I now pronounce you…?
Why is there such an uproar and seeming confusion on the issue of instituting law recognizing marriage as the union between one man and one woman? It seems simple enough… if you think about it. If you plot out the stats:
Percentage of populace that finds the practice of heterosexual union offensive: <1%
Percentage of populace that finds the practice of homosexual union offensive: >1%
I would venture to guess that those who would promote the idea that unions diverging from the heterosexual norm (one man and one woman) would rest on the assertion that “if it’s right for you, then it’s ok… it’s good”. So by that rationale, the viewpoint that heterosexual marriage is the only morally acceptable norm is as equally valid a viewpoint as the idea of other types of unions, and they can therefore, by their own assertion, not be offended by heterosexual marriage. Now, knowing this, let’s restate those stats:
Percentage of populace that legitimately find the practice of heterosexual union offensive: 0%
Percentage of populace that legitimately find the practice of homosexual union offensive: >1%
The process of legislation is the governmental adoption of some moral viewpoint (an assertion of something that is “right” versus something that is “wrong”). On this issue, the only viewpoint that seems to be universally valid and patently non-offensive is that of the union between one man and one woman.
Why shouldn’t this then be the only form of union recognized by the law?
Further, if legislation were to pass that recognized some union other than the heterosexual norm as protected or privileged, what then is to bar the legal recognition of other kinds of unions that some (likely greater) percentage of the populace finds morally offensive, such as those brought about by incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia? Would those positions not be rendered equally valid by the rationale that “if it’s right for you, then it’s ok”?
Before you comment, if your angle is:
- Tolerance: “you’re just being intolerant”. By what definition? By saying I’m intolerant, aren’t you being intolerant and judgmental of my viewpoint? Who are you to judge?
- Freedom: “people should be free to do what they want to do as long as they’re not hurting anyone else”. I’m not saying they’re not free to do what they want. I’m talking about what’s recognized by law as being worthy of protected / privileged status under the law. Any why is this argument any better than “people should be free to do what they want as long as it adheres to what is morally acceptable”? Which angle of this freedom argument is truly more justified? (Granted, “what is morally acceptable” is at first assumed to be subjective by most people, but when pressed on the matter, we find people do actually believe in objective morals, but this should probably be dealt with separately.)
Percentage of populace that finds the practice of heterosexual union offensive: 1%
WOW… I think we should add in at least one more fact…
1. Percentage of populace that finds the recognition and protection of only heterosexual union offensive >1%
And I am sorry but I do believe our government is not here to protect the rights of the majority but to protect the rights of the minorities…
Comment by Zach — 2/19/2008 @ 6:29 pm
Sorry need to flame this post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
but maybe everyone should only be protected if they have the same belief as you…
Comment by Zach — 2/19/2008 @ 6:37 pm
Here is another link - http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm
Comment by Zach — 2/19/2008 @ 7:25 pm
Well I’m glad someone finally wrote. I was beginning to think no one was reading anymore. I love talking about this stuff.
Regarding the “one more fact” point, I am curious on what grounds the argument (and the supporting populace) stands when it claims that the recognition of solely heterosexual unions is morally offensive?
Regarding the government protecting the rights of minorities, I agree with your statement and the supporting link you sent and don’t believe any of this negates the statements in my post. In the context of this discussion, however, I assume your definition of “minority” includes groups who claim minority status on the basis of their sexuality. The link you sent to support your statement seems to define minorities based on characteristics of their humanity that have at some point either historically or in the present have been the basis by which they have been denied basic human rights. I believe all people, regardless of sexuality, are already afforded protected status under the law on the basis if their humanity and guaranteed these basic human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I couldn’t find anything in the supporting link that came right out and designated a minority class based on sexuality. “Social practices” was the closest I could get, but it’s debatable as to whether this refers to or includes sexuality.
If you are indeed claiming non-heterosexuals should be designated as a minority on basis of their sexuality, can you provide evidence where the government has sanctioned or tolerated denial of life to a person on the basis of their sexuality (Life)? Evidence where the government has imposed oppressive restrictions on a person’s way of life, behavior or political views on the basis of their sexuality (Liberty)? Evidence that it has ever been against federal law to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle (Pursuit of Happiness)?
That said, even if there is evidence for the above (which there probably is), I don’t believe legislation that recognizes marriage as the union between one man and one woman denies non-heterosexuals any of their basic human rights. I believe my point still stands.
I don’t think I need to address the link to the Equal Protection Clause as it pretty clearly states that the courts (thus far) appear to agree with me that “suspect class” need not be extended to non-heterosexuals.
In regard to your sneer about my belief, I think I’ve stated in more than one way here that I am not in favor of any legislation that restricts the basic human rights of anyone based on their sexuality. I would encourage you to do some serious study on the context in which our nation was founded, the beliefs of those who crafted the documents central to its foundations, and the basis by which the practice and interpretation of law was established in this country.
Comment by jwigdahl — 2/20/2008 @ 12:27 am