Isn't Civil Same-Sex Marriage A "Special Right"?

When gays ask permission to marry, government officials suggest that gays don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits marriage, that they marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. The gays will say that since they are not straight, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the gay that they CHOOSE to be gay and that America won't provide gays with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What gays do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should American society, built on monogamy, have to change to accommodate gays' chosen lifestyle? The gays may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits and protections to straights while they are denied those same benefits and protections. Click here for a list of these rights. Their claims fall on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be gay rather than marry an opposite sex partner.

In Saudi Arabia, Christians can’t build churches. I imagine that when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi Arabia won't provide Christians with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to accommodate Christians' chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits and protections to Muslims while they are denied those same benefits and protections. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be Christians rather than being Muslims.

I imagine that when Mormons desired to practice polygamy, US officials suggested that Mormons didn’t deserve “special rights” just for them and if they want the benefits of marriage, that they practice monogamy like everyone else. The LDS may have said that since they are not strictly monogamists, that that doesn’t make sense. The government official may have told the Mormons that they CHOOSE to be polygamists and that the United States won't provide Mormons with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What Mormons preach in the privacy of their own homes and churches is one thing, but why should American society, which was based on traditional Christianity (which preaches strict monogamy), have to change to accommodate the Mormons' chosen lifestyle? The Mormons may also have said that they paid taxes and their tax monies were being used by the government to give government benefits and protections only to monogamists while they were denied those same benefits and protections. This fell on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be polygamists rather than being monogamists.

Sound familiar? There is little difference in the type of discrimination Christians and Jews face in Saudi Arabia and what we LDS faced in the past and what gays seeking marriage face here today. Many, like the government officials portrayed above, claim that gays want "special rights", but the examples above show that they simply want to be treated equally with everyone else. Do Christians feel that they are seeking "special rights" in Saudi Arabia? Did the LDS feel that they were seeking "special rights" in America? What does the Gospel say about hypocrisy? How are LDS and other Christians NOT being hypocritical in wanting to deny gays equal rights when that is what they seek as well?

Some claim that since gays aren't being discriminated against because of something inherent in them, there is no real discrimination. People can't discriminate against others based on their race or sex for example because those things are not things we choose. Homosexuality is a choice and not an inherent trait and therefore laws against it are not discriminatory. The problem with this logic, even if homosexuality IS a choice rather than something they are born with, is that it is also illegal to discriminate against people based on other choices. People choose their religion. Even if they didn't choose to be born into a religion, they still choose to remain in it or leave for another. Should it be OK for the government to give certain rights to Catholics, but deny them to LDS simply because the latter is an unpopular minority or should all religions be treated equally? People also choose their political party. In Communist nations, the Communist Party is given special status and rights. Would you be happy if the Republicans had fewer rights than the Democrats or the latter have fewer than the former? There is absolutely no reason for laws which discriminate based on subjective opinions. Acts that cause no objective harm should be legal and all people should be equal under the law and have its "Equal Protection".

By the way, did Mr. Loving ask for "special rights" or just equal rights when he brought suit (see Loving v. Virginia ) in order to abolish the laws that forbade him from marrying a Black woman? The trial judge who found them guilty of violating Virginia's miscegenation law stated in his opinion that:

'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.' "

He obviously thought that the Lovings were seeking "special rights".

Those believing that gays are seeking "special rights" are advocating laws denying gays the same protections others enjoy. Consider what the Supreme Court said about one such example of others attempting to deny gays "special rights" -

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

Equal rights and protections are not "special rights". Gays aren't asking for "special rights", only to have the same rights straights have so that they can enjoy the legal benefits and protections that their tax dollars pay for and to ensure that all are equal before the law.