How often have I heard that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue? Too many times to keep track of, that's for sure. The people who take that position make it sound pretty convincing, or at least make you feel that if you disagree you must be a Communist, Hitler, or the anti-Christ... But, this argument requires some serious scrutiny...
First, let's get the record straight, I served my country, was willing to give up my life in defense of our freedom and our Constitution. I have a degree to teach history and government and went way beyond the minimum requirements for coursework and reading in areas of American History, Philosophy, Government, Morality and Ethics. And since obtaining my degree I have never stopped reading and learning more about our Constitution, government, politics, morality, philosophy, etc. And during the course of my liberal arts education, while my knowledge and understanding was far more incomplete than it is today, though it's still not nearly complete, I went through a long period of just blindly accepting similar arguments about freedom, civil rights, tolerance, etc... So, what I'm saying is this is simply some regurgitation or adaptation of Church teaching oblivious to alternative views, practicality, or the human condition.
Now, that out of the way, let's discuss civil rights. Civil rights are the class of rights that insure individuals the ability to participate in politics, government and society without discrimination or persecution due to some intrinsic trait they possess such as race, sex, age, religious creed, etc. It's very critical that one appreciate what this means and does not mean. It is not the protection of ones right to participate in something which they are unqualified to participate in, for example, it is not discrimination to say a man cannot give birth to a child, they are simply not capable of doing that. It is not discrimination to deny a blind person a job in sorting colored socks, nor is it discrimination to deny a deaf person a role as a music critic. Nor is it discrimination to forbid a Mormon from being a Catholic priest, a Catholic from being the leader of an atheist fraternal organization, or caucasian from claiming to be African-American to claim a scholarship for African-American students. Those are quite simply matters of being validly disqualified from a role.
So, let's move on to discuss marriage. Historically, marriage was a religious institution. Certainly that is a reality that predates our existence by thousands of years, but there is no dispute that marriage as an institution was established as a human institution for religious (moral) purposes. Government's, rulers, political/secular leaders had no real purpose for marriage. But, as society evolved secular institutions (governments) recognized there was some societal value in the institution and got involved. What they realized was this: Societies thrived and grew based on their population. A growing population led to a growing, thriving, evolving society that could expand it's wealth, territory and influence. If the population were stagnant or dwindling the society would stagnate or dwindle, if a neighboring society were growing it's population faster it would gain power and influence more rapidly and become a greater threat to the slower growing neighbor. Leaders realized there was a relationship between marriage and children and children were the greatest and most inexhaustible source of population growth and increase in power base ever known to man. So, societies, for reasons other than religious started to sanction marriage. They would offer incentives, however obvious or subtle, for people to marry and they would directly and/or indirectly encourage married couples to have children. Legal protections, property protections, increased social stature and more were used as "enticements" to marry and a legal, governmental framework for documenting marital status so the "enticements" could be properly received was established.
For centuries, upon centuries, this motivation is what has fueled government involvement in marriage. Marriage, married couples having children, is what fuels a societies growth, prosperity, evolution and by extension stability, so governments give tax breaks, legal protections, and other incentives to citizens to marry and to have children.
Now... that's why marriage exists. That's why the "benefits" and "protections" are granted to married couples that singles do not enjoy. So, now we reach the question of whether or not denying same-sex "marriage" is a discriminatory act, a violation of civil rights, or not.
The simple and obvious truth is that same-sex marriage are incapable of contributing to the population of a society. That is not to say that same-sex couples are incapable of being good parents to adopted children. It is a simple statement of fact that it is biologically, physiologically, and physically impossible for two men or for two women to procreate and directly contribute to population stability or growth.
Both sides tend to focus on other arguments, some valid, some invalid and mere smokescreens to the real issue at hand. But, the fact of the matter is that marriage as a government sanctioned institution is not a privilege or a right. The rights we have are to copulate or commit to anyone we desire bonding ourselves to or pleasuring ourselves with, or choosing to follow moral principles regarding those actions that come from a higher authority, or rejecting those ideals. But marriage as a government institution was intended and designed to serve a purpose of stabilizing and growing a society. The "benefits" of government sanction marriage, in the form of legal protections, tax breaks, economic credits, etc. are enticements to married life which has a very strong effect on birthrates.
It makes no logical sense to demand same-sex "marriage" be granted the same benefits as traditional marital unions. The rational question is whether government sanctioned marriage is necessary, whether the secular and legal incentives to marry and procreate are effective and/or necessary any longer.
If they are then those that qualify to contribute to the population qualify for the incentives, those that don't qualify, don't qualify.
I don't want to take on the whether government sanctioned marriage is of value or not today. Nor do I want to delve into some of the other arguments that have some merit in the discussion. But, I think it is critical that something change in this country. And that necessary change is that we actually start using our capacity for critical thinking. We need to understand what civil rights are and are not. We need to understand the difference between unfair discrimination and lack of qualification. We need to really think about why institutions, laws, rules, etc. exist and start with justifying why we are even defending or opposing an ideal, organization or institution instead of just attacking superficial consequences devoid of the deep and real purposes.
