Hurting Homosexual People

I can't speak for all people who understand that marriage unites a bride and a groom, but I and many others like me, while not fans of a lot of the work of marriage neutering advocacy organizations, have no ill will for homosexual people. We don't want to hurt people, and will only condone doing so in self-defense or in defense of the innocent.

So our attention is grabbed when we hear that protecting or restoring the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing will "hurt gay people".

The part of the argument that cites hurt feelings is not of my concern. My feelings are hurt when judges rule to neuter state marriage licensing. We can't govern our society based on hurt feelings.

The part that gets my interest is the part that says a homosexual person is objectively hurt or harmed by not being able to get a marriage license with another person of the same sex. We should not automatically grant that this is true. Marriage neutering advocates should have to demonstrate harms that are different in nature than what they dismiss when marriage defenders say that neutering marriage causes harm. In other words, marriage defenders claim that neutering marriage causes harm, and marriage neutering advocates counter that either those things aren't really harms or that they can't be demonstrated to result from marriage neutering. We should, in turn, apply the same standards to their claims of harm by not being able to get a marriage license without a bride or without a groom.

It is easier to put forth a slightly different argument – that same sex couples will be better off with state marriage licenses. But even if true, that point can't be used as legal or moral argument to compel us to neuter state marriage licensing. Pick a recognized minority that has endured past discrimination in the USA – African Americans. Would African Americans be better off if they were all granted state university degrees? Certainly those currently without college degrees would be better off. However, does anyone serious believe that compels us to change the requirements for getting such degrees? An African American can go to a state university and meet the requirements as they are now, even if he or she strongly feels an aversion to doing so (as some African Americans, along with people of any other background, express).

Women would be better off if they never had to pay any federal income taxes again? Yes. So what? We all have to live under the same laws.

Same-sex couples may indeed be better off if they can get a state marriage license. However, that has to be weighed against the harms to society. That is how public policy works. There is no right to a state issued marriage license that compels us to remove the bride+groom requirement. Inventing one will do violence to our Constitution and our government process. If you support the neutering of marriage, pass a constitutional amendment in your state that do that. Subverting the Constitution hurts everyone, including homosexual people.