Assertions & Answers
The first half of this page addresses the government's assertions
from Iowa's
Varnum v. Brien case which allegedly justify disallowing Civil
Same-Sex Marriage. The second half of this writing deals with other
commonly heard assertions which the opponents of Civil Same-Sex
Marriage make and demonstrates how those assertions are likewise
baseless. In both sections, we ask these opponents some questions.
The obvious answers clearly reveal the inconsistency of their position.
In Iowa's
Varnum v. Brien case, the government's stated goals/reasons
for banning same-sex marriage are listed below. These
goals are allegedly advanced by banning Civil Same-Sex Marriage.
Please keep in mind that
Heightened / Intermediate Scrutiny of those goals and tactics
were rightly applied here. The Court stated that "Under intermediate
scrutiny, the relationship between the government's goal and the
classification employed to further that goal must be 'substantial'."
Let's see if they are. -
"a. Maintaining traditional marriage." -
* How is your marriage objectively/secularly harmed by allowing gays
to marry? Is there a "compelling government interest" in making
you a little more happy about your marriage? Is banning Civil Same-Sex
Marriage an effective way to make people happier about their own marriages
* Doesn't the dislike of same-sex marriage really stem from
religious/subjective opinions rather than from any objective/secular
reason for which there is a "compelling government interest"?
* Upholding "traditional marriage" as an ideal and therefore justify banning
same-sex marriage would be akin to banning abusers from marriage, banning "May-
December" marriages, etc.. because they too are less than ideal marriage set-ups.
* Will heterosexual couples quit getting married if same-sex couples
are allowed to marry?
* Bans on inter-racial marriages could have been said to have protected
"traditional marriage" as per Southern traditions.
"b. Promotion of optimal environment to raise children." -
* The law forbids marriage to same-sex couples who may have
childcare degrees and/or years of childcare experience. If promoting an
optimal environment in which to raise children is really
your goal, does doing that make sense?
* The law doesn't forbid unfit hetereosexuals (child molesters, sexual
predators, violent felons, etc..) from marrying and having kids. If promoting an
optimal environment in which to raise children is really your goal, does allowing
that make any sense?
* The law doesn't prohibit gays from raising kids, which it should
if promoting an optimal environment in which to raise children is
really your goal. Does allowing that make sense?
* Keeping the above in mind, does the law promote and further the
stated government goal in any 'substantial' way, thereby justifying
it?
* If promoting an optimal environment in which to raise children is
really your goal, shouldn't kids be taken from single moms
and dads and raised in a dual-sex household?
* If promoting an optimal environment in which to raise children is really
your goal, does forbidding marriage to gays who won't or can't
have kids make any sense?
* Do the kids of heterosexual couples benefit when their peers from
same-sex households are denied legal rights and benefits?
* Does withholding marriage and the legal rights from same-sex
couples benefit the children of same-sex households?
"c. Promotion of procreation." -
* The law forbids marriage to some couples who both want to produce
children (via artificial insemination or surrogate mothers) and raise them.
If promoting procreation is really your goal, does doing that make sense?
* The law doesn't forbid those who are intentionally childless,
aged, sterile, infertile, etc.. from marrying. If promoting
procreation is really your goal, shouldn't these also be
denied marriage? Heterosexual couples should have their marriage
licenses revoked by the state if they fail to procreate within 5 years to bring
forth children. Those that turn out to infertile or consistantly miscarry
should have their marriage licenses revoked since the bottom line is that they
bring forth children. They are no different than same-sex couples.
* Will heterosexual couples produce fewer kids if gays are allowed
to marry?
"d. Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships."-
* Does excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage
encourage stability in opposite-sex relationships? How does banning same-sex
marriage further the stated goal?
* Is this government goal and the classification employed to further
that goal 'substantial' as required?
* Would society benefit if same-sex couples were similarly
stabilized?
* Would kids benefit if their parents (a same-sex couple) were
similarly stabilized?
"e. Conservation of resources." (save the state money)-
* "Excluding any group from civil marriage-African-Americans,
illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals-would conserve
state resources in an equally 'rational' way". How does forbidding
gays from civil marriage reasonably meet the criterion outlined
above?
* Does the classification employed comply with the statement -
"..the relationship between the government's goal and the
classification employed to further that goal must be 'substantial.'?"
* Does that "substantially" advance the stated goal?
Any fair-minded person will obviously agree that the law in no way
furthers the stated goals and in many cases works against the stated
goals. It is in no way tailored to further those goals while being
consistent. Nor does it affect heterosexuals whose marriages in no
way promote the stated goals.
The Court's Conclusion. "Having examined each proffered governmental
objective through the appropriate lens of intermediate scrutiny, we
conclude the sexual-orientation-based classification under the
marriage statute does not substantially further any of the
objectives. While the objectives asserted may be important (and
many undoubtedly are important), none are furthered in a
substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil
marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been
offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage
ban under the statute."
Other publicized objections to Civil Same-Sex Marriage -
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that
same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
* The children will be taught that same-sex marriages simply exist,
just like mixed-race marriages and mixed-cultural marriages exist.
No moral judgment will be made either way any more than teachers
claim that one faith is better than another or that mixed-race
marriages are immoral per their beliefs.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they
refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious
buildings open to the public.
* Women are FAR more numerous than gays and lesbians (51% vs. 2-3%),
yet there is NO talk of the LDS or Catholics being sued for allegedly
violating the rights of women by refusing to give them the priesthood.
This assertion is clearly a baseless scare tactic.
* Religion and churches are given a LOT of leeway. There is no
way 1st Amendment rights will take a backseat. The voters wouldn't
let it happen. A federal constitutional amendment would FLY through
passage if there was even minimal concern over that happening.
* The worse case scenario would be having ALL couples marry
at City Hall and then, if desired, have a private wedding ceremony,
religious or secular, that has no legal standing. Clergy would no
longer act as agents of the state by them being allowed to legally marry
people. Again, the voters wouldn't let it happen.
3. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued
for hate speech and risk government fines.
* The "God Hates Fags" Church
isn't being sued, even in those states that allow Civil Same-Sex marriage.
Ministers also say a lot of nasty things about us (LDS), yet
they are never sued. Again, the voters wouldn't let religiously motivated
preaching be considered as hate speech.
4. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of
marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits
* Perhaps we shouldn't have passed other civil rights bills that
caused expensive lawsuits. We could have saved a ton of money not
giving Blacks and women their equal civil rights and Equal Protection.
Does that sound reasonable?
5. We don't know what the long term ramifications may be. We just
can't risk it.
* The same was said every time people tried to expand civil rights
for all or for a particular group -
When we broke away from England
When we established a republic
When the slaves were freed
When women got the vote
When Blacks demanded equal rights
When women demanded equal rights....
Which of the above instances caused societal problems to such a
degree that it would
justify the revocation of the freedoms which that group fought hard
to gain? I doubt many would agree that some of the above won
freedoms should be revoked. These granted freedoms made us all
freer. Any problems which may have arisen have been addressed in
a manner respecting the objective rights of all.
Why would anyone think the same wouldn't happen in this instance...
especially when the voters - local, state, and national, could and
would easily pass laws and constitutionals amendments perhaps
addressing these alleged problems...and likely in a manner
restricting the rights of same-sex couples to a much greater degree
than would exist at that time? The voters have all of the power.
They are the shield against abuse.
6. Business owners (florists, caterers, photographers, etc...)
will be forced to provide their services to same-sex weddings despite
their religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage.
* Christians are commanded to obey the laws of the land. If the law
states that businesses must treat all equally, then Christians of
all flavors must obey it. A
Washington Post article speaks of Muslim cab drivers not picking
up passengers from the Minneapolis airport who have alcohol with
them. They won't pick up people with dogs, even seeing eye dogs.
Muslim grocery store clerks won't touch alcohol or
"unclean" meats, even when acting as a cashier. Most people say
that these people shouldn't take jobs that require doing things
contrary to their morals. The bottom line is that if you want a
job, as an employee or as an employer, you should select jobs
that don't require you to violate your moral code. If you don't,
you have no reason to complain since you CHOSE that career. We, as
Christians must obey the laws of the land to which we are subject.
THE BOTTOM LINE - If we ignore the hype and fear-mongering and logically and calmly
address the issues, we quickly see that opponents of Civil Same-Sex
Marriage shed FAR more heat than they shed light. There are **NO**
objective/secular reasons to deny same-sex marriage. All of the
proffered reasons, once the surface is scratched, are empty and
devoid of any substance when examined in a logical and reasoned
manner. The Iowa Supreme Court quickly discovered this when they
rendered their ruling in
Varnum v. Brien. That's why their decision was unanimous.
See Morris Thurston's essay on these and other objections.
Those with subjective religious animus towards Civil Same-Sex Marriage,
the true driving force behind the opposition, are as wolves in sheep's
clothing. They attempt to wear sheep's clothes by disguising their
true motives. They claim to be innocent concerned citizens promoting
family values and protecting children, but it is easy to see through
their disguise. They don't care about secular civil rights for all.
They simply want their dogma to have the force of law as the Taliban.
1 Tim. 4:12
instructs us to be "an example of the believers...". We are indeed
poor witnesses of Christ showing neither love nor charity by denying
civil rights to an unpopular minority, just as we (LDS) were
likewise denied. We are as whited sepulchers devoid of the true
love of Christ.
