Congress is presently debating another change to the U.S. Constitution. It is not an amendment to guarantee American citizens certain rights and freedoms like the majority of constitutional amendments. In fact, many believe it is an amendment that goes against the existing 14th Amendment, which grants American citizens equal protection under the law. It is the Federal Marriage Amendment, and it would include a strict definition of marriage as being restricted to between a man and a woman within the Constitution. Until this time there has been no federal definition of marriage, and determining who could or could not get married was left largely up to the states. If this new amendment passes, no state would be constitutionally allowed to endow the benefits of marriage to same sex couples.
Under the status quo, same sex couples cannot be extended the 1,049 federal
rights, benefits and privileges that are commonly given to married people because
of the definition of marriage instituted into federal law under Bill Clinton.
This constitutional amendment will now deny them from ever receiving the 400
or so state benefits that states such as Vermont and Hawaii (and perhaps soon,
Massachusetts) have been starting to bestow on homosexual unions (“Legal
and Economic. . .”). Regardless of whether denying homosexuals the right
to marry is contrary to the 14th amendment (as courts in Hawaii and Massachusetts
have now decided), I would assert that it is also unethical both under utilitarian
ethical theory, and the biblical code commonly known as the Golden Rule.
Fred Feldman concisely outlines Act Utilitarianism thus: “An act is right
if and only if there is no other act the agent could have done instead that
has more utility [i.e. does more good] than it has” (Feldman qtd. in Guleserian
10). Under The Golden Rule, and act is considered right if an agent, “[Does]
unto others as [he or she] would have them do unto [him or her]” (Matt
7:12). As we will see, withholding the right of marriage from same sex couples
fits neither criterion for ethicality.
Some of the most vocal proponents for the Federal Marriage Amendment are Christian
Special Interest groups. Two of the major reasons put forward for the amendment
are that the Judeo-Christian god has called homosexuality an abomination (Lev.
18:22), and that extending marriage to homosexual couples undermines the inherent
sanctity of marriage. Careful scrutiny of these reasons however will show that
the first one violates the biblical Golden Rule, and the second is unfounded
in reality.
Their argument that same-sex marriages would undermine the sanctity of the religious
concept of “holy matrimony” is inconsistent with the Christian Church’s
historical view, and the civil institution of marriage. The Catholic Church
did not recognize marriage as acceptable until the 13th Century. Prior to that,
it was considered bowing to civilian authority. In addition, a more liberal
definition of marriage as being between any two consenting adults would not
force any religious denomination to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual
couple (“The Meaning of Marriage”), nor would it force them to spiritually
recognize a civil ceremony or a ceremony performed by a more liberal denomination.
Although the Bible clearly states in more than one place that the Judeo-Christian
god finds homosexuality to be a sin, withholding the right of marriage on this
basis has the effect of forcing one’s religious beliefs on a group that
may not share those beliefs. This clearly violates the tenets of the Golden
Rule. It should be relatively safe to assume that the members of the Christian
Coalition would not wish the beliefs of Judaism or Buddhism foisted on them,
particularly seeing as that would undermine the majority of their tenets. Some
might argue that homosexuals are mortal sinners, and therefore not privy mto
the protections of the Golden Rule. However, the Bible also clearly states that
“there is not man that sins not” (1 Kgs. 8:46), and therefore none
would be extended any sort of consideration if we applied the Bible’s
code only to non-sinners. Indeed, this is one reason Christian special interests
do not lobby to prohibit cohabitation by heterosexual couples simply because
their god also finds fornication abhorrent (Acts 15:20).
The Federal Marriage Amendment further violates the Golden rule in that it denies
legal and economic benefits to homosexual couples that the proponents would
certainly not want stripped from themselves. A federally recognized marriage
would give homosexual couples benefits such as being able to file taxes jointly,
right of survivorship on jointly owned property (a savings in time and estate
taxes), automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, and bereavement leave
for their domestic partner among many other rights (“Legal and Economic
Benefits”). Repudiating these and other benefits to a minority segment
of the population clearly violates the Golden Rule.
Denying the right of marriage to this minority also violates the conditions
of Utilitarian Ethics. It is relatively clear that the institute of marriage
has utility. Christian special interest groups are quick to tout the social
benefits of marriage when it concerns a man and a woman. One Christian magazine
notes that married people are “less depressed, suicidal, prone to violence
or drug abuse. . .” than their unmarried counterparts (Olson 22). It seems
that any legislation that would keep these benefits from a significant portion
of the population would have far less utility than an alternative that would
conceivably allow universal participation.
There is also something to be said about the fact that marriage reinforces monogamy
as well. Virtually all sexually transmitted diseases are more rampant in unmarried
populations than in married. This is because unmarried individuals are necessarily
more likely to have more than one partner. It is well known that the AIDS virus
is disproportionately common in homosexual males when compared to heterosexuals.
Perhaps extending the right to marry to them would help to curtail this and
other socially destructive epidemics.
There are those who may object to homosexual marriage on non-religious grounds.
Some citizens believe that the civil union of marriage is to directly prepare
for a family. They may ask why extend this right to those who have no natural
means of starting a family together. To give credence to this objection would
open the door to fertility tests being performed to determine if a marriage
should be performed, and to prohibiting marriage to infertile individuals. This
would even further violate the Golden Rule by stripping the fiscal benefits
of marriage from a wider group; it would also violate utilitarian principles
by making the social benefits of marriage available to a smaller percentage
of society.
Any way you look at it, denying same sex couples the right to marry is unethical.
Yet over 75 U.S. legislators have decided to back the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Three of them are from the good old conservative state we call home: Arizona.
One might ask the question of what rights and benefits they would be willing
to strip away from other minority groups if they are willing to act in such
an unethical manner. Rest assured this question is particularly haunting to
other religious minorities.
Works Cited
Guleserian, Ted, ed. “What Is Act Utilitarianism.” Five Problems
in Applied Ethics. Cincinatti: Thomas Learning Custom Publishing, 2001.
“Legal and Economic Benefits of Marriage.” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 2001. 16 November, 2003. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm>
“The Meaning of Marriage.” Economist. 09 August, 2003. EBSCO: Academic Search Elite. <http://0-search.epnet.com.library.lib.asu.edu:80/direct.asp?an=10517313&db=afh>
Olsen, Ted. “For Better For Worse.” Christianity Today 46.4 1 Apr.
2002: 22.