How does same-sex marriage (guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause?) harm heterosexual marriage?

Question

The Federal law banning same-sex marriage is called "The Defense of Marriage Act" ("DOMA").

Answer 1

I've been trying to figure this out for years.

Answer 2

One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed. If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.

That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally "doesn't work." Divorce doesn't solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That's why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are. Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as "happily married" five years later. So staying together "works" better than divorce.

Answer 3

It doesn't. Not in the least. If the "sanctity of marriage" is at risk because gays are allowed to marry, then what do serial heterosexual marriages do to the "sanctity" of it? People who have been married (and divorced) 5 or 6 times? People like Brittney Spears, who was married for a whopping 55 hours?

It's just another rationalization that homophobic bigots use to justify their discriminatory practices.

A note to Cari F - "Separate but equal" didn't work for the blacks in the 60's. What makes you think it would work now?

Answer 4

I believe that there is nothing at all wrong with same-sex relationships. I really dont know what the big deal is, but i think the government will come around. The homosexual fight is very similar to what black people had to go trough to be accepted, and still, there are some people who just cant except us. My advice, keep pushing for what you beleive in. They'll come around. Look at how far same-sex relationships have come. Just 20 years ago, they were trying to say it was a mental disorder. Now, they do respect the fact that some of us are attracted to the same sex. But, it'll be conquered one city, one county and one state at a time.

Answer 5

The idea that same-sex marriage "ruins the sanctity" of hetero marriage is absurd. Of course, I guess we do live in a culture that's unreasonably enthralled with the idea of "tainting" what should be "pure" (I'm thinking about Purity Balls, here). I guess it's not difficult to see why people feel power in repeating such a statement, even though it implies that they consider a loving same-sex relationship "impure" while the ("pure" and highly sanctified) hetero divorce rate is so ridiculously high, and up to 33% of pregnant women in America experiences domestic violence.

Answer 6

It does not harm strong heterosexual marriages, but it undermines the holiness of marraige and harms the kingdom of God. It does this by bringing people farther away from God and influencing others with its sinfulness. It would be a sad world to live in where homosexual marriages were commonly accepted as good.

Answer 7

It doesn't. The only people who are responsible for upholding the sanctity of heterosexual marriage are the ones who are involved in it. If two men or two women love each other and wish to honor that commitment through marriage, it doesn't affect my relationship with my husband.

People will argue the slippery slope -- gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage, marrying children, etc -- and although that argument is utterly ridiculous, those things still wouldn't threaten heterosexual marriages. Whether they are appropriate in and of themselves is one thing, but they shouldn't threaten the commitment of two completely unrelated people.

Answer 8

It might actually give them (straighties) a good role model for a committed marriage. We can't have people thinking marriage is anything other than the joke of a legal connection that America has made it, can we?

Answer 9

What Equal Protection Clause?
Christian Marriage was instituted by the Catholic Church.
This changed it from a contract between families,
to a vocation for life, similar to ordination or Holy Orders.
It is/was defined as being between a man & woman,
this was to protect the rights of widows & orphans.
Civil marriage is still required by the state in most places.
But the state cannot define what the church practices.

Answer 10

It doesn't, but if this is allowed, what will be next? Will people be allowed to marry children? Have multiple spouses? It's one thing to allow legal protection and equal rights in terms of having the same legal protections as marriage. It's quite another thing to totally change the definition of marriage. That's like changing the definition of the word "man" or "woman". It is clear cut - black and white. There is no altered variation. Instead of changing the definition of a clear-cut word such as marriage, why not guarantee the same legal protection to those who choose to live in relationship partnerships, if those people who do so can apply for a license to do so, same as married people? Doing anything further is carrying it too far.

Bring on the thumbs down answers. That's okay. I am not in favor of discrimination - that's why I suggest equal protection. I am merely against changing the definition of the word "marriage".

Answer 11

I thought if same-sex marriage was legal, it would become mandatory for everyone. If that's not true, then I guess there's no harm.