The following is a long and involved discussion on the issues of gay marriage in the
Issue #1: The 14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment specifically restricts the states from making laws that limit the rights and privileges of
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
There are three important points here. First, that “(n)o state shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges… of citizens.”
Many anti-gay activists have argued that marriage is not a “right” guaranteed by the Constitution. That is beside the point in this issue, because the Amendment clearly states “privileges,” not “rights.”
If marriage is indeed a “privilege,” then no state has the right to deny any couple – straight or gay – from claiming the status of “married.”
Second, we must look at the statement “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In other words, unless the issue is settled in a court of law, no state has the right to deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property. This is an important point, because the liberties provided by marriage are what is at task here.
There are crucial rights bestowed upon those in a marriage that are denied to those who are not. Let’s take two couples: both married for twenty-four years. One is a husband and a wife and the other is a gay couple. Again, they’ve both been “together” for an equal amount of time. Both have two adopted children. Both own a home in
If the wife of the first couple is in a car accident and unconscious, the husband has the right to medical decisions for her. The gay man cannot.
That husband also has the right to visit his wife in the hospital to make those decisions. The gay man does not have this right.
If his wife dies, the husband has inherent property rights regarding the will. The gay man does not have these rights.
Again, if the wife dies, the husband has the first rights to claim any property the couple bought together. In the case of the gay man, those rights go to the immediate family… whom, in many cases, will be antagonistic to the gay man. Even though both the gay man and his lover have bought the land together, his ownership rights are forfeited for the family.
If the husband is thrown into a legal battle, the wife has the right to not testify against him. The gay man does not have this right.
If the husband is thrown into prison, his wife has the right to visit him on conjugal visits. The gay man does not have this right.
These are only a few of the rights given to straight citizens and denied to gay citizens. All because straight citizens are given the “privilege” of marriage… a “privilege” denied to gay citizens.
Gay citizens who pay taxes.
Gay citizens who serve in our military.
Gay citizens who are denied “a privilege” because they make some of us feel uncomfortable.
And why do they make us feel uncomfortable? We’ll get to that in a moment.
Issue #2: The First Amendment
The first Amendment to the Constitution strictly forbids the Congress from making any law that supports one religion above another:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The First Amendment not only prohibits the government from recognizing any religion as an official religion, but also forbids the government from interfering in an individual’s right to worship as his religion declares. This means the government has no right to declare the marriage of one religion valid while declaring the marriage of another religion invalid.
But what religions recognize the rights of gays to be married? Glad you asked.
How about the fifth largest religion in the world today? That’d be Buddhism. Buddhism, in a distinctly non-Christian attitude, celebrates that all creatures are holy and divine. Buddhism lacks any central truth or dogma chiefly because of its founder’s instructions to “be a lamp unto yourself” and that any action that has good intentions is a positive action. In other words, a homosexual act, when performed out of love, rather than lust or hate, is a positive act – just as a heterosexual act would be. Buddhism sees no difference between the two.
I should note that when I say “Buddhism,” I am speaking in generalities. I practice many tenants of Buddhism – or, at least, I try – and while I consider myself a practicing Buddhist, I would never assume another Buddhist holds the same truths that I do. That isn’t how Buddhism works. Every follower must find his own truths. Every follower must find what is “good and right” in the world. However, the extreme non-judgmental attitude in Buddhism almost forbids an “anti-gay” position. All are divine and holy. Even those who hate us, even those who commit violence against us. According to the teachings of Buddhism, it is not our place to judge another, no matter the circumstance.
Another nationally recognized religion, wicca, also recognizes gay and lesbian marriages.
How about another? Okay, how about Judaism? Granted, it isn’t mainstream Judaism, but then again, Christianity isn’t, either. And if you want to argue that Christianity isn’t a branch of Judaism, you need to go back to Sunday School. (Do a quick Google for “jewish gay marriage.” You may be surprised what you find.)
(As a side point, everybody talks about us atheists like we’re a minority. We’re not.)
<img src=”http://www.adherents.com/rel_pie.gif”>
Arguments Against Gay Marriage
The Bible.
The Bible has a lot to say about marriage. Anyone who invokes the Bible as a valid argument against gay marriage should also take a look at the following references for how a true Christian marriage should operate:
From Peter:
“Women should be subject to their husband’s will; women burden men with conversation; they shouldn’t try to make themselves look pretty; women are corruptible, but men only corruptible by women; men, honor your wife because she is weaker than you, and if you treat her wrong, she’ll cheat on you and you won’t have any legitimate heirs.”
3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
From First Timothy (on how to treat widows):
“You should help a widow only if she : 1) is over 70 years old, 2) had only one husband, 3) has raised children, 4) has lodged strangers, 5) has “washed the saints feet,” 6) has relieved the afflicted, and 7) has “diligently followed very good work.” Otherwise, let them starve. “But the younger widows refuse [to help]: for … they will marry; having damnation.” Besides the young widows are always idle tattlers — “busybodies, spreading things which they ought not.” He adds that “some are already turned aside after Satan.”
5:9
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
5:10
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
5:11
But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
5:12
Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
5:13
And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
5:14
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
5:15
For some are already turned aside after Satan.
From Second Timothy:
3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
3:6
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
And finally, more from First Timothy, from that great Christian,
“Women should be ashamed of themselves, should learn in silent subjugation; women shouldn’t be teachers; because Eve was tricked by the Serpent, man is a superior creature; the only way women are saved is by bearing children.”
2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
2:10
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
The bottom line here folks: Neither Congress nor your State can make a law based on religious belief. They can’t make a law banning gay marriage based on what the Bible says anymore than they can make a law based on what the Koran says or based on what the Buddha says or based on what ancient Shinto texts say or based on what Gnostic Dead Sea Scrolls say or on what the Principia Discordia says (ALL HAIL ERIS!).
Let’s make a law that forbids Americans from eating beef on Friday.
Let’s make a law that makes prayer mandatory three times a day. Of course, you have to pray to Allah and do it in the right direction.
Let’s make a law that says everybody has to eat hot dogs on Friday. Without buns, of course.
No, no, and… okay, maybe that last one.
The only argument against gay marriage is a religious one. There is no evidence that gay couples raise gay kids. There is no evidence that gay couples raise effeminate kids. There is no evidence that gay couples are fundamentally better or worse parents than straight couples.
No evidence.
The only evidence is in a 2,000 year old text that can’t even agree on the translation of the word “witch.”
(As a friend of mine pointed out, the translations of that Greek word are not at all consistent:
NLT: “A sorceress must not be allowed to live.”
NRS: “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.”
DRB: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.”
NCV: “Put to death any woman who does evil magic.”
BiBE: “Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death.”
Young’s Literal Translation: “A witch thou dost not keep alive.”)
I’ve made my case. Now make yours.
Leave a Reply