Same Sex Marriage and Proposition 8: Where The Right Is Wrong
As a resident of California I am of course interested in Proposition 8. I plan to have a post more directly on that proposal and offer some thoughts on the actions by the Yes and No campaigns. But in the meantime I thought I would offer a revised version of an earlier post on the general topic of Same Sex Marriage.
For those who do not know I am an attorney in California, and while I primarily focus on bankruptcy and estate planning it is sort of an occupational hazard to become the go to guy for all my friends and family on the legal issues.
As you might imagine the same sex marriage issue has been a biggie the last few months and many of my more conservative friends have talked about how evil/bad/dangerous that gay unions are. Continuing discussions we have had before, I have tried to convince them of why they are wrong on this issue, and will offer my views as follows.
The first point often made is that it is wrong for us to ‘approve of’ or ‘allow’ gays to have the same romantic activities that ‘normal people’ do (please note the quotes there). Now perhaps someone forgot to send me the memo, but as far as I know, two consenting adults do not need my permission, blessing or consent to do whatever they want to with someone they love. Indeed the only circumstance where my consent would be required is if I was the subject of the romance (which I suppose would depend on how good dinner was).
So on point #1, I see no reason whatsoever for me to rail over what romances happen between what people. If personal distaste were the standard, Britney Spears would have been banned from dating years ago.
The next big issue raised is how allowing gays to marry is a threat to ‘real marriage’ and that somehow by allowing it we will destroy society.
The first thought I have is to wonder how the actions of roughly 10% of the population can harm the actions of the remaining 90%. Indeed many of these same friends insist that the numbers are much lower, that only 5 or 2 or 1 percent of the population is gay, so if they are right then the figures are even wider.
In addition, given the fact that the current divorce rate is nearing 50% and that infidelity seems to be more common than not, I wonder how much more harm can be done ? Even in fairly conservative Christian communities it is ordinary to know at least a few divorced people and we’ve seen more than our share of scandals that show we are all far from pure and chaste.
I do understand that many are concerned about this issue from a religious standpoint, but there is where I again seem to lose track of the logic.
I am a deeply religious person, and for that reason I see things differently than some of my fellow worshipers.
For me, Marriage (big M) is indeed a religious ceremony. It is a covenant between two people that is sanctified by God. For me this is the essence of big M marriage and without it there is no true union.
Since this is a discussion of what society should do and not what religion should do, I will set aside for now the debate on Churches approving Gay Unions or what the Biblical view on homosexuality is. However I will point out that a fair reading of the Bible makes it clear that we are to love all people regardless and that judgment is best left to God. So right there we perhaps need to have some of our religious leaders re-read the Bible.
Looking to the State aspect of the marriage equation that seems to me to be more of a legal relationship. It is in essence a contractual agreement between two people under which they agree to accept certain responsibilities in exchange for certain benefits.
This to me is not marriage, it is a contract. Thus I see no reason that it should matter who the couple is that enters into this contract. Indeed, for me it seems that if you are making a big deal about this aspect of marriage, you are demeaning the value of the spiritual one.
Indeed, the court made it quite clear in their ruling that under no circumstances would the court ever be in the position of forcing a religious group to approve of or conduct same sex marriages. They made a clear distinction between the state-sanctioned union and the religious one.
The argument that if same sex marriage is legal that churches will be forced to perform them is patently ridiculous. We have all kind of anti discrimination laws on the books already. They prohibit people from mistreating people based on their religious faith. But these laws have never been used nor will they ever be used to force a Catholic Church to marry a Jewish couple.
Neither would they force the Jewish temple to accept a Baptist as a member. Religious groups are free to have any qualifications they want for membership (including race should they so choose) and they are equally free to restrict access to facilities or services to members. There is no example anyone could cite to support the argument that same sex marriage would somehow change these things.
The final area often cited by the right is Gay Adoption. They rail against the perceived evil of allowing gays to adopt, suggesting that doing so will result in the production of a whole new generation of ‘gays’.
Now I find that particular argument interesting since most gays were presumably raised by straight couples, and yet somehow did not turn out straight.
Another area where people get upset is on the topic of adoption and how if we allow same sex couples to marry then they will also be allowed to adopt and raise children. They argue that for a child to have a ‘proper’ upbringing that they need to have both a male and female role model (this argument is also raised in regards to single parent adoptions).
In this argument, they do have a point; but there is no reason that a gay couple or a single parent couple could not seek to have people in the child’s life to provide that other gender role model (grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc).
Indeed, while I can’t speak from personal experience, many of my gay friends have pointed out that simply because you are male doesn’t mean you can’t offer a female point of view or vice versa.
More importantly, the number of stable married Mom & Dad couples ready to adopt is greatly exceeded by the number of children needing homes. Ultimately, a stable loving couple is much better than an unstable home or remaining in foster care or an orphanage.
We have kids out there who need a home and good loving people ready to offer one, and that should be the end of the equation.
Although they have good motives in this area (I.E. concern for children), I think that in large the right is once again wrong.
There are also practical benefits to allowing Same Sex Marriage. As it stands, there are no legal responsibilities assigned to a gay relationship.
If you have a couple where one serves in the traditional ‘homemaker’ role and the other as the breadwinner and they break up, then the homemaker has no recourse to seek support from the breadwinner, even if they helped that person succeed.
As a result, they would probably rely on government for support. If there were a legal marriage, they would have the option to seek proper support, removing the burden from society
I would also remind you that in the past some, indeed most of these same arguments were made in regard to interracial marriage. Up until 1948 in California and 1968 in much of the South it was illegal for a white person to marry a non white person. People made the same sort of statements that are being made now, that it was traditional for the races to remain apart, that it would demean ‘real white marriage’ or that it would result in mixed race children.
Today most of us find such arguments offensive, but if you take out the word race and replace it with gay, you have the debate going on today. That sort of prejudice was wrong and was rightly dismissed as we moved from the 19th to the 20th century.
So is this, and it is about time we moved forward into the 21st century.
21 Responses to “Same Sex Marriage and Proposition 8: Where The Right Is Wrong”
I found this article pretty amusing and think those sort of things will start popping up more.
Agreed with everything. Just wanted to add that a lot of gay people have kids and take care of them since the beginning of time. Just these kids didn’t have the same legal protections as the kids in a heterosexual marriage had.
Gay marriage is one of those issues that really shows the far Right for what it is. A philosophy based on gut instinct, utterly rationalized in the face of whats actually going on, that wants to control others not like them. Same thing can be said about the far left. I really wish the fringes would get the hell out of other peoples lives.
Again, I come from a conservative family and have tried over many a dinner to get my father to explain how exactly gay people getting married affects his marriage. After 20 years I still have yet to hear anything close to a valid answer. The internet is turning up blanks as well. I wish they would just admit they don't like it and thats the entirety of their arguement.
Pretty much agree, but I can't help but note that the legal aspects of marriage extend beyond the union, into legal rights and responsibilities involving others outside the union who have not agreed to be parties to the same-sex marriage “contract.”
Things such as spousal benefits mandated in law complicate the same-sex marriage issue, and do indeed impact the marriages of others, especially when the mandated spousal benefits are drawn from a constrained-resource defined-benefit pool such as Social Security. I don't think it's a quantitatively large impact by any means, but it is certainly a real one.
So, not a major item, but a real one. I consider it a bit of a quibble, as simply getting any significant portion of existing unmarried hetero couples to marry would have the exact same effect. But it's a real effect of allowing gay marriage, one that adversely impacts others. And make no mistake, those things are one of the major drivers of gay marriage, the claiming of those extended spousal rights and benefits under law.
Thanks for the reasonable and thoughtful posts. I'm a gay dad, single presently, and pretty thrilled that the CA Supreme Court sees me as equal to my straight counterparts. As for Tully's comments about spousal benefits: I don't know how including gay couples in the pool of benefits does anything to impact straight couples. It simply includes us in the same pool we've been contributing to since we began paying taxes, from which straight couples have always benefited and gay folks have never. We've been paying for your benefits all along. My partner predeceased me 7 years ago, and I won't be able to collect his social security. Who does that money go to?
It simply includes us in the same pool we've been contributing to since we began paying taxes, from which straight couples have always benefited and gay folks have never. We've been paying for your benefits all along. My partner predeceased me 7 years ago, and I won't be able to collect his social security. Who does that money go to?
——————————————————–
I just wanted to accent the above from gaydad's comment.
The arguments against a new group of people joining the legally recongnzed national family are so often based on an unwillingness to share benefits, power, influence, rather than on a defensible rationale for exclusion.
[...] makes it clear that we are to love all people regardless and that judgment is best left to God. …http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19969/gay-marriage-where-the-right-is-wrong/Religion briefs San Antonio Express-News & KENS 5LOS ANGELES ?? Parishes across the Catholic [...]
I am glad you have enjoyed the post. I do think that this is an issue where the right is wrong, but as has been observed, the left is also often wrong.
And I'm sure I will be commenting on that soon.
Patrick –
The Bible issue is a bit more complex than you present it. When understanding an issue in-light of Scripture teaching, the rules of interpretation dictate first that one must weigh passages that are germane to a given issue. Only if the Bible is silent on a particular subject does one appeal to broader biblical principles.
For example, some wonder if gambling is acceptable biblically. Because the Bible says nothing specific about it, an appeal is usually made to broader principles, such as caring for others. Is gambling away my money hurtful to the ones for whom I am responsible to care? etc. You get the drift.
Now take your question of homosexuality, or more specifically, gay marriage. Right away, you jump to “do not judge,” a broad biblical principle that seems to fit the case. However, the Bible clearly has injunctions against homosexual behavior — see Romans 1:18-21, 1 Cor. 6:8-11. Therefore, one must wrestle with those injunctions since they are on-topic. BTW, the argument from silence that Jesus never said homosexual practices were wrong begs the question. Jesus never said bribery was wrong either, but that hardly means it's acceptable in God's sight.
Apart from biblical concerns, practically speaking, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it's hard to see on what legal grounds a sister would be forbidden from marrying her brother. Every one of the arguments that have been made in favor of gay marriage – many appearing in your post – could be trotted out in defense of brother/sister vows. In that case, it would no longer be politically correct to use the word “incest,” in the same way that (apparently) it is no longer allowable to use the expression “sodomy.” Yes, this is a “slippery slope” argument, but sometimes that argument is compelling.
Manchester2,
Patrick correctly (IMO) separates marriage into “civil unions” and “Marriage” as a religious ceremony and commitment. Patrick pointed out that the CA Supreme Court decision is not meant to interfere (or “force”) a religion into performing Gay Marriages. That I wholeheartedly agree with (and said as much in a similar post a a week or two ago on here). Patrick rightly leaves the religious Marriage question for each religion to work out internally.
This country was founded with the idea of a separation of Church and State and the CA Supreme Court honors this distinction.
As far as your argument about brother/sister marriage… there is a very real difference between an incestous relationship and gay marriage. The main difference is the much higher incidence of birth defects as a result of incestuous unions. IMO it is not in the best interest of society to promote relationships which are demonstrably harmful. The harm being the costs of supporting those people with defects. For clarification, I think it is society's responsibility to support those less fortunate, including those with birth defects- call it compassion, social responsibility, etc., but it is very important. I just don't think the state should have policies which encourage unions which actually result in birth defects. Though I think brothers/sisters have more legal benefits (i.e. visitation, inheritance) by being “family” which two unrelated adults do not have.
Speaking of which…. a brother/sister can move in together, have children (without marrying) and pretty much live as man and wife. No one would be the wiser (unless they lived in the same area they were raised in). They could pretty much live as common law man/wife.
Manchester2,
Patrick correctly (IMO) separates marriage into “civil unions” and “Marriage” as a religious ceremony and commitment. Patrick pointed out that the CA Supreme Court decision is not meant to interfere (or “force”) a religion into performing Gay Marriages. That I wholeheartedly agree with (and said as much in a similar post a a week or two ago on here). Patrick rightly leaves the religious Marriage question for each religion to work out internally.
This country was founded with the idea of a separation of Church and State and the CA Supreme Court honors this distinction.
As far as your argument about brother/sister marriage… there is a very real difference between an incestous relationship and gay marriage. The main difference is the much higher incidence of birth defects as a result of incestuous unions. IMO it is not in the best interest of society to promote relationships which are demonstrably harmful. The harm being the costs of supporting those people with defects. For clarification, I think it is society's responsibility to support those less fortunate, including those with birth defects- call it compassion, social responsibility, etc., but it is very important. I just don't think the state should have policies which encourage unions which actually result in birth defects. Though I think brothers/sisters have more legal benefits (i.e. visitation, inheritance) by being “family” which two unrelated adults do not have.
Speaking of which…. a brother/sister can move in together, have children (without marrying) and pretty much live as man and wife. No one would be the wiser (unless they lived in the same area they were raised in). They could pretty much live as common law man/wife.
[...] came across a comment at The Moderate Voice which is a wonderfully succinct way to help make that point: The first point often made is that it [...]
[...] role and the other as the breadwinner, and they break up, then the homemaker has no …http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19969/gay-marriage-where-the-right-is-wrong/Seek help with the trauma if you’re forced out The RecordWhen misfortune forces families to downsize [...]
Interesting 'Manchester 2'… You oppose the CIVIL rights of a segment of the population based solely on your interpretation of a religious 'text'. Now, if this 'text' is so valued, why are there so many divorces? As I recall, divorce is definitely frowned upon by all the people who wrote, edited, and interpreted this 'text'. Why are so many of your 'bible-thumping cults' allowing multiple marriages? I recall reading somewhere that the 'christian' divorce percentages are actually higher than any other group, including…. (gasp) the atheists!
Manchester quite frankly, you people can't figure out what you're willing to allow and what you aren't. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states…. and, if you happened to move into a state that didn't allow said marriage, your LEGAL union was invalid. That is until the SCOTUS declared that states couldn't nullify a legally contracted union from another state. As an example, there are a number of states that allow marriages of what some would call children. If one of those couples moves to a state with a different age requirement, they are STILL married. Compare this with the infamous Marriage Protection Act signed into law by Willie Clinton.
I opine EVERYONE should have a civil union for the legal recognition, protections, responsibilities, etc of the state and federal government. This license would be validated by a member of the government NOT a member of any religious doctrine.
Should one wish to complete a marriage, that would be handled by whatever cult they wished to be recognized by. It would have NO legal recognition, the shaman, priest, witch doctor, preacher, etc. would NOT be licensed by the state. Further more, said 'official' could not act as the legal authority in the civil union. That would ensure there was no confusion about the union vs. the marriage.
Interesting 'Manchester 2'… You oppose the CIVIL rights of a segment of the population based solely on your interpretation of a religious 'text'. Now, if this 'text' is so valued, why are there so many divorces? As I recall, divorce is definitely frowned upon by all the people who wrote, edited, and interpreted this 'text'. Why are so many of your 'bible-thumping cults' allowing multiple marriages? I recall reading somewhere that the 'christian' divorce percentages are actually higher than any other group, including…. (gasp) the atheists!
Manchester quite frankly, you people can't figure out what you're willing to allow and what you aren't. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states…. and, if you happened to move into a state that didn't allow said marriage, your LEGAL union was invalid. That is until the SCOTUS declared that states couldn't nullify a legally contracted union from another state. As an example, there are a number of states that allow marriages of what some would call children. If one of those couples moves to a state with a different age requirement, they are STILL married. Compare this with the infamous Marriage Protection Act signed into law by Willie Clinton.
I opine EVERYONE should have a civil union for the legal recognition, protections, responsibilities, etc of the state and federal government. This license would be validated by a member of the government NOT a member of any religious doctrine.
Should one wish to complete a marriage, that would be handled by whatever cult they wished to be recognized by. It would have NO legal recognition, the shaman, priest, witch doctor, preacher, etc. would NOT be licensed by the state. Further more, said 'official' could not act as the legal authority in the civil union. That would ensure there was no confusion about the union vs. the marriage.
[...] Same Sex Marriage and Proposition 8: Where The Right Is Wrong [...]
Tully,
The legal benefits aspect is an interesting point. To me, though, I don't think that should matter. Gay people contribute to social security, too. They pay taxes on their income. Why should they not then be allowed to access the benefits in the same way hetero couples do? If they are contributing to the benefits pool at the same level as their hetero counterparts, there's no logical reason to deny them the benefits.
I'm not one for slippery slope arguments, but I would point out that Pete Stark, congressman from California, has come out in favor of polygamy as a fundamental right. Polygamy by itself, would be a civilization-ending disaster, since under a polygamous sexual environment men expend most of their time and resources doing nothing except competing for women.
Instead of all this mindless pontificating about “rights” versus “morality”, I'd like to see a scientific-rationalist investigation about how society endorsing same-sex sexuality impacts society, as a whole. Modern societies require widespread heterosexual monogamy in order to exist, and if state endorsement of homosexuality, marriage has always been an endorsement of a particular sexuality (monogamous heterosexuality), negatively impacts that monogamy then it has no place being endorsed and advocated by society. Other than a serious negative impact on widespread heterosexual monogamy I cannot see same-sex state endorsement as anything but inevitable.
One final note: marriage is, and has always been, an affirmative state action. It is society saying “we like what you're doing, and we think it's so swell we want to see more of it”.
I would point out two things:
A) Societies have never placed same-sex sexuality on the same plane as opposite-sex sexuality. Since this is a widespread historical phenomena, it seems plausible to me that it is the result of underlying biological imperatives that we do not yet understand.
B) Homosexuality is clearly “natural” in that it has a basis in variations of individual biology. I am also quite certain that what is called “homophobia” also has a “natural” basis, although, like most things natural, it can be temporarily suppressed through rigorous and constant socialization. To force roughly half the population to endorse, through their body politic, a practice they perceive as socially dangerous, is to invite a serious rift in an already fragmenting society.
Waltzing along blithely ignoring very real political concerns is just another strain on an already stretched body-politic and the dissolution of any notion of common good. But, frankly, as someone who wants today's America broken up into separate countries, I'm not sure this is a bad thing.
Great Post.. For a different perspective visit http://editorialsection.com
Churches shouldn't be forced to allow same sex marriage and government shouldn't ban it!
I strongly support the idea of removing the concept of marriage from government completely. Although I think it would take a lot of work to take marriage records out of the federal government and state governments hands, I think this is really the best way forward in the debate of same sex marriage. Such a direction could also garner support from Mormons or other religious groups who see it as their right and sometimes as their duty to be able to maintain more than one spouse. Where does anybody get the nerve to try to restrict other free peoples right to engage in these personal relationships.
For those who are unaware, the Republican Party has opened up a new web forum for submitting ideas to rebuild the party. I suggested such an idea as described above and it could use as much support as possible to try to get signal to the party that people want this type of sensible solution from government.
Separation of Marriage and State
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/…