I wonder if the fundamentalist Christians in the US appreciate the irony of the relativist moral position its members take on the issue of gay marriage.
Today, a federal judge in California struck down Prop 8, finding the people's referendum to ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Court stated, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." And that's exactly what all such bans do - discriminate. When did it become moral in the US to discriminate against people?
Senator DeMint was one of the first responders, calling the decision "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage." He went on: "Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels," Demint said.
My first observation of this comment is that he is just making stuff up. Nothing in the decision limits or re-defines opposite sex marriages. People can be as religious and as committed and as serious about opposite sex marriage as they always have been. The only difference is that now same sex couples can too. Why is that a bad thing?
Second, Senator DeMint seems to be taking the view that since most Americans think same-sex marriage is immoral, then it is immoral, and should be banned. By this logic, something is moral if it is popular, and immoral if it is unpopular.
But really, this is not about the morality of same sex marriage, IMO, it's about the morality - or immorality - of discrimination. When is it moral to discriminate against any group of Americans? According to Senator DeMint, it's OK to discriminate against gay people.
I have another humble opinion: any group, including churches, that opposes legalizing gay marriage is advocating discrimination. Depriving people of legal rights and privileges because they are different from you is just bigotry, I don't care how many Bible versus you quote to support it.
Congrats to the people of California. Whether you agree with the decision or not, today you are more moral than you were yesterday!
If allowing same-sex couples to legally call their committed unions marriages is REALLY just about not discriminating, then can’t the same argument be made for polygamy? If three or more people in a committed relationship wish to call their union a marriage, aren't we being discriminatory by not allowing it and granting them the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex couples?
ReplyDeleteRemember, I hold to "Americanism" (referring to our country's basic principle of limited government whose job is to protect individual freedoms). Government in America provides special support for marriage--generally to encourage the traditional union as a vital aspect of a working society. If you disagree--if you do not like marriage or have moral issues with it--then unfortunately you're FORCED to support it through your support of our representative government.
We have accepted that balance (government supports something as a social good even though some of its citizens may disagree) because the vast majority holds traditional marriage to be THAT important to a working society. To include same-sex unions in that concept not only re-defines the long-standing definition of "marriage," but also brings into question the whole objective--does the vast majority hold that same-sex unions are so important to a working society that they would FORCE those who find it immoral to support it via the Government?
To put it another way: Government--the government of, by, and for the people-- FORCES people to have a certain regard for marriage. Is that RIGHT? It only makes since to call that "right" if the vast majority of people hold marriage to be VITAL to keeping a society functioning. So, does the vast majority hold same-sex marriage in such regard so that we can justify FORCING others to support those unions?
Heather, you don't have a moral issue with same-sex unions, but could you for a moment think about those who do? You want government in America to effectively declare same-sex marriages as so vital to society that our representative government will place them on special grounds to say "America uplifts and upholds them with the same regard we give to traditional marriage." How is that a proper use of our Government?
Marriage is not an individual right! Marriage in one since is a commitment, and a gay couple is perfectly free to make a commitment to one another and call it marriage if they wish! That's freedom. Making OTHERS support that concept against their will through Government is NOT freedom.
In another since, marriage is a legal agreement between two people. A gay couple should be perfectly free to enter into a binding agreement to share their belongings, support one another, etc. Binding OTHERS to actions as a result of that agreement and requiring others to legal recognize that agreement as a marriage is not freedom.
Finally, marriage in yet another sense is a fundamental building block of a working society. Some may disagree with that statement, so our government should be very careful about supporting marriage and forcing others to treat married couples with certain rights and privileges. However, the vast majority of Americans have typically agreed that marriage IS vital enough to force support via government. If you want to add gay couples to the definition of marriage, then the voting public has every right to have a say in that decision. That's not discriminating against the individual rights of gay people, that's respecting the rights of everyone else and the proper role of Government.
Personally, I’d almost rather see the term "marriage" totally removed from legal context (such that the government is in no way defining the term) than to be forced to support a government that upholds an immoral (IMHO) definition of the term.
So, Heather, do you support government placing polygamy on the same footing as traditional marriage, or are you a discriminatory hypocritical bigot? Just askin'.
I agree. Polygamy should be legal too!
ReplyDeleteAnd BTW, legalizing gay marriage does not force anyone to do anything, except to cease and desist discriminating. You can be as judgmental and biased as you want, that is your right. My only point is that the government should not enforce such biases and moral judgments to deprive law-abiding people of the same rights enjoyed by others.
ReplyDeleteIf marriage is so vital, doesn't it make sense to want same sex couples to get married?
I am not even sure that Jason is making a point, he argues, yes, but I think he is falling short of an actual point.
ReplyDeleteJason, you readily accept marriage being a union of two people. TWO- not two or more. So, your comparing it to polygamy is not an actual point. It is an attempt to argue that an even less accepted way of life than gay marriage should be legalized if we are to also "forced" to accept gay marriage. In a polygamist community, the first marriage is legal. The man then takes it upon himself to enter into another "union" with additional "wives." This has remained unaccepted because the first, legal wife is not allowed in the polygamist community to object of the subsequent "unions" therefore, her rights in marriage are being violated. So, your attempt to compare polygamy to gay marriage is pointless because the dynamics are fundamentally different.
Your arguements are archaic. There was a time in our country AND in our government when blacks were seen as property and women were seen as unequal to men, so unequal that neither was allowed to own property or vote. But, things change. Thankfully, things change. Finally, we live in a country that, while still deeply flawed, has made enormous leaps in its acceptance of the diversity of its people. This should include the rights of a gay COUPLE to marry. I seriously doubt it matters what it is called, as long as they are afforded the same rights that opposite sexed couples have in marriage.
Government should not be in the marriage business. It's should not define, condone or condemn it. If individuals want to enter into legally binding contracts to give their relationship the weight of law, rock on. But the government's role in this is simply to enforce contracts. I know that sounds really romantic, but that's not the it's purpose. The gravitas of a marriage flows from the participants, not from the government. The task of defining marriage such that all are satisfied is an impossible labor; we are too diverse. So get out of the marriage business altogether.
ReplyDeleteKeri, I'd say your arguments, not mine, make little sense.
ReplyDeleteI accept marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. Not same sex couples or multiple partners--neither of those match the definition of marriage in my book. As for the dynamics, I'm talking about unions in which all partners agree, so your point is moot.
The argument being made by the pro-gay-marriage crowd is that denying gay marriage violates their essential right to freedom. I was applying that same argument to another similar situation to show how, if you disagree with polygamy being legal and don't see it as an issue of violating personal freedom, then you have to accept that those who disagree with gay marriage aren't necessarily arguing to violate personal freedom either.
YES gay marriage and polygamy ARE different. But the SAME arguments being applied to one can be applied to the other. If you disagree with one and not the other, then you cannot be logically applying said argument to make your case. The contrast IS the point.
At least Heather applies the argument equally and would allow polygamy.
Finally, your appeal to racism and sexism are, well, superficial and not well thought out. I disagree with laws that would make homosexual activity in your own home illegal. I do not think of a homosexual person as in any way inferior to me in the sense of their humanity or their rights to freedom. I tend to support the concept of domestic partnerships so that, for example, one person in a committed homosexual relationship won't be forbidden to see the other in a hospital--I can't imagine wanting to apply such cruelty.
But government involvement in the legality of marriage is, like it or not, my (and your) representative government endorsing the traditional, well defined concept of marriage. It does so monetarily (though taxation considerations) and through other laws that afford, for example, government benefits, medical benefits, housing benefits, etc. to spouses. Some of those benefits could be reasonably allowed to domestic partnerships in the name of individual freedom. Others are pretty much government forcing endorsement of marriage on others. I barely like that idea when it comes to traditional marriage that I have great respect for. Don't ask me to support the idea that my government should force endorsement on others of a union I find immoral. It's not about individual freedom (which could be afforded through other means) its about endorsing (not just allowing, but ENDORSING) a lifestyle that many--including myself--find immoral.
Finally, let me note that if the vast majority of our society one day agrees that gay marriage is morally acceptable and needs to be endorsed along side traditional marriage for the good of society, then while I would not agree with them, I would concede that our government might sensibly make that choice. As I noted before, I'd rather see marriage as a concept removed from legal standing (that is, so that government has no place in defining what marriage is or endorsing any particular concept of marriage) before it endorses what I hold to be an immoral union as if it were marriage.
-Jason
Hehe... I said "Finally" twice in that last post. A couple of more times and I could call myself a preacher :)
ReplyDeleteOh well.
There are many different ways in this world that adults commit to each other and their children: Traditional, interracial, inter-religious, or, more controversially, in gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory...
ReplyDeleteIMHO no ONE GROUP has the right to consider it's particular version of commitment above another version, and ABSOLUTELY this bias isn't appropriate in our legal system. All forms of commitment between consenting adults should be allowed the same rights and privileges, including the title of "marriage" as well as the tax benefits and insurance access.
Since more than half of "traditional marriages" end in divorce, I think it's a pretty ridiculous argument; I'd say they're a *much* bigger threat to the "sanctity of marriage" than any other group.
I have always viewed the term "marriage" as a religious ceremony (that may or may not be historically true but it is my belief system). Since I view marriage as a religious ceremony, I have a difficult time accepting that the government can perform marriage for any particular group (heterosexual or homosexual). I don't want the government involved in anything deemed religious. I also do not believe that one group of taxpayers or otherwise productive citizens of society can not have access to certain benefits of "marriage" due to their sexual preference (which in my opinion is not the governments or anyone's business). I would not mind if the government discontinued performing marriage for ANY person of ANY sexual orientation and just provided a civil service/union for all couples. Leave the marriage piece to the churches. That way, Everyone has the same legal benefits if they so choose and for those who desire the "marriage" piece, attend your church for the religious service. There are churches and ministers who will perform a marriage ceremony for gay couples. Maybe this is a simplistic view of the issue but I want government involved less in our daily lives. I think much of the problem lies with the term "marriage" and what it means to each individual. For me, I truly believe in the separation of church and state. Because I believe marriage to be a religious ceremony, the lines get a little blurred for me when the government performs a "marriage ceremony". I believe that what people do in their private lives is their own business and as long as it doesn't cost anyone life, liberty or property, I don't feel that it is my business to be involved. That is between you and whoever you pray to. I feel that adults are best to make choices for their personal lives for themselves. I just don't want to get to a situation where the government is making decisions for you on either side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteHolly...
ReplyDeleteThree points illustrate the problem with "all unions are equal."
The first has to do with basis of human societies and biology. Society persists when a man and a woman have a child--that's nature. Having those children born to committed parents who form a strong family unit is, by far, the best possible situation for the children and for society. I'll assume we can agree on this, but if not, I could present rather obvious arguments...
Thus, the nature of human society dictates that encouraging traditional marriage and families is important and, I'd argue, vital for a working society.
Okay, so why can't government just encourage/endorse traditional marriage AND all other unions equally?
That's the second point: Government in America isn't supposed to take up general causes and promote them--that will violate personal freedoms because tax-payers who are forced to support government (and everyone represented by government) will have their money (and representation) used to support causes with which they disagree. This is part of the basic reason we don't want our government endorsing any religion, for example. Our government--that is, American government--is supposed to abide by basic limitations that focus it's goal on the protection of individual freedom.
Government has long taken up the cause of promoting and endorsing traditional marriage. The only reasonable justification for that is the notion that traditional marriage is not just any ol' cause or just any ol' union. That bond between a man and a woman is the most fundamental union of society and is absolutely vital. That's the justification for government sticking its nose in and endorsing traditional marriage.
You cannot apply that same argument to justify endorsement of other similar unions. That doesn't mean you can't personally believe those other unions are important or moral or justified or whatever. However, you can't argue that nature itself upholds those other unions as vital for a working society. For that reason, it would unjustifiably violate the rights of any citizen represented by our government for that government to endorse those other unions.
Finally, we also have to realistically consider the mere logistical issues involved. Can you imagine just, for example, the problems we'd have with tax loopholes if you provided the protections and privileges of marriage to just about any union anyone wanted to call marriage?
I'll end there.
Baby steps. Eventually gay marriage will be accepted by most everyone. It may take 100 years for the really conservative people to die off while the younger generation who mostly accepts it takes over government, and I dare say, even church. Things change. That's all there is to it. Some day, people won't even bat an eye over it.
ReplyDelete