Earlier today the U.S. Senate voted not to move forward with a constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the U.S. as being between a man and a woman. Although I’m not sure about the motives of either side in this election year, the outcome was the right one.
I want to get a few things out of the way up front: homosexuality is wrong; homosexuality is unnatural; homosexuality is a sin; I don’t really want to be around or associate with homosexuals; a constitutional amendment “banning” homosexual marriages is wrong.
If you think that the last item doesn’t quite fit with the first four then you’re probably not alone. Most of my conservative friends (actually I don’t think I have any liberal friends) agree passionately with the first four and just as passionately disagree with the last.
They’re confused and misguided.
There are many reasons why this amendment is a bad idea. To try and keep this manageable I’ll focus on just a few.
The federal government has no business being in the marriage business.
There are two perspectives for recognizing a marriage between two individuals. The first is the Christian perspective. God has defined what marriage is in His eyes and no constitutional amendment – or lack thereof – is going to change that. From the Christian perspective, a constitutional amendment defining marriage is meaningless.
The other perspective for viewing marriage is of course the secular perspective. Government (local, state, & federal) has historically had its fingers in the secular definition of marriage because many government programs targeted married people differently. The most obvious example of this is the tax code. In some cases, married people are given preferential treatment in the tax code and in other cases they are penalized. In order to do this, the federal government needed to be able to define what constitutes being married. My argument is that this differential treatment of married people (or any other grouping for that matter) is wrong – whether two people are married or not should have nothing to do with the amount of taxes they pay. If this differential treatment is wrong, and if we eliminated the differential treatment, then there would be no need for the government to be concerned with the definition of marriage.
The constitution is the wrong place for the definition of marriage.
Ok. Let’s assume that you’re not buying that argument and you still believe there are instances where the government needs to treat married people differently than non-married people. The constitution is the wrong place for the definition. The constitution should be a high-level blue print for the operation of the federal government and its relationship to the states and the people. It’s not a place to stick things just to make them harder to get at.
It’s common in society for various types of rules and regulations to define the terms that are applicable to those rules and regulations. The rules of golf for example, define the terms that are used elsewhere in the rules. In my copy, the definitions span 13 pages and include common terms such as “partner”, “ball lost”, and “hole”. If the tax code needs to treat married people differently then let the tax code define what being married means – for the purposes of the tax code. If the probate laws of a state must treat married people a certain way, then let the probate laws define what marriage is for the purposes of the probate laws.
The issue belongs in the States.
If marriage must be defined by some level of government, it’s more properly an issue for the states. Most conservatives don’t really argue this point, but they are pushing for the constitutional amendment because they are afraid of 1) what other states (i.e. Massachusetts) will do, and 2) they’re afraid of how the Supreme Court will handle states that don’t recognize certain types of marriages.
These fears are most likely unfounded. Most states already have laws on the books that recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. Some of these states have provisions that don’t allow for the recognition of any “alternative” types of marriage from other states. States that don’t have these types of provisions are moving to adopt them. Secondly, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act that allows (?) states to NOT recognize non-heterosexual marriages from other states. This law has not been challenged in court and until it is – and until it is successfully overturned – nothing else is needed to “protect” the definition of marriage in any given state.
The “homosexual marriage ban” doesn’t protect the family or family values.
Do you really believe that having a constitutional ban on homosexual marriages will lead to fewer people choosing (yes it is a choice) a homosexual lifestyle? On the flip side, do you really believe that not having a constitutional ban will cause more people to choose a homosexual lifestyle? The only thing that is going to have an impact is a spiritual change – a change of the heart – and no amendment is going to have that effect.
Value judgments by the government are dangerous.
I understand the underlying feelings that many conservative Christians have when pushing for this so-called “homosexual marriage ban amendment”. I too wish that everyone shared my conservative Christian values, but they don’t and never will.
It’s not the government’s place though to force those values upon others. That’s a very dangerous road to go down. Suppose that we woke up tomorrow in an America where conservative Christians were truly a minority (some might argue it’s true today). Would we be willing to accept constitutional amendments limiting religious expression as “the will of the people”?
I don’t want the government, at any level, to implement laws regulating personal behavior based on someone’s set of values because it’s all to easy for those “majority values” to be wrong (remember the civil rights struggles and women’s rights struggles). The only time that the government should infringe upon individual liberties is when one person’s exercise of those individual liberties would infringe upon another. That’s why the government can pass laws implementing some of the 10 Commandments and it is one more reason why the government should be silent on marriage.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how John and Barry (or Sue and Michelle) being married infringes on my rights or my liberties. I won’t like it. I’ll think it’s disgusting. I won’t hang out with them. I’ll pray for them and ask God to change their heart.
But you know, that’s my choice to make – just like they made theirs.
Wayne