Monday August 11, 2003 at 5:30 PM
The Importance of Gay Rights
Appearing in Truth & Justice
Not withstanding the carnival that has become California’s gubernatorial recall, or the ongoing “difficulties” faced by U.S. forces in Iraq, few issues have garnered more attention in the last few weeks than the debate over gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular. The somewhat surprising fervor over the issue has been fueled by the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy law, the ensuing call by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and most recently, the decision by the Episcopal church to admit an openly gay minister to the post of bishop.
With estimates of the homosexual population running between 10% and 1% of the overall U.S. population [ see also ], most observers have portrayed the controversy in terms of the ongoing struggle for social, political, and economic acceptance of all minorities. Unfortunately, viewing the issue solely in terms of minority rights fails to acknowledge the unique and important implications of this particular situation for those outside the gay minority.
In seeking to discriminate and limit the rights of gay individuals, opponents of same-sex marriage could have built their case on economic or legal grounds. Instead, such opponents have chosen to rely on moral reasoning derived from a subjective interpretation of Christian theology. By choosing this argument however, they simultaneously expose the weakness of their position and the insidious implications of the debate. Although heterosexual Americans may dismiss or ignore this issue as having little effect on them personally, what those same Americans fail to realize is that this issue is not so much about gay rights as much as it is a proxy fight over the separation of Church and State.
Admitting from the onset that their position is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution, religious conservatives seek to codify heterosexual marriage through an amendment, injecting a religious and moral agenda that is largely unprecedented in both the original text and subsequent amendments. Although an obvious exception is the 18th Amendment, its ineffectuality and repeal 14 years later should serve as a cautionary tale to proponents of other “moral amendments”.
The great irony here of course, is that the institutions and practices which have been historically protected by the separation of Church and State, are now the very ones attempting to destroy our Constitutional integrity in order to further their own interests and perpetuate their personal belief systems. Like so many other issues in the news these days, there is considerably more at stake here than is immediately apparent. For the sake of our democracy however, it is important for all of us to more carefully analyze these issues and to work harder to understand both the forces and motives behind them.
Comments
Opposing gay marriage is about opposing the institutionalized, legalized union of homosexuals; it’s not about opposing the rights of gays to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It’s true that those who are most vocal in their opposition quote scripture and generally drone on ad nauseum about how gays can’t marry because, well, the bible says so. But the vast majority of those of us who oppose gay marriage do so not because we’re bible-quoting zealots but because we believe that allowing same-sex marriage opens the door to a society in which the definition of marriage assumes the form of silly putty. If gay marriage is acceptable, why not polygamy, even if all wives consent? How about gay polygamy? How about the marriage of a man and his German Shepard? According to the reasoning of the pro-gay marriage camp, these alternative forms of marriage should be no less acceptable than gay marriage; the incongruity must be explained before we in the anti-gay marriage camp take seriously the arguments in support of gay marriage.
All of those alternative unions, by the way, are expressly forbidden by the bible. Does that mean that the opinions of those who oppose such unions should automatically be discounted? If so, the pro-gay marriage camp has a lot of convincing to do.
Finally, let’s not forget to keep this in perspective. No one is being tarred and feathered. No one is being burned at the stake—nor is the integrity of our constitution, as most in the liberal camp reflexively claim it to be. If same-sex unions are ultimately not allowed, I assure you we’ll continue to wake up in the morning and be in America, not in 1921 Bolshevik Russia.
Posted by: Russell Croel on Mon Aug 11, 03
What you're missing is that marriage is ultimately a legal construct, albeit one that's often embued with a certain moral and religious overtone. You haven't cited any legal reasons why two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into the contract of marriage accept for the fear that it somehow undermines the "meaning" and/or value of other marriages.
If what you're arguing for is the "sanctity" or purity of marriage as an institution, your argument would carry a lot more weight if the divorce rate wasn't 50% and estimates of infidelity didn't run upwards of 80%.
As for the corner cases of polygamy and German Shepards, there are obvious questions of consent that are not a part of the same-sex marriage debate. In addition, the religious right isn't proposing a constitutional amendment to ban them. My main point remains, the opposition to same-sex marriage is ultimately based on a foundation of religious and moral beliefs and as such, have no place in the Constitution.
Finally, I'm not worried about waking up in an atheistic society like Bolshevik Russia, I'm worried about waking up in a religious plutocracy run by messianic zealots.
Posted by: Bob Baxley on Mon Aug 11, 03
I wasn’t trying to cite a legal reason why two consenting adults of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to enter into the contract of marriage; I was citing a moral reason. Again: If one man and five women all consensually agree to enter into the contract of marriage, is this acceptable? If the issue is whether consent exists then yes, the man-dog example was a poor choice (though my guess is consent would exist after some well-timed Milkbones). But consensual polygamy is well within the boundaries of this discussion, and is even still practiced. Your reasoning is very logically extended to polygamy—as long as they love each other and consent, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? So, I ask again: Is polygamy among consenting adults acceptable? The pro-same-sex marriage camp must—I repeat, MUST—address this question before they can be taken seriously. If you answer yes you are basically saying there is no value to the one man/one woman incarnation—you are saying that anything goes. If you answer no you’re contradicting your arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
And when it comes to sanctity, same-sex marriages would realistically have the same divorce and adultery rates. I don’t think either side corners the no-adultery or divorce market.
Yours is a curious statement: “…moral beliefs…have no place in the Constitution.” You’re assuming that all morality is based on religion. However, I know you, and you’re not a religious guy (nor am I), but you are a very moral guy. So upon what are your morals based? My point is, religion and morals don’t have to go hand in hand—you can have morals without being religious. By extension, the opposition to same-sex marriage, at least for a lot of us, isn’t due to the bible.
Posted by: Russell Croel on Mon Aug 11, 03
Let me try a different tack here. I came across the following today in E.O. Wilson's book, "The Future of Life" (pp 130-131). Although Prof. Wilson was talking about the conservation ethic, his definitions are relevant here.
"The issue, like all great decisions is moral. Science and technology are what we can do; morality is what we should or should not do. The ethic from which moral decisions spring is a norm or standard of behavior in support of a value, and value in turn depends on purpose. Purpose, whether personal of global, whether urged by conscience or graven in a sacred script, expresses the image we hold of ourselves and our society."
The question before us then might be expressed as, "what purpose is served by the institution of marriage?" To which I would answer, the purpose of marriage is to promote stability by providing individuals with an ongoing social structure that encourages mutual support and mutual responsibility.
I could further that definition to say that marriage is ultimately about providing a firm foundation on which to raise children but I have evidence of too many childless marriages that are obviously beneficial even without perpetuating the species.
With that purpose in mind, the sexual orientation of the participants doesn't matter because the goal of promoting social stability is served either way.
As for the question of polygamy -- and you're the only one I've heard pushing that point -- evolutionary biology points out that polygamy actually decreases social stability because it allows a single male to dominate a number of females, thereby denying other males access to any females at all. And as crime statistics clearly show, the most unstable segment of any society is unmarried males. See Robert Wright's, "The Moral Animal" for more on this.
Finally, I again ask, how does a same-sex marriage effect the validity of traditional marriages? I just don't see a connection between the union of a same-sex couple and the degradation of traditional, opposite-sex marriage as an institution. And I really don't see why it's the business of the State instead of the sole province of the Church.
Posted by: Bob Baxley on Mon Aug 11, 03
I don't see how banning same-sex marriage would ban polygamy. They are two separate issues.
Surely it would be possible to ban same-sex marriage and still permit polygamy, or permit same-sex marriage and ban polygamy. There is no relationship between the two.
Moreover, it seems to me that it is in the best interests of culture and society to encourage and support stable relationships, in which case permitting same-sex marriage would clearly be beneficial. AIDS is spread at least partly because we live in a culture which does not value same-sex relationships, the result being promiscuity among those whose romantic interest is limited to those of the same sex.
Religion should not even enter into the issue. The requirements for a legal marriage need not be the same as for a religious marriage. There are countries in which some churches do not recognize legal marriages in which case members of those churches have both a legal ceremony and a religious ceremony. Churches that do not support same-sex marriages need not recognize them.
Posted by: Frank Eggers on Mon Aug 11, 03