Same-Sex "Marriage":
Legalizing Homosexual “Marriage” is Not a Question of Equity

view the .pdf

By Demitrios K. Stratis Esq., New Jersey Family Policy Council

The May 4th Star Ledger editorial, “For Gays and Lesbians, a Question of Equity,” requires a response. The Ledger argues that homosexuals are simply “demanding … equal treatment under the law.” On the contrary, they are demanding special rights by redefining marriage as merely a loving, committed relationship recognized by the government. This would not only change the definition of marriage, but also the intent and purpose of marriage law.

Lawmakers intended marriage laws and benefits to promote and reward behavior that is conducive to societal order and wellbeing. Not all relationships are equal in this regard. Mountains of social science research prove that traditional marriage provides the happiest, healthiest environment for adults and children, and makes a unique contribution to society. Over the past 30 years, cohabitation, unwed childbearing and a high divorce rate have weakened marriage, and we have incurred the cost in higher crime, in welfare, education and health expenditures, and in reduced security for our own marriage investments. These costs are borne not only by the children and families affected, but by all of us – taxpayers, citizens and neighbors. These costly consequences would only increase if the government awarded the benefits of marriage to homosexual partners, thereby sanctioning and encouraging more non-traditional relationships. Therefore, the government has a compelling state interest (as stipulated in the state constitution) to support the traditional family unit and recognize that not all relationships are equal.

Same-sex relationships are not marriages. Persons of the same sex do not form a unique community based on sexual difference. Calling such relationships “marriage” requires us to declare that the cultural and biological differences between men and women are inconsequential to society and to children. The homosexual view of marriage as a loving, committed relationship is a redefinition of marriage, not an extension of it. If the state of New Jersey accepts the argument that people in homosexual relationships are entitled to marriage benefits based on the argument of “equal treatment under the law,” what is to stop them from giving those same benefits to self-described long-term committed polygamists, incestuous couples or even adult/child couples who “pay taxes and participate in the community”?

Marriage law was purposely written to recognize only a relationship between one man and one woman. Under current law every citizen receives equal treatment. Everyone has the same right to enter into a marriage relationship as described in the law and reap the benefits. All adults who do not marry are free to enter into other non-marital relationships, not publicly endorsed but privately tolerated. Private mechanisms are currently available to all unmarried people to manage their affairs.

The heart of the matter is that the New Jersey Constitution (like the federal Constitution) does not expressly recognize a right to marry. While the decision to marry raises a privacy interest that is protected under the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable state regulation. The government is not trying to “restrict the rights of a minority” as the Ledger phrased it, but has a paramount interest to preserve the integrity of marriages between one man and one woman.

Article I, paragraph 1 of the Constitution protects against the unequal treatment of those who should be treated alike. Homosexuals are not discriminated against only because they do not meet the criteria of one man and one woman, but because their demands require a redefinition of marriage based on self-interest. Such a redefinition would create a precedent for any group to make demands and redefine well-established policy for self-serving reasons. Based on fact, not emotion, the state is not obligated to grant marriage rights to homosexual couples simply because they demand it. Nor should public policy be determined by the demands of four-tenths of 1 percent of the population, especially when the vast majority of our citizens would realize significant negative outcomes.

 

back...