Not to rekindle our previous debate regarding same-sex marriage, but I’d like to rekindle our previous debate regarding same-sex marriage…
It’s one thing for President Bush to state his personal views on same-sex marriage. It’s another to deliberately gather the press corps to express his support for amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? Yes, this “moral decay”, this moral decline, this moral miscontrsuct, is based on Judeo-Christian views. There are plenty of people out there in the conservative majority who feel that same-sex marriage violates decency on moral ground, but I believe this springs from religious tenet. The major religions hold up the Bible/Testament and point to it, shunning same-sex marriage.
Terrible.
Because, last time I checked, we live in a country where religion technically has no impact on our legislative and judicial agenda. Amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage is ludicrous, and having a President advocate for it lets me know that he’s someone who is comfortable alienating the populace and estranging the minority. This country is based on inclusion (“give us your tired, your poor”) and accepting all persons of culture, faith, etc. is what makes us strong. Yes, we compete internationally on our intellectual developments, our science, our management, our engineering, our medicine, and our military. But there’s a foundation of inclusion underneath it all that taps into the collective power of people who bring their talents to the table. Excluding blacks because of prejudice. Excluding women from voting. Excluding foreigners because they talk and look different. Amendments to our Constitution and additions to our laws are based on “inclusion” not on exclusion. Have we learned nothing from our past?
The last 25 years shows that our economy is beseiged by globalization. The barriers of the world have been torn down. Do we want to start building cultural barriers at home? Alientating people is the worst thing this country can do, economically and socially. Whether I believe in homosexuality isn’t the issue. The issue is whether our laws are explicity written to protect the minority and ensure their place beside the majority in the pursuit of happiness. And anyone at the top of the political food chain who wants to step up to the microphone and express his sentiments of alienation in election year better be prepared to face a harsh rebuking.
This reminds me of former Presidents who shunned racial integration, who laughed at women in the workplace, who mocked the inclusion of external cultures into our mainstream. People didn’t have choices before. “You don’t like it, then leave our country. Oh, you can’t? Well the deal with it.” Well, now people have choices. And creating a society which tells people that they’re not welcome is awful.
Besides, it’s a state issue anyway. Right? Right?
Not religion: choice vs. nature
Although I think religion is partially involved in the homosexual marriage debate, I don’t think it’s at the core. Like so many other things, the question of the “morality” or “immorality” of homosexuality seems to be more of a cloak, a ruse, an easily-justifiable sound-bite-enhancing dodge to avoid addressing the real issue.
The real issue is this: is homosexuality a natural, inborn tendency? Or is it a choice (whatever the reason)? This strikes at the heart of much Judeo-Christian tradition, as well, because of the notion that we are created “in God’s image”. Few right-wing Christians think God is Gay.
If becoming homosexual is a choice, then nearly all arguments in favor of homosexual marriage are moot. Religion is in a similar boat: one’s choice of religion is recognized as a choice, and although one is free to exercise one’s religion, one is not entitled to government support for doing so. Many see marriage as a government-subsidized institution, and allowing those who choose homosexuality to benefit seems, from their point of view, tantamount to government-funded lifestyle choices. Leaving aside all the other examples of government funding lifestyle choices for the moment, many people don’t want their tax dollars spent to subsidize the marriage of two men (or women) who won’t be contributing to the future gene pool.
I know I left out a bunch of points in that argument, and left holes one could drive a truck through. On the flip side:
If homosexuality is not a choice, then the homosexual marriage argument was lost by those who oppose it forty years ago, and they just don’t know it yet. Forty years of legislation and pro-civil-rights case law support the right of people with different skin color to eat at whatever restaurant they want, be employed on equal footing with those of other skin colors, and marry who they wish, enjoying the fruits of that marriage regardless of skin color.
To me, that’s what the question hinges on. If the pro-homosexual-marriage community can rally enough support behind the “who’d ever choose to be homosexual?” flag, they will succeed in the recognition of homosexual unions legally in the U.S. If they fail to make a compelling argument for it not being a choice (whether through biology or upbringing), then their opponents will prevent them, at least temporarily, from obtaining their aims. I’m finding myself doubting that homosexal marriages can be permanently prevented, though, given the motivation of homosexuals to have such unions recognized, and the lack of positive motivation to keep the “no homo marriages” crowd going. Homosexuals see a reward at the end of the fight, whereas anti-homosexuals will only see maintenance of the status quo.
I’m on nobody’s side, though. I’m not pushing for legislative reform on gay marriage, but I’d be glad to see gay couples afforded the same advanttages as hetero couples. If a constitutional amendment to bay non-hetero forms of marriage ever saw the light of day in my state, though, I would reconsider my position.
As far as states’ rights go, they’ve been so massively trod-upon because an uninformed general population applauds federal mandates that I have little hope of accomplishing much at the state level anymore. Like it or not, communication in the digital age has enabled us to make decisions globally in minutes, where it used to take weeks to communicate the same thing. There was a time when I thought I wanted to fight hard for states’ rights, and then when I really analyzed the problems and realized that improved communication is both our savior and our damnation, I understood that decision-making is moving towards a global level, rather than back towards municipalities and states. There will always be a place for the town council, mayor, state representatives, and other local officials, but their role will expand in population representation, while diminishing in scope. Future battles of this sort, where decisions made in one state are guaranteed to be affected by the policies of another, are guaranteed to be solved at the federal level.
(I say one state’s decision may affect another because a gay couple may decide to move, and the majority of tax benefits married couples enjoy are federal tax benefits, not state income tax benefits.)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
choice…
Matt, whether one chooses to be gay or not is not even close to the issue. The issue is whether one couple is allowed to choose to be married and another is not. Religion is also not at issue, or shouldn’t be because homosexuals (and others, like me) are arguing for recognition by the state not by the religions. That’s a seperate debate. I am appaled by any legislative body who actually passes a law prohibiting one group something it allows freely to another based on irrellevant criteria. This country is about protecting rights not denying them.
I’m with you…
I’m with you 100%. One’s personal views about homosexuality are irrelevant. The issue is equality and freedom. We are a republic not a democracy which means that all peoples’ rights are protected not just the majority. The governmental influence in marriage is limited to the maintenance of the marriage contract for reasons of property disputes in case of divorce or death. Yes, marriage has roots in religion as well but as for the religious aspects, those are for religions to deal with, not governments. I’m also not opposed to some degree of rebelious uprising as is going on in San Francisco. It still seems a great deal tamer than the Boston Tea Party. Sometimes a little civil disobedience is called for and should be expected when people in our country are being treated as second-class.
Ad infinitum
It becomes easy for the argument behind any issue that seems grounded in conservative values to be shot down on the basis of “church and state”.
The government has not said “you must believe” x y or z
Our system of government and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ideals whether we would like them to be or not, and the fact is, until there is “Church of gay” and the government tries to shut it down, this is not a “Church and State” issue.
Matt’s argument is also interesting, although, I would argue that, removing the possibility of a God from the equation, it cannot be a biological issue. the fact is, Gay tendencies would be weeded out and not passed down because Gays do not tend to procreate as much as straight people. No kids, not traits passed.. at least not to the extent that homosexuality pervades the society. Others argue a biological mutation, but again, that argument would mean there would be about 1 in 10000 people at best.
From a Darwinistic standpoint, homosexuality cannot be biological.
Now, the funny thing is, although I am an outspoken Christian, I think the Church needs to back off this issue. The fact is, from a moral standpoint, the Christian church is based on the idea that all sin is equal, and needs to be forgiven.. and therefore, has no business meddling in the moral affairs of non-christians.
I am far more interested in the original concept between separation of the Christian Church and the state, when Christ said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesars”. It certainly is not making the Christians any friends that the Jerry Falwells get up on their pulpits and are so focused on it. There’s a lot more important stuff to talk about.
So, I come down differently than most of my Christian friends, because I think the state has no business legislating morality.
All THAT being said, I have heard a compelling argument saying that once we approve Gay marriage, what happens when a man wants multiple wives, or when brother and sister want to marry? Gay couples are saying they just want to be able to have recognition of their love by the governemnt. What happens, once that is allowed to happen, when siblings want the same thing?
Also, what happens when approved gay marriages want children? Gays using the “who would choose to be gay” argumant would suddenly have a hard time arguing against “who would want gay parents”. The fact is, sexual confusion for such a young child, and the “kids are cruel” quotient comes into play. When there are same sex couples who want to have kids, but biologically cannot, do we disallow them the ability to adopt by allocating a portion of the limited pool of babies for adoption to Gay couples who want to have babies, but can’t because of a chosen lifestyle? And do we then call the Gay household a “normal family”, although it will be bereft of both male and female role models?
it is a complex issue.. because I do believe on a simple level, that my two gay friends who call themselves husbands, and who do love each other very much, and who do cohabitate, should be allowed the same tax breaks and rights as my wife and I. It is just when we get down to the complications of that issue that I have concerns.
I do believe in equal rights, but I don’t see how the ancillary issues (which are far more inflammatory) can be resolved.
But, let me reiterate again, let us take the moral issue out of it.. The government has no right to say that homosexuality is wrong, and the Church has no business to try to make the government say that. The church has every right to believe that, but it needs to stay there.
Nitpicks…
I have, as always, a few logical nitpicks for you that may be troublesome with some of your core arguments:
Highly debatable, and I agree with the the Secular Web in thinking that the idea that our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian ideal is a myth. I think the founding fathers specifically rejected traditional Christian meddling of religion in government with the First Amendment.
Any claim that the separation of church and state is an “original” Christian ideal seems disingenuous. Jesus was simply dodging a question in this apocryphal-seeming tale. Apocalyptic sects of Judaism abounded at this time, and referring tribute to Caesar seemed an action fit for what most perceived a Savior as being — a revolutionary leader. Alternatively, he could have been simply saying “follow the law”, or if you took the meaning at “face” value, that money was made by Caesar anyway; why should one object to returning it to him?
The Christian God has an ostensible long and illustrious history throughout the Old Testament, ordering slaughter of peoples, hardening Pharaoh’s hearts, destroying lives, leading armies, and in general being extremely meddlesome in governmental affairs. From where I sit, it just looks like the Catholic church throughout the Dark Ages was just trying to follow His example.
Sorry about that rant, but history just doesn’t seem, to me, to back up the thought that the God of the Old Testament would be at all interested in separation of church and state. If I’m wrong, I welcome verses to that effect… but I suspect that, like with much of the Bible, there will be another verse available supporting an opposing position.
Well, I kind of agree, if “no business legislating morality” means “no business interfering in the personal relationships of law-abiding, consenting adults”. Like, don’t legislate oral sex between consenting adults, don’t legislate swear words, etc. But, in a way, gov’t is always legislating morality, by enforcing minimum standards of interpersonal, non-consensual conduct. That’s a totally different discussion 🙂
That’s the beginning of an unsupportable slippery slope argument, and the issues of homosexual marriage, vs. incestual marriage, are entirely different. Our general human cultural aversion to incest appears to be mostly biological in nature. Genetic monoculture tends to reinforce undesirable negative traits, making avoidance of incest a self-reinforcing behavior (nobody wants to date the ugly girl). My question is: if incest didn’t reinforce genetic diseases negative traits, would we humans dislike it so strongly?
And I have zero objection to polygamy, except for the secondary effects that seem endemic to it in the USA’s prominent controlling polygamous clans: child sexual abuse (marrying off child brides), welfare abuse, low standards of living, and mind-control techniques common in other religious cults. *cough*. If consenting adults choose to engage in a polygamous marriage, I don’t see a problem with it. If they physically and mentally abuse non-consenters, or break the law by trying to finagle more stuff out of my tax dollars, I get concerned.
Well, I’d guess that kid would grow up with two Moms, or two Dads, who really love and want him or her. Hetero pairings often produce unwanted children. My parents’ sexual habits didn’t have much of an impact on me until they became the focus of their divorce. There doesn’t seem to be a logical reason to deny children to homosexual couples. Unless one assumes homosexuals are child abusers, or that in some way (I’d be interested in hearing rationale on this) having two parents of the same sex is worse than having one parent, it seems an unjustifiable position to say that gay couples should not be able to adopt or bear their own children (women, of course).
Here I totally agree, and I’m ambigious about carrying out a massive social experiment by legalizing homosexual marriage across the nation. I guess I’m ambiguous about a lot of things 🙂
Sure it can. Cases of children with ambiguous genitalia are, while not common, not exceptionally rare, either. In those cases, what happens if the doctor lops off the "wrong" part? That’s one small exception. Biologically, the difference between male and female attraction is a very small chemical and structural change. The feelings of being “in love” and creating attachments vary according to (crap, what’s the name…) two specific chemicals that can be altered medically. At least in voles, and to some yet-to-be-measured extent in humans, raising the levels of this chemical while in the presence of a potential mate dramatically increases chances of attachment. Homosexuality is also wildly rampant in the animal world, and particularly notable amongst the Bonobo chimpanzees in Africa.
What I’m saying is, it sure looks like homosexuality can have both biological and environmental factors. To summarily dismiss the possibility of biological motivation is to ignore a mounting body of evidence to the contrary.
I had more to say, but I ran out of time 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Glad I got if off my chest
“Our system of government and our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ideals whether we would like them to be or not”
Actually, our laws aren’t based on Judeo-Christian views. They’re based on the Roman system of government, which came before Christianity. My point was specifically to state that I wasn’t equating conversative political viewpoints regarding same-sex marriage with Christianity, but with religion overall, which includes the Big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim). This is why I originally mentioned Judeo-Christian. Sorry for the confusion. Again, the use of religion in my original post didn’t mean “them southern religious right christian boys!” but all major religions in the U.S. that discourage homosexuality.
To answer your question, an FYI here, every state has laws in place banning blood marriage. Certain states are more lax than others, allowing second cousins to marry.
Here’s another interesting thought: say you were living with your wife in the same house for ten years but weren’t officially married by the state. Common law (I believe) would consider you married for all purposes under the law due to the length of co-habitation, mingling of assets, etc. How come gays living together couldn’t be affored that same common law marriage recnogition? Maybe there’s something in the common law language that reads “man and woman”?…
— Sammy G
Exceptions to common-law…
Utah and Idaho don’t honor common-law relationships. Kind of weird to me, that… common-law is called that because it was the recognized standard for, well, as far back as we have begun recording history. Man and woman move in together, therefore they are married.
But they are illegal and unrecognized in Utah and Idaho. Don’t know about other states…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Idaho
In Idaho, it is unlawful to marry a potato, but the ACLU is trying to change that.
Dude, get your facts straight…
They outlawed marriage to pumpkins, not potatoes. If you outlawed potato marriage there, you’d have a riot.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Moved off front page
Although I love to keep discussion lively on barnson.org, some family members take offense at topics that are on the front page here. So those, I remove from the front page, though I keep the archives around forever.
Due to the polarizing nature of the discussion, this has become one of them 🙂 It’s still here, and still open for discussion, but has been pulled from front-page status. Thanks for understanding.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Marriage Discrimination Amendment
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is the author of the Marriage Protection Amendment which has been put forth to amend the US constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
In Allard’s words, “Marriage…is incorporated into the fabric of our culture and civic life. It is the platform on which children, families and communities are nurtured.”
So what exactly needs protecting? Are federal judges changing the form and nature of marriage by eliminating its protections in recent rulings? Are people bringing their pet rodents to court houses to become joined together as husbands and mice?
It’s about not wanting gay people to get married, similar to the way black people were felt to be inferior and to the way women weren’t felt deserved of the right to vote. We think we’ve abolished bigotry but then we see our elected Senators proposing constitutional amendments to prevent certain members of our society from receiving equal treatment. What’s worse is that these Senators think we’re all idiots. I don’t know who came up with the “Protection” titling, but if you’re going to be bigoted, just come out and declare your bigotry. You’re not protecting anything. You’re discriminating. It’s the Marriage Discrimination Amendment.
Something similar…
I said something similar here (which, by the way, was the 1,000th topic since the inception of barnson.org). I include the first paragraph below because it is my belief that the push to marginalize the judicial branch by the legistlative and executive is a calculated move. The excuse for this calculated power grab — the thing that will make it fly — is the gay marriage issue:
Gay marriage is polarizing. Fact is, only about 3%-5% of people are gay. We overwhelmingly vote in gay marriage amendments to state constitutions all over the USA. Politicians see it as an immensely popular issue due to this enthusiastic response, and are riding the wave of popular bigotry in hopes of another term.
—
Matthew P. Barnson