Both in the U. Accordingly, more and more people are starting to acknowledge the flawed nature of all arguments which oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. This article discusses 10 of the most common positions presented by opponents of marriage equality and outlines why each deserves a failing grade. The most basic argument presented by gay marriage opponents purports that marriage between two people of the same sex is "not natural" and is in violation of the "natural order. In reality, marriage is a societal institution.
The liberal case against gay marriage | National Affairs
The American Family Association published a list of 10 arguments against same-sex marriage in Ostensibly a summary of James Dobson's Marriage Under Fire , the arguments made a very loose case against same-sex marriage based almost entirely on slippery slopes and out-of-context quotations from the Bible. If you've never seen this list before, your first reaction may be anger. But take a deep breath. The AFA did the world a favor by putting these frequently whispered but seldom spoken arguments out in plain view so they could be dismantled. The U. The article presumably refers to Scandinavian studies that are the work of right-wing author Stanley Kurtz who attempted to prove that same-sex marriage decreased the rate of heterosexual marriage in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!
But they are nonetheless lopsided: There are no major law firms urging the justices to rule against gay marriage. Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar.
It is now beyond serious dispute that the process used by Multnomah County Commissioners this past March in their clandestine decision to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses was hopelessly ill-advised, unwise, and a violation of every principle of open government. Apparently, sincere ends justify illegal means. But such a process-substance distinction surely fails, for it exhibits a radical misunderstanding of the nature of new constitutional rights. And, make no mistake, the case for gay marriage is a case for a new constitutional right. For unlike questions of race or alienage, for example, we have never had a constitutional dialogue on gay rights at all; and unlike questions of gender, age, or any of the other traits usually at issue in equal protection cases, we have not had thorough legislative debate on gay rights in the context of marriage.