Same-Sex Marriage: Conservatives' Last Stand

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?

Opposing Same-Sex Marriage is un-American

The Constitutional Argument for Same-Sex Marriage Equality

Banning marriage equality for same-sex couples is and will likely always be unconstitutional in the United States.  State statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage violate the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.  The first amendment promises the right to freedom of speech, same-sex marriage bans curtail that right.  The fifth amendment states, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty...without due process of law[...]"; allowing a public vote on banning same-sex marriage is a violation of the due process clause of those people adversely affected by the law that deprives those people of life and liberty.

The fourteenth amendment is the most obviously violated of them all when marriage equality is denied to same-sex couples.  The fourteenth amendment is broken up into four parts, or sections, less the enforcement section.  Bans on same-sex marriage easily violate the first section of the fourteenth amendment, which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  In this amendment, the due process clause is viewed as so important to the fabric of the United States and for the protection of its citizens, the clause is reiterated.

As for the actual body of the constitution, the so-called "'Defense' of Marriage Act" (DOMA) is a major violation of Article Four.  Article Four states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States".  DOMA gives permission to the states to ignore these clauses completely in the case of same-sex marriage.

I am gay and therefore will always support marriage equality for same-sex couples, but as a supporter of the United States constitution and as an American, even if I was personally against this, I would still feel compelled to support marriage equality for same-sex couples on the basis of the law.  I do believe it would be un-American to take action contrary to the support of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

More REPUBLICAN LIES

The GOP ran on a campaign touting jobs-creation, smaller government, and working harder for the American people! The first things they do when they get into office: waste time and tax-payer money in a futile attempt to repeal the job-creating, life-improving, deficit-reducing Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), attack women's reproductive rights by trying to redefine rape and incest, destroy families and attack marriages with so-called "marriage protection" amendments, and try to slow the implementation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, which would prevent the destruction of important military careers (jobs) and stop the waste of tax-payer money. Those of you who voted Republican last year, you've been had; thanks for voting to ruin America!

Your Right as a Second-Class Citizen

I recently saw a statistic that had me floored and shot my blood pressure through the roof:  more than thirty percent of LGBT voters voted republican.  I understand the anger with democrats, I understand the anger with President Obama, I understand the anger and frustration with Harry Reid, I, however, do not understand taking focusing that anger into an energy that helped to elect candidates who make it part of their platform to attack, demonize, and force a view of inferiority onto LGBT persons.  I recently listened to the responses of some of the LGBT persons who supported the GOP on the Michelangelo Signorile Show and again was shocked at some of the self-centered answers from these idiots.

All of the excuses, yes excuses, not reasons, for voting against their rights revolved around how the government was spending the taxpayers’ money.   Money!  Greediness, as it has been since the Reagan administration, has helped the republicans retain office election cycle after election cycle and this cycle was no different.  This, however, is appalling because that thirty percent of LGBT Americans voted not only against their rights, but also against the rights of every other LGBT person in the nation.  Now, we can say farewell to a repeal of DOMA, good-bye to the implementation of ENDA, and now DADT repeal is in jeopardy.  The rights of a minority, not just any minority, our minority, which were within legislative grasp now, as Congressman Barney Frank put it so eloquently, has a “zero chance” of coming to fruition now that we have lost the most LGBT-issue progressive White House and Congress in history.  This greedy LGBT republican-voting electorate helped to remove the gavel from the hand of the most effective progressive House Speaker and champion of voting of LGBT rights in modern history.  These self-absorbed idiots took their childish hissy fits to the polls and killed any chance of us gaining any of these rights within the near future.

Many of the GOP-voting LGBT callers kept telling Signorile that they were not interested in getting married, or taking advantage of many of the rights for which so many of us are fighting.  I like to look a little deeper into what getting rights mean for our community.  It is not about whether or not we as individuals take advantage of and utilize all of the rights that we should already enjoy across the board, but what gaining these rights will mean for our community and its members.  So long as we are not treated like everyone else with respect to the law, we are effectively seen as second-class citizens not only in the eyes of the law, but also in the eyes of anti-LGBT bigots or just other non-LGBT persons.  Blacks were viewed as second-class citizens long after slavery was abolished because of Jim Crow laws and the Caste System.  LGBT Americans voting republican is comparable to blacks voting known Ku Klux Klan members to run legislative offices during the Jim Crow era, or Jews voting for the Nazi party during the holocaust.

So long as we are second-class citizens within this nation, discrimination is harder to fight, bullying is harder to tame, teen suicides will be harder to curtail; we as a community will fail if we fall into of a habit of voting against ourselves with passion, instead of using that same passion to fight for our rights.  My mom asked me why are LGBT-rights so much more important to me than issues like jobs and the economy, especially because I haven’t been able to find a job in my field, even though I’ve graduated over a year ago.  My answer to her question:  “Mom, I understand your concern, but until the day I become equal to you, dad, and every other hetero-American, my becoming a first-class citizen within this ‘free’ nation is, for me, the utmost important issue every time I cast a ballot.”  After asking me this during every election since I was first able to vote in 2004, this finally answered her nagging inquiry, just as I hope it answers your questions about my methods--why I wrote this essay.  As you read this, please know this is America, and you as an American citizen, have the right to voice your opinion and anger with passion, or passive-aggressiveness, at the ballot box.  Nevertheless, you must also remember, that although this is a right that is at the same par with heterosexual Americans, you are not entirely free in this “free” nation, this is just one of your many rights as a second-class citizen, but do remember the rights you do not have when you exercise this right.

Opportunity to Stop the Loss

In a time of military conflict, fears of the next 9/11, and large amounts of loss of life in relation to this conflict, our biggest threat to national security has been made clear over seventeen years ago.  The continuation of this threat is clear as all of our GOP and certain Democratic lawmakers seem to ignore the obvious fact that it is false.  This false threat is, as you can guess, is allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in our military.

When the Democrats took control in the sweeping victory that was the 2008 presidential election, they had the opportunity to move swiftly on a major issue that affects not only the gay and lesbian soldiers serving, but their families, as well.  President Obama made five promises to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community.  Of these promises, he has kept one and broken one.  Forty-percent of these promises have stalled because of the unlikely chance they will be put up to a vote before the end of the lame duck session, before the GOP takes control of the House and begin their tirade of oppression once more.  That leaves just one promise left to keep, the promise Obama made to the LGBT community and soldiers serving in our military:  to repeal the ineffective, demeaning, wasteful, and demoralizing policy dubbed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

The President has asked the LGBT community and soldiers for patience to remove this policy at a less disruptive pace, now look where our patience got us.  This policy is not still in effect because of combat effectiveness or military readiness, it is in effect because of bigots and liars, like John McCain, the rest of the GOP lawmakers, and even some of the self-titled Democratic lawmakers, who are anti-gay to the core.  I use the title “lawmaker” because the majority of the public, conservative democrats and republicans included, agree with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that this policy is discriminatory, a waste of money and should become part of our shameful history, not our shameful present.  For a party elected on the platform of representing all Americans, why is that at least 70% of these GOP lawmakers failed to vote in favor of repeal?  The simple answer:  these lawmakers are anti-gay bigots who are too scared to own up to that fact and instead choose to hide behind the veil of religion!

President Obama knew this, as he was a lawmaker fighting for LGBT rights before he became the leader of the “Free” World.  This fact is both saddening and astounding because of the slow-as-molasses-don’t-worry-we’ll-get-to-it approach he and the Democratic leadership decided to take.  What is more astounding is how Obama was handed an excellent opportunity to end this policy as early as September of this year by issuing a stop-loss clause to kill the discriminatory policy after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.  Instead, our fearless leader opted to shrivel like a coward, bend to the bigoted will of the anti-gay lawmakers, and challenge the ruling after the issuance of an injunction.  Although the Obama administration has won an indefinite stay on the injunction while it prepares to appeal the ruling that stated DADT unconstitutional, it is still not too late.  I do not expect there to be enough time to vote on DADT repeal with the timeframe Harry Reid has set for this lame duck, nor do I expect the Senate to allow the lame duck to end without passing the 2011 NDAA.  This means that DADT repeal language will more than likely be stripped from the bill.

It is still not too late to drop the appeal and let the ruling stand, which I doubt the Obama administration will.  President Obama, you are dropping the ball on your gay and lesbian constituents and the polls have proven that!  It is time for a good deed, Mr. President; it is time to deliver before you lose the constituency forever.  Mr. President, this is not an opportunity lost, but merely an opportunity to stop the unnecessary loss.