Spencer on Equality

I agree strongly with Sydney Spencer's argument that the marriage debate is nothing but an argument over equal representation. Brown v. Board of Ed. taught us long ago that separate is inherently unequal, in the eyes of constitutional law. That we are having this debate now, nevermind 45 years from now, is embarrassing, in my view. The concept is not difficult. All citizens are afforded equal rights and equal access to state and federal resources. Denying marriage denies equal access to marriage benefits to homosexuals. Without even getting into religious and social definitions of what constitutes marriage, denial thereof is patently unconstitutional.

Furthermore, conservative arguments fall short in other respects. The idea that marriage equality redefines marriage any more than allowing women to choose partners or restricting marriage to two people (another thing I find silly) does is wholly fallacious. Marriage, for starters, is not defined by the Bible. Both human civilisation and marriage traditions existed long before Abrahamic religion. Even if marriage was created by God and unequivocally defined in the Bible, we hardly follow the letter of Biblical dogma, today. If we did, no blended fabrics would exist and I could be jailed for growing wheat and corn side by side.

More extreme arguments against marriage equality only get ridiculous from the religious right, truthfully. The slippery slope always comes up. If gays can marry, it goes. why not polygamists? Well, WHY NOT? Assuming polygamy wherein all parties are consenting adults freely entering the arrangement, exactly who is to dictate that most personal of household arrangement? And then, the argument continues, why not kids? Or Horses? Or brooms? Last I checked, children, horses, and brooms had no legal right to consent, or even thumbs in the latter two cases, with which to sign a contract. Because that is what marriage is. A contract. The idea of holy covenant is an add-on to soften the edges of what amounts to a document choosing how one’s body and estate is handled after death.

Ultimately, LEGALLY, whether gay or straight, all U.S. citizens must be afforded equality. In the absence of a theocracy, the proscription of rights based on theological morality is asinine. What church a person does or doesn’t celebrate a union in is has nothing to do with the fact that a marriage license is issued by the STATE as a contractual agreement between the STATE and INDIVIDUALS. This is a business arrangement, not a pastoral one. In order to meet the constitutional mandate of equality for all citizens, we must either allow homosexual unions, on par with heterosexual, or disallow ALL legal forms of marriage and leave such things to the churches. Either way, ALL citizens must have access to ALL government benefits and human rights