Say that ten times fast...

It's the end of election week and for the last few days supporters of gay marriage have been out in droves in Los Angeles, protesting its passage as unconstitutional to the state constitution’s equal protection clause, which says:

All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There is now a growing move to have the prop-8 amendment overturned on grounds of unconstitutionality. But is it really? I am no lawyer, but my background is in interpretation of historical texts and I have a bit of law enforcement background, so my opinions about a legal matter as this may have some illuminating insight to it.

It should also be noted that this is my argument against gay marriage, but not based on my theological background, but rather history and precedence.

So, just how is a law prohibiting gay marriage contrary to the equal protection clause? To understand this question, we should look at what gay couples can already have in California.

According to California Family Code section 297.5, subdivision (a):

Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So, as registered domestic partners, gay couple do have the same rights and obligations as any married couple. What do they lack? Nothing but a matter of semantics and nothing that couldn’t be satisfied by legal filing. Gay couples simply haven’t been afforded the title “married”. The argument then is whether or not a spade should be called a spade. If gay couples have everything short of a title, why not then give the title as well?

As a compassionate person, I might say, "Sure, gay couples have essentially a marriage from a legal stance, so why not also apply the title"… But, there are other implications that I’m not satisfied with regarding gay marriage, which I could counter-argue as violations of my rights.

According the California Family Code, gay couples are afforded all the elements of the Equal Protection Clause, even if in a de facto manner. The only remaining argument is that without the title of marriage, “happiness” has not been achieved as guaranteed by the clause. All matters of property, privacy, of life, and so forth are there, but perhaps not happiness. Happiness, of course, is only definable subjectively, so once gay couples are married, I then will become unhappy… The argument is circular, and so at some point it will have to be given a rest. The fact of the matter is that now there is an amendment to the state constitution. The only way to change that is to amend the constitution further or for the 50 U.S. states to amend the national constitution. And, marriage has never been declared specifically as a “right”. Specificity of rights, legally, is determined by the majority of the people. In California, the people have decided.

Still, proponents of gay marriage often claim that conservatives shouldn’t legislate their morality on others and that gay marriage will not jeopardize straight marriages. What a misapplied argument? Legislation, by its very nature, establishes a moral principle as law. If gay marriages were allowed, that too would be legislation of a moral stance on those who disagree. It’s as if the gay-rights crowd is saying, "We can agree to disagree so long as you agree with us". What a false premise… legislating morality?

And as far as gay marriage’s impact on straight marriage… Since there’s no hard evidence declaring all cases of homosexuality ingrained genetically, then the proposition that many gay people have become gay by enculturation, by lifestyle adoption, or other non-nature oriented influences, must be considered. As such, I believe that with the open promotion of homosexuality, some people may be influenced into such a lifestyle, even children too young to understand their growing bodies. If gay marriage were to remain legal, it would indeed mean that children would have to be subject to homosexuality at an early age. I don’t want my moral upbringing of my children being confused by principles contrary to my family convictions.

Many proponents of gay marriage deny this will happen, but according to California Education Code subsection 51890, the institution of marriage must be elevated and taught in schools. If there is gay marriage, then gay morals would be forced upon my children and I, as gay marriage would have--per this code-- the requirement to present homosexual coupling as being an alternative form of marriage.

And still, there is the matter of precedence and historicity…

In my studies of the history of homosexuality, I have yet to encounter homosexuality to be given as much prominence as heterosexual relationships… Nowhere in the world were gay relationships given parallel recognition or equality with straight marriages. The closest thing I could find, primarily in some African tribes, was a practice of gay pedophilia, where an older male would have a servant-oriented marriage with a male child. At its center was the role of boy-servant and not the sexuality, which was secondary. In all other accounts I have researched, there were three basic forms of gay relationships: the cultic (religious rites using homosexual acts), militaristic (with the absence of women, soldiers would engage temporarily in gay relationships… like “prison-gay” in the U.S.), and power (In servant and slave oriented relationships, gay rape established the dominance of the master). In no culture was there ever a sanctioned, equal status given, or normative formal example of gay marriage. This phenomenon is new to human history.

Why?

Simple teleology.

Teleology refers to natural order, whether seen from a theological stance (nature as ordained by God) or by science (nature defined by function). Homosexuality serves no teleologically normative purpose. One definition of marriage is the joining of two corresponding and complimentary forms to one another. In other words, from a natural ordered viewpoint, it is obvious that a male corresponds biologically to a female, from genitals to complimentary strengths (a male brings an emotional, character trait, and hormonal balance to a marriage with a woman). The two, logically, are meant to be together and are thus normative; therefore, this is the ideal worth elevating. Men and women, then, bring different things into a relationship, that two woman or two men do not, at least in the same idealistic degree. I believe that children fare better under this ideal, though the argument can be made that there are exceptions to every rule.

And it’s just that; a rule… I believe the normative rule of relationships, the ones worthy of elevation, should be heterosexual. Marriage, as a title, declares the ideal for humanity… What a gay couple has may mirror elements of marriage, but it is not traditionally, historically, or teleologically the same thing, and will never be, regardless of law.

The yes on 8 vote, while heavily supported by religion, is not the only reasoning against gay-marriage. I personally believe that changing or broadening the definition of gay marriage will create a slippery slope of relativism, and as such no term or title is safe from revisioning. In Sweden (I believe it was there), where gay-marriage already exists, we are now hearing of other forms of marriage, like polygamy. What’s next? NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association… ie. Gay-Pedophilia) already leaches onto the gay rights movement. Will they promote pedophilia as marriage next? I don’t know, but the risks are certainly inherent.

Take my words for what they’re worth. I may not change your mind, but know that there is foundation in my opposition, and it has nothing to do with how I feel about gay people. I have convictions that are rooted in the history of the human experience.

OK. That’s my argument. God bless.