When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage on November 18, 2003, it pushed forward the cultural and legal arguments being made by homosexual groups. No longer were the arguments theoretical. The 180-day period between the decision and the time in which licenses were to be issued provided a window for citizens, legislators, and judges to consider same-sex marriage.
While pro-family groups have been making their case against the legalization of same-sex marriage, gay activists have worked to counter those arguments and present their own rationale for gay marriage. Here are some of those arguments:
(1) Homosexuals are merely asking for equal rights. Pro-family groups often argue that providing rights to homosexuals (including gay marriage) is really providing special rights for a select group of citizens. Gay activists argue that there are not special rights but simply treating all citizens equally when it comes to issues like inheritance, taxation, and hospital visitation rights.
(2) Marriage should not be tied to procreation. Pro-family advocates often argue that marriage is tied to childbearing. Since homosexuals cannot bear children, they should not be allowed to get married. Homosexual groups point out that no one currently tests couples for their fertility or desire to bear children, so this argument is clearly a double standard. And some even point out that lesbians can bear children and homosexuals can adopt children.
(3) Denying same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Gay activists say that the arguments used against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage in the past. They call for conservative groups and churches to end their hypocritical stance on homosexuality, just as they finally did with regard to race.
(4) The institution of marriage has always been in flux. Pro-family groups argue that same-sex marriage is an assault on the institution of marriage and changing it will harm society as well as marriage itself. Homosexual groups counter that marriage has been defined differently throughout the ages and certainly is defined differently by different people groups around the globe.
Armed with these and other arguments, gay activists have taken to the streets, the media, and the court of public opinion. They are well aware that the events of the last few months provide a window of opportunity to convince judges, legislators, and the general public of their cause.
Matt Daniels, President of the Alliance for Marriage says, “We have to move quickly, and we have to immediately recognize that apart from the Federal Marriage Amendment, the courts are going to destroy marriage as we’ve understood it for millennia.”
Once same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, homosexuals married in that state can go to other states to have their relationships recognized. States that do not have a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would probably be forced to do so. States that do have a DOMA would no doubt face legal action.
This last summer, Kevin Cathcart (Executive Director of the homosexual group Lambda Legal) outlined that very strategy. At the time he said, “We need a state court victory [that would allow same-sex marriage] before we can see any action on the federal level.” The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave him that victory. He went on to say that they would then challenge DOMA once homosexuals are actually married.
Pro-family lawyers have argued that legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or other states would lead to conflicts between the states. But the Massachusetts court rejected that argument saying that it should not prevent the court “from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution.”
Theoretically, DOMA should protect states. But Glen Lavy with the Alliance Defense Fund notes that courts may not be stopped by this federal law. He acknowledges that a challenge to DOMA “cannot succeed based on legal precedent.” But we now live in a world “when courts say that they can redefine terms.” This is the consequence of a legal world no longer ruled by a system of laws but instead ruled by judges in black robes.
Lambda Legal argued before DOMA was signed into law that it was unconstitutional. They argued back in 1996 that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution was “intended to promote national unity” and assure that people “can move throughout the country without being stripped of their legal rights.”
This apparently is no longer an isolated view. Michael Farris, President of the Patrick Henry College (Virginia), told a Senate subcommittee that an increasing number of law review periodicals argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. Usually what is argued in law reviews ends up becoming legal precedent in the future.
There is also good reason to believe that churches and pastors will be affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage even though gay activists deny it. GLAD, a gay activists group, makes a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. Their website says, “Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.”
While that would probably be true in the short term, Princeton Professor Robert P. George believes that there could create conflicts later on. He points out that according to gay activists, preventing same-sex marriage constitutes bigotry. He argues that “if the belief in traditional marriage is a form of bigotry, then people who hold that belief and act on it in the religious sphere are likely to be treated the way racial bigots are treated when they act on racial bigotry in the religious sphere.”
Ministers probably won’t be forced to perform a gay wedding. But it is possible that their churches would lose their tax-exempt status. Harvard University law Professor Mary Ann Glendon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, “Every person and every religion that disagrees [with same-sex marriage] will be labeled bigoted and openly discriminated against.”
What would happen if a Christian who is a county clerk refuses to grant a marriage license to a homosexual couple if that violated his/her beliefs? In Canada, marriage commissioners (similar to the U.S. justices of the peace) have been told to either perform same-sex marriages or quit.
If same-sex marriage becomes legal, it is quite likely that schools would be forced to teach that these relationships are equal to and identical to traditional marriage. GLSEN and other gay activists groups would certainly be pushing for such teaching since they have already been successful in promoting homosexual tolerance and acceptance in the schools.
As Matt Daniels put it, “We’ve got to move quickly.” For defenders of traditional marriage and the family, there’s no time to waste.
This article first appeared in the May 2004 issue of the Freedom Club Report.
Copyright & Reproduction Limitations
This document is the sole property of National Center for Freedom & Renewal (NCFR), the parent organization of Point of View. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be circulated without charge if reproduced in its entirety. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright, [Date] National Center for Freedom & Renewal) and this Copyright/Limitations notice. This document may not be used for resale (or the enhancement of any product sold) without the written permission of National Center for Freedom & Renewal.
Point of View Radio Talk Show uses the powerful tool of live, daily, national talk radio to defend a Biblical Christian worldview and to proclaim Christian solutions for the problems of America. Point of View---and its parent ministry, NCFR---aims to restore the greatness of Christian thought and values to every area of American life. Point of View is a non-profit ministry which serves because of the gifts of like-minded Christians throughout the nation.
