District of Columbia Council members voted recently to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, I couldn’t help but reflect on a statement made by James Dobson in an interview with CSPAN in 2005. Dobson argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would undoubtedly be one of the most dangerous social experiments our nation has ever considered under-taking.
So what could possibly justify such a risk?
Many proponents of same-sex marriage equate their struggle with that of African-Americans’ for racial equality, claiming it is the “civil rights issue of our time.”
Three things are wrong with this. First, not all social movements are equal and issues regarding civil rights need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Second, same-sex marriage is not about rights, but about preferences. Third, skin color is not equivalent to behavior.
To illustrate the first point, philosopher Greg Koukl imagines a rich man who walks into a bank and asks for $100 but is told his account is empty. Perplexed, the rich man asks the cashier to check again, and upon doing so the cashier realizes he entered the wrong account number, finds the funds, and hands the man the money.
Standing behind the rich man in line is a poor fellow. After asking the cashier for $100, the cashier responds that he has no money in the bank. The poor man then responds, “Well you made a mistake with the last guy, so hand me $100.”
The point is: Mistakes must be examined on a case-by-case basis. With regard to same-sex marriage, we need to ask, “Are we making the same mistake here as we have done in the past?” I don’t believe the concerns for homosexual liberty are the same as the concern for racial equality; one is about rights and the other about preferences.
Is it correct that in the Unites States homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals? Does someone’s sexual preference really dictate what rights they have? No. Homosexuals have the same rights as other Americans.
For example, when it comes to marriage, we all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Now understandably, not everyone may want to exercise that right, namely homosexuals, but just because you have different preferences doesn’t mean that you have different rights.
If advocates of same-sex marriage seriously advocate the principle that we should turn people’s marital preferences into rights, they must support the cause of those with the preference to marry multiple partners. Don’t take my word for it. Visit Pro-Polygamy.com where polygamists are already using such reasoning to argue that the state cannot “discriminate” against them.
The third fundamental point is that skin color and behavior are different. With homosexuality, we are not talking about something morally neutral like skin color. Skin color has nothing to do with morality. But behavior obviously does. The debate over same-sex marriage is fundamentally divided over whether people view homosexuality as morally good, bad, or neutral.
To act justly is to treat equal things equally, and different things differently. The question same-sex marriage poses, then, is whether homosexual unions are equivalent to heterosexual unions. If they are morally equivalent, both should be legal. If they are not, as the overwhelming majority of Americans think, the state should not recognize same-sex unions.
So let’s start being honest: Same-sex marriage involves a moral question about preferences, not equal rights.
Joe Manzari is a resident of Washington, D.C.
