Why a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage is Illogical

Go ahead. Site me statistics about how Homosexual couples have a higher percentage of sexually transmitted disease, a higher frequency of a history of childhood abuse, and I’ll explain to you how those statistics are skewed and often inaccurate. Maybe I’ll even site a few statistics about how minorities are oppressed or why Homosexuals make great couples, friends, and parents. Blah, blah, blah.

None of that matters though because asking the Government to enforce laws controlling personal relationships is wrong.


Most people who argue for a Constitutional ban on Gay Marriage do so for religious reasons declaring “sodomy is an abomination!” However, as I’ve argued so many times before: you can’t legislate morality nor should the Government be able to make personal relationships between two consenting adults illegal.

Besides, a law preventing Gay marriage will in no way prevent two men, who wish to do so, from having sex.

I suppose in principal I understand where the Religious right are coming from. The religious do not want to condone or encourage homosexuality, so naturally they want a law banning a fundamental relationship. Right? However, legally and philisophically, demanding the Government to enforce a law banning ANY personal relationship is more immoral than the “abomination” the evangelicals are trying to prevent.

Giving the Government permission to dictate personal lives

My biggest critique on most conservatives is that they all demand “limited Government!”, but are all too willing to use that same Government to enforce laws when it suits them or justifies their “moral” code. We can’t, and shouldn’t, have it both ways!

Limited Government means, you guessed it, limited! That means the Government doesn’t over-tax, doesn’t intervene in our personal relationships, and most of all is never used by the majority to control the minority.

The problem with Government is when you give it permission to dictate personal relationships you have opened a door for control that has the potential to go too far. It could be your relationship or your privacy that you are defending next.

Instead we should leave it up to society to make moral decisions. In this way Evangelicals can try to peacefully convert as many homosexuals that will listen and the Non-Religious can listen or ignore them as they desire. Giving this responsibility to an institution who could at any time go to far and infringe on all of our human and personal rights is just too risky. Besides – it makes no sense for the Government to spend time and tax dollars voting on what personal relationship you see fit for yourself.

We should never, at any time, advocate Government interference in the private lives of the citizens.

Times they are a Changin’

It wasn’t too long ago a Christian was trying to explain to me that it was a sin for two people of opposite races to have a relationship. Go a little further back and the Government decided that was illegal too. Looking back almost everyone, even many Evangelicals, realize that attitude is call racism and is evil.

It seems we still have a little further to go in the human rights department. I wonder if our children or grand children will look back on all this, like we look back on segregation, and wonder what they hell society was thinking.

It’s funny how some people call things progress and other people call it sin.

8 thoughts on “Why a Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage is Illogical

  1. amelie

    I think the most important legal point is that gay marriage is not addressed in the Constitution, but rather in the Supreme Court. They made their decision to seperate church and state. Therefore, as long as the government is involved in marriage, there cannot be a ban based on religious beliefs. Finished. End of story.

    The evangelicals should just face it. They lost on this, and soon will be giving up the fight to teach Creationism in schools as well.

    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      I doubt some of them will ever give up, but their children will, and the more moderate religious will realize its wrong to stop two people from having an concentual relationships.

      At very least I hope I can appeal to people’s desire for limited Government when it comes to advocating legislation controlling private relationships. 🙂

  2. Rattlesnake

    I pretty much agree with you, but it seems like you are not making a distinction between marriage and unmarried relationships. As long as there is no law against sodomy, two men can legally have a sexual relationship; and they can even call it marriage and get married at certain churches.

    I think gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples do, but I don’t see the point in calling it marriage if so many people are opposed to it.

    I would prefer the government get out of marriage entirely and leave it up to churches, and then cover the legal aspect with contract law.

    1. Atticus Finch Post author

      Sure, I see where you are going with this. Legally speaking though, whatever we call “marriage” I think everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. If we give it two different names, but they are the same thing then it starts to become eerily similar to the “separate but equal” clause during the times of Jim Crow laws.

      Separate is not actually equal and not being legally married could definitely carry an unnecessary stigma. Now, if we leave marriage up to the church and contract up to government that would be fine – I’m sure same sex couples could find a church willing to marry them, but at that point the whole Marriage argument becomes moot and I’m not so sure opponents of same sex marriage would give into that so easily.

      In any case, the Government should treat all cases involving consenting adults who desire to enter into a contract called “marriage” equally.

      1. Rattlesnake

        Many gay people on the left are not respectful of gay conservatives. Some of them necessarily believe that sexual orientation is inextricably tied to leftism. Accordingly, they view gay conservatives like me as “quislings” and “Jewish Nazis” and many other, similar things. It is impossible for me to have any respect for people who think on that level, and that (and the widespread irresponsibility in the “gay community”, such as drug use and widespread unsafe sex) has made me more sympathetic to the concerns of social conservatives than those of gay activists (that shouldn’t be construed as supporting a lot of what social conservatives support, which I don’t necessarily). Since I view the word marriage as nothing more than a formality, I just think it is more respectful to honour the wishes of people who don’t think people should marry members of their own gender (that is, I see no distinction between gender neutral marriage and gender discriminatory unions that are legally identical but have different names).

        However, he government should treat people without consideration towards their race or sexual orientation. So, I suppose I support gay marriage as long as it is strictly “civil marriage” and as long as no-one (churches, for example) is forced to recognize same sex marriages as valid marriages. I would prefer the government not call it marriage, but it isn’t that important to me.

        Furthermore, I think it is fallacious to compare sexual orientation to race. There is no reason any race is inherently superior to any other, but heterosexuality is demonstrably superior to homosexuality (in that heterosexuality is necessary for propagation, while homosexuality is not). That isn’t to say homosexuality is negative, but it is neutral while heterosexuality is positive. For that reason, I do not think it is apt to make any comparison between race and sexual orientation. That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t be blind to both, though (because the distinctions between sexual orientation and race are irrelevant to what the government is concerned with).

        Anyway, I apologize for the diatribe and my late response. I normally get notifications when I get a response to my comments, but I didn’t this time for some reason.

        1. Atticus Finch Post author

          In the eyes of the law I disagree that heterosexuality is supperior to homosexuality. Does that mean infertal people are inferior to fertile ones? No.

          Race and sexual preference are similar, in my opinion, because neither were a choice. No one should be considered inferior or superior in the eyes of the law based on circumstance of birth.

          Also, reproduction could be seen as a inferior quality in systems where overpopulation is an issue. So maybe homosexuality is actually, in nature’s eyes, a superior trait in some areas. (Just thinking)

          Should churches be forced to recognize Gay Marriage? Hell no. So a gay-friendly church can recognize a gay marriage. Those are religious organizations – they can peacefully do whatever they want.

          As far as the law goes – equal protection and equal treatment. If marriage is the term the law uses, then same sex couples are entitles to it.

          1. Rattlesnake

            I agree with you; as far as the law is concerned, no-one is inherently inferior to anyone else for reasons of race of sexual orientation.

            Yes, they are similar for that reason, but they aren’t identical. Sexual orientation isn’t hereditary as race is, for example.

            I suppose you are right that gay couples are entitled to the word the law uses.

  3. Pingback: Chick-fil-a and Measuring the Pulse of Society on Gay Marriage « BlogTruth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s