IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT?: Ogre

[Ogre is the pseudonym of a Princeton, NJ resident.]

In Jim Henley's post, "RIGHTS VS. EQUAL PROTECTION," he makes a comparison between the SSM equal protection arguments and a fictitious food stamp program that provides food stamps for everyone but Jews.

Jim's argument makes no sense. A comparison more in line with reality would be this: Food stamps are issued to people according to a set of criteria based on income and family size, and the stamps may only be used to purchase certain types of goods. The equal protection clause doesn't mean that the state may not make any barriers to entry into the food stamp program, only that the barriers must be applied to all comers equally.

The same concept works for marriage: The state isn't saying "Jews can't get married" or "suspect class X can't get married." It's making a set of rules that are applied to all individuals who wish to participate in the institution regardless of sex, color, or religion. Supporters of SSM want "better" rules than the rest of the populace.

Going back to the food stamp example, the SSM crowd wants food stamps but wants to ignore the rules. Unhappy with the barriers that apply to everyone, they want to amend the rules for their group so they can buy cigarettes and liquor with their stamps. As far as I can tell this SSM argument is the only potential equal protection violation.

These rights and equal protection arguments are nothing more than sophistry. The Constitution and laws of this country apply to individuals and groups of people, not to couples. That's where all these arguments fall flat. A person has rights. A group can assert rights violations as a collective, but the violations themselves must be borne by individuals. The arguments presented by SSM proponents attempt to apply rights to couples--and that's where they fall on their faces.
posted by Eve at 4:43 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home