Why liberals should oppose same-sex marriage

With such a provocative title, many people on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate shall likely be upset, but there should be no apologies for stating the facts, writes Michael Smyth

People have made the comment that Marriage is not exclusively a religious institution, but while this may be technically correct, it is a highly disingenuous statement.  A friend of mine has pointed out that in the old Roman Republic, the State presided over ceremonies, but what he failed to point out - possibly out of genuine ignorance of history and the institution of the Cursus Honorum - is that the ceremonial head of the republic (or in modern political parlance, paramount leader) was an official known as the Pontifex Maximus.  This Pontifex was head of all of the religions within the Roman Republic/Empire, and as such, when Constantine the Great converted to Christianity, Christianity was included in those religions which he presided over as Pontifex Maximus.  This demonstrates that the State only authorised marriages permitted under those religions, not to mention the fact that Roman Law only recognised marriages between male and female Roman citizens.

 

[NB It is important to distinguish and recognise the differences between same-sex unions and marriages, with the formality of the institution of the latter as contrasted to the former, which lacked de jure formality or recognition]. 

If you look eastward to India, the system was different from the Roman model, but under the caste system the military rulers had to submit themselves to the religious authorities, i.e. the Brahmin caste.  The rulers had no authority without the blessing of the Brahmin's, and if they lost the Brahmin's support they would have no kingdom. Even recently, a homosexual aristocrat has been outed by his mother and disinherited from his title.

If you look at China, you see the system of the "Middle Kingdom" was that presided over by the "Son of Heaven", meaning that he was the religious leader of the nation as well as political potentate.  In reality, every ancient civilisation that existed had no concept of a separation between religious and secular affairs.  The King was also a priest, or in the cases above, subservient to the religious establishment. 

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that marriage is a State-based institution, when ancient polities were so tightly interwoven with religion it was almost impossible to distinguish between the two. 

Interestingly enough, and this will pique the attention and interest of post-modern Secularists who can't stand Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) - it was Jesus of Nazareth, whose revolutionary statement of "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God", laid the basis of the idea of the separation of "Church and State". 

Despite the teachings of Christ, the Church that rose to propagate the faith was co-opted into the apparatus of the Roman Empire (after having been persecuted for centuries), as one of the religions of the Empire.  It was only after the Reformation, and the subsequent Enlightenment, that Christians started to take heed of the words "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God".

The State was thus separated from the government, but the religious liberties were guaranteed, except in Jacobin France, where aristocrats and clergy were murdered by the thousands during the Reign of Terror, and the State assumed responsibilities for marriage.  When religion was restored in France, civil marriages remained.

In the United Kingdom, the separation of Church and State was a bit more tenuous, given that the Sovereign was also Governor of the Church in England (as well as Scotland and Ireland), but laws were put in place to effectively sever the ties between the Church and State, and to protect the rights of those other minorities who did not share the official faith of the United Kingdom.

Here is a point that both liberals and progressives forget: in the Islamic world, there has never been a separation of Islam from the State.  The head of state (usually a Sultan, Emir, or other Prince) has also been a de facto spiritual leader, and in the Ottoman Empire the Emperor was both Sultan *and* Caliph (i.e. Successor to the Prophet Mohammed) - no separation of Religion there.  Nor was there anywhere else, for that matter.

Liberals, with all of their good intentions, point out that we should extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.  Let's take all of the religious arguments out of the equation, because this debate should not revolve around religion.  Let us consider, however, the precedent of marriage, and why secular states have not hitherto considered same-sex marriage. 

Same-sex marriages do not produce children, unless you want to adopt, and that is an entirely different discussion.  Same-sex marriages do not provide any material benefit to society as a whole.  Granted, they probably would not provide a material disadvantage either, but Marriage exists within the State to provide continuation of the State, not to allow people to make life-altering decisions on a whim. It is important to note, that even in societies that permitted or even encouraged homosexuality, the institution of marriage was always exclusively heterosexual, i.e. for the purpose of continuing society.

What is wrong with Civil Unions? There is nothing wrong with Civil Unions being extended to same-sex couples, especially since it would shore up the claim of the significant other in the event of death (and absence of a will).  In fact, de facto couples already have some legal standing when it comes to claiming property after only six months.  Marriage however, has been defined by both Religions and States as being "between a man and a woman" - until very recently, where that has been revised.

If other countries have revised it, why shouldn't we? Let's look at the countries or states where revision has occurred.  Religious ministers/priests have faced litigation for refusing to conduct ceremonies that go against the tenets of their religion. 

Massachusetts has had cases of ministers being sued, so there goes that religious liberty of being able to act consistently with their religion.  The Lutheran Church in Denmark is forced to find a priest to perform same-sex marriages, if the first priest refuses. More recently, a same-sex couple in the United Kingdom has threatened to sue the Church for refusing to marry them. What happened to religious liberty? Remember the second part of the quote, "Render unto God what belongs to God". 

There was a policy motion moved at the 2012 YLNP Convention, to grant all couples (regardless of orientation) the ability to have a civil union, but strip from the State all powers pertaining to "Marriage", thus returning it to the religious organisations.  At the time, I spoke in favour of this motion because I believed it to be a sensible accommodation not only of religious liberties, but also of those couples who wish to enjoy the functional benefits of being "married", without having to go to church/synagogue/mosque/temple.

There is also the fact that the existence of a Will establishes the intentions of the author of a Will. Freddie Mercury left a Will that bestowed his property in the United Kingdom and some money to his same-sex life partner, and the partner received everything that he was bequeathed. They didn’t require same-sex marriage, or even Civil Partnerships, to outline their wishes and legacies. People should have a Will, but I digress.

No liberal should ever support something that would crush the liberty/liberties of another.  What about the rights of the couple? No, marriage is not a right.  Marriage is a contract that you enter into, after serious consideration, under the auspices of the organisation offering marriage, and an imperative institution for the continuation of society.  But the State offers marriage.  Civil "Marriage", yes - it is essentially a Civil Union, regardless of the orientation of the couple. 

This debate seems to be over one crucial word.  For the Gay lobby to insist that religious organisations relinquish their rightful premium on marriage, and allow same-sex marriage (while refusing to settle for the legislatively equal "Civil Union") is selfish. 

Most people would be happy or indifferent if homosexuals could have civil unions, and the religious could retain marriage for themselves. You shouldn’t change the meaning of a word that has meant the same thing for over 5,000 years on a whim, especially not if the vast majority of nations and societies have retained the meaning.

Both sides could still have what they want, if only the Gay lobby would compromise, and for those readers who think it is only Christians standing in the way of same-sex marriage, think again. No religion has ever extended the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, even in societies that permit or encourage homosexuality.

Michael Smyth writes from Brisbane, Queensland

Comments

[oldskool]

1.

Well stated Michael,

I view SSM as a proxy or a vehicle to attack Christianity.

The ignorant homosexual has been worked up into a frothing at the mouth frenzy and taken on the role of a victim

The simple fact remains that SSM will undeniably lead to a repression of freedoms.

A product of SSM is:

- I will one day be sanctioned for not wanting my kids indoctrinated in their school

- religious schools will one day be sanctioned for denying a gay couple to attend a school ball together despite their centuries held beliefs

- churches will be sanctioned for not performing gay marriages

- anyone with an objection to homosexuality will be sanctioned

and the list goes on and on

where will this then lead?

Christian schools may be closed down?, Christian Hospitals closed?, Churches closed? ministers imprisoned? concerned parents imprisoned?

there is not question that the slippery slope of SSM will stifle freedom we take for granted in our society

[oldskool]

2.

Did you read the article?

I should be able to have any opinion I want be it religious or "homophobic"

will I oneday be sanctioned for writing my opinion on homosexuality be it religious or otherwise?

should the author of this article be sanctioned?

SSM will take freedoms and rights away

any argument to the contrary is absolute nonsense

[Ted Kennett]

3.

sheer nosense who in this country threatens the churches .. they lay down the law on a host of issues
it's they ho prevent a sensible solution to the right to choose the time for one's own death

[Michael Smyth]

4.

Ted, please read the article again, and refrain from making unrelated comments about Church numbers, which among the young are actually bucking the trend and growing.

Recent history proves oldskool and Cameron are correct in their assertions.

[Allan]

5.

"sheer nosense who in this country threatens the churches. ."

The SSM threatens the church along with the socialist Labor/Greens, those who think like you and assorted other loons.

"it's they ho prevent a sensible solution to the right to choose the time for one's own death"

Just how do they do that pray tell? Do they have the power to override government? Do the legislators have to obtain the churches permission before they can act? And, just were do they get this mythical power that scares governments?

"This wilkl change in the future as the churches have never been so loathed and discredited...and they losing the young
hurry the day"

And you accuse others of being "Rednecks"? Good grief!!!

[Account Deleted]

6.

Question: How do you go about destroying our democratic capitalist society? Where do you direct the critical blow so it will do the most damage? In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.

more http://www.andysrant.com/2012/05/same-sex-marriage-the-sinister-agenda.html

[Jim Witt]

7.

A well written article. Gays already have all the freedoms they need to lead their deviant lives in full display. Anti-discrimination laws and property laws plus the de facto laws give them the rights and responsibilities of most married couples and a state "civil union" contract should seal the deal. While I am an atheist myself, I do not believe religious institutions should be required to violate their own principals to accommodate a rabid minority.

[Georgina]

8.

Absolutely correct Andy. Suggest all read your comment. Sinister objective behind SSM. Agenda frightening to intelligent Australians and the world.

[Douglas Roche]

9.

Such a convoluted argument warrants a complicated response:
You argue that "No religion has ever extended the institution of marriage to same-sex couples" - when many Anglican dioceses allow same sex marriage, this is simply false. If religious institutions had full jurisdiction over marriage, and some decided to allow gay marriages, what would your position be? I assume you would still be against gay marriage, which reveals the purely ideological basis of your position. Get your facts right before trying to argue based on precedent.

Regardless of whether marriage is traditionally based on religion, if we were to only follow what's happened in the examples you bring up, we would be stuck with a) Slavery b) The Indian caste system, where class mobility = 0. c) Religious dictatorship.
This is why you can't argue solely based on history.

Also, if we followed your argument of marriage being for the purpose of continuity, infertile straight couples would be banned from marrying.

[Michael Smyth]

10.

Douglas Roche, read the article again, and please refrain from making assumptions about my positions, especially since your assumption is incorrect.

As for the rest of your response, you are the one who needs to check your facts. Slavery is not condoned in Christianity, regardless of what Kevin Rudd said to that pastor on Q&A.

As for your last comment, that is wrong. You wouldn't be able to tell if straight couples were sterile or not before they got married, at least not until recently.

The allegations and statements made by left-wing trolls require much more than a grain of salt.

[Michael Smyth]

11.

Go back to posting on left-wing pages, Helene.

A member of the ALP should not be trying to comment on a centre-right blog, especially if he/she is 1) quoting Julia Gillard, 2) unable to actually demonstrate any evidence to the contrary, and 3) doing nothing but attacking the author of an article with a viewpoint he/she disagrees with.

I'll give you credit for actually using your real name, and not hiding behind an alias like the other cowards have done. If I ever need lessons in advocacy, or logic, I certainly won't be going to you, Miss Ad Hominem.

[Heléne Grabs]

12.

How does it feel, Michael, to have simultaneously dashed your chances of going anywhere in politics, and to have embarrassed yourself in public in front of your peers, and the world? Pretty bad I imagine, based on your condescending tone.

Just stop, Michael. You're only adding to your own embarrassment here.

[oldskool]

13.

I would think that you Helene Grabs are the one without any argument

you have insulted but provided no meaningful discussion point at all

You sound like a bitter soul

What is the wrong side of history?

[Arthur Dent]

14.

No religion has ever extended the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, even in societies that permit or encourage homosexuality.

Correct me if I'm wrong Michael, but doesn't the Episcopal Church of the United States, the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ perform same sex marriages?

[Tosh]

15.

Allez la belle France!!

[Douglas Roche]

16.

So you would be okay with gay marriage if it were sanctioned by a church?

You also seem to be implying that if you could test for fertility then we would not allow infertile people to marry, thereby giving them the same status as gays?

Finally, my slavery example was in reply to your roman republic example, and had nothing to do with Christianity. If actually using reason makes someone a lefty troll, then throw me under a North Korean bridge.

[oldskool]

17.

As always Arthur, I am happy to answer your question

I assume "historical inevitability" means as to how history will ultimately pan out

I think people are wising up to the real truth behind the gay lobby and the vast majority of parents don't want a gay kid and as they reproduce will wise up

as Winston Churchill stated:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”

[Michael Smyth]

18.

Then they are not Christian churches. Homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in Christian theology.

[Michael Smyth]

19.

No Christian church would ever sanction SSM, because that would nullify any pretensions towards claiming to be Christian.

You've missed the point in regards to marriage being for the continuation of society, and you have made an incorrect inference.

Also, the allegations made by people who don't have the spine to use their real names, instead hiding behind aliases, are completely untrue. It's pretty sad that these attacks have nothing to do with the content of the article, let alone attempting to refute or disprove it.

[Lucas]

20.

Slavery is explicitly condoned in Christian theology.
The need for a rape victim to marry her rapist is explicitly stated in the bible.
Here is a list of the atrocities (that your god either allowed to happen, ordered, or simply does himself in the bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

[Ben Smith]

21.

How has he missed the point? You can't just claim someone got something wrong without explaining why, Michael.

You also haven't answered Douglas' question about continuity. I am unconvinced by your assertion that he missed the point and would like you to clarify. Why are infertile straight couples any different from homosexuals in this regard?

Surely you're aware that homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus, a book which also provides other laws for Christians. Do you propose we follow them, too?

Seems like you have a lot of thinking to do.

[Lucas]

22.

In other conservative news.
-The earth is young
-Evolution isn't a thing
-The earth is flat
-Earth is the centre of the universe

[Arthur Dent]

23.

Was that sarcasm, Lucas?
I'd only just got my head around the heliocentric model - apparently it's safe to subscribe to that now, without a charge of heresy.
Oh well, back to geocentrism.

[Dale]

24.

It's 2013, and bronze age stories about an invisible sky fairy should play no part in laws and regulations.

[Marjoe]

25.

Marriage pre-dates Rome, you disingenuous twit.

Nothing in that argument makes any sense whatsoever and everyone who has read it is now stupider for having done so.

That was idiotic at best and intentionally dishonest at worst.

[oldskool]

26.

Well Lucas

any reading of the bible which you quote will inform the reader that you make reference to the Law of Moses or the Mosaic Law which was given to the House of Israel When they left Egypt.

This Law was Redundant at the time of Christ

and infact this law was used 2000 years ago in an attempt to confound Christ

I refer you to the stoning where Christ said "he who is without sin let him cast the first stone"

so at best, you Lucas are 3000 years too late but I guess you knew that because you no doubt are familiar with what you mock

or Lucas are you just trying to show your ignorance?

[Arthur Dent]

27.

Good morning oldskool.
I'm wondering where my post asking your opinion on historical inevitability/wrong side of history went.
You answered it, so it must have been there.

[Tom]

28.

As an Atheist, I thought Christians were all about monogamy, and against premarital sex? Don't you think that encouraging love would be glorifying to god? A positive impact on the spread of STD's could be made if homosexuals had more equality through marriage, rather than the current trends of dangerous promiscuity. Perhaps one of those "What Would Jesus Do" arm bands are in order.

[Michael Smyth]

29.

Perhaps you should read the article again, instead of trying to hash out invalid and irrelevant inferences, Ben.

In the meantime, you really need to get your facts right on Christian theology, especially considering that the Mosaic Law of Judaism does not apply to Christians. In fact, it is you who has the thinking to do, instead of jumping to conclusions.

[Michael Smyth]

30.

Seriously, Tom, how do you come up with that absurd argument!?

Read the article again. It's something that everyone criticising needs to do - or even better, write the reasons they believe the article is incorrect.

[Michael Smyth]

31.

You clearly didn't read the article, because I cited China, which is far older than Rome, and established the fact that from the earliest civlisations, religion and state were intertwined.

Feel free to actually write what I've gotten wrong, instead of throwing around insults.

[Tom]

32.

I just read your article again as directed. I see how you've used history to try and prove some precedent, however the history your invoking should be taken with a grain of salt. Use history as an example for mistakes made, and lessons we are still learning. Perhaps my logic in the first post just needs to resonate with you for a while rather than just being immediately brushed aside as "absurd". Your arguments against SST read as someone who has made their mind up, and is now searching for any possible reason to justify their position.

[plus.google.com/117288801271870558190]

33.

The basis of this article is flawed.

The author cites that because the Pontius Maximus was a religious icon, that marriage was always a religious matter. I won't credit that argument with a response.

Instead, I will simply point out that the premise of marriage being only heterosexual is blatantly incorrect.

Rome did indeed have full marriage equality. There are records of at least 2 of the Roman Emperors being married to other men (one of them twice), as well as other notable historical figures.

Same sex marriage existed until the Roman Empire became Christian; The first Christian Emperor declaring marriage between people of the same sex illegal in 342AD.

(Of course, marriage wasn't even a "sacrament" until the 13th Century.)

So, historical fact blows away the basis of this very article. And the argument against equality that "marriage has always been..."

[plus.google.com/117288801271870558190]

34.

Not just that, but he has conveniently ignored historical fact; facts that undermine the foundations of his argument so totally that it is unrecoverable.

(I've detailed them in a post further down)

[Michael Smyth]

35.

Skinner, you have just revealed yourself to be utterly ignorant, and have yourself done what you accuse oldskool of, which was cherrypicking.

I'll also remind you that threatening rape against oldskool's daughter could be considered actionable, and your comment will probably be removed on those grounds, unless you have the sense to delete it yourself.

But please, do go on. Keep trying to throw non-sequiturs about how your deliberate misreading of the New Testament is related to this article.

[plus.google.com/117288801271870558190]

36.

Not only does marriage pre-date Rome, but Rome had marriage equality.

There are records that at least 2 of the Roman Emperors were married to other men.

Kind of defeats his argument with the same historical time period that he cites.

[Michael Smyth]

37.

You refer to Nero and Elagabalus? Yes I am aware of those "marriages". These were in contravention of Roman Law, and were only allowed because the Senate was forced to tolerate it - just because those Emperors (who, by the way, were damned by the Senate posthumously) broke Roman Law doesn't change a thing!

Give up, Aaron. Your argument is invalid.

[Michael Smyth]

38.

If you think promiscuity is going to disappear by legalising SSM, then you're wrong. That is what is absurd about your statement, and I hope you were being facetious.