They say this is the civil rights issue of our generation: perhaps I should make up my mind
For some reason, likely because it doesn’t directly affect me, I thought that this issue would go away after Prop 8. Turns out, not so much. In fact, after the surprising (to some) victory of Prop-8-ers in California (if you think that California is the bastion of all liberals, you clearly have never been to San Diego), the issue seems to have picked up momentum.
And, though I’d like to ignore it, or perhaps choose a different pet issue for my generation to struggle over… it’s here. And, it’s not going away.
In my Constitutional Law class the other day my professor said, “I think it’s just a generational issue really. It’s just a matter of time until gay marriage passes. I bet everyone in this class supports it.”
And then he said, “Let’s have a vote. All people in favor of letting anyone who wants to get married raise your hand.”
Approximately 118 people raise their hands.
“All opposed.”
Sitting in epicenter/front row of the class, I raised my hand… joined only by a Jewish kid in the middle of the class. Talk about awkward.
Later when I visited my prof for office hours, I spent about 30 minutes trying to explain to him why I had voted for Proposition 8 in California this past election. In the end he was clearly not satisfied with my answer, but we went on to discuss other questions I had.
When I came home and talked to Neil about our meeting he reminded me that in the 11th hour I had voted AGAINST Prop 8. I had completely forgotten. Am I a masochist, just aching for awkward moments with a state Senator who has repeatedly proposed marriage equality legislation? Do I suffer from False Memory Syndrome?
No.
I’d like to think not. I do think that it is symbolic of the almost completely even divide I feel over the gay marriage issue. I turns out, both sides of the issue are equally compelling and un-compelling to me in various and sundry ways.
Tonight (yes it is Friday night… ah, the joys of law school) I have been reading several supreme court cases on the issue of free speech. I just finished Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. In this case a man was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for BEING gay. Not for advocating any particular point of view, just because he told others that he was gay.
Basically I want to know how other people deal with the split in logic on the issue & why you come out where you do on the issue of gay marriage.
Let’s assume for the basis of this conversation that:
- Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
- My religious belief is that only marriage between one man and one woman is legitimate.
- There are plenty of beliefs I hold that I do not actively try to impose, through legislative means, on others. (For example, I do not contribute to the Prohibition Party even though, apparently, it is alive and well & I my religious belief is that drinking alcohol is wrong.)
50% of me thinks:
There are plenty of inherent genetic traits that the state does not acknowledge, uphold or facilitate. Unless you stand by the proposition that ALL consenting adults should be able to marry any or all other consenting adults (including bigamy, group marriage, incest etc.) you believe that at some point, some majority group gets to tell some minority group (no matter how small) that they can’t marry who they want/feel driven to/must. I personally do not believe that this social contract is limitless in its parameters & or application. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals does impinge on the liberty of others…as all laws and restrictions do. Such as how property laws, tax laws & criminal laws impose restrictions on conduct and associations.
An appeal to a complete libertarian view of marriage would find a more sympathetic ear from me than an appeal from a vocal & energized minority wanting benefits for themselves, while still excluding others. (Muslims, for example, who under their religious code can marry up to 4 women). If there are to be no limits on, or perhaps no state involvement in, marriage, so be it. If there are limits & a preference is put on certain (heterosexual) social arrangements, I see no problem with maintaining the status quo.
50% of me thinks:
As a person who has knocked doors for Ralph (the true King of them all) Nader during a very popular Democratic election, I have felt political bigotry. I have experiences the scorn and contempt from people in the majority. I do not want the dominant, widely accepted party to continue to be in control. I feel like they just want to maintain the status quo to maintain power, dominance and the privileges they have gained from this historic perch they have created for themselves. I got a tiny glimpse of what it feels like to be thwarted by a group of people simply because there are more of them, and less of you.
I know that as a person who has the privilege of being allowed to marry, it is a wonderful thing. And, as a person of privilege in this regard, how can I ever presume to know what is best for others, or to be able to deny them anything or any right?
I also know a lot of gay people. They are charming, responsible, normal people. Many would most certainly make better spouses, parents and members of families than myself or many other heterosexuals I know.
What’s the identifiable harm with letting gay people get married? What is it that we are so afraid of? What’s at the end of the slippery slope?
I can still teach my (hypothetical, future) kids that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. I can still teach my kids that we don’t drink alcohol, even though other people in our community do.
So, what’s the big deal? I don’t want gay people to feel bad, or to not be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. It’s not going to hurt me.
And, even if they just want the blessing and legitimization of the state (and have or don’t care about the “rights” associate with marriage). So what? And, isn’t that inevitable anyways? Aren’t our children going to look back on 2008 in 50 years and think, “how could they ever think like that, sheesh”? Isn’t this just a temporary battle (like the one for the 18th Amendment, which Joseph F. Smith enthusiastically supported, but was quickly overturned by the 21st Amendment & never considered again)?
What do you think? Should we have the corner on this market? Any (kind, thoughtful) insights are much appreciated.
1. I agree with both of your halves. It is such a difficult issue for me. I have a couple of gay friends, and I feel like a jerk when I think of them because of my other half, but it’s there.
2. I often make fun of any phrase that says, “For The Children…”, but for me marriage and family are inseparably connected. Social science shows that families that include both genders at the helm are more stable and provide a better environment for the rearing of children.
I hesitate to ever comment on this issue, because I feel like anything I say may get blown away from my intention. I don’t mean to generalize that homosexuals are unstable, or that they would all make bad parents because of their sexuality. I’m just saying that for society’s sake and for the sake of blatant generalization, to me, the gender balanced family deserves protection.
When I blogged about this, my parents told me that my temple recommend was in jeopardy. Hate it
I don’t think the state should marry anyone. Leave it to the churches. Civil unions should be available, for legal benefits, to any and all consenting adults.
I’m with Ralph on this one.
I disagree with “social science shows that families that include both genders at the helm are more stable and provide a better environment for the rearing of children”. I have yet to see any real impartial scientific research that conclusively indicates that. If you account for all of the messy divorces and absentee fathers, all the unplanned pregnancies and orphans in the world, I cannot believe you would really think that a hetero couple has a better chance of having a loving family just because they are hetero. Until you can hold the straight people up to standards of good parenting, I really don’t believe that you can use that as a good argument to deny other people the right to parent. Also, I would like to point out that this is what they said about couples of mixed race 50 years ago. I think the kids from “mulatto” homes are doing ok.
Secondly, although I see the minority-marriage argument (sorry Muslims), I do believe this is the civil-rights argument of our generation. I think in 30 years we will look at this issue and be ashamed that we ever tried to deny someone the right to make a family. We will be just like the 80-year olds in Georgia who try to explain why they really thought a black man should not have the right to vote.
Love makes a family. I’m getting married in June, and I firmly believe that if two people of any gender love each other as much as I love my fiance, they should have the right to make it official, visit each other in the hospital and take a crack at being good parents. Who cares what is between their legs? It is what is in their hearts that counts.
(I also agree with Amy and think the government could just leave it to the churches. If they don’t want to marry the gays, they don’t have to, and everyone gets the same legal benefits.)
Jen- i totally hear you on the hesitation. i don’t know where I come out on the “for the children” argument. thanks for your input.
Jill-wasn’t your blog article just about you going to a gay bar, not about gay marriage. funny.
Amy- i love, love, love that argument as it makes the most emotional sense to me. but, i just don’t see how that is even possible since there are thousands of laws that hinge on martial status (from tax, to custody, to inheritance, to immigration… the list goes on endlessly). there are many other countries that do it this way. for example, in Spain anyone getting married in el templo must first go to city hall to be married legally.
i truly think the debate in American is purely a power struggle over who gets a blessing of legitimacy by the state. (see my amendment to this statement below)
Martine – A) CONGRATS on the impending nuptials.
B) Man do I ever wish that we could hold all people to strict parenting standards (which I hold myself to now… hence no offspring) but, I don’t read the argument as one of strict parenting style/standards.
A friend emailed me a personal comment & the following is a quote from an article s/he cited:
“When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.”
While I think that there can be an argument made for the fact that many heterosexual couples adopt & raise children that are not “their own mutual offspring” & they turn out fine… I think from talking with children who have been adopted that it does bring MANY difficult, complicated issues with it.
Among the situations you mentioned “messy divorces and absentee fathers, all the unplanned pregnancies and orphans” I think that the common link is that one, or both, biological parents have abdicated responsibility for their children.
If we are talking about the IDEAL situation (and obviously many heterosexual couples do not meet this standard in the ways you have described) we are talking about a situation where the two biological parents of a child rear it from infancy to adulthood.
Whether that is the case in every day dealings is different than saying that it is no longer the ideal.
AND… I amend my previous comment. I think that the debate in American is largely, not purely, a culture war.
I agree with Amy, too. I wish the government had never become so involved in the first place that it would cause a church v. state problem.
And for the record, I didn’t say loving family. I do not deny that love (in many shades and colors) can exist between people regardless of gender. I said stable. The legal issue to me is not one of love. It is one of financial bottom lines. Stable families produce children, who grow up to be stable workers, who pay more taxes, hence the reward for marrying people who are able to biologically produce more tax payers. It is very helpful to breed crops of tax payers when you create a Ponzi scheme and call it Social Security.
I am one of those that would go so far as to support any consenting adults to marry. But arguing in the alternative, I’m baffled that gay marriage is illegal in states where marijuana is decriminalized and assisted suicide is legal. To clarify, I’m baffled that it is illegal in any state.
I don’t understand why the government is in the marriage business at all. The government (state or federal) might have had a legitimate interest to promote population growth, and hence, marriage at a very early stage in our country’s history. Our population has doubled in 50 years and is still on the rise. If state interest in marriage existed at one point, it no longer does.
http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/US_resident_population_over_time.html
From a legal perspective, there aren’t many equal protection arguments that justify denying marriage rights to homosexuals. Let the government issue the benefits without a name, and let the churches decide who they will grant marriages to. You cannot reasonably reconcile the holding in Lawrence v. Texas, with the fact that gay marriage is rampantly illegal. The government is sending a clear message to the gay community: we don’t care if you have sex with each other . . . we just don’t want you to get married. Think through what type of behaviors we are promoting with that message. If you were young and gay in this day and age, what types of relationships would you be looking for?
From a religious perspective, this is all about interpretation. I will say upfront that I am not religious, at least not in the typical use of the word, so take my opinion for what it’s worth. Most religious texts are explicit on how to deal with homosexuality. Accepting that gays should have completely equal rights (including marriage) calls into question a literal and strict interpretation of these texts. This forces the individual religious person to have to not only decide what type of voter they are, but also to make a decision about what type of Christian, Muslim, Mormon, etc. they are. Kate-think about yourself at the ballot box. Contrast this to other civil rights issues, like anti-miscegenation. While religious arguments were used even then against equal marriage rights, it didn’t really force the individual to question their own religiosity because, as far as I know, religious texts are less specific about race mixing.
It turns out gay marriage has an inward looking piece and outward looking piece. It’s the inward looking piece that has our collective panties in a bunch. Taking marriage out of the hands of the government would forgo this type of analysis.
All of this with the assumption that being gay is not a choice (#1 above), but to be clear, I don’t care if you choose to be gay or your genetics are telling you to be gay.
Life is hard enough to navigate and deal with alone. Marriages for everyone
The claim that a same-sex couple cannot raise children as well as a heterosexual couple is simply not validated by the research. One reason for this common misconception is that people tend to interpret research showing the value of a two-parent home as implying the value of mixed-gender parenting. Unless the study included homosexual parents, it simply does not apply. All of the studies I have seen that actually address same-sex parenting show it as being just as good (if not better) than heterosexual couples. I encourage you to do a bit of searching, you’ll find a number of studies on the subject.
I find arguments of the purpose of marriage being reproduction to be ridiculous. Does that mean that people who never want to have children should not be allowed to marry? Should women who have had a hysterectomy be precluded from marriage? How bout post-menopausal women? If you try to make an argument against gays marrying on the grounds of their infertility, then it seems that the above situations should also preclude people from marrying. I tire of hearing this argument because it is simply devoid of any semblance of logic. It is simply an argument invented by those who have already made up their minds on the issue and are frantically searching for talking points, no matter how ridiculous.
I also agree with many others who have stated their preference for removing marriage from the government. I don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage; leave it with the churches. Issues of ownership and child guardianship can be dealt with through civil unions or civil registration of guardianship. There are plenty of alternatives. That said, I don’t see this ever happening, as it would cause the Christian Right to completely freak out.
I agree. I think the argument for a complete withdrawl of the state from any involvement in marriage is an alluring fix in this all-out-war. However, I don’t think it is possible.
On one hand it doesn’t really matter anyway. Because even if you don’t call it marriage, the fight would be over who gets “civil union status.” I don’t know of any modern society that has no provisions for state-sanctioned relationships, where no relationship is sanctioned or limited by the state.
Do you?
Additionally, civil unions existed, and continue to exist, in California– giving same-sex couples many, if not all, of the rights that married couples have (hosp. visitation rights etc.). [Although, clearly, with DOMA in place these rights clearly would not be extended on a Federal level].
A fundamental issue in the debate is WHO is the state going to give their blessing to?? WHO gets the word MARRIAGE. LGTB people were not satisfied with the bestowal of fringe benefits associated with marriage. And, they aren’t saying “if we can’t marry, no one can”… they are saying WE can marry!
The tax, custodial, property, visitation … rights are almost a tangential argument in the debate.
The real question is: will the state recognize a homosexual relationship as normal & equal?
I hope you don’t mind me weighing in briefly – if you prefer this be LDS members specifically, I totally understand and delete away!
)
First, I thought you might appreciate this, form a blog for young Christians: http://theophiliacs.com/2008/12/06/why-the-church-should-leave-adam-and-steve-alone/ Excerpt: “The church has gotten into the bad habit of picking which scriptural codes of conduct align themselves with the current worldview and then screaming that the Bible has commanded that we follow these rules. The reality is that long ago the church jettisoned the Biblical condoning of polygamy and endogamy. They we excused as no longer culturally relevant. Similarly the church has excused itself from Biblical mandates on slavery.”
And of course, many other examples can be found, especially in re: old Mosaic law. The famous and brilliant Letter to Dr. Laura comes to mind: http://ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html
I agree with many of Michael’s points, especially this: “One reason for this common misconception is that people tend to interpret research showing the value of a two-parent home as implying the value of mixed-gender parenting. Unless the study included homosexual parents, it simply does not apply. All of the studies I have seen that actually address same-sex parenting show it as being just as good (if not better) than heterosexual couples.” I have seen far too much abuse come from heterosexual parents to conclude that they are inherently superior parents to a loving homosexual couple. I also agree with his disagreement that procreation is the only valid reason for marriage, for the same reason he delineates. A lot of people struggling with infertility no doubt agree. If procreation is the primary reason some people choose to marry, for reasons religious and otherwise, that is TOTALLY valid – but it doesn’t have to therefore be true for everyone.
The bottom line for me is that the only basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage is a religious one, and therefore, I feel, it falls under separation of church and state. No CHURCH should ever be forced to perform or even acknowledge such marriages – and that is part of the benefit of said separation of church and state. Yes, I know that many of our laws are also found in the Bible and in other scriptures, but we do have a responsibility to reason through what is fair and just today, based on constitutional rights.
My other objection to a common argument against gay marriage goes back to the link above. So many talk about marriage being one man and one woman, because that’s the way it has ALWAYS been and should thus ever be. Um, well, actually, it most certainly has NOT always been such. The Bible is overflowing with examples of polygamous situations, as well you know. The monarchies of Europe (and elsewhere) have used marriage as a political tool, whereby marriage bore little resemblance to what we call marriage today – the kings would sometimes have closer relationships to their concubines than to their wives. And in this very century in this very country, interracial marriage was prohibited as recently as 1967. All this is to point out that our definition of marriage HAS evolved over time, so the argument that same sex should be prohibited based on tradition is just plain unsupportable.
Again, hope this is okay to share!
And to that question, Kate, I would say it is only a matter of time before the state recognizes those relationships as such.
However, just as I would have voted for the prohibition amendment out of principle, after all of my reasons have been deemed “illogical” and dismissed as “wrong,” I would still vote in favor of traditional marriage if it came to ballot in my state. I just believe in it.
I favor respecting personal liberty. My sister loves to drink, and I love her guts. I disapprove of her drinking, but it is not a huge issue for either one of us in our friendship and relationship, and we live contentedly and happily together in our social circle. I think that is how it will be for our country on this particular issue in a few short years.
It has been hard for me to read these comments in light of a recent tragedy that has happened that has affected many of the people I work with.
A female police officer I worked closely with recently committed suicide. She had been living a lesbian lifestyle, and left a suicide note. Turns out the only people cruel to her in her life were her many partners. Her last partner was the cruelest of all, having told her a few days before she pulled the trigger that she was a worthless “piece of sh–” and should blow her brains out. She did.
I am very good friends with a woman who is gay and does NOT support gay marriage. The statistics on those living a gay lifestyle are very, very grim: significantly higher suicide and drug abuse rates, significantly more partners during their lifespans.
We need to love people for who they are and accept them not matter what their lifestyle choices, no matter which side of the gay marriage debate you’re on.
Anne- thanks for the comment. I think you are in the non-Mormon majority on this comment stream actually.
I think clearly the quality of parenting can, should and desperately needs to be improved all around. I don’t think that parenting quality is a valid argument to make… because inherently it involves a value judgment on what “good parenting” is. And, that debate is obviously tainted by the fact that many (the majority?) of Americans think that teaching your kid to be gay IS BAD PARENTING… so it’s cyclical.
However, I see the societal interest in encouraging biological parents to bear the burden of their genetic offspring as one that could arguably be untied to religious beliefs… although it could be another “creation science” type argument just trying to mask a pre-conceived religious notion as something more secular/scientific as I think Mike alluded to.
Is it that fine of a line though to say… you begat, now we want the begatters to bear the responsibility?
Jen- Is it? I wonder. At least according the the NY times article in the first link… it’s becoming less & less clear that that’s the true trend. (Hence a bajillion states amending their respective Constitutions… EVEN Maine a very “liberal” state). And, as to familial relationships… obvious to me would be the point that drinking should disturb a relationship MORE than homosexuality since it is a lifestyle choice & not an inherent characteristic. But, that’s apart from the State debate to me.
Mom- That is so terrible & rotten. It sounds like this tragedy was not due to any sexual orientation, but her choice in abusive partners. That is so, so, so sad.
I’m not sure that the treatment of LGTB people as equal un-harassed citizens can be separated from this marriage equality debate, and for that reason is a compelling argument to treat all equally… even under the law.
Arash, I agree. Legalize Marijuana!
Right – Kate – the human race is a flawed species, regardless of sexual orientation.
There are actually two issues: how people not of our own orientation are treated by us and then, separately, how the law treats folks.
I was relieved to find out that the straight people – mostly main-stream Mormon folks – were the ones who treated her very well and lovingly, according to her note. It was the gay community generally that was abusive and cruel to her, not just her partners, she wrote. I was very proud of my culture at that moment.
I particularly resent people who argue/insinuate that straight people are always abusive, cruel bigots trying to deny civil rights, and the other folks are virtuous and charitable. That is such a lie.
And Anne, you are right, there simply is no data on how children survive in homosexual unions. There is a small smattering of anecdotal stuff out there, indicating both good and bad, but simply not enough to be conclusive. I for one do not think that children should be a social experiment to toy with.
The societal purpose of having state-sanctioned marriage was not for procreation (people seem to be able to do that without the benefit of marriage!), it was for the protection of both partners to a marriage. If things were left to churches to make things right, then there would be horrendous abuses, mostly to women who are the ones who 99 per cent of the time sacrifice for the family and stay home to birth/breastfeed/nurture small infants.
Churches have no power to order people to do anything, the state does. It is wholely because of that state power that the recognition of both the husband and wife contributions in a marriage are equal – financially and otherwise. When I represented women who had put their husbands through school, stayed home and nurtured small children and made huge career sacrifices for the good of the family, it was absolutely life-saving for these women to have the power of the law to protect their rights and their children and to prevent abuses.
A “churches-only” marriage rule would set back womens’ rights hundreds of years – returning to a society where women and children are at the mercy of men. If you are married to a Saint like Jim Kelly, that’s great. If you marry someone who turns out to be a narcissistic monster, that’s not too great.
The societal “purpose” for marriage certainly was not to protect both partners from the onset. During the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions. As little as 100 years ago, and much later (since we’re not even 100 years out from the passage of the 19th Amendment) married women did not have ANY property rights at all, even the right to keep anything in the event of a divorce etc (and once married, it was extremely difficult for a woman to obtain a divorce.) If a woman worked after marriage, her earnings belonged to her husband. Women did not even have custody rights & if a woman left an abusive spouse– he got to keep the kids. Women were quite literally at the mercy of men, and marriage actually entrenched that grip through legal mechanisms. When a woman got married her wealth was passed to her husband. The reason many suffragists chose not to marry was to keep what little freedom they had. Marriage meant the relinquishment of rights.
Additionally, the argument is that the churches should keep “marriage” separate and distinct & that partnership/property/custody/tax etc. benefits should be conferred an any couple seeking them. Hence, the property interests of these abused women (that have been modified in modern history to protect women’s contributions— like in 1985 when the court ruled that a woman who had supported her husband through school had an interest in his resulting degree as an asset etc.) you mention would still be protected.
So true, but marriage has BECOME an institution that protects and insures the equality of the spouses. I know this from my own personal and professional experience, both with my mother who was divorced while I was young and from representing numerous women in divorce proceedings in the 1980s.
Thank goodness for the statutes and case law that has arisen from domestic relations laws! Our children and our society are better because of them!!!
And, what you are really talking about when you say words like “partnership” etc., is really just a matter of semantics. Why not just call it “marriage?”
I think that last point gets the heart of what really irkes me about this debate. At times it really just boils down to an issue of semantics to me.
Churches want the word marriage not to include gay people, and imply an implicit blessing by the state on homosexual relationships.
Gay people want the word to include them, and by including them imply an implicit blessing by the state on their relationships as legitimate.
For example, on November 5th, 2008 Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.” So, what are we “protecting”?? The WORD marriage.
Just thinking out loud here . . . maybe the solution is to have is to have two things – BOTH “domestic partnerships” AND “marriages.”
That way the state can protect its legitimate state interest in encouraging happy, stable, long-term husband-wife relationships and, at the same time, give protection and basic rights to partnerships in which one partner can be victimized regardless of their sexual orientation.
Why not both?
I’m with Clayton on the semantics thing. I think that GLBT relationships should be afforded equal rights under the law, but because the relationships are inherently different from traditional marriages they may have unique challenges that will require a specific set of statutes. It would also make it easier for lawyers in GLBT specific cases to search case law for precedents, etc.
I do think it is only a matter of time, but I could be wrong. At the moment, I think the trend is to accept almost anything if it gets harped on enough by people who care about it a lot for a long enough time. Not necessarily a bad thing in many instances.
Unrelated: If I ever go to law school, I need to interview Momalicious, because she has apparently been in the field that I would want to practice.
Jen. You should go to law school. It’s awesome. You should also talk to my mom, because she is too. She is a prosecutor for Utah County. She also has a food blog you might like http://www.fabfrugalfood.com !!!
Thanks, I’ll check your mom’s site out. Law school will be after my kids are in school if I ever make it, so at least 7 to 10 years down the road.
And I tried to think of examples from my comment last night, and I couldn’t. So maybe I’m wrong. It just seems like that might be the case, but who knows?