Same-Sex Marriage is Not Today’s Replay of Interracial Marriage

By Tom Gilson Published on June 19, 2017

June 12 was the 50th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that made interracial marriage legal across the United States. So someone was bound to publish an article, claiming that arguments made against same-sex marriage today are just like arguments made against interracial marriage fifty years ago. Therefore (so it goes) people who oppose same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, just like those who once opposed marriage between races.

I’ll be glad to agree with them. Sure, the arguments are the same. There’s no difference at all! Just like there’s no difference between a man and a mouse.

Take Dave Singleton’s article at Salon.com. For the most part it’s a story — a moving and very personal one, at that. He tells what it was like when he found out it was his godfather and uncle, Robert McIlwaine, who had argued the state’s position against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court in the Loving case.

It’s a great read, except for the errors he makes here:

The similarity in language used by lawyers arguing on both sides of interracial and gay marriage is undeniable. I’ve heard the same faulty logic used in Loving v. Virginia applied to gays and lesbians: Gay marriage is a sacrilege that will topple society, and heterosexual marriages will suffer. One state shouldn’t have to accept what another state legitimizes. And what about the kids Adam and Steve aren’t fit to raise? Unless reared by Adam and Eve, they will be messed up, scorned by society and miserable.

Yes, there’s “similarity” there. Humans and mice have a lot in common, too. Mice and men both have four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth and hair. Therefore what’s true for men is true for mice, right? Sure — if you ignore all the differences. That’s what Singleton did here.

Same-sex marriage could never have been anything but an exception — if anyone even thought about it, that is.

Those differences are plenty. I’ll focus on just four of them.

1. Common Beliefs Across All of Humanity

Unlike the situation with same-sex marriage, people in general have never taken it as given that there’s something wrong with marriage between races. As Francis Beckwith wrote in a very helpful 2010 Public Discourse article, common law never put forth any ban on marriage between races. That means that “interracial marriage was a common-law liberty,” of a sort that could only be turned back by laws specially written to have that effect. Some states wrote those laws to that end, but they were the exception, not the rule.

Same-sex marriage, in contrast, could never have been anything but an exception — if anyone even thought about it, that is, which never happened until just a few years ago.

2. Interracial Marriage was “Wrong,” Same-Sex Marriage Didn’t Exist

Some states made interracial marriages illegal — but just as an illegal left turn is still a left turn, those illegal marriages were still marriages. Those states might have considered them harmful marriages, the wrong sort of marriages, and ultimately illegal marriages, but they still considered them marriages. Beckwith reminds us (quite sensibly) that it would have made no sense to write laws against people of different races getting married, unless it was in some real sense possible for them to marry.

All this is completely different when it comes to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t the case (as it had been with interracial marriage) that same-sex couples were getting married, and lawmakers decided to call it off because they thought it was wrong or harmful. There was nothing there to call off. Same-sex marriage didn’t even exist. The Supreme Court in 2015 didn’t just declare it legal, as they had in the Loving case; the Court actually created a new thing that had never existed before, except in those few states that had already done the same thing before then.

In fact, as Beckwith points out, same-sex marriage has a lot in common with these former laws against marriage between races. Both of them rely on state coercion to define marriage in terms of something other than the natural, historic understanding of male and female uniting as a couple and to build a family.

3. Interracial Marriage was Banned, Same-Sex Marriage Wasn’t

The matter of how marriage is defined has always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage.

Look at it this way: Same-sex marriage was never banned. It was never even “against the law.” While some states banned marriage between races, no state ever did that with same-sex marriage. Instead states took it to be non-existent simply by the way marriage was defined.

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision two years ago was very different from Loving, for it reversed no ban. Instead it created a new definition for marriage. Rather than letting marriage be defined as it always has been: the lifelong committed union between a man and a woman, whose natural expectation is (for the great majority) the building of a family, the court made it something else entirely, the law. It became, for the first time, the committed union of any two adults who get along together, and probably have a romantic attraction to each other.

4. How Marriage is Defined

And that matter of how marriage is defined has always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage. The single most influential work against same-sex marriage was a paper by three scholars for the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, followed by a book on the same topic by the same authors. Both works centered on the definition of marriage. There is something that marriage is, they say; there is something that makes marriage marriage, and that something necessarily includes the male-female aspect. Their reasons for that go far beyond the social effects Singleton lists in his article (and beyond what I have room to discuss here).

That’s not to say no one has ever put forth other arguments besides these. Singleton names a few of them (with a dismissive sneer). But those arguments are like ears, nose and hair: they tell part of the story, but they don’t omit some of the knowledge that counts the most.

Summary: A Man or a Mouse?

Let me summarize before I close.

Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are just too different to be called the same sort of thing.

Some states made decisions contrary to the rest of the country and against most of history. They decided marriage between races was a bad idea, so it should be banned.

In contrast to that, no state has ever banned same-sex marriage. Until an eye blink of history ago, no state ever took action against it because it was a bad idea. Instead, marriage was always, by definition a relationship for opposite-sex couples. There are good reasons it was defined that way. That definition and its reasons have always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage.

I’m sure Dave Singleton can tell a man from a mouse. I’m sure he knows differences matter, even where similarities may also exist. In the matter of marriage, though, he ignores real differences that really exist. Either that, or else he hides them.

Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are just too different to be called the same sort of thing.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    I believe interracial marriage is bad, and I should be free to reject those who engage in it, but I don’t believe it should be illegal. If a man, of any race, marries a woman of any race, it is still a marriage, provided they meet the other qualifications. Every marriage must have both a husband and a wife. That is only possible if a man marries a woman. That is one reason “same-sex marriage” is not marriage and never can be. There is no husband, or wife in a “same-sex marriage”, and without both, there can be no marriage.

    • Charles Burge

      Curious… why do you think interracial marriage is bad? Skin color is just one genetic trait among many. Would it be bad for a man with brown eyes to marry a woman with blue eyes? What about a marriage between a right-hander and a left-hander?

      Did you know that Moses had an Ethiopian wife? At no place does scripture condemn him for that (though it does note he had domestic tension stemming from other, unrelated factors).

      • Gary

        It is obvious, at least to me, that God made differences of race in people. I don’t know why God did that, but He did. Its a difference that I don’t feel qualified to tamper with by producing mixed race children. If there are no children involved, then that eliminates one problem I see with it.

        • Charles Burge

          Sorry but I think you haven’t been reading the Bible correctly. 🙂
          What it does say is that all humans are “one blood”. We’re all descended from Adam, so really there’s only one race – the human race. Like I said above, skin color is just as superficial as hair color or eye color. And if you’re going to start drawing arbitrary lines, where do you draw them? Should a Finn not marry an Italian? Should a Japanese not marry a Maori? If you pursue that line of thought, I think it begins to get rather silly.

          • Gary

            We disagree. Are you in a mixed race marriage, or have friends or relatives who are?

          • Charles Burge

            Yes, though my opinion would be the same even if the answer were different.

          • Gary

            Maybe.

          • Jim Walker

            Many people have mixed race in the US.
            I have a friend who has a Chinese surname but she is black, another whose half Japanese and many more mixed, some with 4 races.
            For all you know, you maybe 1/10 Chinese.
            Therefore, please remove the filters from your eyes and look at everyone with God’s eyes.

          • Gary

            I have some Cherokee in my ancestry. That does not mean I would marry a Cherokee, or want my children to. And it does not mean I am hostile to Cherokees. It just means I oppose interracial marriage.

          • Jim Walker

            Why do you oppose to interracial marriage?

          • Gary

            See my reasons in my other comments here.

    • GPS Daddy

      I know Christian couples who are in ‘mixed’ marriages. I know their children. Awesome God fearing children who passionitly love Jesus. One couple in particular puts both my wife and I to shame in the strength of their faith.

      • Gary

        OK.

        • GPS Daddy

          So let’s put two and two together. These couples are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Clearly Jesus is the author of their marriages. While you have the “legal” right of association you do not have the spiritual freedom to separate yourself from these people if you were to find yourself in their presence. Doing so would be a sin.

          • Gary

            It is not necessarily a given that Jesus is the “author of their marriages”. And we all choose who our friends are. There are many people who claim to be Christians who I choose to stay away from.

          • Andrew Mason

            Thanks for the responses you gave above. I find it an interesting albeit very unusual perspective so I’m trying to get my head around it. Note I have very close friends in mixed-race God fearing relationships so obviously see things differently to you.

            From what I understand your position is that the obvious differences between the races is proof that God means for the races to be kept separate, but that the Bible doesn’t explicitly prohibit interracial marriage. And if I’m understanding your argument, children of mixed race ancestry need to select their race – in your case White (I assume) rather than Cherokee (is that a race?), and marry within it. Is this correct?

            How then are you defining race? I presume you’d be opposed to a Black and an Asian marrying, but what of those Blacks who naturally possess Asiatic features – the Khoisan perhaps? And what of northern Asians who despite possessing standard Oriental features, possess skin as white, or whiter, than your own? Do you consider race a matter of skin “colour” or features? What of the union of a member of the red haired green eyed Irish race and the blond haired blue eyed Germanic race? Have you ever considered that the concept of race is a modern construct and a dangerous one at that, and best replaced by the Biblical kinds? Please don’t think I’m trying to pick on you, I’m genuinely curious about what is, to me, a novel perspective. Oh as a final question, assuming you’re willing to put up with my questions, and assuming you do indeed reject all the above, would you consider a brown haired brown eyed White man marrying a brown haired brown eyed White woman a valid marriage if only one of the two is Christian, or would you consider it unBiblical irrespective of what the law says?

          • Gary

            The Bible prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. I’m not trying to tell others what to do about interracial marriage. I am Scots-Irish, but I would not refuse to marry someone who was English, German, French, etc. as long as I was satisfied with their ancestry.

          • Jim Walker

            Now I know, you just can’t accept people with yellow, brown and black skin tones especially people with slitty eyes ?
            Maybe you should mix around with these people more, they are nice people, much better than those white Christians you choose to stay away from.

          • Gary

            I’m sure some of them are nice. That does not mean I would want them as family members.

          • Do you consider yourself a white supremacist, Gary?

          • Gary

            What is a “white supremacist”?

          • Andrew Mason

            Oh we don’t think you’re trying to tell anyone what to do, it’s just some of us are confused about exactly what your position is. You’ve not defined race, though have suggested Scots, Irish, English, German, and French are sufficiently similar to be acceptable, that Cherokee is something else, and that yellow, brown, and black skinned people, especially those with slitty eyes, are unacceptably different. It almost sounds to me as if you’re conforming to some sort of evolutionary concept of distinct Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid races. That being said such a breakdown does exclude some white skinned folk and includes the likes of Arabs and Indians whereas I’m guessing you’d exclude both.

            By the by, I agree with you that Christians are told not to be unequally yoked.

        • Andrew Mason

          Given Jesus’ ancestry includes interracial marriage would you mind explaining why you think such marriages are bad? Is it a cultural incompatibility thing or something?

          • Gary

            See my replies above.

          • Jim Walker

            With all due respect Gary, this is the side that we all never knew.
            You give me the impression you are a lighter version of the KKK.

    • Jim Walker

      “I believe interracial marriage is bad, and I should be free to reject those who engage in it”.
      This is a rather racist remark… So you will object to your child marrying someone of different race or color ? What if the person is a Christian ? I can’t pick and choose my kids’ spouse but I guide them to make the right choices and 1st in my rule book is to be of equally yoke.

    • porcupineman1454

      Gary, I have to disagree and wonder what Biblical evidence you have to support your opinion that “interracial marriage is bad.” I do have a personal bias around this, having been happily married almost 21 years to my half Chinese, half Columbian wife. We have four children, and we’re all God-fearing Christians who obey the Word and meditate on it often. I see nothing wrong with our family stucture as illuminated by the advice and commands in the Bible, but hey, perhaps you can lead me to an epiphany I’ve been missing all these years.

      • GPS Daddy

        Very good question. I can’t think of a single passage in the Bible that could even be twisted to support the idea that “interracial marriage is bad.”

      • GPS Daddy

        If Gary is going to discriminate based on skin color then how about skin tones? Can a very black persons marry a lighter black persons? If body features are a big deal to God then what about the differences between Asians? Japanese verses Chineses verses Korean? Certinally Gary’s theological views has to address these!

        • porcupineman1454

          I would go one step further. To prevent “miscegenation”, no one should marry anyone who isn’t A) the same race, and B) their first cousin. Problem solved!

          • GPS Daddy

            From Gary’s irrational presupposition a whole pharasitcal system of rules can be made to be sure we did not offend the one who made us all.

      • Gary

        I don’t know of any Biblical evidence that prohibits interracial marriage. But, to me, its logical because of the very obvious differences God made in people. If God wanted everyone to look alike, people would not look different. When people of different races have children, they are blurring the lines that God obviously made.

        • Jim Walker

          Oh I see, so do you consider yourself a “blur” race ?
          You are part Cherokee.
          By your logic, if everyone thinks like you, and since you are not a “pure” race, no one will marry you because you are a “blur”.

          • Gary

            Most people don’t think like me. No one would know I have any Cherokee ancestry by looking at me. I can’t help the mistakes my ancestors made. I try to learn from the mistakes of others and try not to repeat them.

          • I don’t understand, Gary. You make it sound as though various races appeared in different places completely independent of each other. Doesn’t tradition say they all go back to Adam & Eve?

          • Gary

            The Bible says the first two people were Adam and Eve.

          • So that makes us all interrelated, right?

          • Gary

            We all descended from Adam and Eve.

          • So isn’t that the same thing?

          • Gary

            We are all people, but there are many differences between us, including race, that make intermarriage a bad idea.

          • Jim Walker

            I guess your wife isn’t as picky as you.

        • porcupineman1454

          There is no evidence in the Bible to support what you have said, and you even admit it. I admire your honesty when you admit that nothing you said is Biblically based and you’re going off your own feelings and biases, but that doesn’t mean I can remotely respect your opinion.

          Moses and Ruth are two Biblical people who were interracially married. Numbers 12:1 reads. “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.” For their criticism, “The anger of the LORD burned against them, and he left them.”

          I don’t see any Biblical, scientific or rational evidence that suggests different races should keep to themselves. Neither do you, but at least you admit it.

          • Gary

            Then you can mix with other races all you want. And I can avoid you all I want.

  • While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t define “marriage,” the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

    Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

    Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

    This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

    The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

    • Gary

      You won’t mind if I don’t accept ssm as being real marriage, will you?

      • Of course I don’t mind. It’s no skin off my back. You don’t have to go to any Gay weddings. You don’t have to have any Gay friends. And you can preach hellfire and damnation against Gay people until the cows come home. Have at it.

        But there are three reasons why marriage equality for Gay couples is becoming a non-issue, even among conservatives:

        1: The LGBT community has simply done a much more articulate job of stating our case for marriage equality than the anti-Gay side has in stating their case against it. While they have spoken in abstractions, we have personalized the issue.

        2: Unlike 30 years ago, most people today are AWARE of friends & family members who are Gay, and with that awareness has come vastly increased acceptance and support.

        3: People know that getting married is preferable to simply shacking up together. And the friends and family members that the couple makes that solemn commitment before will act as a social support system within which the couple can better honor their vows. It doesn’t matter whether the couple in question is Straight or Gay.

        • Gary

          Why is getting married preferable to shacking up?

          • You don’t think so? Marriage provides a legal and social incentive for a couple to honor their commitment to one another.

          • Gary

            Marriage is better than shacking up because sex outside of marriage is a sin. If that were not the case, there would be no reason for marriage. People can commit to each other without marriage. But, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Marriage can NEVER be the union of two men, or two women.

          • “Marriage can NEVER be the union of two men, or two women.”

            You are free to believe that, despite what the law says.

          • Gary

            It is a fact. The law is wrong. A marriage MUST have both a husband and a wife. A “ssm” has neither so it can’t be a marriage.

          • Fine, Gary. Live your life.

          • Jackie

            Can I point out how much same sex ‘marriages’ harm the children that have to grow up in these situations? They are old enough to speak out against them now, and do, despite loving their ‘parents’ they know for a fact how it distorts and impairs even normal social interaction among peers.

          • Jim Walker

            You obviously don’t even understand the real meaning of a marriage.

          • According to YOU, Jim? Or the meaning of civil marriage under the law?

          • Jim Walker

            The Bible.

          • Oh, of course. Well, neither the Bible nor Christianity are mentioned in the Constitution. It’s not the job of our government to uphold The Bible, but rather to uphold the Constitution. And there was never an constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

          • Gary

            The US Constitution does not have rules for marriage. It does not prohibit heterosexual only marriage. It does not require ssm to be legal. The Constitution cannot be used to support ssm.

          • Jim Walker

            You go on with your life.

          • Andrew Mason

            Just to throw a curveball into this particular debate, what about those folk given an ecclesiastical marriage, but who are simply shacked up as far as the government is concerned? There are churches that arehave considered adopting this model. If the government insists on perverting marriage why should the churches support the government in their efforts? A church marriage licence + a name change and you’re Mr & Mrs.

          • It raises the question of what differentiates a “civil marriage” from a “sacramental marriage.”

            As long as they aren’t benefiting from tax dollars, churches and mosques and synagogues have always been free to conduct their own affairs as they see fit. If an Atheist couple wanted to have their wedding ceremony inside a church simply because they found the environment aesthetically pleasing, the church wouldn’t be obliged to open its doors to them (although a big donation from the couple might help matters.

            In any case, couples do not need church approval to obtain a civil marriage license. And none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church.

          • Andrew Mason

            Er any marriage benefits are jurisdiction specific and those advocating for homosexual marriage whilst proclaiming inequality, oddly reticent about what those inequalities might be. The big one I’ve seen is that foreign jurisdictions don’t recognise unions other than marriage, to which I say good luck convincing the Saudi Arabian authorities that the bloke you’re in bed with is your legal spouse!!!

          • Visiting Saudi Arabia is no on my bucket list. And I DO grieve for all the Gay people in the world who are persecuted and killed. I wish there was more I could do about it. I do contribute financial support to OutRight Action International, formerly known as the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

          • Charles Burge

            That was actually the case for my ancestors, who were Swiss Mennonites. They had their own clergy (apart from the Catholic clergy recognized by the state), who officiated weddings. Since the state did not recognize their marriages, their children were considered illegitimate and therefore could not inherit property. This was, of course, an intolerable situation for them, and prompted them to eventually move to America. Granted, those were different times and inheritance laws are different now. Still, I think that’s an interesting part of my family history.

          • Fishcicle

            You’re entitled to your opinion about marriage. What I think is wrong is what used to happen to gay people: they would lose their jobs because of their orientation, be assaulted, maimed, or even killed. That’s what is wrong. That’s what I don’t want to see come back.

          • Gary

            They can work for someone who wants to hire them. Lots of people now accept homosexuals. You have to be careful where and when you assault someone now. The legal penalties are much greater than they used to be. That’s a bad thing in my opinion.

          • Fishcicle

            So you wouldn’t care if anyone assaulted you?

        • JP

          There has never been any real debate on homosexual “marriage” in society. There is no case to be made for homosexual “marriage” which is why it was done by courts and not by legislation of our lawmakers. The idea of a homosexual “marriage” is an impossibility. A marriage must have a husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. In homosexual “marriages” you don’t have that. Thus, no marriage.

          • Believe that if you like. The law says otherwise.

          • JP

            The law is corrupt. Not all laws are just and right. We see this with abortion. Abortion is legalized murder.

    • Jim Walker

      By your logic, any form of union is possible, a man and his pig, a woman and her dog, a pedophile and his littleness girlfriend etc up to your vivid imagination.
      The problem is these people want to force it down your throats to accept everything they do.

      • Right, Jim. And if you allow a man to marry a woman, you have to let him marry his daughter …. or his mother …. or as many women as he wants. I mean, it’s just LOGICAL, isn’t it?

        • Jim Walker

          By your logic yes. Not mine.

          • That’s not exactly what I meant, but whatever. Enlighten me: Why is it that allowing a Straight couple to marry does not logically lead to polygamy, but allowing Gay couples means that you have allow a woman to marry her dog?

          • Andrew Mason

            It depends on the legal system. In the West marriage is (or was) 1 eligible man + 1 eligible woman. It is (was) a rigid system that iswas therefore unable to accept or lead to polygamy. By instead defining marriage as whatever union a government arbitrarily deems to be marriage the concept is no longer fixed. If a government now decides a man and his daughter can marry, well that’s government marriage too.

          • Jim Walker

            Thanks Andrew Mason for your great explanation.

          • Natural marriage is marriage that’s oriented toward the building of families, and its limits are defined according to what is consistent with that purpose. That’s why its logic doesn’t lead to the strange places you propose, Chuck.

    • Chuck, that term you used — “marriage equality” — is a favorite in this debate. It’s also a red herring. Better, it’s a meaningless term, because it’s so context-dependent. No one believes in marriage equality; everyone believes in marriage equality, depending on the context.

      It’s a meaningless term, a red herring at best, yet SSM supporters like you continue to use it for its rhetorical effectiveness. It has emotional pull, even if it doesn’t mean a thing. Rhetoric is often misleading that way.

      Scroll to the search field at the top of the page here and search “pretending about marriage equality” for my article on that.

      • You’re wrong, meanwhile, to say nothing is happening to traditional marriage. Marriage culture has been growing weaker year by year for several decades. Gay marriage is a symptom, not a chief cause of that — until now, when the effect of gay marriage is to stamp this weakening marriage culture with approval, as if it were a good thing.

        • The idea that Gay couples getting married is going to weaken the institution of marriage is counterintuitive. If anything, it’s an ENDORSEMENT of marriage.

          • Gary

            Ssm is the perversion of marriage. It is illegitimately called marriage.

          • Az1seeit

            No, it’s not even marriage, since one needs a male and female for that. In your piece, you brought up the civil aspects of marriage. Therefore, don’t call it marriage, call it a civil union and we’re golden.

          • All the usual “family values” groups fought just as viciously against “civil unions” for Gay couples. And such “civil unions” were not recognized by the federal government.

          • Az1seeit

            And, they probably thought through it more than I have. Doesn’t change the fact that we now have unreality codified in our legal system.

          • It’s an endorsement of a seriously weakened form of marriage: marriage that exists almost exclusively for the satisfaction of the couple. This is the kind of marriage that’s been increasing among us for a few decades now, and the result of it has been to play badly into the overall breakdown of the family.

        • Jeremy L

          Being offered marriage would encourage gay people to be monogamous. If gay people really were all exclusively devoted to and aligned with a culture of promiscuity, why would they have fought so hard for marriage? Chuck is absolutely right. Gay marriage has done nothing but decrease the amount of promiscuity in the world. It is indeed counterintuitive to insist it somehow is increasing promiscuity.

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Hey Chuck, I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments. If I may, I would like to offer a few counterpoints. In your first paragraph, you correctly point out that the government has, historically, taken a vested interest in marriage by “scewing” various laws favor of traditional marriage. There’s a practical reason for that. The gov’t realizes that a couple can produce something that can be very dangerous to society – a child. The gov’t does not want that child to become reliant on welfare or mixed up in the criminal justice system, and therefore the gov’t wisely adopts rules and regs that favor and ease the rearing of that child by a mom and a dad.

      Your statement that this is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law is odd, because this is not a matter of discrimination and it never was. A “gay” man had as much to right to marry any woman he wanted to, same as me! No discrimination. The fact that they do not WANT to, or do not like that restriction does not mean they are not being treated equally. The SC fell into the logical trap of conflating discrimination with preference. One is constitutionally protected, the other is most decidedly not. The reason it is not is because that logic knows no bounds. Here’s an example. I don’t like being in the 40% tax bracket. Is it not discrimination that someone else can pay 30%, 20% 0% taxes? I do not get anything “extra” from the gov’t than someone else in a lower tax bracket. Using the same logic, since it is not my preference to pay 40% in taxes, I should be able to sue the gov’t as being discriminatory to my desires.

      Part 1 of 2

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Religious beliefs are very relevant to this discussion. The very concept of marriage is religious, and has been for as long as mankind has been around. See Genesis 1. The US is not a theocracy, but our nation was founded on religious principles (“we hold these truths to be self evident…”).

      Procreation and parenting are of utmost importance! See my discussion above regarding the gov’t view of parenting and children and why the gov’t promotes these things with favorable laws. You are correct that procreation is not a condition precedent to marriage. Procreation, however, can only come about between a man and a woman, and study after study clearly shows that a child raised by a mom and a dad in a stable marriage have a FAR FAR greater chance of becoming responsible and loving adult. Same sex unions cannot and do not offer that, and they never will.
      Part 2 of 2

      • Even couples who are utterly incapable of “consummating” their marriage are still able to marry. Couples do not even have to share the same home in order to be married. You just have to be two unrelated adults. Beyond that, the government doesn’t ask too many questions.

        • Jeremy L

          Thank you for “even couples who are utterly incapable of ‘consummating’ their marriage are still able to marry”. I HIGHLY doubt these people would protest, say, a man who is paralyzed from the waist down marrying a woman. They keep repeating, “It isn’t about love, it’s about having kids”, and yet they’ll make an exception for any heterosexual because they don’t mind heterosexuals. “We care about children” is a smokescreen for simply holding irrational animus towards gays for no reason other than they’re different.

  • Gary

    I’m praying that God will remove two more liberals from the US Supreme Court and that they will be replaced by people who will limit themselves to their proper constitutional roles. “Same-sex marriage” was forced on America by five corrupt, immoral judges. If just one of them had been a judge who is willing to abide by the US Constitution, ssm would still be illegal in most states.

  • Gary

    I question why Christians should feel any loyalty for or have any good will toward a government that sanctions homosexuality. The US Government has given God the finger, and by extension, given the finger to Christians.

    • Az1seeit

      Well…part of me wants to agree with you….except that Jesus and the apostles admonish us to respect those authorities. I take your point, however, and when I personally am required to either go along with the government’s foray into the Twilight Zone or suffer the consequences, I trust the Lord to be with me and guide my steps.

      • Gary

        God commands all governments to be moral. When they stop being moral, our obligation to respect them stops.

        • Charles Burge

          I’m pretty sure Paul would disagree with you on that point. When he was writing the book of Romans, Nero was emperor of Rome.

          • Jackie

            The Bible clearly states to follow the laws of man UNLESS those laws break one of the laws of God. Putting homosexuality as your idol is breaking the laws of God; just the same as making money your idol does.

          • Fishcicle

            Assaulting people is against the law. That’s what often used to happen to people for being gay. I would defend you against being assaulted for your orientation, your opinions, or anything else.

          • Gary

            Paul makes it clear that the government is obligated to be moral in its rules and in their enforcement. Legalizing ssm contradicts those obligations. Are you saying that because ssm is legal that we should accept it as being legitimate?

  • Fishcicle

    The way in which same-sex marriage is an exception is in being something says it is NOT okay to persecute people for their sexual orientation. It’s an exception that a lot of people get very upset about, something I don’t really don’t understand. How does consenting adults having sex together affect me or you? It DOESN’T affect me, as far as I can tell. How does it affect YOU? And if it’s prohibited by God, why not allow God to punish it? “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

    • Gary

      Are you suggesting that we accept homosexuals, or just try to ignore them?

      • Fishcicle

        I think either one would be acceptable. What would NOT be would be going back to the days when it was perfectly fine to persecute people for their sexual orientations and nothing else.

        • Gary

          But I like doing that.

          • Of course you do!

          • Fishcicle

            You like persecuting people? Is it also okay for people to persecute you?

    • Az1seeit

      I don’t care what consenting adults want to do in their bedroom: their. choice. I do care when you try to change reality and force everyone to accept it. I’m not a homophobe: I’m a…deceptionphobe. I don’t care what the subject, when you codify unreality, I am AFRAID of a culture/legal system that embraces it.

      • Fishcicle

        Then there’s a lot to be afraid of in our country right now, and I don’t think much of anyone is exempt from blame.

    • Jim Walker

      Fishcicle, anything that doesn’t affect you is OK ? How caring of you.
      We also don’t care what 2 consenting males do in their bedroom but they are now promoting and branding and normalize it in front of your kids (which will affect your kids)and pushing their way to use the toilet of their choice (which will affect your spouse when a fake transgender lurks to assault women in their bathroom), yes we will draw the line to care for all.
      We don’t believe LGBTQ is inborn. Its nurtured and an endocrine disorder.

      • Fishcicle

        I would try to normalize it too if I’d been persecuted (like losing jobs, being maimed or killed) for being homosexual. It’s interesting to me that the modern conservative movement was growing at the same time as the gay liberation movement, and for the same reason. Both groups got their messages out and worked to pass legislation they favored. Both groups felt they were looked down on at the time. That’s the way we’re supposed to solve problems in this country.
        What’s your evidence for saying homosexuality is nurtured and an endocrine disorder? Maybe it is, but I’d like to see the evidence.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          What persecution? How they being persecuted now ?
          What evidence are they born that way ?

          • Have you ever bothered to ask them?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Ask them what ?

          • Fishcicle

            Apparently a lot of people here think same sex marriage is horrible. How would you feel if you weren’t allowed to marry the woman you loved? Evidence they were born that way is anecdotal, so doesn’t close the case, but a lot of people have said they always felt they were different, liked to wear girls clothes at an early age, didn’t like activities (like sports) boys usually like, etc.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. With marriage. Are you fine, with accounts of equal marriage as its called, for poly marriage such as polygamy and incestrous marriage? If not why not?
            2. So the whole of science and politics must Change as well as the general public to account for a small minority. People must celebrate it or else. Something that once was labelled a psychological condition and still is aswell as other conditions must be ignored?
            3. Just because someone is in the LGBT community or is an LGBT activist doesn’t mean it’s true, the question is is it?!

  • Az1seeit

    Point 4 ends the discussion: marriage as defined is the union of a man and a woman. That makes the term “same sex marriage” an oxymoron. Just as water requires H2O…any other combination is not water. This is what is known as reality.

    Since we are all one race…human…there’s not even any such thing as “interacial” marriage. But, even if I accept the commonly held social construct of different human races, IRM still involved men and women, did not preclude the definition of marriage and is in no way even a social/cultural equivalent to SSM.

Inspiration
When It Looks Like We’re Getting Nowhere
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us