I’m against changing marriage licensing so that legal marriage will no longer mean uniting the sexes.  Some people claim to be in favor of “gay marriage”, but this is a misnomer.  Changing the legal definition of marriage would mean allowing same-sex or single-sex “marriage”.  There would be no requirements that the participants actually be gay.

Inspired by a recent blog posting by Greg Koukl, I wanted to bring you some bad arguments for changing marriage licensing to license couples missing one of the sexes.  Koukl has a more in-depth piece here.

Keep in mind – marriage licenses are issued by the state, on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Citing Past Wrongs and Laws – Most common is likening the denial of marriage licenses to single-sex couples to laws banning “interracial” marriage that were struck down.  But as Koukl aptly demonstrates, that some things were illegal in the past and are now legal does not mean other things must necessarily follow.  Otherwise, we might as well throw out all laws.  Skin color is irrelevant to marriage.  Gender is central to the state’s interest in marriage.

Man: But I Don’t Want to Marry a Woman, I Want to Marry My “Husband” – Legal marriage is not an obligation, and not a right along the same level of freedom of religion or speech.  That a man does not want to marry a woman does not obligate the state to change its marriage licensing so that he can legally marry another man.  The fact is, he does have the same access as any straight man.  The access is there.  And since there is no legal requirement that each individual marry, he is free to not marry a woman.  That someone is wanting something does not obligate the majority to change.  Likewise, there are straight men (and, apparently, a handful of women) who want to have their marriage licensed without subjecting it to laws that mean some level of spousal support and division of assets in the event of a divorce.  So they don’t marry.  Everyone has equal access to marriage, even if not everyone can find an eligible, consenting partner.  But not everyone wants licensed marriage as society offers.

I Can’t Get the Same Benefits as a Straight Man – Strictly speaking, yes, a gay man can get the same benefits – by marrying in the legal sense.  That he doesn’t want to is not the state’s concern.  Likewise, one can’t get veterans benefits without being a military veteran, no matter how ardent a pacifist.  The military is under no obligation to change its purpose to accommodate pacifists.

We Love Each Other – As Koukl points out, love does not equal marriage.  The state doesn’t deal with subjective internal matters like “love” – it deals with objective, fixed facts like the sex of an individual and whether or not they are already married.  There are many loving relationships where the individuals are not married to each other, or having sex with each other.

Our Relationship Should Be Treated the Same – There’s nothing in the Constitution that says this.  In fact, the state treats different kinds of relationships differently, such as different kinds of business relationships.  A relationship missing one of the sexes is different from one that is inclusive of both sexes.  Single-sex relationships of this sort have never been necessary for the perpetuation of society, while both-sexes relationships have.  Both men and women are necessary components of society, and marriage unites them.  They are the only kind of coupling that can naturally produce children and raise them with both a male and female role model.

It’s Not About Children, Because Not All Married Couples Have Children – This is like saying that cars in general aren’t for driving because some cars are kept in a collection instead of used as transportation.  Again, Koukl covers this one well.

Gay People Have Kids, Too – Two men or two women have never produced a child naturally through their union.  This means that any children involved were either conceived in a prior relationship, were conceived using “reproductive technology”, or were adopted.  Someone making this argument assumes that we all think these things are hunky dory.  However, that a person fornicated or chose the wrong person to marry and make a child with and then divorced, or that a person is able to find a sperm donor, egg donor, or a rent-a-womb does not mean we should change our marriage licensing.  It means a bunch of people screwed up in not ensuring a child would have both a mother and father married to each other.  If a person was widowed and with a child, then they should focus on raising that child instead of spending time switching teams.  As for adoption – the ideal should be that children are placed with a man and woman who are married.

We’re a Part of Society and Not Going Away – Same could be said for single people.  So what?

You’re Just Imposing Your Morality On Us – Law itself presumes some morality.  As a democratic republic, the people of each state determine which moral principles to place into law, within certain boundaries.  Since a marriage license is issued by the state, the people of that state have a say so.  Forcing them to issue a license is imposing your morality on them.

Your Opposition is Based on Your Religion – Not every reason to oppose changing marriage licensing is connected to a specific religion.  Some reasons are based on biology and societal interest.  But even if they were based on religion, refer to the previous answer for the counter.

This Will Make Me Happy – This one is especially used on friends and family members.  While appealing to someone’s concern for them, the activist for change really is asking them to set aside their own convictions and feelings and to give up their vote to the activist.  If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered.  Our government is there to allow us to pursue happiness, not make us happy.

What About People Who Undergo a Sex Change? – A man who has his genitalia removed/altered, is injected with hormones, and wears dresses is still a man, albeit a mutilated one.

“You’re a Bigot!” – That’s an accusation, not an argument.

“Shut up!” – That’s a request, not an argument.

It’s Just a Piece of Paper – This one is curious, given the intense pleading for it.

Marriage Is Already Devalued - This one is a little like the previous one.  Activists for change cite the high divorce rate, adultery, fornication, out-of-wedlock births, and celebrity/“reality” television marriage train wrecks as reasons why marriage isn’t being handled right by both-sexes couples.  But just because marriage licenses are being misused or disrespected doesn’t obligate the state to change the licenses to be issued to couples who do not have both sexes included.


A not-so-bad argument I’ve heard is that licensing same-sex relationships as marriage will stabilize gay relationships, and that stable gay relationships make the individuals more productive members of society.  Without arguing the claim that stable sex-sex relationships make the individuals more productive – if so, they do this already without a marriage license.  Also, many things make people more productive but we don’t or shouldn’t have the state get involved.  Furthermore, there are compelling arguments that changing the licensing would cause harm that would outweigh the good, and that homosexual activity is more detrimental overall to participants, and thus more of a negative to society, than any positives.

Regardless, the people who want the change have the burden of proving that the change would be Constitutional and beneficial to society.

Some argue that because Massachusetts changed marriage licensing, per judicial imposition, that every other state in the union should as well.  However, I highly doubt these same people would think this way if another state, say, started issuing licenses to hunt an endangered species.  Just because one state screws up its licensing, should all the other states be forced to follow?  Remember – licensed marriage is a not a right.