SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

By Edward C. Mosca

Last Monday (April 4, 2005), a state commission held a public hearing about same-sex marriage. While virtually all of the testimony was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, that shouldn’t be considered a definitive measure of public opinion. The beneficiaries of special interest legislation typically attend governmental hearings in disproportionately high numbers because they have the most at stake. And there is no reason not to believe that national polling data and votes taken in other states which suggest that there is overwhelming support for preserving traditional marriage do not reflect the view in New Hampshire.

Another reason to expect low turnout by supporters of traditional marriage at forums like this is the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage amounts to discrimination. Who wants to take time off from work or family to wait hours to testify, only to branded a bigot?

But is this a fair charge? After all, government discriminates all the time. For example, speed limits discriminate against people who like to drive fast. And tobacco taxes discriminate against people who like to smoke. The question is not whether restricting marriage to one man and one woman discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course, it does. The question is whether traditional marriage is the type of discrimination that government may engage in or whether it is equivalent to discrimination based on race or gender.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage like to equate opposition to same-sex marriage to opposition to interracial marriage. The difference between sexual orientation and race, however, is that sexual orientation is defined by behavior. And although the jury may still be out on the question whether sexual orientation is genetically influenced, that is beside the point. No matter what the impetus, sexual orientation is behaviorally defined, which makes it different from race or gender, which are not.

The valid comparison is between relationships based on heterosexuality and those based on homosexuality. The obvious difference between the two is that same-sex couplings can neither produce children, nor provide children with a mother and a father. Proponents of same-sex marriage, pointing to divorce, single-parenting and childless marriages, argue that the touchstone of marriage is no longer the bearing and raising of children. And that may be a fair observation. But just because marriage ain’t what it used to be, why should we make it even less of what it used to be?

And, conversely, if marriage is not about the bearing and rasing children, why stop with allowing same-sex marriage? Why, for example, shouldn’t groups of three or more be allowed to marry? If government shouldn’t discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, then why should it be able to discriminate between twosomes and threesomes?

The standard answer by advocates of same-sex marriage to these types of questions is that threesomes aren’t asking to be married. But that is an evasion, not an answer. If your position is that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry based on an anti-discrimination principle, then it is fair to ask you to explain whether this principle applies to threesomes and other potential marital combinations.

If it does apply, then what is the point in having marriage laws at all since any relationship would constitute a marriage? If it doesn’t apply, then same-sex marriage is simply about societal endorsement of gay and lesbian relationships. And this may explain all the bobbing and weaving that accompanies the question. Saying that what consenting adults do in private is not the government’s business is one thing. Saying that the government must approve of it is something altogether different.

Another fair question is where Governor Lynch stands on this issue. As candidate Lynch, he said that he believed that marriage consists of one man and one woman. Yet, as Governor, he has appointed former State Rep. Ray Buckley of Manchester, a staunch advocate of same-sex marriage, to the commission.

And here is a question for the state Republican Party. Why not allow us to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman?