The same-sex marriage conundrum
Today the California Supreme Court declared null and void the nearly 4,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco during February and March of this year.
This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. California state law is unequivocal on the issue. Some will argue that the law is unconstitutional — and the day will doubtless come when the U.S. Supreme Court is forced to rule on that point — but until the law itself is nullified, it says what it says.
I've always been a little puzzled by the whole same-sex marriage argument anyway. Those who advocate for the practice argue that they only want the same rights everyone else has. The problem, in my view, is that they have the same rights already. Every unmarried heterosexual adult has the right to marry any other unmarried adult of the opposite gender who will marry him or her. Gay people have that exact same right. Every unmarried homosexual adult has the right to marry any other unmarried adult of the opposite gender who will marry him or her — same as straight folks. Everyone's rights are identical in this regard.
Now, it may well be that, if you're gay, you don't especially want to marry an adult of the opposite gender (unless you're the governor of New Jersey, but that's another post), but that's irrelevant. We all have rights we elect not to exercise. As an adult, I have the right to smoke tobacco in my own home. I choose not to do so. Since I'm over 21, I have the right to drink alcohol responsibly. I choose not to do that either. But the fact that I have rights I elect not to exercise should not entitle me to additional rights no one else has. No one in California, gay or straight, can legally marry a person of the same sex. I wouldn't want to, myself, but I don't have the legal right even were I so inclined.
To argue that some people should be able to do what no one else has the right to do is not an argument for equal rights. It's an argument for having greater rights than others. And why should anyone, regardless of sexual preference, be entitled to that?
This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. California state law is unequivocal on the issue. Some will argue that the law is unconstitutional — and the day will doubtless come when the U.S. Supreme Court is forced to rule on that point — but until the law itself is nullified, it says what it says.
I've always been a little puzzled by the whole same-sex marriage argument anyway. Those who advocate for the practice argue that they only want the same rights everyone else has. The problem, in my view, is that they have the same rights already. Every unmarried heterosexual adult has the right to marry any other unmarried adult of the opposite gender who will marry him or her. Gay people have that exact same right. Every unmarried homosexual adult has the right to marry any other unmarried adult of the opposite gender who will marry him or her — same as straight folks. Everyone's rights are identical in this regard.
Now, it may well be that, if you're gay, you don't especially want to marry an adult of the opposite gender (unless you're the governor of New Jersey, but that's another post), but that's irrelevant. We all have rights we elect not to exercise. As an adult, I have the right to smoke tobacco in my own home. I choose not to do so. Since I'm over 21, I have the right to drink alcohol responsibly. I choose not to do that either. But the fact that I have rights I elect not to exercise should not entitle me to additional rights no one else has. No one in California, gay or straight, can legally marry a person of the same sex. I wouldn't want to, myself, but I don't have the legal right even were I so inclined.
To argue that some people should be able to do what no one else has the right to do is not an argument for equal rights. It's an argument for having greater rights than others. And why should anyone, regardless of sexual preference, be entitled to that?
SwanShadow was randomly pounding the keyboard at 7:31 PM
1 insisted on sticking two cents in:
Yeah, I'm trolling through the archives on a slow Friday... Your point in the last paragraph seems to be a logical error.
"It's an argument for having greater rights than others."
They (we?) aren't asking for greater rights than others. Rather, they (we?) are asking for an expansion of rights for all. To extend the logic of your post, if the laws were changed, you'd be allowed to marry somebody of your same sex. (Though like the cigarettes, you'd apparently not be availing yourself of that new right. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
So it's an expansion of rights, as framed by your initial argument. Are you against the expansion of rights?
Post a Comment
<< Home