Previously I have hinted at the possibility that homosexual couples do experience real inequalities in the United States today. In this post I would like to examine some of the general arguments made in regards to those inequalities, and what can be done about the inequalities. This post will examine the question purely from the stance of whether or not rights are being denied. I intend to deal with the issue of potentially denied privileges, along with what can or should be done about that situation, in future posts.
In general, most people argue that homosexuals who cannot marry are being denied access to certain rights. I have previously used the word, "privilege" to indicate what is denied to homosexuals, and I will stand by my use of that word. The fact is that rights are derived from God, hence why the founders of our nation said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Therefore, we must ask what "rights" are granted by marriage that are given by God, not by government, and whether these rights are being denied to anyone. If it can be shown that these rights are being denied to any group, then it is in the benefit of all people, particularly Christians as we serve a just God, to defend the rights of that group.
What are the rights given in marriage then? As of 2004 the GOA determined that there are "1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges." The problem with this statement is that not all of the things listed in the report are what could be defined actual "rights." Notice that included in this list are benefits and privileges, to which someone may be entitled through marriage. Let us set aside, for the moment, the question of whether it is appropriate to deny those benefits to others and examine only what "rights" someone may claim have been denied them by not allowing marriage.
The report listed 13 different categories as follows: Social Security and related programs, housing, and food stamps; veterans benefits; taxation; federal civilian and military service benefits; employment benefits and related statutory provisions; immigration, naturalization, and aliens; Indians; trade, commerce, and intellectual property; financial disclosure and conflict of interest; crimes and family violence; loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture; federal natural resources and related statutory provisions; and miscellaneous statutory provisions. The report was an updated version of a 1997 report on the same subject, which determined that there were 1049 laws that were affected by marriage in the United States . Therefore the 2004 report only contained the updated statutes from the 1997 report, however it used the same categories. What, in these categories, would qualify as a "right," a "benefit," and a "privilege"?
An excellent example of this is Social Security. The 1997 report notes that, "Once the law sets forth the basic right of an individual participant to retirement benefits, it prescribes in great detail the corresponding rights of the current or former spouse." The reason this is an excellent example is because the use of the word "right" here seems to imply that the spouse of the individual has a God-given claim to the retirement benefits of the "current or former spouse." Thus, homosexuals may argue that in order to exercise their "right" to claim retirement benefits from one another they must have the ability to marry. The problem is that this is not the correct use of the word "right."
Strictly speaking, those things which government grants, and which are brought about entirely through statutory enactments, are not rights. Rights are endowed by our creator, privileges are granted by the government. Privileges, speaking in a purely entomological sense, means private laws. Laws which the government passes, which affect a certain aspect of the populace so as to give them benefits not enjoyed by the rest of society are not rights, they are privileges. Rights are those properties which are enjoyed by all persons at all times unless the government or another individual acts so as to prevent them from exercising their liberty.
The use of the word, "right" in regards to an individual having access to the retirement benefits of another, as governed by the Social Security administration, is misleading. The government cannot create rights or grant rights, and so denying individuals access to the retirement benefits granted through Social Security, or any other government program, is not denying that person a right. If the person had worked their whole life and the money stored in the system was legally and socially recognized as their property, then denying them access to their own property would be a violation of rights because it would be theft. But, extending benefits from one partner to another, so that one partner receives benefits they would otherwise have no claim on, is not a right, it is a privilege created by the government.
The fact is the vast majority of what the GAO has listed in its report are privileges and benefits that the government has created over the years and to which married couples are entitled, or which are effected by marriage statutes. Denying these benefits to homosexual couples may be immoral, or may be perfectly understandable, I intend to address that issue in the future. But, the rights of marriage, as given by God, are, the rights of physical intimacy, (Genesis 2:24) the rights of mutual care and support, (Exodus 21:10-11, Ephesians 5:22-24) the rights to attempt procreation, (Genesis 16:2; 30:9) and the rights of autonomous home life and the raising of children (Ephesians 6:1-4). I realize we are not a Christian nation, and that those who do not believe in the Bible are not obliged to take the word of Scripture on this, but I challenge others to think of what other natural and inherent rights anyone might have in marriage. Let me put it this way: If you were stuck in a tropical paradise where you were able to marry someone with no interference from any government, what rights would you enjoy with that person? Are there any I have not included here?
If these are the rights given in marriage, what of these rights have homosexuals been denied by not being able to wed one another? Certainly in our culture though Christians may hold that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, no one can claim it is illegal and that they have been denied that "right". Similarly, no one is saying that homosexuals cannot care for and support one another; perhaps they do not enjoy all of the benefits and privileges that make it easier for married couples to do so, but that does not mean that they have been denied a right to care for and love one another. Likewise homosexual couples cannot claim they are denied the right of procreation, because there simply is no right for two men or two women to bear children, it is a biological impossibility. The only right which a homosexual couple can conceivably claim is the right to raise children, but the only children they would be able to raise would be those they would have to go outside their own union to acquire, either through adoption or some other process involving at least one person who is not part of the marriage.
The fact is that when it comes to raising children there are two methods by which a child has been placed with a family, historically speaking, either natural childbirth, or adoption. Homosexuals have not been denied natural childbirth any more than men and infertile women have been denied natural childbirth, it simply is not possible. In the case of adoption, there is no natural right. What I mean is that anyone can apply for an adoption, but the state, or whatever adoption agency is attempting to help someone have a child, is under no necessary compulsion to place a child with anyone who asks for the child. Adoption, throughout U.S. history has rightly been seen as a privilege, and therefore the states and federal government of the United States have acted to regulate (follow the link to find information on laws regulating adoption) who may adopt in order to be sure adopted children are properly being placed with those best able to care for them.
Proponents of homosexual marriage generally claim that homosexual couples are being denied equal treatment to heterosexual couples. They are correct, homosexual couples do not enjoy the benefits and privileges granted by law to heterosexual couples. However, their claim is that homosexuals have been denied the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. I have attempted to show that this is not the case, that homosexual couples enjoy the same rights that everyone else enjoys, though they do enjoy fewer privileges than heterosexual couples.
Should only monogamous heterosexual couples who have registered their marriage with the civil authorities enjoy the privileges they have been given? Should those privileges be broadened to apply to others? If so, who should enjoy those privileges, and what is the rational behind extending them? These are the questions that we should be asking.
No comments:
Post a Comment