against same-sex marriage for moral reasons. From a legal standpoint, however, I don't get what the big deal is. I know you think they are afforded all of the same rights as married couples already without the benefit or marriage, but that's not really true. They are still lacking in a lot of areas. My biggest question(s) to you, as a true opponent of same sex marriage, what does it really matter to you if Jack and John are allowed to be married? Like I said, I understand your moral objection. I get that. I'm talking legally here. If they were to allow it, how does it affect you as a fellow citizen from a legal standpoint? Does it? I'm not trying to start a big argument or tell you you're wrong. Like Dan, I'm open to the discussion and trying to see the other side.

The first thing I would challenge you on is whether or not they already enjoy equal civil rights. You say they are still lacking in a lot of areas. Like what? Which specific civil rights are they still lacking? I’m not aware of any. If, in fact, they are, then the prudent course would be to seek to have legislative measures employed to address any imbalance. Frankly, this would also be the path of least resistance. I can’t think of a single group or religion, especially Catholicism, that doesn’t support equal civil rights for all citizens. 

Secondly, it’s difficult to completely separate moral and legal arguments as they are both derived from the same source: God. The Declaration of Independence affirms that, referring to the laws by which a group of people to govern themselves, “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, …” The Judeo-Christian roots of our laws (federal and state) are also quite evident: prohibitions against theft, the taking of innocent life, etc. However, I will attempt to address your questions without specific references to a particular set of dogmas or doctrines, ok?

Marriage always has been, is now and always will be a union of one man and one woman in an enduring bond. This is consistent with biology and natural law, regardless of religion, and should be obvious to all. It is a mutual personal gift between the two that serves the couple in many ways, allowing them to grow in love and, through that love, to bring forth children.

Next, it’s important to understand why societies, for millennia, have always defined marriage as being the union of a man and woman. For a society to thrive and flourish it must have new members. Marriage provides the most stable family structure for the raising of children, which allows a civil society to grow and flourish. Common sense and a vast amount of empirical evidence reveal that children’s welfare is best served, in most cases, by their being reared in a stable home with their mother and father. This fact has been recognized by societies for time out of mind. Recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, and encouraging this union, serves societies best interests. Well reared children who live with their mother and father are much more likely to grow to be good citizens. Good citizens create wealth, stability and security for the members of the society. 

I think the real question that isn’t being addressed is: “Why is the term ‘marriage’ so important to those driving the same sex union bandwagon?” Simple. It would denote acceptance and approval by a majority of citizens at the societal level. Both of which have been demonstrated not to exist when brought directly to the people of California, twice now. Equal civil rights? Yes. Redefine marriage? No. 

The real issue in the movement for “same sex marriage” is less one of benefits. It’s more about societal acceptance and approval and the means with which this movement has chosen to pursue them. The state does not have the “right” to redefine the definition of an institution whose existence spans thousands of years and crosses every culture and is rooted in natural law. Nor does the state have the “right” to legislate my acceptance or approval of a relationship which every fiber of my being tells me is disordered according to biology, natural law, common sense and moral law.

So, let me take a stab at your question, “How does it affect me from a legal standpoint?” If successful, this movement would further erode and devalue marriage, forcing yet another unstable element into an increasingly unstable society, primarily made so by our “enlightened society” over the past 40 years or so. It would also overrule the will of the majority of the people of this state who felt, and voted, as I did. It would mean that an “enlightened” minority would be able to dictate to the majority, for their own good. There’s a word for that. It’s called tyranny – the opposite of liberty.