As the California Supreme Court considers the marriage question, I feel like responding to various statements we hear a lot in the “marriage debate”, where homosexual activists are leading the charge to demand that marriage licenses be issued to couples missing either a groom or a bride.

“I want to marry my partner.”

Since true marriage involves both sexes, this statement doesn’t make sense.  It is like saying “I want a square circle.”

“I want to share my life with my partner.”

Go for it.  Nobody is stopping you.

“We don’t have the same benefits as married couples.”

Well, no, in most places you don’t have the same government-regulated benefits, because you’re not married.  Marriage is a specific kind of corporation.  The state treats different kinds of corporations differently.  The marriage corporation is the only kind that can naturally create children and raise them with both a mother and a father who are married to each other.  The state has an interest in raising citizens.  Businesses and organizations can choose to extend to you the same benefits as they extend married couple.  Some benefits of marriage are social, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual, largely having to do with uniting with someone of the opposite sex.  Obviously, those benefits would not be magically extended to you even if the state were to recognize your relationship as marriage.  In some places, you are extended the same legal benefits as a married couple.

“We can’t have ‘separate by equal’.”

As an individual, you have the same access to forming the same kind of corporation as anyone else, so there isn’t separate.  That you don't want to form that kind of corporation does not mean there is something wrong with the existing laws.

“I love my partner just as much as you love your spouse.”

Good for you.  Love does not equal marriage.  Love is not regulated by the state.  The state knows whether you are male or female.

“We’re being treated like second class citizens.”

Again, you have the same access to marriage as anyone else.  However, if you choose not to participate in marriage, you should not be treated like you are married.  People should get treated differently based on behavior.  Someone who wins an election will have certain benefits and access that their opponents won’t get.  Someone who serves honorably in the military will have the access that comes along with being a veteran, while a pacifist conscientious objector won’t.  Felons get treated differently from people who aren’t felons.

“It’s none of your business.”

It is when it involves a marriage license.  Those are issued by the state, which is comprised of the people.  I am included in “the people”.  You are asking me to call something marriage when it isn’t.  It is none of my business if you have someone perform a ceremony for your relationship, you choose to live together, etc.  But it becomes my business when it comes to marriage licenses.

“What harm is it to you?”

Counterfeits devalue the real thing.  It is harmful when the law imposes an untruth (that both-sex and single-sex unions are identical) on the people.  Also, if issuing marriage licenses to counterfeit marriages results in harm to marriage by reducing the number of legitimate marriages, then it is bad for society.

“If marriage is so sacred, what about divorce, Britney Spears, and television shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-millionaire?”

I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who is vocal about preserving marriage who supported that television stunt.  But you know, our objections were met with the standard “change the channel or click off the television if you don’t like it!”, which was ignoring our point.  We also hate divorce, but the fact that a significant number of people choose to end their involvement in a particular marriage corporation (often, they go on to another marriage) does not mean that another kind of union should be recognized as that kind of corporation.  We also hate sham marriages perpetrated by heterosexuals.  However, why would the occurrence of one kind of mockery we don’t like mean it is okay for the state to enshrine an entirely new kind of mockery into state practice?

“What’s the big deal?  Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore anyway - it’s just a piece of paper.”

If it doesn’t mean anything anymore, why are you trying so hard to change the laws so that a same-sex union will be called marriage?  But you are on to something when you suggest that marriage isn’t esteemed the way it used to be.  For example, marriage used to be considered by most people a lifelong commitment that involved a division of labor, and the institution in which people lived together, had sex, and raised children.  Now, much to dismay of the very same people who are trying to preserve marriage in the legal sense, society encourages…divorce if one spouse is unhappy or no longer “in love” regardless of whether they have children or not, husbands and wives to both work outside the home, share the domestic chores, and to have other people (day care workers, for one) raise their children; shacking up; sex outside of marriage or any sort of relationships whatsoever; and having children regardless of marital status.

I seem to recall homosexual activists, but especially other Leftists having had something to do with a lot of those shifts.  It is interesting that now they say “What’s the big deal about marriage anyway?”  They’re like an arsonist who burns down a house and then tells the property owner “You might as well sell your property.  There's nothing on it.”

Along the same lines, radical feminists have long insisted marriage is oppressive.  Thanks to easy no-strings sex and punitive divorce settlements, many men are now claiming that marriage is miserable and oppressive for men.  Yet most of those same people insist that “marriage” should be extended to same-sex couples.  This doesn’t make sense, because these people are claiming to be for “gay rights” but want to subject gays to something they consider oppressive.

“Get government out of the marriage business.”

This is like when a robber demands $10,000 dollars from you, and you say no, so he then says “We’ll compromise then – meet me halfway by giving me $5,000.”  It is tempting to “solve” the legislative and court fights by removing the issue entirely, but it isn’t practical.  The state has an interest in regulating marriage.  Also, if the state is going to get out of marriage, then it should have to get out of many probate and estate issues, alimony, and so forth.  Also, men should no longer automatically be considered a baby’s father simply because the baby was born to his wife.


I’m not trying to make homosexual people unhappy.  However, I do not think that all of society should be reordered to coddle someone’s feelings.  Marriage was not arbitrarily created by the state.  It is more likely that the state grew out of marriage.  I truly believe it is better for society – which includes homosexual people – to esteem and regulate marriage.  Also, marriage is sacred to me and can be recognized by the state, but not truly changed by the state.  The activists do not stop to consider my feelings even as they ask me to reorder society to in an attempt to validate theirs.