The following is an online discussion in response to Keith Olbermann’s comments on gay marriage. It’s somewhat lengthy, but I felt it was worth posting here at VBP. The conversation is between myself and a former Mormon missionary, references below as BW, who I served with in the Colorado Colorado Springs Mission. He continues to be active in the faith, while I have resigned my membership. It’s an interesting look at the pervasive arguments against gay marriage, and what I feel are the legal and moral arguments for it. I also thought the contrast between some very conservative thinking and my progressive ideas were pretty stark. I’ve not included parts of the conversation, specifically his last comments, as they are beyond the bounds of civil discourse.

I want to note that I’m not a lawyer, but do hope to be one someday. If you have anything to add to this discussion, especially a better understanding of the law, I encourage you to do so in the comments.

First the video, and then the discussion. 

BW: How can he say this isn’t about politics? Since when can gays not marry regardless of whether or not a political state recognizes it? That goes for traditional couples as well. This is a battle for privileges warranted by the IRS, privileges which should be eliminated, along with the IRS, instead of extended to every new classifications for marriage that seeks to be recognized in the future. Honestly, do you think this is it? The next redefinition: polygamy, unless marriage to animals is recognized as it has been in in many liberal European countries.

Where does it stop? …My point is who cares. Rather than affording certain orientations privileges by the government, why not remove all and restore true equality by allowing the people to define marriages between themselves and whatever else they love and keep the government out of it.

Unfortunate it is that this has been a wedge for many, a wedge which can drive between families, churches, races, friendships.

How far redefinition gone in more liberal countries than the USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosexuality_and_the_law

The basics of legal rights to marriage:
http://www.limarriages.com/statistics.html

Me: On the issue of state involvement in marriage, I actually agree with you. However, if the definition of marriage is left up to the individual, or their religious institutions, the term then takes on the flexibility of baptism, ordination, sacrament, communion, and other terms used to describe religious rites. Just as the LDS church can’t define baptism for all other churches, so too would marriage be defined in various ways. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I’m doubtful if the state will, or should, completely separate itself from the recognition of couples or households.

The anthropological argument for state involvement in marriage is societal organization and control. We know the earliest form of government was religion. Consider the law of the Old Testament, and the theocracy formed therefrom. These laws were meant to keep the peace, provide order, and increase productivity. Marriage was one institution created toward towards these goals.

The drama that is unfolding now is due to marriage having been shifted from religious authority to secular society. A marriage is not a marriage unless certified by the state, generally in the form of a license. The conflict lies with the perception of many that marriage is first and foremost an institution of religion. Legally, this perception is incorrect, as the authority to marry and dissolve marriages rests with the state, and not with a religious body.

As the state is the issuer of marriage licenses, such licenses should be issued in accordance with the laws of the land, including the US Constitution, which in the 14th Amendment prohibits any state from unequally granting rights and privileges to citizens. The amendment was written to ensure the liberties of all people, specifically in response to Dred Scott v. Sandford, where it was ruled that free slaves or descendants of slaves were not citizens, and did not have the rights of citizens

Today, the 14th Amendment can just as well be applied to states denying the right of marriage to gay couples, as this is a violation of the equal protection clause, which should give all citizens access to the legal processes of the state, including marriage. This is the legal argument for equality.

Beyond the Constitution, but still on the subject of equality is an issue that you mention, but only scratch the surface of. It is true that there are benefits of marriage that gay couples should be entitled to, including those given by the IRS to married couples. However, the recognition of gay marriage by the state would also allow couples to automatically extend insurance coverage to their spouse, pass on property at death, make medical decisions for their spouse when needed, and other abilities given to married couples. While the emotional burden of not having these abilities is great, we can more easily quantify the actual cost that not being married has on gay couples.

I recommend reading reading this article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104185289&sc=fb&cc=fp

The slippery slope argument is used by many in their attempt to undermine equality. I’m sure that there were many who would have argued for the abolition of marriage all together leading up to Loving v. Virginia, and the dismantalling of public education in the era of Brown v. Board of Education. What’s next? Public education for dogs?

This is simply a scare tactic used to incite an emotional response. It’s fallacy to think that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the legalization of marriage between a woman and a horse. No rational person should buy into this nonsense.

The link you provided to substantiate this argument was not relevant to the argument at all. The legality of homosexuality and the legality of gay marriage are two seperate issues, each with their own complexities. Legalizing homosexuality does not equate to legalizing gay marriage. As for the various instances on the Wikipedia article, which itself notes what I’m about to note, it is general practice to say something is legal when not explicitly illegal. This doesn’t mean it’s accepted, it’s just that the issue hasn’t been cause for legislation.

While the article did not give specifics of each case in every nation, the more specific examples do give a clue to the connection between homosexuality and zoosexuality, with that connection being being a mere legality in that laws regulating what was once deemed unacceptable sexuality were applied in a broad manner, being used to prosecute any sexual activity outside that of a man and a woman, sometimes within the bonds of marriage. To strike such broad laws moves the activities of zoosexuals into the legal column due to some nations not explicitly criminalizing such actions.

Above all else, this is an issue of equality. Are gay citizens equal to straight citizens in the United States? This question can only be answered in the rights and privileges available to both groups, and it’s unfortunate that the current answer is no.

Learning from history, this is something that should rise above partisan politics; but we also know from history that our politicians are often weak in defending the minority, due to being elected by the majority. This is where our Constitution and our courts come into play. It’s in these arenas that the minority should be protected, as was the case in Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. It’s on the the precedents set by these cases that we understand that separate is never equal, and marriage is a right of all.

I’m confident that gay marriage will become a reality for all of the United States within our lifetimes, and I’m committed to work toward that end; I’m committed to work toward equality.

BW: This is a very simple issue, rights are being given to those married. Now I think this is a good thing, it is offered to everyone, let me say this again, everyone. Perhaps this offers some encouragement for people of this country to commit to each other something more by embracing a more definite relationship status. But now you have a gay, that decides they want in on these rights given to married individuals, naturally if it was me I would press for the same rights as a gay married couple. Ok, so what has happened? Religious institutions have not been on the forefront in supporting gays, most churches will not marry them, and finally the most important, they know it is wrong doing. (There is no question that living/ practicing gay lifestyle is wrong, correct?) I don’t say that to make any large assumptions for how I feel about the entire issue, rather just to make sure you are still on board with God’s plan and all.

So gays can’t get the marriage support from church. So they turn to state, as they have, which state does a very poor job of refereeing what a union even is. That is the whole reason we are in this mess.

I say again, why the hell does a state even need to get its fingers into peoples marriage? Let gays be gays, let heterosexuals be heterosexuals and remove all rights given to any one. It is still just as unjust if tomorrow all the states condone same sex marriage. All you have done is include one more accepted form, cost the taxpayers more money by having to juggle more paperwork as they push this new law through the system, not to mention the legal process leading up to it. I say this is the case for any state recognized marriage. Is it essential? I’m an engineer and I’ve been taught that any thing that is non essential should be eliminated. Our poor states are going through identity crises trying to decide what side of a line they are on when the best thing to do would be abandon the entire failing process.

Me: It should be a simple issue, but it’s not. A secular inclusive society deals with these sort of complexities, but should eventually sort them out. I don’t mind the debate on the issue, I think it’s good, and I think truth eventually bubbles to the top when issues are discussed.

Often the opposing viewpoints find themselves debating whether or not homosexuality is a choice or if, like hair, eye, and skin color, it’s an embedded trait. From what I’ve seen, studies are inconclusive. We don’t have an answer. However, from my personal experience, and what I’ve been able to research on the experiences of others, combined with genetic and behavioral studies, I tend to think that sexuality is something determined by genetic predisposition and environmental factors, which combined result in a range of sexuality. Unfotunately, because we like to think in terms of black and white, gay or straight, the gray area that exists allows room for arguing that sexuality is or is not a choice. This, of course, provides fodder for both sides of the argument. Instances where someone has “changed” their sexuality can be found, as well as those who aren’t able to move in the opposite direction.

I’ve spent a lot of time, especially on my mission, praying and reflecting on God, my faith, and sexuality. I believe that God created all things, and that there is an order to creation. At face value, the natural order of things requires a man and a woman to unite to reproduce. From this basic need, marriage blossomed to institutionalize and bring societal order to that union. I believe that there are millions of people who, if given the choice, would live their lives according to this natural order of things, the purpose for which we were created as we were. However, these people are unable to make that choice successfully and live fulfilling lives because their sexuality doesn’t jive. As much as they pray for a change in heart, mind, and body, they remain as they are. God does not seem to step in to change these people, to allow them to live within this perceived natural order. Because I believe God to be omnipotent, and omniscient, I have to conclude that the varying degrees of sexuality must be a part of the natural order, with its purpose deeper than face value. I have concluded that homosexuality is a part of God’s creation and, as such, should not be categorized as being wrong. These people should be able to persue their lives according to their sexuality without guilt, knowing that they are as much the children of God, blessed with their sexuality, as any other is.

As far as the economic impact of gay marriage, do the research. I think you’ll find that the impact on beauracy is minimum (especially if everyone is using the same form, as should be required with full equality under the law), and that economies in areas that are gay friendly tend to excel above those that are not, increasing tax revenues instead of being a burden to the state.

Our states wouldn’t be having an identity crisis if the federal government, specifically the SCOTUS, would step in as they’ve done before and rule on the equal protection clause in re: gay marriage. I think this will happen eventually. This is not an issue restricted to a state, or even a handful of states, this is a national issue requiring federal action.

Is state certified marriage essential? Eliminating it would require a massive change in not only government bureaucracy, but also in the private sector. Significant changes to national, state, and local law would be required as well. The costs associated with eliminating marriage likely outweigh the legalization of gay marriage by a huge margin.

Related posts:

1. Reflecting on the National Equality March