Let's Solve Gay Marriage and End Bigotry (at the same time!)
I've heard opponents of gay marriage qualify their opposition by saying that allowing marriage for homosexuals could be the beginning of a slippery slope that results in the complete collapse of the institution. This means allowing marriages of more than two people, or unions between humans and animals. Flipping that assertion around, Dan Savage writes in the Times that acceptance of constitutional bans against gay marriage like those passed last week in California, Florida and Arizona could result in a long list of other hateful policies against America's minorities.
Savage is right in pointing out this potential. But I actually think that it won't be long before gay marriage - or some form of it - is accepted in all 50 states for a lot of reasons. First of all, it is the morally right thing to do. No one should tell another person who they are allowed to love and the ways they are allowed to show that love.
This reminds me of a 2003 David Brooks column which questions why Republicans oppose gay marriage. If they claim to be the champions of family values, why do they refuse to let homosexuals form families? As Brooks writes, "We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage."
It is too bad that more Democrats do not outwardly condone gay marriage, though it's great that so many support civil unions. The default option for marriages - for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike - should be the non-religious civil union. People who want to be united through their church could opt to be married religiously, but enforcing that as U.S. policy only alienates homosexuals.
Savage is right in pointing out this potential. But I actually think that it won't be long before gay marriage - or some form of it - is accepted in all 50 states for a lot of reasons. First of all, it is the morally right thing to do. No one should tell another person who they are allowed to love and the ways they are allowed to show that love.
This reminds me of a 2003 David Brooks column which questions why Republicans oppose gay marriage. If they claim to be the champions of family values, why do they refuse to let homosexuals form families? As Brooks writes, "We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage."
It is too bad that more Democrats do not outwardly condone gay marriage, though it's great that so many support civil unions. The default option for marriages - for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike - should be the non-religious civil union. People who want to be united through their church could opt to be married religiously, but enforcing that as U.S. policy only alienates homosexuals.
Advertisement
Exactly.
November 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, sister. Orlando, I believe we just had this conversation a few days ago. Or, I chatted with somebody about civil unions and religious marriages the other day...
Either way, I wholeheartedly agree. Post rec'd.
November 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:xXzqyGGlDJQJ:news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf+massachusetts+supreme+court+goodridge&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Exactly wrong. This is why the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision should be required reading. It is the best articulation of the reasons why civil unions constitute a "separate but equal" dodge.
November 13, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the point:
(a) The only thing the government has any business worrying about are civil unions, and these should be open to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
(b) Churches can decide whether to conduct marriages for whoever they want to, including 2 dead people if they so desire.
Whether or not you agree with that point, it's not about creating separate but equal institutions. It's about keeping government out of religion, and keeping discrimination out of government.
November 13, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, exactly the point. Good post Ben.
November 13, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an indistinct distinction. If churches decide who gets "married," then it's trivially easy to incorporate the Church of Gay. Naturally, this will be seen as a threat to religion (as if obviously-bogus "religions" like Scientology and Mormonism weren't threat enough already!).
Saying, "We'll leave the choice of what to call 'marriage' to religion," as if that leaves the choice to current religions, is just a dodge. If being a religion allows it, you just get new religions. Also, as a married atheist, I really don't want to be told that I don't have a marriage, only a "civil union," just in case I can't or don't want to find a religion to sanction my bond.
Get religions out of it. Marriage should be by the state, a right of every citizen, to any citizen of age. Then if you want to also do something by way of religious ritual, fine. But that should have no more or less legal status in regards to marriage than going dancing in a nightclub or hiking in a national park.
November 13, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods, but even here in Virginia (OK, so it's Charlottesville), there are plenty of churches already willing to marry gays. No new religions are required.
I'm also a married atheist, and the part about it relating to us is a valid counterpoint. I wasn't trying to defend the entire argument. I was merely pointing out that the argument didn't involve separate-but-equal arguments for homosexuals (although it arguably does for us atheists). As for this argument, I really think that what the poster is saying (and maybe I'm just reading this into it) is that the government should have no say about who gets to call themselves married, but that it can regulate civil unions as they relate to contract law, etc. Those regulations, however, should not discriminate on the basis of sex.
November 14, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As part of an English class a few years ago, I read an Op-Ed written by Alan Dershowitz published in the LA Times in December of 2003. Here is the link: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/03/opinion/oe-dersh3.
Basically, Dershowitz' argument is that marriage is a religious sacrament, and therefore under the establishment clause, beyond the reach of government. As such government has no business sanctioning or defining marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, are creations of law and well within the scope of government. But the Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit clauses require that civil unions be available to all and honored by all states.
I find this argument to be in harmony with the concept of the Constitution I have been taught. There is no other group of people for whom marriage and civil union is not allowed. We would never accept a referendum on whether other minority groups should have access to marriage or civil union.
At the same time government should never be allowed to dictate to a religion what unions it must (or must not) sanctify, and no religion should be able to tell a government that certain citizens are unworthy to have their relationships receive equal protection under the law.
November 13, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The unstated part of Mr. Dershowitz's argument is that those churches which DO recognize same-sex marriage would be permitted to exercise their 1st amendment rights. As written, the DOMA and state laws/amendments which prohibit same-sex marriage infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of the free exercise of religion.
But, for reasons which escape me, nobody at Lambda Legal or the other folks who are fighting this fight want to push that line of argument.
November 13, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find that to be a persuasive argument. Merely become some religions characterize something as a sacrament shouldn't prevent the government from using the same label for that something. After all, marriage pre-dated Jesus.
BTW, the link didn't work until I took the . out at the end
November 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an utterly unpersuasive argument, given the fact that marriage, as a legal status, definitely confers certain privileges that are otherwise unattained. See my post above. All reasonable people should read the Massachusetts decision; it's an eye-opener.
November 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's Dershowitz' whole point. All secular benefits would flow only from civil unions. Religious ceremonies known as "marriages" would evoke no such benefits, being only sectarian rites. Civil unions would no longer be a 'separate but equal' condition; they would be they only condition that produces the legal relationship of spousal partnership.
What chance do I see of any of this happening? It'll happen about the same time one of our representatives can publicly admit to being agnostic or aetheist.
November 13, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noted on another post yesterday that this is the way it is in many countries in Europe and it seems to work just fine. Civil unions for anyone who wants the state's recognition and benefits and religious marriage for anyone who wants that. But ONLY the civil union (performed at city hall in Europe) confers the legal benefits.
November 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone who gives a shit should read it. And those who couldn't care less either way NEED NOT.
Meanwhile, everyone who reads the drama-queen hystrionics which compares discrimination against "gay"s as equal to Dred Scott or even slavery, should be offended by the self-serving intellectual dishonesties used to push the agenda.
There is civil -- non-"religiously"-enangled -- marriage., It is exactly the same as so-called "civil unions"; it's an issue of semantics.
Oops -- it's an issue of "ME!"-ist hystrionics.
November 14, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does Jesus have to do with it? I would just point out that religion also pre-dated Jesus...
November 13, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insightful post! Especially the last part--absolutely true. Unfortunately, alienating homosexuals is a pretty common agenda in this country. Although we should all be grateful that it is on the decline in most demographics.
November 13, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little OT, but why are churches tax exempt? When the Mormon church gave $30 Million to oppose equal rights for some citizens, was that what their exemptions are for?
Do you contribute to your church expecting they will help the poor and disadvantaged, or to deny some folks equal rights?
If a church is a political action committee, doesn't this infer that separation of church and state means nothing? Doesn't that mean their tax exemption should be lifted? Shouldn't they be barred from political actions?
Its so ridiculous to think that only some citizens are entitled to equal rights!
Lets get ridiculous back at them...require only those citizens that have children together be allowed to marry, in fact MUST marry. And if you have another child by another women, you must marry that woman and bring her into your marriage, and if another man fathers a child with one of your wives, he must marry into the family too?
Its all totally absurd.
The churches have gotten out of hand, rein them in.
November 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not jam all the total absurdity into a pile and see what comes out of the scrum, eh?
I like it! Government-mandated Superpolygamy for all!
November 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken. I was thinking that civil unions should not be offered as an alternative to marriage, though, but as the standard. This (albeit imaginary) scenario would mean that both civil unions and marriages granted the exact same rights. So the choice could be made whether you wanted a secular or religious marriage.
November 13, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is religion in divorce? It's completely a legal matter - expensive attorneys, division of property, choosing the future for the children, support for said children and much more - all decided in a court of law. It may be a lovely "marriage" granted by god when it begins, but it's nothing more than signatures on paper when it ends.
November 13, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The drama queen-ism never ceases:
Allowing "gay marriage" will "end" all bigotry --
as if, yet again, the only issue obstructing human progress and delaying universal Nirvana and Utopia is opposition to every little "gay" interest and demand. The sky is falling, and we all need to hand-wring, because "gays" insist on making their "orientation" a public issue, and then bitching that everyone else is making it a public issue.
The rancid hypocrisy -- bigotry -- is overwhelmingly nauseating.
November 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love your intellectual honesty. You just have to rip away at the language hypocrisy used to emotionally push the marriage agenda for those who want same sex partnerships. For some reason they don't wanna talk about how the same laws also will not license brothers and sisters to marry.
November 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
here's a newsflash -- the majority of gay people DON'T WANT to get married. Huh? Yep, check the stats folks. MA, after the initial surge is issuing very few same-sex licenses in the state. Spain has hardly any after allowing it in their country. This is a tiny minority within a minority screaming for their rights. The American people do not want legalized gay marriage right now, and with the relatively few people affected by this -- we've got a lot more important things to focus on.
November 14, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. One of the other unspoken truths is that many many many same sex partners prefer serial monogamy or promiscuity to legally binding their assets with someone else.
November 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the point, though. Many heterosexuals don't want to get married either. But if they want to, they can. Not so for gay marriage. Not so and not fair.
November 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
not true. A gay man can marry any woman he chooses to marry.
November 14, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink