Someone once said that “we should let the gays marry so that they can be just as miserable as we[heteros] are.” I’ve also heard several gay men comment that “every married couple I know is absolutely miserable, why would I want that?”
Seriously though: Texas took a step in *a* direction recently. I’m not sure which one, however. re: gay marriage Correct, Texas doesn’t want to recognize any union that is similar to or identical to marriage… Yes. Think about it for a minute, it will sink it. But it raises an unintended point: perhaps the government really doesn’t have any authority to “recognize” marriages, for any purposes.
I once asked a preacher, “If everything we *want* to do is so wrong, why didn’t God just make us in a way that would’ve pleased him from the get-go.” The response was something like, “He wanted us to choose to love him, he didn’t want to populate creation with a bunch of mindless robots.” There you have it: even God himself refuses to make laws that prohibit practices of which he disapproves.
I’m not going to pick the religious fight. I’m not going to tell you how to live, how to fuck, who to marry or where to work. But with regards to the issue of gay marriage, I’d just like people to acknowledge that any prohibition thereof is an affront to liberty, equality, and freedom everywhere. It’s too often disguised by the red/blue politicking, and conservative-family-values or whatever else you wanna call it. Just as a teaser: isn’t there some sort of church/state separation issue here? I mean, considering that marriage is not a natural state, it is a state contrived by man and governed by centuries of made-up patriarchal religious mysticism? Digressing…
One of the arguments opposition often poses, is that Homosexuality is a choice, and that it is somehow the “wrong choice.” Aside from the fact that this is a normative statement, one is pressed to ask, “When did you ‘decide’ to be straight? And if you haven’t ever tried being gay, how do you know you wouldn’t prefer it?”
The answer will probably be something like: “I just know its [wrong/gross/unnatural/].” Again, I couldn’t script it better than this. If a person “just knows” that he is straight, why are we so unwilling to accept the possibility that a gay man “just knows” that he is gay, especially in light of evidence that suggests it is biological.
Now, if it is genetics which determines ones sexuality, there is no room for debate. Being born gay, under the eyes of the law could then be no different than being born black, or blonde, or retarded, or chinese. But I’m digressing again. I’m going to give it to my opponents, for the sake of rhetoric: BEING GAY IS A CHOICE. I am willing to concede this argument, and accept the “choice” argument as a premise, in order to make the case for liberty.
It is necessary to recognize that the founding fathers wisely realised the importance of such rights: to life, to liberty, and to individual freedom of choice, without which all other rights cease to exist. Hence, with regard to Liberty, and Life, it is absolutely necessary that we keep the right to choose, insofar as one’s choices do not violate the rights of others.
Natural rights, which our forefathers have enumerated within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist outside of the province of man: they are not agreed upon by committe, they are not conferred upon you by a government, BUT they are not positive rights. The “right to live” is not an obligation to others, to provide you with sustenance and shelter – similarly nobody is permitted to forcefully prevent you from choosing your means for acheiving those ends. We must also acknowledge that rights are only held by individuals. Collectives, societies, governments – these do not have rights, only the individuals of which they consist posess rights. Societies wield powers, conferred upon them by their constitutents, in order to protect the rights of the constituents. It is necessary, however, to recognize that powers are derived from the natural rights. Being necessary to protect the right to life, defense is a natural right of man, accordingly, a state created by men is charged with their communal defense. But it is equally important to recognize that it is forbidden that individuals create a state which possesses powers that are founded on powers that no man can justly hold such as coercive force, aggression, deception. It is therefore the responsability of any government to protect the rights of its citizens, and to not limit them except for those instances where one’s actions violate (positively) the rights of others.
In short, a government doesn’t have the power to tell you whom you may or may not marry. The government may have been granted this authority, but an appeal to authority is not a logical or a just argument. Not a single man, woman or child in this world has the “right” to tell you how to live. Accordingly, they cannot confer this power upon a government, and any excercise thereof is a usurpation of individual rights by a government acting outside its jurisidiction.
In order to ensure the sanctity of individual freedom, it is necessary to leave private choices to those individuals whom they most concern. That homosexuality exists (and has existed for millenia) is irrefutable; it is a fact of nature despite what its opponents argue. Consequently, the prohibition of marriage between homoseuxals will not impede or prevent their existence. Such prohibition serves only to limit their natural rights. The belief that private actions, taken by consenting adults, can in some manner violate the rights of others, elsewhere, is absolutely untenable, and illogical. It is a belief that is diametrically opposed to the principle of free, individual choice, without which liberty cannot exist. No matter the minority, despite unpopularity, in order to remain a state that is free and just for all, it is eminently necessary that we guard and respect the liberties of all individuals.
It’ll happen in my liftime. The Kung Fu Monkey has a very good post on this topic.
I never really cared if sexual orientation was a choice or biological. To me it never mattered. What consenting adults do to eachother is nobody elses business, end of story. Like to take it in the ass? fine, I don’t care. Don’t like it? fine, I don’t care.
The vulgar Ben Franklin may very well have said your right to fuck ends right wheremy particular fetishes begin.
Thanks for the kung fu monkee hat tip.
Good post. You should rant more often.
Yeah, what Kip said! This is excellent, and I was excited to read some language that was nearly identical to some email conversations I have had with Rammage from my own blog.
There are only two reasons why government is involved with recognizing/prohibiting certain marriage practices. One is religious, and the other is taxation. Isn’t it time to put both of these reasons behind us?
FWIW, even the folks on the other side of the “gay marriage” debate can sometimes see the truth of your argument here.
Get government out of the marriage business! The only things government has any talent for are stealing and killing. Sometimes both are, in fact, necessary…but an institution like that should never be allowed anywhere remotely close to marriage. And it’s just as true regardless of whether one thinks of marriage as a holy sacrament or merely a social custom.