Pastiche Foundation

Gender Variance made Simple

Why the Government has no right to deny gay marriage

This is a response to an article Josh Bull shared with me called Why the Government has no Constitutional right to allow Gay Marriages!

The author of this essay included a note that expressed that he expected to be flamed for his opinion. I am not here to do that, but to speak my peace in the conversation about this cultural breakdown. He clearly spent time and effort on it, so it is only fair that I take him seriously and do the same.

First, to the definition of ‘Marriage’ as used in the article to which I’m responding: I don’t believe the author is referring to the relationship itself between persons of any gender… I am uncertain whether he objects to the relationship itself. I believe he is referring to Nuptual vows being a state-sponsored contract.

For what it’s worth, I agree absolutely that the government should get out of people’s bedrooms (provided what is happening there is consensual and between adults)… however, sometimes we have to play the cards we’re dealt. One of those cards is state-sponsored marriage, with benefits like tax relief, spousal social security, hospital visitation, and more.

Since we do have state-sponsored marriage, let’s start with this famous line from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This quote alone, taken literally, pretty much blows any opposition to same-gender marriage out of the water. It says we are all equal and thus should all have the same rights. With that, let’s turn to the Constitution just as the author did–after all, there are a surprisingly small number of people who realise that the Constitution is intended to protect the people, not control them. Here is an excerpt from Section 10 of the Constitution:

No State shall … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts …

That last bit is the most important. “Obligation of Contracts” can be simplified as the ability to enter contracts (provided the actors are adults of sound mind) and the requirement that, once entered, the contract must be fulfilled. Expanding that into the Constitutional context, that means it is illegal for any state to prevent adults of sound mind from entering contracts. Nuptual vows being a state-sponsored contract is ridiculous but true.

So I can think of two solutions: either anyone in our country can be legally unified to anyone they want, provided those persons are adults capable of consent; or we completely destroy State Marriage. All men (and women) in the United States are equal, their rights must be the same. Make it real. Make it true. Make our Founding Fathers proud.

I have trouble believing that heterosexual couples would willingly hand over the privileges they gain in being legally wed. Pragmatically speaking, then, I think the best thing to do bases itself on the lovely line with which I started… the one from the Declaration.

I don’t want someone else’s nonexegetic interpretation of the book I hold most dear and study most deeply to permit them to dehumanise me, to take away my rights, to compare me to a child molester or animal abuser. I want this fight to end. I want peace.

Most of all, I don’t want our country divided anymore. If we can get together across these supposed lines, we can then fulfill the Responsibilities we have in response to the Rights we are promised in the Constitution and Declaration: To hold the government accountable for what it does.


May 7, 2009 - Posted by | civil unions, constitution, declaration of independence, Gay LGBT GLBT Christian Jesus God Equality Compassion Diversity Respect Conscious Conversation, government, marriage, rights


  1. Fantastic! I love how even-tempered you are with this. I find it difficult to keep my cool when talking with people about this, but I think writing to an open audience probably helps.

    Comment by Lea | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • Thanks. I do get frustrated about the issue, but writing to that feeling is not going to be at all productive. I try to remember how I was raised and speak to that, you know?

      Comment by projectpastiche | May 7, 2009 | Reply

  2. I said, “I would.” to: “I have trouble believing that heterosexual couples would willingly hand over the privileges they gain in being legally wed.” But blockquote tags didn’t work, so it got dropped from my previous comment.

    Comment by Anthony | May 7, 2009 | Reply

    • That’s ok. I still say you look at things from a refreshing perspective. It’s one of the best parts of our conversations.

      Comment by projectpastiche | May 7, 2009 | Reply

  3. Like your response. I think most people misunderstood my position. I am not a bigot. I have a second cousin and a great nephew that are homosexual. Although I don’t agree with their lifestyle, I love them just the same. Heck, I just found out at a family reunion a couple of years ago that I have some black cousins (fourth of fifth I get mixed up when it gets that far down the tree) At any rate, I’m too old to get upset about small stuff like that. I just believe we all have the right to our own opinion and pursuit of happiness as long as we don’t infringe on others rights and no one should try to take that away.

    Comment by Josh Bull | May 8, 2009 | Reply

    • Thank you, your response is terrific. During revising this entry, I think I erased the part where I said:

      I’m pretty sure the author isnt a homophobe, and that he and I could probably sit down at a bar and have amazing conversation about this stuff.

      I believe we would agree on the problems and what decisions to make, though I think we’d apply that different ways. That’s cool. My only difficulty comes when i hear people constructing these false slippery slopes, pretending gay marriage could lead to things like bestiality and child molestation. Child molestation is abuse, it’s about power, violence and dysfunction, not love. And the only thing I can think of that bestiality and my relationship with my husband is that those couplings can’t produce children. Is that the line?

      If so, I have some heterosexual friends who can’t or won’t have children who would be on that slope, too. That’s what really frightens me: that some people don’t realise how serious this sort of discrimination is, how it would really feel to walk in our prada boots 😉 I KID, I have no prada boots.

      Comment by projectpastiche | May 8, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: