Why “Gay Marriage” Is Not a Civil Rights Issue
One of the major strategies of those advocating so-called “gay marriage” is to frame the issue as analogous to the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th century. They wish to equate the struggle that black Americans faced in the 1950’s and 1960’s to achieve equal protection under the law with today’s push to allow homosexual couples to marry.
Is this a valid comparison? I believe it isn’t.
The whole point of the Civil Rights movement was to correct the injustice that certain persons were not treated equally under the law. In the mid-20th century, this was certainly the case with black Americans. They could not drink from the same water fountains, sit at the same counters, or ride in the front of the bus. They were truly second-class citizens, and were it not for God’s grace acting through people like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and many others, they would still be considered such.
So is the modern push for gay marriage an issue of civil rights? If so, it would have to be the case that certain persons are treated unequally under the law. And that is not the case here.
Consider two people, Fred, a straight man, and George, a gay man. Fred has certain legal rights in regard to marriage, and certain legal restrictions. Fred may marry almost any person of the opposite sex he chooses. Fred cannot marry a close relative, and Fred may not be married to more than one person at the same time.
George, like Fred, may marry almost any person of the opposite sex he chooses. George cannot marry a close relative, and George may not be married to more than one person at the same time. In short, Fred and George are treated equally under the law. There is no law that applies to Fred but not to George, or vice versa.
The fact that George does not wish to marry anyone whom he is legally allowed to is irrelevant from a legal perspective. The fact that George wishes to marry someone whom he is legally prohibited from marrying is also irrelevant. (If George were in love with his sister, for instance, he would not be allowed to marry her, regardless of his feelings.)
In short, because Fred and George are treated identically by the law, the question of gay marriage does not rise to the level of a civil rights issue.
February 29 2012 04:43 pm | Uncategorized
Captcook on 29 Feb 2012 at 6:51 pm #
Interesting take, John. The logic is sound in its comparison to the movement of the 1950s-1960s. However, how would it compare historically to, say, the right of women/blacks to vote?
The current law at that time disallowed those classes of people to engage in such a activity. The law was changed because people felt these classes of people should be able to engage in this activity.
Thoughts?
John Moody on 29 Feb 2012 at 8:52 pm #
Good question, Captcook! I don’t think the voting parallel works, for the same reason that the civil rights parallel doesn’t – in both of those cases, the law was not applied equally to all.
My post doesn’t address the issue of whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage. (For the record, I don’t think it should, but that doesn’t matter for purposes of my more narrow argument here.) All I’m trying to show is that trying to frame the same-sex marriage issue as one of civil rights isn’t warranted by the facts.
Captcook on 01 Mar 2012 at 6:25 am #
I’m not sure I agree the parallel doesn’t fit. Consider this: I, a person, was legally allowed to marry that person to whom I fell in love and with whom I wanted to spend the rest of my life. Because I am heterosexual, the law allows me to do this. There are numerous other legal advantages/responsibilities accompanying such an act. If the person with whom I fell in love and wanted to spend the rest of my life was the same sex as I, I would not be afforded the same rights. I think it is in this context that the civil rights analogy gains traction.
I hope you enjoy the banter
.
John Moody on 01 Mar 2012 at 5:08 pm #
You’ll agree that the law prohibits Jack and Jill to marry, even though they are “in love”, if they are biologically brother and sister. No one considers this an issue of civil rights, because no one is allowed to marry a sibling – the law applies equally to all. Love, as they say, doesn’t enter into it.
The same is true in regard to prohibiting “gay marriage” – as long as the same law applies equally to all persons (namely, “you can’t marry a person of the same sex”), then it is not an issue of civil rights.
And your assertion “If the person with whom I fell in love and wanted to spend the rest of my life was the same sex as I, I would not be afforded the same rights” is false. You would be accorded the same rights as any other person – to be allowed to marry almost any person of the opposite sex. You don’t have the right to marry whom you love, legally speaking.
To conclude: no rights are violated by forbidding a person to marry a person of the same sex, because that right does not exist, either legally or (and I would say especially) morally.