One concern is that same-sex couples don’t have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Same-sex couples don’t have the same rights in terms of health insurance, inheritance, hospital visits, etc. because the purpose that relationship serves is not equal to that of a heterosexual married couple.
A rule of justice is to treat equals equally. The question is not whether homosexual individuals are equal to heterosexual individuals, but whether same-sex couples are equal to heterosexual couples of a certain type with regards to the policy concern of marriage.
The answer is that they’re not. Things like health insurance, inheritance rights, and hospital visitations are all tied to the natural function of families. Mothers and fathers have kids and families. Yes, there have been some variations on that, but largely, our culture has adapted to help strengthen that unit. Therefore, you have inheritance rights. Mom and kids are included on health policies in case something happens to the primary breadwinner. None of that applies in the same way, neither to same-sex unions (as in domestic partnerships), nor to any kind of relationship other than natural marriage.
Other kinds of relationships, though they may be significant, valuable, and meaningful to the parties involved, have no bearing on the public policy question of why the government privileges, protects, and regulates the natural marriage relationship. The government responds to help aspects inherent to the natural family relationship.
When there are unique benefits, it’s because there are unique purposes. The natural family relationship headed by a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual union as a rule, as a group, and by nature, produce the next generation. Since that relationship serves a unique purpose, it has unique benefits.
Challenge #2: Unequal Rights? (Part 2)
Legislating Approval
Ultimately, same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It's about validation and social approval. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Even so, homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Though not universally approved of, homosexuals have the liberty to live as they choose without fear of reprisal. This is all anyone has a right to demand.
The Policy Issue
Rhetorical Considerations: First, the issue in question is same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. The difference is critical rhetorically, even if the same people are in view. With regards to the policy issue, the government does not care about sexual preference; it cares about gender. Homosexual individuals can already get married, as we'll see. Describing it as "gay marriage" gives the impression that the animus is against the sexual preference rather than a concern about the genders involved. Second, there is no "ban" on same-sex marriage; there simply is no legal provision for it. The use of "banning" terminology is imprecise and misleadingly casts homosexuals as victims singled out for exclusion. The state is not hostile to same-sex relationships, but neither does it promote them because it has no reason to do so. Finally, let no one get away with simple name-calling in responding to this issue. This guide raises principled objections to same-sex marriage that are in no way related to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, or intolerance. Responding with an ad hominem attack is not just bad manners, it's bad thinking. Bigotry, intolerance, and narrow-mindedness have no bearing on whether adopting same-sex marriage in our culture is a good idea as a policy concern.
The Meaning of Marriage
Marriage is not defined; it is described. Marriage is not invented by man, rather it is rooted in nature and a fixed feature of the natural order. Marriage relationships produce the next generation. Families consisting of a father and a mother are building blocks of society. This description has dictated the structure of every civilization from the beginning of time. Thus, changing language or laws doesn't change reality. Same-sex marriage never occurred until now because it was a contradiction in terms. Such unions would not be marriages even if declared so because nature decrees otherwise. Marriage licenses don't create marriages, they simply "map over" the natural institution already there from the beginning. Governments don't create marriages, so they can't ultimately redefine them. Governments can only cause damage by interfering with marriage instead of cooperating with its natural purpose.