Argument by analogy against same-sex marriage
By guest blogger, Susan
I think having a sister is a wonderful thing, and I would love for everyone to be able to enjoy the blessings and benefits of a sister relationship. But some people, through no fault of their own, and due to no defect, simply cannot do so: if your parents did not have a female child in addition to you, you can never have a sister, no matter how much you might want one. You can have close and deeply rewarding relationships with other women your age, but none of these can ever be your sister. You may protest all you want that another woman is “like a sister to me”; that woman will never be so in the eyes of the law (e.g., she will not share in any inheritance from or responsibility for your parents). Nor would ordinary people seriously refer to her as your sister.
It is similar with marriage. Like “sister,” “husband” and “wife” connote more than a certain level of affection and commitment between two people. These words also denote unique interpersonal bonds that are created by the begetting (or likelihood of begetting) children – on someone’s part. No matter how close two female friends may be, the relationship is not the same as that between two women who were raised by the same parents. And no matter how much two men may love each other and be committed to one another, their bond is intrinsically different from that of a man and woman whose every act of sexual union has the potential to produce a child – and which, in the overwhelming majority of marriages, does eventually do so. Yes, there are married couples who are childless, either intentionally so or due to infertility. There are also sisters who are raised apart and never even meet until they’re fully grown. But such cases are outliers. The fact remains that normally, the biology of human generation plays a defining role in these relationships.
So I sincerely wish all those I know and love who are attracted to members of their own sex, relationships that are deep, loving, and rich. But these can never be marriages. This is not discrimination, any more than it would be if a woman who was an only child were told she could not have her best friend declared her sister. It is simply a matter of definition.
Loading ...
Susan, putting the term “marriage” aside, do you think gay couples in long-term, committed relationships should be entitled to the same benefits (ones that don’t involve children) as married couples? For example, should gay couples be allowed to be on each others’ health insurance plans, have equal hospital visitation, inheritance, and citizenship rights, and the same Social Security benefits, federal tax, and retirement benefits as married couples?
In other words, are you more against gay couples using the term “married” or their having access to the same benefits as married straight couples? I’m not trying to start an argument (promise!), I just want to know what your position is.
Excellent point Spunky. Many of those opposed to marriage equality are also opposed to civil unions or any other type of legal recognition of committed same-sex unions and opposed to parental rights and responsibilities for non-biological parents of children raised by same-sex couples. Many would have our families remain legal strangers to one another, regardless of the harm to our families that results.
But that woman’s parents could adopt her friend whose like a sister. They can specify that friend whose like a sister receive some sort of inheritance in their will. Friend whose like a sister can petition for guardianship, or be given power of attorney.
The problem with your analogy is “sister” is a mainly a biological term, although it can also be a legally awarded status due to adoption or remarriage. Marriage is not a biological term. No one is born a wife or husband. Marriage is something adults enter into legally or spiritually. I don’t feel your analogy covers that. There’s a difference between familial love and romantic love.
This is a very interesting analogy. I think it works pretty well. Of course pro-SSM advocates will have reasons for thinking that it doesn’t work, since they have a fundamentally different view of what marriage is. But to me, the analogy is a good one.
Actually, I think an important mistake that proponents of same-sex marriage make is to assume that biology doesn’t have a role in the marriage relationship. I think it does. While you’re correct that no one is born a husband or wife, people are born men and women — and the relationship between a man and a woman is intrinsically different from the relationship between two men or two women, precisely because of the biological/physiological differences between men and women. The most obvious difference is that acts of intercourse between a man and a woman have the potential to bring new life into being, while sexual behavior between two men or two women never does. This potential — even when blocked through contraception (although obviously to a lesser degree) — naturally orients heterosexual couples towards parenthood. And more than 90% of heterosexual marriages do eventually result in the birth of a child. But there are other important intrinsic biological differences as well. Men’s and women’s hormones help to shape their psyches in distinct ways. Thus, while there is always a great range, there are still traits that are far more common in men, and others that are far more common in women — because of the differences in their biology. A committed relationship between a man and a woman — i.e., a marriage — helps, over the years, to round off and balance out the more extreme aspects of both the husband’s “male traits” (for example, a tendency toward promiscuity) and the wife’s “female traits” (for example, a tendency toward clinginess). Such a relationship, again because of biological differences between the partners, also helps each partner to grow in his or her understanding of the opposite sex in general — an effect that is of enormous benefit to society at large. And while the inevitable differences between any two human beings likely have some beneficial effects in long-term same-sex relationships, there is no undergirding biological basis in such relationships that makes effects such as those associated with heterosexual marriage either probable or predictable.
“No matter how close two female friends may be, the relationship is not the same as that between two women who were raised by the same parents.”
I think we should leave the nature of a couple’s relationship up to the couple to define and describe, don’t you? I know I’m not comfortable telling, say, an elderly couple that their sterile relationship isn’t really important to society, so they really shouldn’t get married, or some such hogwash.
Whether same-sex committed relationships are the same as different-sex relationships is beside the point. If the government wants to encourage and strengthen couples’ relationships by giving legal recognition, why wouldn’t it want to strengthen both kinds of relationships?
We treat lots of things that are perceived as different, equally under the law. Such as men and women. Or whites and blacks. As courts have explained time and again, the common denominator isn’t and cannot be “the same” but rather “similarly situated.”
@Spunky No, homophile couples should not be on each other’s health insurance or annuities (including Social Security) because those benefits were established to foster marriage and the raising of children by having the mother at home and not able to work. Homophile couples are individuals with individual jobs and are not being provided support for raising families. As for hospital visitation and inheritance, that can be done through legal contracts. And also no to citizenship due to marriage – their union does nothing to foster the building blocks of society.
Employers should NOT have to spend more money providing benefits to unmarried couples – whether or not they can marry – which is what they will have to do when you redefine “marriage” to include same-sex unions.
Same-sex couples can also provide for inheritance via a will.
Not most members of the public, or Congress. Yes, most people are opposed to CU’s if they are substantially identical to marriage and give all the rights of marriage, because those are “marriage in all but name” and “stepping stones to marriage” and unconstitutional anyhow, because they are just based on animus. But most people support legal recognition and support parental rights for same-sex couples, if those problems are avoided.
It is Sean and Rob and probably you, who oppose the CU’s as I have proposed them: defined as “marriage minus conception rights” so that they are not marriage in all but name, are not substantially identical, can not be turned into marriage by a court (as long as the other two laws are also passed) and can be enacted in all 50 states even with amendments (except Texas I think which bans any recognition at all).
@Spunky
I am still working out what I think with regard to civil unions and the provision of various kinds of rights to same-sex couples. I’m getting a lot out of everyone else’s posts on these issues. About the only thing I can say for certain is that I am against any denial of rights to same-sex partners that would be truly uncharitable. For example, I think there’s no reason to deny access to a partner who is in intensive care simply because the partners don’t fit the hospital’s definition of allowable kin. If a person is terribly ill, they should be allowed to have whomever they want with them, whether that’s their husband, their sister, their old army buddy, their long-time home health aide — or their same-sex partner.
@Susan
But do the differences in individual people change the fundamental meaning of the relationships?
There are differences in men and women, but there are many differences between cultures. It’s only part of the story to talk about men and women as different only because of biological differences, it’s important to consider socialization as well.
I think it’s also important to consider that, especially with relationships, there is a legal definition and a biological definition. The legal definition does not render useless the biological, and the bio does not render useless the legal.
Thanks for the responses, Susan and Glenn.
As you might guess, I posted the response to Glenn before your post was approved for moderation. Betsy, would you be able to delete my previous post (#11)?
Well it’s good to know that you see committed partners as at least equal to their long-time health aides!
@Sean
Are you comfortable telling an elderly couple that in their old age they are entitled to maintain the same institutions they are lived with all their lives, even though they are now too old to have children?
Are you comfortable telling an elderly heterosexual couple that their relationship is just like a gay couple’s relationship? Do you think they would agree with that? Have you asked an elderly couple (perhaps your parents or grandparents) if they feel similarly situated to a same sex couple?
When it comes to health issues with doctors and hospitals, all one has to do is sign a form stating who is permitted to have the information. My wife even had to do that before a doctor would release information to me over the phone. We have also made a legal document that names one couple – our best friends – as authorized to make visits and also to make medical decisions if we are unable to do so. Any same-sex union can do the same thing without having “marriage.”
I’m a little confused on the issue myself. I believe Glenn is correct, although it might only be temporary. Obama mandated that hospitals let gay couples have equal hospital visitation rights regardless of marital status. (Two links because many articles were dated in January and then in April.) This took effect at the beginning of 2010. So everything should be equal because the president decreed it. However, I then read that Scott Walker is trying to take these rights away at the state level. My guess is that this new national hospital policy that Glenn is referring to is only okay as long as Obama allows it, and that some future president can get rid of this anti-discrimination requirement. If someone could help me on this that’d be awesome!
Glenn, my question was, “should gay couples be allowed to…have equal hospital visitation rights.” I.e., do you believe they should be entitled to the rights you mentioned (with or without marriage), or should they not? I assume you believe so but I just want to make sure.
Again this is not hard to figure out. In no way shape or form should same sex couples get the same benefits as married couples. It would be like giving everyone the same auto insurance rate regardless of driving record. Go back and research and look up the facts. The government chose to give benefits to married couples(male/female) as incentives to procreate and to continue our society. These took on added importance when Americia enacted the entitlement state.
If not for procreation then the government would not be in the marriage business in the first place. The licenses and the benefits are not rights but are priviledges granted by the state. These are incentives to procreate. So no these should never be given to homosexual couples. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of why the government issues marriage licneses.
@Spunky Rights that are not related to marriage should not be denied anyone. The right to visit someone in the hospital must be based on a specific relationship so that not every Tom, Dick and Harry can make decisions. That’s why within marriage it should be automatic, but anyone can make a legal document to allow anyone else to visit or make decisions about medical issues. That right has nothing to do with marriage, does not redefine marriage, etc. But it should not be automatic outside of real marriage because that could open a whole pandora’s box.
Thanks for letting me know, John Noe, and for clarifying, Glenn.
“Are you comfortable telling an elderly heterosexual couple that their relationship is just like a gay couple’s relationship? Do you think they would agree with that? Have you asked an elderly couple (perhaps your parents or grandparents) if they feel similarly situated to a same sex couple?”
I see no need to make comparisons. It is you who wants to divide and conquer. I say, let all adults determine what rates as a committed relationship, and give those relationships equal legal status.
In fact, from a legal standpoint, it appears that most Americans DO believe gay relationships should be treated equally, whether they perceive them as the same or not.
@Sean
Your argument about being “similarly situated” relies on making comparisons. Now you don’t want to make comparisons. Your arguments are at war with one another.
Also, if most Americans do believe in supporting gay relationships, that argument undermines your argument for strict scrutiny. Once again your arguments are at war with one another. Also, based on actual elections, while most Americans may be supportive at some level of gay relationships, they have yet to agree to redefining marriage. For example, in California the state gives gay couples every right it gives heterosexual couples except the word “marriage.”
Any group of adults defining what rates as a committed relationship is what contract law is about, not family law. A mafia family is not a real family, though the level of commitment may reach fatal levels.