The Losing Conservative Argument Against Marriage Equality
By John Winfield
We all know why same-sex marriage bans violate the United States Constitution. We know how the Destruction of Marriage Act violates the United States Constitution. Conservatives know this, as well, and that is why they are desperately searching for new reasoning to uphold the bans on marriage equality. Conservatives know that public opinion is shifting toward marriage equality, even among some Republicans and Christians, another reason for them to find new arguments against marriage equality.
[See my post:
The Constitutional Argument for Same-Sex Marriage Equality]
The problem with their new arguments is that they are all based on the slippery slope fallacy. Example: if gays are allowed to marry members of their own gender, then humans will begin marrying animals, adults will be marrying children, polygamy would become rampant, people will start marrying burgers (Thomas Peters’, NOM, reaction to Jack In The Box Commercial), religious freedoms will be trampled, the heterosexual divorce rate will rise, and the Earth will split open, releasing the bowels of Hell upon us all.
There is also the argument that Christian conservatives simply do not want marriage to be redefined; they like to argue that marriage has been defined by God and the church, since the dawn of time, between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. The truth is that there is no such thing as traditional marriage. Marriage has always evolved to fit the needs, and wants, of society. Marriage has never been created by any god, goddess, or fairy princess; it was created by man, for man. Originally, marriage was about the transfer of property and wealth, procreation came long before marriage. If someone wants to argue against this, just remind them that God was not created until less than two-thousand years ago and the gods and goddesses who preceded God never frowned upon the occasional Greek or Roman same-sex marriage. The truth is marriage has been continually redefined, and more recently, it was redefined to allow divorce for petty means (think Henry VIII), when women became more independent and no longer had to marry for financial security, when white citizens were allowed to married non-white citizens, and when men were allowed to marry men and women allowed to marry women. Marriage evolves and is evolving, whether conservatives like this fact, or not.
By law, the actual description of a contract is a “meeting of the minds.” A meeting of the minds is needed to sign a legally binding contract; marriage is a contract. A meeting of the minds can only take place between two sentient adults. Because of the adult part of the rule, an adult cannot legally sign a marriage contract with a child. Humans are the only sentient species on Earth and in the United States, so, sorry animals, you cannot marry your masters. Only Thomas Peters from NOMblog.com would actually think marriage equality would lead to men marrying the bacon in their burgers; this shows the depth of their knowledge.
The polygamy argument is perhaps the toughest to fight against, which is why it is used so often by opponents to marriage equality, including Republican presidential candidate, a napkin is not a straw idiot, and bigot, Rick Santorum. Truthfully, this seems like a logical argument to make, at least until we look closely at the word “equality.” Equal treatment under the law is the reason gay couples are seeking marriage equality in the first place and it is this equal treatment mantra that will forbid legally recognized polygamy. The current tax system, healthcare system, and many other state benefits would be equally distributed among two-person marriages. When another person is added to the marriage, it then creates an unfair advantage specifically for that group. Finally; if polygamy is the problem, why go through the impossible task of trying to ban same-sex marriage equality when passing a constitutional ban on polygamy would meet much less resistance?
The only religious freedoms being trampled in this nation are non-Christian religions, agnosticism, and atheism. Every single day, we are bombarded by religious material, which, by a constitutional standard, should offend us! Same-sex marriage is not a threat to the Christian religion; logic is the Christians’ only threat. For every person in an opposite-sex marriage, marriage to you will still be between one man and one woman; we are not seeking to redefine marriage for you or to destroy your marriage, so why do that to us?
