However, lately, given the vote in North Carolina, I've been seeing a lot of stuff about "same-sex marriage", and so I started commenting on stuff, and getting into conversations, and replying, until finally I realized I had produced what amounts to a poorly written, meandering essay on the subject.
I thought I would post most of the key exchanges here (which feature repeated misspellings of the word "sandwich") as sort of a memory dump of my thoughts on the issue, for anyone who's interested, or who is having trouble falling to sleep.
First,
In response to a friend who posted this image:
I said this:
If someone wants to eat a doughnut, that's up to them. If they want to claim that the doughnut is actually a sandwhich, then I guess they're not doing any harm.
If they try to get everyone else to agree that it's a sandwhich, and then try ...to force everyone else to call doughnuts "sandwhiches" and teach their children to call doughnuts "sandwhiches", then that's kind of silly.
It's not a reason to be angry at anybody, and it's not really even about religion. Simply pointing out that two things that aren't the same shouldn't be called the same thing.
To which a friend of a friend replied:
but im free to call things whatever i like and where as i respect jeff's right to call 2 people who love each other making a lifetime commitment to each other something other than marriage i reserve the right (and demand similar respect for my right)to call jeff a wanker
Next,
Me: People can love who they want and live how they want, but that doesn't mean the state should have to endorse any and all domestic living arrangement the same way it endorses marriage.
If one's partnership is not recognized as legal by the government then one is not afforded the same rights that all Americans should have, whether black, white, male, female, disabled, etc. An official government recognition obviously is not the same as a religious "marriage". Separation of church and state, but just as women and blacks were not afforded appropriate rights at one time, so are the non-heterosexuals these days. I just don't feel like "the gays" are our nation's biggest threat...we should be worried about much more important issues.
This is not a question of rights. Individuals have rights. Individuals must be treated equally under the law. But domestic arrangement are not individuals, and they're not all created equal.
Suppose two elderly women who are sisters have both been widowed, and they decided to move in together. Surely they might stand to benefit if the government offered them the same benefits that are available to a married couple. But guess what: they're not a married couple, because that's not what marriage is. Are they being denied their rights? Of course not.
There are all kinds of relationships and domestic arrangements that you could imagine that involve people who love each other, some platonic, some not, but there is no compelling argument that any of them should have to be recognized and endorsed by the state as if they were marriages.
Suppose two elderly women who are sisters have both been widowed, and they decided to move in together. Surely they might stand to benefit if the government offered them the same benefits that are available to a married couple. But guess what: they're not a married couple, because that's not what marriage is. Are they being denied their rights? Of course not.
There are all kinds of relationships and domestic arrangements that you could imagine that involve people who love each other, some platonic, some not, but there is no compelling argument that any of them should have to be recognized and endorsed by the state as if they were marriages.
Friend of Friend: @Jeff, why should I not have the same rights to marry the person I love just because she is the same sex as me? I pay taxes just like every other citizen but I am not able to marry the person I love and receive the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples.
Friend of Friend: Just because you are attracted to the opposite sex does not mean as an American you should have different rights than me. As Americans we are supposed to be equal. Who you love does not mean you should get different rights based on the sex of the person you love.
It's not a question of what anyone should be allowed to do. It's a question of what the state is going to endorse.
Marriages are literally the factories of civilization. The State knows that a marriage will more than likely produce, care for, train, develop, and prepare future citizens who will contribute to society. This is one of the reasons that governments have appreciated and recognized marriages for thousands of years.
I'm not here to tell anyone who they can't love or who they can't live with, but the fact is that heterosexual marriage is special and unique in terms of its potential benefits to society, and there is no particular reason that a state should be compelled to incentivize, endorse, or recognize other types of relationships, arrangements, or contracts in the exact same way it does these things for marriage.
Marriages are literally the factories of civilization. The State knows that a marriage will more than likely produce, care for, train, develop, and prepare future citizens who will contribute to society. This is one of the reasons that governments have appreciated and recognized marriages for thousands of years.
I'm not here to tell anyone who they can't love or who they can't live with, but the fact is that heterosexual marriage is special and unique in terms of its potential benefits to society, and there is no particular reason that a state should be compelled to incentivize, endorse, or recognize other types of relationships, arrangements, or contracts in the exact same way it does these things for marriage.
Friend of Friend: You just took that to a whole new level of bigotry. A gay married couple who raises a family could do everything you listed that a heterosexual family could do. The major difference between the two is the gay couple won't be teaching their children the bigotry and hate that I'm sure you are teaching yours.
Me: I am not saying that it is impossible for a same-sex union to benefit society. I am saying that there is something unique and special about heterosexual marriage and that is why it has been the cornerstone of civilization.
You and I could come up with endless examples of all kinds of different pairings or groupings of people who love each other and contribute to society, but that doesn't mean all of those groupings should be called marriages, and if the citiz...ens of a state want to single out marriage for recognition and endorsement, they shouldn't be forced to offer that same recognition and endorsement to other domestic arrangements just because folks in those arrangements would prefer it.
At about the same time, a conversation was gearing up over another post. I made very similar arguments in that conversation, but got some interesting replies:
Me:
But again, rights are held by individuals. One of the biggest victories of the "gay rights" movement is right there in the name. They have successfully framed the debate in terms of "rights". Beyond that, they have tried with much success to equate or compare their plight to that of African Americans who were oppressed through slavery, and later through discrimination based on race. This framing of the debate has the advantage of engendering sympathy, but the disadvantage of being wrong.
The question, at least when it comes to marriage, is not whether the state will deny rights to a class of people, but whether the state will decline to endorse a type of domestic arrangement.
At about the same time, a conversation was gearing up over another post. I made very similar arguments in that conversation, but got some interesting replies:
Me:
But again, rights are held by individuals. One of the biggest victories of the "gay rights" movement is right there in the name. They have successfully framed the debate in terms of "rights". Beyond that, they have tried with much success to equate or compare their plight to that of African Americans who were oppressed through slavery, and later through discrimination based on race. This framing of the debate has the advantage of engendering sympathy, but the disadvantage of being wrong.
The question, at least when it comes to marriage, is not whether the state will deny rights to a class of people, but whether the state will decline to endorse a type of domestic arrangement.
Person A:
Me to Peron A:
You are arguing from what a position that believes that marriage has already been defined, (which I imagine is a definition framed from a religious standpoint). However, following the logic of your argument, a state should be able to introduce legislation for a "Whites Only" water fountain in public venues.
Whenever legislation is introduced that heavily favors one group over another, discrimination exists. This law has created a second class citizenry, and will have far reaching implications for more than just the gay population.
Whenever legislation is introduced that heavily favors one group over another, discrimination exists. This law has created a second class citizenry, and will have far reaching implications for more than just the gay population.
No, the "Whites Only" water fountain does not follow from my argument. That is a case of discrimination against individuals based on an individual attribute.
My argument is that a state may justly choose to prefer one type of contra...ct between individuals over another. This happens all the time. People who buy homes get the mortgage interest deduction, people who rent don't. This is not illegal discrimination, it is an expression, within the tax code, of the government's preference that people engage in one kind of transaction as opposed to another similar transaction.
The government shows preference in contracting to women-owned and minority-owned businesses. The government, through various tax credits, or programs like "Cash for Clunkers", is ever engaged in promoting or discouraging a variety of behaviors and transactions.
Government has chosen to recognize and incentivize marriage, effectively endorsing it.
It is not a denial of anyone's rights if the state chooses not to treat two different kinds of private contracts as if the were the same kind.
My argument is that a state may justly choose to prefer one type of contra...ct between individuals over another. This happens all the time. People who buy homes get the mortgage interest deduction, people who rent don't. This is not illegal discrimination, it is an expression, within the tax code, of the government's preference that people engage in one kind of transaction as opposed to another similar transaction.
The government shows preference in contracting to women-owned and minority-owned businesses. The government, through various tax credits, or programs like "Cash for Clunkers", is ever engaged in promoting or discouraging a variety of behaviors and transactions.
Government has chosen to recognize and incentivize marriage, effectively endorsing it.
It is not a denial of anyone's rights if the state chooses not to treat two different kinds of private contracts as if the were the same kind.
And to debate the point of Mr. Mobley above, It is common in the Army to have an agreed "marriage" with a female soldier to get the military benefits. And what about those for "immigration" purposes that although illegal are allowed given that the involved people are from the opposite sex. That is the same thing that you are suggesting in your widows example isn't it? So yeah, people will take advantage of the law to get benefits. What is unreasonable is to keep putting the religious beliefs into the government.
Me to Person B:
I'm not suggesting that the government should criminalize same-sex domestic arrangements. I'm saying the government is under no obligation to endorse them.
Of course some people participate in what I guess you'd call "sham" marr...iages in order to obtain benefits.
I'm not really talking about any attempt at fraud or anything like that. What I'm saying is that, if heterosexual marriage isn't special, and if all that is necessary for marriage is people who love each other and are committed to one another's well being, then there are many different kinds of arrangements for which a case could be made for recognition of those arrangements as marriages.
Put another way, if you think the preservation of equal rights demands the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, tell me why the arrangement between the two elderly widows doesn't deserve the same recognition.
You say that the precluding same-sex marriage is "putting religious beliefs into the government." That trivializes the issue. Is marriage a religious concept? Sure. it's also a fundamental building block of civil society.
The concept of property rights and the idea that bearing false witness should be a crime could also said to be religious concepts. Would you claim that laws against theft and perjury should be absent from our legal system because it's just somebody "putting religious beliefs into the government"?
Of course some people participate in what I guess you'd call "sham" marr...iages in order to obtain benefits.
I'm not really talking about any attempt at fraud or anything like that. What I'm saying is that, if heterosexual marriage isn't special, and if all that is necessary for marriage is people who love each other and are committed to one another's well being, then there are many different kinds of arrangements for which a case could be made for recognition of those arrangements as marriages.
Put another way, if you think the preservation of equal rights demands the recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, tell me why the arrangement between the two elderly widows doesn't deserve the same recognition.
You say that the precluding same-sex marriage is "putting religious beliefs into the government." That trivializes the issue. Is marriage a religious concept? Sure. it's also a fundamental building block of civil society.
The concept of property rights and the idea that bearing false witness should be a crime could also said to be religious concepts. Would you claim that laws against theft and perjury should be absent from our legal system because it's just somebody "putting religious beliefs into the government"?
Person C:Throughout the history of this country there have been people fighting to extend rights and those fighting to stop the extension of rights. In each and every instance the group attempting to stop the extension of rights is able to justify in their own minds and to their ever dwindling support group why this fight is somehow different from the others, and how in this "unique" instance, it's not really about rights, but rather something else. Fortunately for mankind and society however the side attempting to stop the extension of rights always loses in the long run, and those who fought so vigorously against the inevitable power that is kindness, happiness, and equality for fellow man are viewed by history as being in the wrong. And while it's terrible that such discrimination must delay the inevitable, we can take solace in the fact that it serves a purpose. To set an example for the next generation and the next fight, to set the stage and serve as a motivator for further progress.
Bless your heart if you read this entire post.
First off- Hi Jeff. I hope you and the family are doing well.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to the topic at hand:
I read through your whole post (so bless my heart, I guess), and I think you're wrong.
First, the doughnut/sandwich thing: (As a side comment that misses the point entirely, can you honestly tell me that there is any significant difference between a jelly doughnut and a jam sandwich?) The point of your analogy seems to be that there is an inherent and significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. What is the difference, exactly? I can only think of two things you could possibly be talking about. One would be a blessing of the union by God, and the other would be the ability to produce children. Whether or not God approves of same-sex couples is something I'll leave to Him to make known. Regardless, the government has no business making decisions based on what it feels is blessed by God. As for producing children, that distinction falls apart quickly when you consider that many heterosexual couples are unable to conceive, modern medical techniques allow homosexual couples to produce children via surrogacy or artificial insemination, and the government grants it "endorsement" to heterosexual marriages regardless of the presence or absence of children.
Second, the idea that rights are granted only to individuals, and that this means that the ability to marry someone of your choosing is not a right: Rights are granted to groups all the time. Freedom of assembly is right there in the first amendment, and by its very nature requires a group. Corporations hold copyrights. Copyright is obviously not the same as the right to marry, but I'm trying to point out that ther is legal precedent for granting rights to a group. As for marriage itself being a right, I'll concede that I don't have nearly enough expertise in the law to create a legal argument for marriage as a basic human right. However, I will say that the day the government comes to tell me I don't have the right to be married to Miriam anymore is the day I become a criminal.
Third, government endorsement: As I understand it, there are only two legal benefits that are granted to married couples beyond those granted to a cohabitating unmarried couple. They are granted tax benefits, and they are considered family in the legal sense. You seem to justify the tax benefits as a way to encourage behaviour that is beneficial to society. In your opinion, which is more beneficial to society - a monogamous heterosexual couple, or two heterosexual people who each live actively promiscous lifestyles? Does your choice change if the people in question are homosexual? If not, why shouldn't the state endorse monogamy amongst homosexuals as much as heterosexuals? Concerning the second benefit of official state endorsement, I'm in favor of giving everyone the ability to designate anyone "family" for legal purposes, with or without being married to them.
Finally, the similarity between Amendment 1 and Jim Crowe laws: North Carolina's Amendment 1 and others like it specifically bar individuals of a specific type from access to government benefits. That's the very definition of discrimination. Would you be just as OK with this amendment if it prohibited people of different races from marrying each other? (Thankfully, that amendment was struck down in 1967)
Jeff, I know you're not a jerk or a bigot. (Don't you love people who start shouting that? "You know who else hated homosexual marriages? HITLER!") I think you've got your head on wrong about this, though.
Ricky,
DeleteWe're doing well, and thanks.
First off, I am aware of the possibility that my arguments might be construed by some as suggesting that married couples who cannot or do not have children have somehow failed, or that their marriages are somehow inferior to others. I certainly don't believe that.
The state doesn't sanction marriage because of the certainty of children, but because marriage presents the most probable scenario that children will be born and also raised and prepared for participation in society.
You still make the very good point that it's not just about children. It is also true that marriage is the only context in which the state officially endorses sex. The reasons for this have to do with the potential for procreation, but are also informed by a society's consensus of morality.
Here it gets kind of tricky. You say that "the government has no business making decisions based on what it feels is blessed by God." I say it depends on what you mean by that.
Religious freedom is a critical feature of the American republic, and the early American settlers and also the founders were all too aware of the kind of oppression that results from a government that attempts to reach into the conscience of an individual, mandating membership in a particular church, allegiance to a particular creed, and acceptance of particular doctrines. In America, we don't want the government running the church; we don't want the church running the government; we don't want to be told what we have to believe, or that we have to believe anything at all.
But that doesn't mean that the laws of our society shouldn't reflect the general moral consensus of what can still be considered a generally religious people.
The generally held belief in God as the Creator of mankind, combined with some easily made observations, leads fairly quickly to some conclusions about how society is meant to function.
I mean, for goodness sake, where do we even get the idea that people should be treated equally under the law? Plenty of agnostics or atheists might passionately agree with that principle, but it's a lot easier to make a case for the validity of that principle if you assume the existence of a Creator.
...Continued...
DeleteI admit I was a little clumsy in talking about rights and individuals. What I mean to say is that there are many kinds of discrimination(i.e., preferential treatment of one thing over another) in which the government engages, and most of this discrimination can't reasonably be thought of as denial of rights, because it's based on behaviors or transactions, rather than individual attributes (One example I've been using is the mortgage interest deduction. Homeowners are treated favorably by the government, as opposed to renters).
--------------------
Finally, a re-statement of my position that also happens to indirectly address comparisons to discrimination based on race(another instance of pasting from a prior Facebook comment I made):
I think most people agree that the state is justified in prohibiting marriage between siblings, even if their incestuous relationship is consensual.
I think most people agree that the state would not be justified in prohibiting marriage between people simply because they are of different races or ethnicities.
So almost everyone accepts that the state can set criteria for marriage, and that those criteria get into the intimate details of the relationship. Clearly some restrictions are legitimate, and some are not.
The argument boils down to whether restricting marriage to 2 people of the opposite sex is a legitimate restricion or not, and of course people's opinions on that are informed by their experience and beliefs, including religious beliefs. But the history and traditions of civil society are all tied up to lesser or greater degrees with religious beliefs, and I happen to believe that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not violate the separation of church and state any more than offering a tax deduction for charitable contributions, or outlawing vandalism, for that matter.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIf, as you say, a marriage can be successful without producing any children, then what, exactly, makes a marriage successful? If the two people in question get divorced, is that failure? What about if they stay married for the rest of their lives but can't stand each other? Is romantic love really a requirement? If so, what about the many couples who stay married so long that their love for each other transforms into a companionate love? Have they failed because they were unable to maintain romance for 50+ years? I know what I consider to be a successful marriage, and I'll be happy to share it, but I'd be interested to hear your answer first. I'd also be interested to hear in what way you consider a homosexual couple to be unable to achieve that success. (Spoiler alert. I think a homosexual couple is just as able to achieve my definition of success as a heterosexual couple.)
I don't agree with your assertion that the government sanctions marriage "because marriage presents the most probable scenario that children will be born and also raised and prepared for participation in society." To be fair, it looks like you are correct that (in the United States, at least) most births occur within the context of marriage. Be careful setting that as a criterion for official sanction, though. According to the CDC, 41% of all births in the U.S. for 2009 were to unmarried women, and the percentage was rising. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm) Give it a few years, and by your logic whatever official sanctions exist for marriage should be transferred to unwed mothers.
As for the idea that married couples prepare their children for participation in society, I say you are incorrect. Any parents, married or unmarried, naturally instill their own values in their children. Whether or not those values prepare a child for "participation in society" (by which I assume you mean positive participation) is decided by what those values are. There are plenty of officially sanctioned marriages amongst the trailer-park-meth-cooker crowd that aren't exactly pumping out future Nobel laureates. If we're looking to limit government sanctions to those families that are likely to have productive members of society as children, we probably need to include a psychological evaluation and a "statement of beliefs" in the requirements for bearing children.
"It is also true that marriage is the only context in which the state officially endorses sex." Untrue. Depending on your definition of endorsement, the state either does not endorse sex at all, or endorses sex in many situations. To the best of my knowledge, a person receives the same benefits from the government regardless of whether or not they are having sex. A completely celibate married couple receives the same tax credits as a (childless) married couple who roll in the hay thrice daily. (That's right, I said "thrice"). It is true that a tax credit is given for dependant children, but there's no requirement that you be married to receive those. Your dependants do not even have to be your children. Anyone for whom you are financially responsible can be a dependant. Furthermore, the government sponsors many sexual health programs that are designed primarily to benefit the unmarried. Like I said, depending on what you consider to be endorsement, the government either does not endorse sex at all or endorses it in plenty of contexts outside of marriage.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteA society's "consensus of morality" does not exist. At best, there is majority rule, and societies throughout the world vary wildly in their definitions of morality. For illustration, compare any society that follows Sharia law with Japanese society. Co-ed naked bathing with strangers has traditionally been considered normal (and non-sexual) in Japan, while it would literally get you stoned to death in certain parts of the world. In many countries where Sharia law is enforced by the government, women are struggling to carve out basic rights. Should they stop and accept their lot in life simply because the majority in their society has decided that burquas are mandatory and accidentally walking into the men's room is a capital offense? My point is that laws that deny rights to a person based on a majority’s idea of morality violate the principle of equality under the law (Which, by the way, I don't agree comes directly from religious teachings, but that's beside the point)
What do I mean when I say that the government has no business making decisions based on what it feels is blessed by God? I mean exactly the same thing I would mean if I said the government has no business making decisions based on what it feels is blessed by Allah (or Ganesh, or Buddha, or Odin, or Zeus, or Gaia). If the shoe were on the other foot and we lived in a country that was primarily non-christian, I think you'd be right there with me on this. If our government were making laws that were obviously cribbed from the book of Mormon (and I'm talking about the really crazy parts), then I think you'd be more than a little upset if your marriage didn't count because there were only two of you.
Two rapid fire items:
Mortgage credits as example of allowed discrimination - Everyone has the right to buy a house, assuming they can raise the money. There's no discrimination there.
Sibling marriages - Really? OK, fine. I'm not actually even 100% sure that I think the government should care. Let's assume that they should, though. This prohibition gets a pass in my mind for what I'd call "public health reasons." Children born from siblings have a slightly higher chance of severe birth defects, so the justification is that we're trying to prevent that. Also, given that some states let cousins marry and some don't, I'd say that it's hard to definitively say where the line is on the incest taboo. (Personally, I'd be skeezed-out all the way to about fourth-cousin territory.)