Banning gay marriage is wrong
Alex Peak
Perspectives | 10/4/07
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Marriage rights are a contentious issue about which persons of all walks of life may passionately debate.
Liberals and conservatives, in particular, have been known to argue this issue based upon their respective ideological perspectives. Unfortunately for us, both liberals and conservatives have turned out to be wrong about marriage.
On the one hand, the conservative, seeing homosexuality as a threat to their traditional way of life, will argue with furor that marriage is a religious institution existing between a man and a woman, and that it is therefore necessary that big government ban alternative marriage structures, thereby protecting its sanctity.
The liberal, on the other hand, recognizing that all men and women possess equal natural rights and should thus possess equal civil rights (they deviate from this position in a number of ways, but I digress), will argue that big government should codify gay marriage into the currently-existing legal institution of "marriage," thereby bestowing to homosexual couples the same privileges being currently granted by the state to heterosexual couples.
Is there any hope for reconciliation between these divergent stances?
The solution can be found, and it is found in the libertarian call for the separation of marriage and state.
The conservative who calls for the government ban on alternative marriages is, in effect, saying that marriage is not a religious institution. Paradoxically, they've taken to opposing their own freedom of religion. A ban on gay marriage makes as much sense as an amendment declaring that, despite the claim of Catholics, the Eucharist is "not the actual body of Christ." Some religious institutions, such as the United Church of Christ, have been known to support gay marriage; if marriage is a religious institution as claimed-and I would agree it is-it stands to reason that each church be free to ordain whatever marriages they see fit, including homosexual or polygamist marriages. This would afford for us true marriage equality.
Liberals and conservatives, in particular, have been known to argue this issue based upon their respective ideological perspectives. Unfortunately for us, both liberals and conservatives have turned out to be wrong about marriage.
On the one hand, the conservative, seeing homosexuality as a threat to their traditional way of life, will argue with furor that marriage is a religious institution existing between a man and a woman, and that it is therefore necessary that big government ban alternative marriage structures, thereby protecting its sanctity.
The liberal, on the other hand, recognizing that all men and women possess equal natural rights and should thus possess equal civil rights (they deviate from this position in a number of ways, but I digress), will argue that big government should codify gay marriage into the currently-existing legal institution of "marriage," thereby bestowing to homosexual couples the same privileges being currently granted by the state to heterosexual couples.
Is there any hope for reconciliation between these divergent stances?
The solution can be found, and it is found in the libertarian call for the separation of marriage and state.
The conservative who calls for the government ban on alternative marriages is, in effect, saying that marriage is not a religious institution. Paradoxically, they've taken to opposing their own freedom of religion. A ban on gay marriage makes as much sense as an amendment declaring that, despite the claim of Catholics, the Eucharist is "not the actual body of Christ." Some religious institutions, such as the United Church of Christ, have been known to support gay marriage; if marriage is a religious institution as claimed-and I would agree it is-it stands to reason that each church be free to ordain whatever marriages they see fit, including homosexual or polygamist marriages. This would afford for us true marriage equality.
Be the first to comment on this story