Question 6 Isn’t About Marriage Equality For Homosexuals

In the state of Maryland, on Nov. 6th, 2012, there will be 7 questions up for Maryland voters to vote on and pass into law. One of these is Question 6.

Question 6, on the State Maryland ballot, says: “Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.”

There have even been some ads on the issue. Here are two of those adds.

Now there is one key thing mentioned in this ballot question, which is that the ballot “Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying”. (Italics my own emphasis)

Here is the bill that got the ball rolling on “Gay Marriage”, which was Maryland House Bill 438. Now that we have that set up, lets get started in taking a look on a couple of things.

This law states that “Only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in this state.”

Now the law lists which  two individuals who want to be married are prohibited from marrying. An individual may not marry another individual who happens to be (1)grandfather’s wife; (2) wife’s grandmother; (3) father’s sister; (4) mother’s sister; (5) stepmother; (6) wife’s mother; (7) wife’s daughter; (8) son’s wife; (9) grandmother’s husband; (10) husband’s grandfather; (11) father’s brother; (12) mother’s brother; (13) stepfather; (14) husband’s father; (15) husband’s son; (16) daughter’s husband; (17) husband’s grandson; (18) brother’s son; (19) sister’s son; (20) daughter’s husband; (21) GRANDPARENT’S SPOUSE; (22) SPOUSE’S GRANDPARENT; (23) PARENT’S SIBLING; (24) STEPPARENT; (25) SPOUSE’S PARENT; (26)SPOUSE’S CHILD.

Example: I would not be allowed to marry (1) my grandfather’s wife, (2) my wife’s grandmother, (3) my father’s sister, (4) my mother’s sister (5) my stepmother, (6) my wife’s mother, (7) my wife’s daughter, (8) my son’s wife, (9) my grandmother’s husband, (10) my husband’s grandfather, (11) my father’s brother, (12) my mother’s brother, (13) my stepfather, (14) my husband’s father, (15) my husband’s son, (16) my daughter’s husband, (17) my husband’s grandson, (18) my brother’s son, (19) my sister’s son, (20) my daughter’s husband, (21) my grandparent’s spouse, (22) my spouse’s grandparents, (23) my parent’s sibling, (24) my step-parent, (25) my spouse’s parent, or (26) my spouse’s child.

I will assume that (1) people cannot marry people who share the same blood-line. This means that an individual cannot marry their mother, father, grandparents, son, daughter, grand-kids, or cousins if they share the same blood-line. From this assumption it means that a person can marry people who do not hare the same blood-line. So let us exclude those people who share the same blood-line from the 26 that people are prohibited from marrying.  This point comes down to that your mother, father, grandparents, son, daughter, grand-kids, or cousins could all be those things because you were either were adopted into that family or married into that family. So If you were adopted or married into that family, then you do not share the same blood-line.

I will assume that (2) people who are adopted into a family are not of the same blood-line. For example, you sometimes hear of a child’s parents both dying for some reason, and one of the child’s blood-relatives, like an uncle, will adopt the child and raise them as their own. This means my assumption excludes people who are adopted into a family and the family adopted into still has the same blood-line. So me being adopted by my uncle after both my parents die.

So these assumptions make the distinction between being biologically related and legally related. These sometimes overlap and sometimes do not overlap. It is possible for my biological father to be my legal father, but it is also possible that my biological father is not my legal father, but in both cases I cannot marry my biological father. Both of my assumptions, basically, states that all biologically related people are excluded/prohibited from legally marrying or its logical equivalent would be that of  all non-excluded people from legally marrying are non-biologically related people.

So here is one of the basic points that will be assumed throughout this post: For all individuals, if  individuals are biologically related, then individuals are prohibited from legally marrying in Maryland.

The first video has Rev. Delman Coates saying that “The government should treat everyone equally”, “It’s about fairness”, “This…is about protecting all Marylander’s equally”.

The second video has Julian Bond saying that “I know something about fighting for what’s right and just”, “They should share in the right to marry”, “Its about protecting the civil right to make a lifeline commitment to the one that you love.”, “It’s the right thing to do”.

Let us grant these statements to Rev. Delman Coates and Julian Bond. Does this law do what they state? No, this law does not lead to what we granted these two people. One of the most basic points they bring up is that of “equality” or “fairness”, but this law does not grant fairness or equality in marriage, let alone for gay people who want to get married. This law still treats people unfairly, especially still treating gay people unfairly and unequally.

The key point about the law is that it is between TWO individuals. This means that a man may marry a woman, a man may marry a man, a woman may marry a woman. These are allowed because it is between two individuals. This is basically saying that only those who want to have a monogamous marriage are allowed to marry. But this doesn’t treat, or protect, “all Marylander’s equally” and doesn’t treat those who don’t want a monogamous marriage to “share the right to marry”. So this is a “civil right” that only a few people have, not all people. Where is the equality when not all people, but only some, are allowed this “civil right”? Is this “equality” when you still discriminate against people who want to get married as well, but are prohibited because it would involve more than two individuals?

We will get back to this point, but let us take a look at something else with sticking with the notion of only allowing two individuals to get married, but remember the assumption that I am working on. John would not be allowed to to marry his (1) grandfather’s wife, if they both consented to get married. John would not be allowed to marry his grandfather’s wife, who is not biologically related to him. These two people would be prohibited from getting married. John would not be allowed to marry his grandmother’s husband, either, even if they both consented to get married. These two individuals would still be prohibited from marrying, and in both scenarios these people are heterosexual or homosexual marriages. So “equality” and “fairness” would not be exercised with this “civil right”. Makes you even wonder if it is a “civil right” as Julian Bond says it is.

Let us get back to the idea of more than two individuals. Let us assume that we have three people who want to get married and see how many scenarios we can obtain, whether heterosexual marriages or homosexuals marriages. Heterosexual: (1) male, male, female or (2) female, female, male. Homosexual: (3) male, male, male or (4) female, female, female. We notice with each of these scenarios, these people cannot be married since they are prohibited from marriage in the state of Maryland. The state of Maryland prohibits both heterosexual and homosexual people, who love each other and make a commitment to one another, while also consenting to marriage arrangement, are prevented from being treated equally and fairly and being denied their civil right.

Julian Bond plays his hand in his ad, though. This is because he brings up that the homosexuals share the same “values”. So basically he is implying that since they share the same values, they should have same rights. But think of this, those who do not share the same values, i.e. marriage is more than two individuals, should not have the same rights apply to them. This is ridiculous that because they share the same values they should have the same rights. Point blank, even if they don’t share the same values they should have the same rights. But those who support Question 6 appear to not care about heterosexuals, let alone homosexuals, who do not share the same values.

Think of it like this: There are some who propound that question 6 is about marriage equality for homosexuals. But this potential law still discriminate against some homosexuals from getting married, AND discriminates against some heterosexuals from getting married. So this law is not about equality, because it does not grant equality at all. It continues discrimination, it continues to deny equality, it continues to deny fairness, it continues to deny people who consent to marriage from getting married. It prevents people from making a life-long commitment to one another.

A homosexual male would be prevented from marrying their grandmother’s spouse, and prevents a heterosexual male from marrying his grandfather’s spouse (remember my key assumption). Same holds with heterosexual, or homosexual, females. Take all 26 prohibitions of marriage that were listed, and keep in mind that I am excluding marriages between biologically related people. This means that people who want to marry one of these people of the 26 listed, they are not allowed the civil right of marriage. They are not allowed marriage equality. They are not allowed marriage fairness. They are not allowed to form a life-long commitment with one another because the state will not recognize their civil rights.

It is hypocritical to say that Question 6 is about marriage equality for homosexuals when it discriminates against homosexuals at the same time (i.e. those who consent to marry 2 other homosexuals as well). This law is not about marriage equality for all homosexuals, it is only about marriage equality for some homosexuals. How is their fairness or equality when every homosexual in Maryland is not allowed to get married but only some homosexuals in Maryland are allowed to get married? Those who speak of Question 6 as Marriage Equality speak with forked tongues.

Question 6 is not about equality, civil right, or fairness for all homosexuals in Maryland who want to make a life-long commitment by getting married. It is only for some homosexuals.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: