A week from today, the California Supreme Court will consider legal arguments against Proposition 8, which redefines marriage in that state as between a man and a woman, in response to a recent court decisions extending the right to marry to gay couples.
But why should we, living several states away in Oklahoma, care about a debate over California law?
For those with religious objections
Supporters of Proposition 8 have argued that legalizing gay marriage would threaten religious freedom by forcing churches to marry same-sex couples or barring them from preaching against homosexuality.
These accusations are entirely unfounded. There is a question of religious freedom at stake for some in this debate, which anyone with religious beliefs should care deeply about.
To understand why these claims are false, turn to semantics. The term marriage has two equally valid definitions: one religious, one secular.
It is a sacred ceremony that binds people together in many belief systems (not all of which condemn homosexuality).
It is also the legal term used to describe a civil contract between people that confers upon them more than a thousand federal rights.
These two “versions” of marriage are completely separate, and any debate about marriage rights must acknowledge that separation.
No, the government has no right to tell churches who they must marry – it already lacks that ability.
But neither does the Christian church have the right to limit who can receive the secular, legal marriage.
Followers of other religions and those without religious beliefs are allowed to marry. Obviously, a secular form of marriage is currently in practice.
Allowing same-sex couples to partake in the secular side of marriage will have no effect on the religious side of marriage.
It will not force churches to marry anyone (a right to refusal which they already hold), and it will not make it a hate crime to preach against homosexuality. The religious rights of the majority of this country are not threatened by gay marriage.
However, Proposition 8 does endanger the religious rights of several minority religions. Some denominations of Christianity or sects of Buddhism, for example, condone same-sex marriages.
By banning the secular right to gay marriage, the state is limiting the religious freedom of those groups.
Anyone with religious beliefs, majority or minority, should be greatly concerned by this blatant violation of the protections they cherish.
For those with political objections
Another battle fought over the right to marry ended in 1967.
Then, the Supreme Court addressed anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage or cohabitation.
In its decision, Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
To those who would answer that gay individuals have the same right to marry that straight people do – that is, to marry someone of the opposite sex – I would ask what is the purpose of marriage? If it is simply procreation, then that argument stands.
But it would then follow that infertile individuals should not be allowed to marry.
Obviously, marriage means more to us than procreation.
For everyone
Marriage is about more than offspring. In our civilized society, have we not grown beyond the simple, animalistic urge to continue the species? While that is still an important drive, we have more than biology at stake now.
Marriage is, most simply, about love. It is about choosing someone with whom you are compatible to spend your life.
It is about supporting each other through the bad times and having someone to celebrate with in the good times. It is about making each other’s lives just that much brighter.
When viewed for what it really is, it is certainly “fundamental to our very existence.”
It is part of the unalienable right to happiness that all citizens deserve.
Any of us who value that right – or simply doesn’t wish to see marriage defined as a means for passing on the genetic code – should be watching this decision, and engaging in future battles, with passion.
-Mary Stanfield is a philosophy sophomore.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
kdbp1213 3 years, 2 months ago
let homosexuals marry, divorce, & be miserable just like heterosexuals...........
mikedavis 3 years, 2 months ago
This column hit the nail on the head. The struggle for equal marriage rights is important for religious freedom, freedom of choice, and equal treatment in our laws.
Right now gay men and women meet many challenges that opponents to equal marriage are unaware of. Because they are forced to remain unmarried it is often difficult or impossible to visit their partner in the hospital (typically intenisive care), and their property does not automatically become their partner's upon their death.
People need to stop thinking of this issue as "allowing gay marriage". The real problem is the prohibition on marriage among an entire class of citizens. And it must be fixed.
Rhology 3 years, 2 months ago
That "class" of people already has the same rights to marry as anyone else. No reason to change it. And I don't recall ever defining a "class" of people by behavior - guys who have sex with guys, etc. I have "propensities" towards all kinds of things, I don't necessarily think that they should be legal.
Bubba 3 years, 2 months ago
Who, exactly, is propositioning someone with 8? Can we get a cartoon here?
-Bubba