Gay Rights and Wrongs

The Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, in March 2002, voted down bills that would authorize marriage between two people of the same sex ("same-sex marriage") and that would, as an alternative, establish a right for gay couples to enter into a "civil union" similar to that in Vermont. The basic argument in favor of these bills is that gay people involved in loving, committed relationships should have the same "rights" as men and women who are married, and that the only way to do this comprehensively is to allow same-sex marriage or civil union, sanctioned by the state.

Before I go any further, let me say that while I oppose both same-sex marriage or gay civil union, I do not believe homosexuality should be illegal. Sexual relations between consenting adults should be private, and thus none of the state's business. At the same time, people should not be granted special rights simply because of the way they practice sex. The problem that most people have with homosexuals is not who they are but what they do. But as long as they do it in private, it doesn't bother me. To paraphrase another commentator, I would much rather have dinner with Elton John than with Al Gore or Bill Clinton.

Same-sex marriage or civil union would grant special rights to people simply because of the way they practice sex. There is no argument that two same-sex heterosexual people should have this "right." Supporters of same-sex marriage may argue that traditional marriage, i.e., between a man and a woman, is grounded in the way men and women have sex. However, men and women do not need the state's blessing to engage in sexual relationships, and marriage is not a license for a sexual relationship. Men and women can, and do, have sex outside of marriage. Furthermore, marriage existed long before Thomas Hooker set foot in the Connecticut River Valley. Marriage was not established by Connecticut law. The sexual relationship between married men and women does not need to be validated by the state, because the norm never needs to be validated.

The gay rights lobby is pushing for same-sex marriage because toleration is no longer good enough. Gays now want societal approval, validated by the state. A free society should certainly tolerate gay people. But the people of this state or any other state should not be forced, as they were in Vermont, to validate the homosexual lifestyle.

Is restricting marriage to a man and a woman as oppressive as prohibiting a black from marrying a white? No, because blacks and whites were free to marry long before such marriages became illegal in certain jurisdictions, and black-white marriage is still a male-female relationship. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from discriminating on the basis of race. It does not require a state to recognize one member of a male gay couple as a woman or one member of a lesbian couple as a man.

Marriage started as a way to protect women in the raising of children. Civilization began when men started pairing off with the mothers of their children. Before that time, men would roam and prey upon a multitude of women. This rationale, however, does not apply to a man-man or woman-woman relationship. But that is ancient history. Does it apply today? Take a ride through any urban ghetto and answer the question yourself. Look at the societal problems caused by young women having children by more than one man, none of whom stays around to support the children they fathered. Who is more secure in raising her children: a single black woman living on and off with one or more boyfriends; or a married black woman living with her husband, who supports his wife and children?

Now it is true that allowing same-sex marriage or civil union won't lead to the destruction of stable families, but the historical rationale for traditional marriage does not apply to gay couples. For two men or two women to live together, even if they have child in the household, is not the same as a woman raising children fathered by her husband. True, today men are no longer the sole breadwinners, but mothers still need protection in the raising of children. Many women go it alone. For poor women, this is disastrous. And for wealthy, educated women like Jodie Foster, it is simply a choice of lifestyle that does not burden society but sets a bad example.

Some liberals might counter this with a totalitarian argument—if the purpose of marriage is to protect women in the raising of children, then heterosexual couples who do not want children should not be allowed to marry. But whether people have children is none of the government's business. "Do you intend to have children?" is not a question on the marriage license application, nor should it be. The rationale for confining marriage to male-female couples nevertheless stands. While it is none of the state's business whether people have children, there is no valid reason to change the nature of marriage. The "rights" that married people have with respect to property, inheritance, insurance, and health care decisions can be secured by gay couples through a series of legal documents. And if there are some important claims that cannot be satisfied that way, they can be achieved by a statute that does not put an official stamp of approval on the couple's relationship.

Toleration is all people have a right to expect in a free society. If people want to live in an unconventional relationship, they should do so without demanding societal approval.