All materials copyright Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, 2008, unless otherwise noted. We ask that articles be reprinted or distributed in entirety only.

Is Same-Sex Marriage a Civil Rights Issue?

We have heard this assertion so often that it seems to have a ring of truth...but is it true?

In a single word...NO.

Thirty states in the U.S. have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and all but six states have specific legal protections of that definition in either constitutional provisions or statute. The highest courts of New York, Maryland, and Washington have placed restrictions on who may marry, as well as four mid-level court decisions in Arizona, Indiana, New Jersey, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these court decisions have shown themselves to be well within the framework of the respective state constitutions, as well as our U.S. Constitution.

Let’s continue with what should be obvious. Every state places restrictions on marriage such as number (two), gender, and blood relationships. Brothers and sisters cannot marry, nor can first cousins in many states, due to the negative impact of such consanguine relationships on children and society. Because of its primary role in child rearing, states have consistently demonstrated a compelling interest in the definition of “marriage” in state laws by limiting who can be married, with the best interests of the child lying at the center of all such marriage laws. 

If marriage were truly a “civil right” then any adult would be able to marry any other adult, or any number of other adults: the law would be unable to prevent a brother from marrying his sister, a mother marrying her own adult child, or, for that matter, preventing any number of complex marital arrangements such as a bisexual triad (for example, a man “marrying” two bisexual women).

 A primary goal of our society and its laws should be to ensure, as far as the law can provide, that every child is raised by their biological mother and father (unless the best interest of the child suggest otherwise). Our laws should NEVER interfere with this goal, but same-sex marriage will do just that. Indeed, after Massachusetts’ adoption of same-sex marriage, the largest assisted reproduction clinic in New England noted a 50% increase every year in demand for services such as artificial insemination by gay couples (Reuters, 2007). In short, same-sex marriage directly increases the number of children who will be motherless or fatherless.

By changing the definition of marriage from one man/one woman to that of any two people, Vermont will be legally affirming and promoting a family structure which, by definition, prevents a child from knowing and being raised by at least one biological parent, and never knowing the love of a mother (in the case of two gay males) or a father (in the case of a lesbian couple).

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, a true civil right never comes at the expense of another person. But same-sex marriage can only come at the expense of the natural, inherent bonding right of a child to his/her own biological mother and father.

The Issue of Sexual Orientation, Civil Rights, and Discrimination

Another thorny problem with civil rights arguments relative to same-sex marriage is as follows. The current definition and cultural understanding of marriage has nothing to do with “sexual orientation” as it is legally and culturally understood. Instead, marriage is currently defined and regulated based upon the gender (i.e. the biology) of those who wish to marry: two genders, therefore two participants – one male, one female. The reasons for this formula should be obvious: the likelihood of children resulting from the passionate pairing of two adults. In its current form, there are, in fact, no civil rights violations relative to gays, since any two people of the opposite gender may marry, including gays (close blood relationships excepted).

But if we legally redefine the primary criteria for marriage from gender/biology to that of sexual orientation, we move into an entirely new legal realm relative to marriage. First, and most obviously, there are more than two “sexual orientations.” In fact, there are at least three: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.

If Vermont enacts same-sex marriage based upon sexual orientation claims, then the same Common Benefits Clause as interpreted in the Baker decision (for civil unions) would demand that any other class (i.e. “sexual orientation”) would be entitled to equal access to marriage. In short, bisexuals would then be legally entitled to a spouse of either sex, creating a legally endorsed triadic (three partner) marital form. If Vermont failed to accommodate them, then we will have inadvertently written into marriage law that which is currently not there: discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

Some would claim that the dyadic (two partner) form presently found would preclude such an arrangement, but this does not logically hold, as the dyadic form is based solely upon the existence of two genders (biology): male and female. Once that legal framework has been eliminated, then there is no logical or legal reason to limit the number of marital partners to two.

This is precisely what has already happened in the Netherlands, where Victor de Bruijn “married” his two bisexual female partners using the Dutch equivalent to civil unions (the Netherlands also has same-sex marriage). Because their arguments were identical to those used by the gay community (i.e. sexual orientation claims), there was no logical or legal reason to deny their requests. Indeed, if one looks closely at the demands for action from groups like Vermont Freedom to Marry, one will notice that demands for marriage are coming from the entire “GLBT” community: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender.

Lastly, the very issue of “sexual orientation” is, legally and culturally, nebulous and poorly defined. In fact, as it currently stands, “sexual orientation” is generally understood to be a self-reported and self-defined condition, according to the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (the most prevalent method for determining a specific “sexual orientation”), and not necessarily limited to the three groups previously mentioned. Given these facts, to create an entirely new legal institution based upon this term would seem dangerously short-sighted at best.

Are Adult Desires Contrary to Child Rights?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [the most widely accepted treaty ever] states, “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by … courts of law … or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration..."

And yet, throughout this debate on redefining marriage, the concerns over the rights of children have been ignored - especially the basic human right to a mother and a father. 

After thoroughly studying these issues - especially the best interests of children - France said NO to same-sex marriage, as did Ireland (see French Report).

Clearly, our gay and lesbian friends deserve dignity and respect. But it must be stressed that it is not bigotry to support and defend a legal and cultural institution which, by its nature, seeks to provide all children with a mother and father.

It is ironic that the legislature is now ignoring one of the central findings of its own Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, who, despite a visible bias toward genderless marriage, still advises that “further study” is warranted before taking up the issue of same-sex marriage, especially on the impact of family structure on children (VCFRP Report, p. 28). We agree.

Should adult desires trump the rights and needs of children? You be the judge.

A Brief Summary...

In the final analysis, by adopting genderless marriage in Vermont, we would be legally saying that:

1) Men and women are completely interchangeable.

2) We should no longer strive for children to have both a mother and a father.

3) Those who believe this is unwise are bigots.