I was enjoying a cigar with my brother last night when conversation drifted to the recent ruling in California that legalized gay marriage. I realize I'm going to get some flack for what I'm about to say, but I don't give a damn.
I remarked that while I have no problem with homosexual civil unions, I don't agree with something like "gay marriage." It's always been my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, and should indeed be a sacred commitment between that one man and that one woman.
I explained that as far as civil unions, I don't see how, given the legal framework (i.e., the 14th Amendment), the United States government could deny tax and other legal benefits to individuals in committed relationships with another individual of the same sex. I just don't agree with the use of the term marriage.
My brother pointed out that from one standpoint, it's not about equal rights. For instance, a heterosexual man cannot marry another man. That's something that was illegal for every man - gay or straight.
Ah, you say. It's not about that. It's that people should be able to marry whomever they love, correct?
All right, then. Take this scenario: A man and a woman apply for a marriage license, saying they're very deeply in love, and can't wait.
The clerk has them fill out the paperwork, and it turns out both individuals sign with the same last name.
The clerk asks if it's a coincidence.
It's not, they say. They're brother and sister. They just happen to be very deeply in love.
Now you say that will never happen. That's outrageous to suggest it! But I think it could be said that there was definitely a time when "gay marriage" was unthinkable, as well.
This takes us back to the legal framework that I mentioned earlier: the Equal Protection Clause. It basically says no rights can arbitrarily (or on the basis of any discrimination) be denied to one individual, while granted to another. Given the nature of this amendment, isn't it the correct legal course now for the government to legalize and sanction any sort of union between anybody? We have to no choice now but to be fair and open the doors to incest, polygamy, and polyandry. I could go on, but I risk being misquoted and villified already.
My brother and I have concluded a simple solution for this: end any sort of government benefit for marriage or civil unions, even for heterosexual couples. Certainly, such benefits were in the past intended to promote the growth of families as the basic unit of society, but frankly, I don't think that should be government's job. In my perfect world, government would provide basic national defense and protect - not grant - the welfare of its citizens. The importance of the family is much more integral in religious institutions, who have their own verdicts on this issue. With that said, I don't think government should be exclusive to families, either. I don't think my suggestion would be.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care what people want to do in their private lives, as long as it causes no harm to another individual without that individual's consent. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support something to which I object. That's been said about the war in Iraq, and now I'm saying it about gay marriage.
Do what you want, folks. I swear I'm not trying to preach to anyone. An individual's choice is his or her own. Just don't ask me to pay for it, if I would never make the choice myself.
8 comments:
I must say, you are a thinking conservative, a rare thing nowadays, and it's a little frustrating when you make an argument that I can't find fault with at first blush. But since it clarifies my thinking, I won't "villify" you.
First, there is a difference between gay marriage and incestual/polygamous marriage. Namely, people don't choose to be gay the way they would choose to marry their sister. It is my belief that a person can no more choose to be gay or straight than to be black or white or male or female. It's only a belief, but there is some scientific evidence behind it. For instance, there was one study that showed that the brain of a gay male responded to male pheremones in the same way the brain of a straight female would respond.
With this distinction, equal-rights arguments can be made in support of gay marriage (because denying homosexuals marriage would be like denying a particular race marriage), but they can't be made in support of incest or polygamy (because such a comparison cannot be made).
I think we discussed gay marriage before, and we came to the consensus that gays should enjoy the same rights as straights, but the government couldn't force churches to recognize those unions. (Whether those unions should be called marriages is a point I don't think we discussed.) I would have no problem with ending government sponsorship of marriage/unions either. The government should probably stop giving, what is it?, $2500 for having a kid, too; the world is populated enough as it is already.
Sincerely,
Your Liberal Friend
1) thanks wolverine for discussing how being homosexual is not a conscious choice and that it is biological. I won't discuss this aspect anymore.
2) Right-Wing Leftie is in fact a liberal (in the very classical, Mill-ian sense of the word) (thought you'd like that).
3) Let's look at the concept of "marriage" in a more anthropological sense, since wolverine covered some other stuff. First, the idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is something that is not universal. So, taking this through the lens of cultural relativism, there are other cultures today for whom the social institution of marriage actually exists between men only and heterosexual sex only occurs during certain times of the year.
If you look at the first few definitions for "marriage," you will see that the only cases in which it suggests a union between man and a woman is in context of a social institution, institutions which vary from culture to culture. Please note that legal institutions also vary by culture.
According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage,
"1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger."
4) There's this movie called "Lone Star" in which two people are half brother and half sister (they find out at the end) and then consciously choose to have a relationship. While we might view this as incestuous, the director John Sales chose to portray this as another border to be crossed (the whole movie suggests crossing borders in a both literal and abstract sense). Basically, while one might not personally agree with the characters' actions, Sales pushes the viewer to reexamine why this sort of relationship between two consenting adults is viewed in such a negative light and questions if it is really such a bad thing after all. It really comes out in discussions about the movie that the more you are pushed to clearly state why this relationship is wrong, the more difficult it is to justify one's opinion, forcing one to reexamine just what exactly constitutes right and wrong.
1) I'm not saying people choose to be gay. That's totally beside the point, and I don't think your argument really makes any sense.
If I were to say again that it's really not about equal rights, since before this California ruling, neither straight nor homosexual men could marry men, I'm guessing your reply would be that a heterosexual man, however, could marry a woman if he loves her. Homosexual men cannot, on the other hand, marry men they love. Correct me if this is not what you would say.
With this assumed response, the argument becomes about love: an individual should be free to marry whomever he or she loves, be that person of the same sex or not. With that said, the legalization of gay marriage extends the recognition of a loving relationship to homosexual couples.
But what if an incestuous couple or polygamous group were in love? Under current law, they do not have the freedom to marry whomever they love.
Again, if my understanding of this whole debate is correct, it is that it is about the freedom to marry whomever you love. That is what I am discussing. I am no way discussing whether homosexuality is a choice or not. The only way choice comes into play in this aspect of this argument is whether you believe you choose the individuals you love, or if fate determines that for you. But that seems to be a philosophical question.
(As a footnote, I didn't want to add this to the original post, because it could have easily been taken out of context, but I agree with you on your last point - I don't really think the government needs to offer so many incentives for having families, either.)
2) Okay J-Mad, I understand that other cultures do things differently than we do things in the contemporary US of A. That doesn't mean we have to legalize everything that is different from accepted culture in the United States. I know this isn't what you're saying, but my point is that the fact that some people do things differently is not enough reason for everyone else to change the way they've been doing things.
For instance, I don't think your argument that marriage in some cultures is between two men would really stand up. While that may be true, some cultures also practice human sacrifice and cannibalism, so should those be legal in the US also? Do you see how preposterous that sounds?
The point is, the United States is not a culture in which marriage is accepted to be between two men or two women. Surely, while not all Americans share a Judeo-Christian faith, you cannot deny the nation was founded on Judero-Christian values - an important factor in discussing the concept of marriage in the culture of the United States. Furthermore, given my Judeo-Christian background, I also have a concept of what marriage is. Simply saying that other people have a different idea of what it is doesn't mean I have to suddenly change my view.
3) And yes, I understand that according to John Stuart Mill, I am a liberal, and I'm fine with that. I'm about to open a whole new can of worms, but I would in fact argue that classic American conservatism (an ideology to which I also adhere, and NOT the brand of conservatism commonly referred to as "neoconservatism") is far closer to Mill's concept of liberalism than contemporary American liberalism is to Mill.
As for being a "thinking conservative," I'm reminded of a quote from Churchill, and I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like this:
"To be young and liberal, you have no brain. To be old and conservative, you have no heart."
I guess I just skipped the brainless step. Decide for yourself whether you think I have a heart.
I think whether homosexuality is a choice is central to most gay-marriage arguments. Most people would say either: (1) Homosexuality is a choice, and therefore gay marriage should be illegal. -or- (2) Homosexuality is determined by genetic predisposition (for lack of a better term), and therefore gay marriage should be legal.
To me, the argument is more about choice than about love. If you start with the premise that homosexuality is genetic, then denying gay people marriage would be like denying interracial marriage because you're denying somebody a right just because they were born a certain way. But no one, as far as I'm aware, has argued that they were born with a genetically predisposed attraction to members of their own family, for example, and so there is no slippery slope to incest or polygamy or man-dog marriage (as several right-wingers have suggested).
And I'm not talking about fate either; there's a difference between being genetically predisposed to being attracted to members of the same sex and being destined to fall in love with a particular person.
Just to clarify, you would be okay with gay marriage as long as government wasn't financing it in any way?
I think you're still comparing apples to oranges. Even on the premise that homosexuality is not a choice, the majority of the arguments I have heard in favor of gay marriage are about the right to marry whomever they love. Even if a man is genetically predisposed to respond to male pheromones as a heterosexual female would, he still must choose which male he would like to be with. (Look at the second paragraph of my first comment, and let me know if this is an accurate assumption.)
And as long is it's not financed by the government, no, I don't care if two men are in a relationship they refer to as a marriage - as long as it's also okay for me to not call it a marriage. As has been discussed, there are different ideas of what marriage is, so I should be allowed to embrace my concept of the institution as much as others want to follow their own interpretation.
check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8
no one's saying that you have to change your view; not at all. however, what people are saying is just because your views dont match with theirs is no reason for the denial of rights (and dont be defensive, im not sayin that you are personally denying people rights as you expressed that you were fine with same sex relationships).
again, i want to emphasize BVDs point about choice. I also agree that heterosexuality or homosexuality is not a choice, but something genetic. this being said, to deny someone a privilege because of something in their genetics is wrong and absolutely anti-American. as BVD said, there is no proven genetic predisposition to incest or polygamy or polyandry, then the argument of a slippery slope of marrying whomever you love no matter what doesnt hold true.
Lets continue with wolverine's example of race as viewed in the USA. We can both agree that racial discrimination is wrong. No one chose their race; they were born into their culture's folk taxonomy. So therefore, we have attempted to realize our social errors and correct them through laws that grant people equal rights regardless of their genetics (equal ACCESS to these rights is an entirely different issue). As a side note, blacks in the United States at one time were not allowed to get married either. But then enough people in the US got smart enough to realize that hey, its not fair if white people can get married but other groups cant. So we changed the laws so that they were less idiotic and less racist. Similarly, it wouldnt make sense to deny the right of one group (in this case, homosexuals) while extending rights to another group. This turns the right into a privilege. I think we can both agree that people should have the right to get married (as in, being out of prison is a privilege. if you break the law bad enough, this privilege is taken away. rights cannot be taken away. hypothetically, i think we'd agree that its not a privilege to get married in the eyes of the law (a partner/family may think otherwise). if you mess up and get divorced, i dont think many would say that you lost the privilege to get married. its a right, inherent and inalienable since birth). So lets not hate, lets appreciate and respect others' rights.
im also a little confused on your argument about a heterosexual man not being allowed to marry another man as being relavant to anything at all. if he's heterosexual, why would he want to marry another man for love? and if its not for love (which would be the explanation for this kind of union), who the hell cares as long as its consensual and legal? you said you dont like big govt meddlin and providing that the union is consensual and legal, there is no reason to pry. so basically, i dont get what your argument with that point really is.
on the other hand, if your argument is that govt should stay away from financial involvement in marriages, then thats fine but then that argument is not specific to same sex relationships. it extends to all marriages and in which case, you ought to address it as such.
Hokay, this is the last I'm going to say about this, for two reasons: I keep having to say the same thing over, and over again, as my point remains missed, and this discussion is bordering on the silly.
A major part of the gay marriage debate has been that homosexuals ought to have the same rights that heterosexuals have, correct? Specifically, the right that is sought for homosexuals is for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman. BUT THAT IS NOT A RIGHT THAT HETEROSEXUALS HAVE, EITHER! A HETEROSEXUAL MAN COULD NOT MARRY ANOTHER MAN! So how is this a question of equal rights, unless it is about allowing an individual to marry the person he or she loves? If it isn't about being able to marry whomever an individual loves, wouldn't homosexual Americans be okay with entering into a legal, heterosexual marriage in order to get the same benefits from the government that married people have? Even if this were to happen, the homosexual party/parties in this marriage could maintain relationships with their homosexual partners. It's probably a safe bet this has happened, but again and again I am told this is a fight to be able to marry the individual a person loves.
Ergo, this is indeed a debate about allowing people to marry the people they love, regardless of who they are. Because of this, and because of the 14th Amendment, we cannot deny an individual the right to marry whomever he or she loves, if that right is granted to other individuals.
And J-Mad, everything you've said about marriage being a right - and not a privilege - would suggest that since it's "a right, inherent and inalienable since birth," it cannot be denied to anyone, including people in incestuous or polygamous relationships! Otherwise it becomes, as you say, only a privilege reserved for hetero- and homosexuals.
Finally, I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that this discussion would occur whether sexual orientation is a choice or not.
Clearly we've seen how genetic predisposition can make this a debate over discrimination. Choice can also make this a debate about discrimination.
For instance, allowing the government to recognize and give benefits for any marriage discriminates against anyone who chooses not to get married. Whether that is a heterosexual man or a homosexual woman who chooses to remain single, that individual is denied the tax benefits, etc., that come with being married. Ought single people be denied those benefits because of a choice they made? Isn't that discrimination? Doesn't this confer certain privileges only upon married people, simply because of a choice they made?
So we come back to the point of my original post: the government really shouldn't offer any benefits for being married.
Period.
Now I see why this argument has been going on for so long and so repetitively. You don't see how discrimination arguments can't be made for incest/polygamy if they can be made successfully regarding homosexuality because we disagree on what constitutes discrimination. And this is why I and Ms. Mad believe the choice discrepancy is so important.
Most choices have consequences, but we usually don't call these consequences discrimination. For instance, I would imagine a majority of murderers are in jail, but we don't call that discrimination. But if we're told that a disproportionate amount of prisoners are black, we might logically conclude that discrimination has occurred, even if it's the lingering effects of discrimination long past. Why is this? Because race, like gender and sexual preference, are beyond an individual's control.
Now, I concede that there are some, albeit very few, choices whose consequences would be discrimination, principally religion and sometimes political beliefs. (As long as the consequences aren't political. It's understandable if a conservative president doesn't want a liberal secretary of state. Not so much if a conservative restaurant manager doesn't want a liberal waitress. Or vice versa.) But these choices are not mere choices; they're part of a person's core identity. You would be a completely different person if you were an atheist or a liberal. If you wanted to have multiple wives, would that completely and fundamentally change who you are? You may think so. I think not. More importantly I think it would be a difficult legal argument to make, especially since the Supreme Court decided in Reynolds v. United States that not even religious freedom can allow polygamy.
I guess it ultimately comes down to where one draws the line between just consequences and discrimination.
Post a Comment