Frequently Asked Questions and Answers About
Legalizing Same-sex Marriage in Maine

 

How does society benefit from traditional man/woman marriage?

There are many benefits to society, but the most basic benefit is that it is the very best situation for children.  Children are the future of any society, so every society has a direct and fundamental interest in its children.  What is best for them will be best for society. Social science research has proven that children do best on every measure of welfare when they are raised by their married biological parents.  The “next best” arrangement does not even come close.  It is because man/woman marriage provides such benefits to society that societies throughout human history have created so many protections and incentives for people to marry.

Isn’t marriage really all about love?

Not from society’s standpoint.  Love between individuals in a society is a positive thing, of course, and producing the next generation is critical, but when the expression of that love between a male and a female results in children, it could be a problem for society.  If these children are abandoned by one or more of their parents or are inadequately cared for and socialized to be responsible members of a society, all members of the society suffer.  This is why all successful societies have emphasized marriage as the social institution to bind fathers and mothers to each other and especially to their children into a natural family.  It helps to understand this true role of marriage to remember that throughout much of human history and in many societies even today, marriages are arranged.  The concept of “love” being a prerequisite for marriage is relatively recent and certainly not universal.

If same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, aren’t their rights being violated?

Certainly not.  No one has a “right” to marry, just as no one has the “right” to adopt a child, or do many other things that societies choose to regulate to promote the greater good.  The fact is that societies have always regulated who can marry.  Someone cannot marry a sibling or a parent cannot marry his child, to cite just two examples.  What must take priority is what is good for society, not what an individual might want regardless of the cost to society and the problems it would cause.

Isn’t prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying just like prohibiting people from different races from marrying?

Not at all.  When the courts struck down laws passed to prohibit interracial marriage, it did not change the basic social institution of marriage.  It was still understood to be a union between a man and a woman, regardless of their races.  Allowing same sex-individuals to marry, on the other hand, would radically redefine the fundamental and universal understanding of marriage over millennia of human history.  No society in history has ever done this.

Are those who oppose same-sex marriage simply trying to impose their religious beliefs on others?

Certainly, many people object to legalizing same-sex marriage because of their religious or moral beliefs.  That is as valid a basis for taking a position on a public policy issue as any other set of values, such as emphasizing “fairness” as a public policy value or elevating or encouraging “diversity” for its own sake.  However, an overwhelming case can be made for preserving man/woman marriage based entirely on social science research, the lessons of history and just plain common sense.  There is no need to appeal to any moral or religious reason to oppose same-sex marriage.  The Marriage Facts Maine Web site lays out this social science, lessons-of-history and common sense case.

Can’t any religious concerns people have be dealt with by only legalizing same-sex civil marriage and letting religions define religious marriage? 

It is a common fallacy to think that there are two kinds of marriages—civil and religious.  In fact, there is only one institution of marriage in any society, and there can be only one, since marriage cannot at the same time mean the union of a man and a woman and also the union of any two individuals.  It is also essential to understand that governments did not “create” marriage.  It is a “pre-political” social institution, meaning that it was created by societies before the social institution of government was created.  In simple societies, marriage was regulated by customs, mores, taboos and other means.  As societies became more complex, the more recent institution of government was enlisted to regulate marriage. So while there is a governmental element, it is only supporting a social institution that had already been long established.