Same-sex Marriage Is Not A Civil Rights Issue

Following the passing of 3 new marriage amendment to state constitutions – in California, Arizona, and Florida – advocates of same-sex “marriage” have staged and are staging protests across the country. Most of the protests have been peaceful but there have been cases of vandalism and disorderly conduct on the part of the protesters. The main message of the protesters is a call for civil rights. They argue that being denied marriage is a violation of their civil rights. This argument is calling for something that is a myth.

Marriage is an institution whereby man and woman form an entity into which they may bring children. Marriage is a way for a couple to have self-fulfillment, but marriage is mainly about having children and creating a family. Families are the basic (and essential) unit of civilization. What same-sex “marriage” advocates want to do is redefine the definition of marriage. This is why the issue is not one of civil rights – they already have the right to marry (someone of the opposite sex).

The brilliance of their labeling this as a civil rights issue is people will actually believe that it is a civil rights issue when in fact it isn’t. Labeling it as a civil rights issue is brilliant because who isn’t for civil rights? I generally support civil rights when they are real rights. What I don’t support is something that will change society at such a fundamental level. Again, this is not a civil rights issue, it is an issue of a minority group of people trying to legislate (or sue to get their way) their lifestyles and beliefs onto the majority.

I will write more on this later.

Here’s another perspective on this issue.

10 thoughts on “Same-sex Marriage Is Not A Civil Rights Issue”

  1. I’m sorry but your definition/purpose of marriage is flawed. It is neither an essential unit of civilization nor is its ‘main purpose’ to have children. You hold a position of discrimination based upon prejudice and you are attempting to justify your position. I do not accept your view or incorrect assumptions of the purpose of marriage. Finally, one class in high school poly science DOES NOT qualify you to write about these issues. Stick to your area of expertise – clinical psychology.

  2. To Linzel:

    I’m being facetious with my high school political science comment (I wrote that so as to not overstate my qualifications about politics). Of course I’m not an expert in political science, nor have I held any governmental position but I research all sides of issues and never vote without having done all the research I can reasonably do about issues or people.

    If the main purpose of marriage is not to have children, then what is the main purpose? I’m interested in your view on the matter.

    To protogenes:

    I’d appreciate a detailed description of the holes in my logic so I can fix them and improve my post. I’m serious. Please point out all of my logical fallacies, poor deduction or induction, false premises, and false conclusions (although those last two do not have to do with logic because you can have faulty premises or a false conclusion and yet have a logically-valid argument; logic is distinct from truth. An argument that is valid and has all true premises is called sound). I wrote the post quickly without edits so I might have some “gaping holes in logic.” I prefer a proof in truth-functional notation refuting the logic of my argument. Again, this should be limited to the logic of my post, not your opinion of the content of my post.

    I’m glad I could provide you some entertainment though.

  3. “Finally, one class in high school poly science DOES NOT qualify you to write about these issues.”

    I forgot to ask what does qualify someone to write about these issues? I’d be interested in your thoughts on that as well.

  4. Jared is absolutely 100% correct. Sexual Preference has nothing to do with civil rights. It has been painted that your sexual choices makes you the same as those whose skin color/ethnicity was dictated by birth and consequently that the rules of propriety should be changed to accommodate this group.

    For instance, should then your religious choice become a civil rights issue as well? So, say you choose to be a polygamist, due to religious preference, should society allow that as well? Last I checked we don’t.

    And why is it that 100,000 marching is as impressive and should carry as much weight as the 52% of Californians (numbering in the millions) who voted for Prop 8.

    I’d say these sorry sore losers need to pick up like there “so called Mormon” brothers and sisters did who wanted to practice polygamy and isolate themselves in small communities, where others will treat their choices as normal or shut up and accept like all the republicans did that Barack Obama was elected president.

    Love the sinner, hate and abhor the sin.

  5. Marriage, in this country at least, is a legally recognized union of two people committing to each other, to live together as a couple: shared home, shared hopes, shared finances, same aspirations, dreams, and goals. It is a commitment to be there for the other, through thick and thin, good and bad. Straight people’s committed relationships are recognized and protected by law. Gay and lesbian committed relationships to not have that same protection yet. Until ALL committed relationships are recognized and protected by law, no marriage is all that sacred, and even the laws protecting your own marriage might be voted away by other people who don’t even know you or care. Marriage is absolutely a civil rights issue, and should not have been put to a vote. The Constitution was set up to prevent majority rule to control or restrict the righs of minorities, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down all these state laws that treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

  6. I must say that Jared has done his homework. His articulate and sound reasoning approach justifies why the people of California, Arizona and Florida overwhelmingly voted “YES” on their version of Prop 8. Opponents have stated that they will “not go away” and will continue to protest the “People’s Decision”. The right to protest peacefully is an American right. However, to target & damage churches in retaliation for “YES” victory is in itself a serious violation of civil rights. This is also a a dysfunctional and counter-productive approach to having your voice heard. People seem to “turn down the volume” when radical hate-crimes like these are made because their side failed to win. Furthermore, forcing this non-traditional life-style on traditional families of America will in fact impact the way public schools will be “required” to educate” our children. Opponents state that the 52% to 48% Prop 8 results indicate that the public has gained more support for acceptance of same-sex marriage. If you are going by the 52%-48% justification, does this mean the people of this nation should demand a re-vote in the Presidential Race because of the “close” 52%-48% final count? I think not. The people have spoken clearly for the second time in California. Food for thought here, if this clearly was a Civil Rights issue, one wonders why the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, along with other prominent civil right activist/leaders have conveniently removed themselves from the public eye and national news media for their position on same-sex marriage- Civil union is the (already) accepted middle-ground compromise. The People Have Spoken-

  7. To answer your question of the main purpose of marriage – in relation to the federal government.

    Its important to understand why government is in the marriage business in the first place. Anytime people join together, combine efforts of survival and work for common goals, they are healthier and more productive. They save more, spend more and accomplish more. It IS in society’s best interest that people pair up. Other than that, marriage holds no value to any community outside the value to the persons involved. Gays and non gays, in this respect, meet the criteria for state recognized marriage. Religious services are NOT at the heart of this discussion and neither are children. The proof is that both may or may not exist in non gay marriages and they are still valid and have purpose to the state. And because gays contribute to the state as much as you and your wife, they are entitled to full protection of the Constitution.

    The argument against Loving in Loving V. Virginia was that GOD disapproved of interracial marriage (sounds familiar, no?). Luckily the United States constitution has already made clear that “Morals” and “God’s Word” do not justify discrimination and preventing equal rights to all Americans.

  8. I appreciate all of the comments so far – regardless of your beliefs on this matter.

    To respond to Zac who stated: “The argument against Loving in Loving V. Virginia was that GOD disapproved of interracial marriage (sounds familiar, no?). Luckily the United States constitution has already made clear that “Morals” and “God’s Word” do not justify discrimination and preventing equal rights to all Americans.”

    Interracial marriage was a legitimate civil rights issue. It cannot appropriately be used as an argument for same-sex “marriage” as a civil rights issue because those challenging bans on interracial marriages did not seek to redefine marriage; they just wanted to remove the restrictions placed on which woman could marry which man. Overturning laws forbidding interracial marriages would not stand as legal (constitutional) precedent for same-sex “marriage” lawsuits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *