Tuesday March 09, 2004 at 5:47 PM
God vs. Country, pt. 1
Appearing in Truth & Justice
And then there are those issues that sweep across the national debate with such velocity and fervor as to take most everyone by surprise, even those of us who spend an inordinate amount of our days paying attention to such things. Same-sex marriage is the latest example and if the resultant tidal wave of ink, IP-packets, and radio waves is any indication, this issue has definitely hit a nerve.
I last wrote about this issue following the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Texas’ anti-sodomy. Although there’s little reason to repeat the arguments that appeared in that posting as well as the comments that followed, it is worth reiterating my central thesis and primary concern. Regardless of your feelings about gay rights or whether you “approve” of homosexual behavior, if you believe in the sanctity of secular government, the primacy of separation of Church and State, and the importance of minority rights, you should be deeply concerned about how this debate is settled.
Although opponents of same-sex marriage readily claim that it is a threat to the “sacred institution” of marriage, what they fail to acknowledge however is that their call for a constitutional amendment not only threatens to blacken our nation’s most sacred text, it also undermines many of our most sacred social values as well as our most sacred principles of government.
Perhaps more than any other issue in American history, this debate truly pits the religious tenants of moral absolutism, biblical interpretation, and messianic zeal against the democratic values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity, as well as the Constitutional principles of limited federal power, an independent judiciary, and the protection of minority rights.
With so many different aspects of this issue to consider and understand, it seems more than a stretch to cover them all in a single blog entry. With that in mind, I’ve decided to break things down into a collection of entries which I expect to post during the next week — maybe two, definitely not three. While not making promises to the precise content of those entries, I will most certainly hit upon the following:
- The mechanics and history of constitutional amendments
- Why the call for a constitutional amendment will undoubtedly fail regardless of majority opinion
- How this issue not only illustrates President Bush’s political desperation but also his tenuous loyalty to the principles of government set forth in the Constitution
Obviously there is plenty of ground to cover. For now however, I’ll leave you with this recent quote from Bob Herbert:
- “In a world beset by ignorance and poverty and suffering, a world wracked with wars and terror attacks and ethnic strife of every kind, it seems crazy to be twisting ourselves into knots over the desire of good men and women to transcend the prison of themselves and affirm their love for another by marrying.”
- Bob Herbert, Bliss and Bigotry
The New York Times, Feb 27, 2004
Comments
Bob,
Thanks for the good collection of thoughts on this subject. I couldn't agree more with your closing quote by Bob Herbert.
It is stupefying to me why the issue of same sex marriage is so troubling for some people. For those that are disturbed by same sex marriage my advice is simple...Don't marry someone of the same sex.
I have not heard or seen any evidence that same sex marriage detracts or otherwise effects my marriage in any way. I'm tired of wasted government bandwidth on this issue when so much else needs to be worked on (say...like...the economy!)
Thanks,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Phillips on Tue Mar 09, 04
I concede that much of the fervor with which many argue against same-sex marriage stems from religious belief and not necessarily well-reasoned thought—two aspects of one’s psyche that are diametrically opposed, if you ask me. But there’s another objection, a reasonable one I believe, to same-sex marriage: If we allow it, should we not allow other alternative forms of marriage that do not involve a single man and a single woman? Bob, I brought up polygamy after your previous entry on this topic, and if I recall you argued some points that polygamy would actually tear apart the social fabric of our society while same-sex marriage would not. I honestly didn’t buy that argument then so it might be worth repeating, if only for my sake.
Bottom line is that if you support same-sex marriage then you support any form of marriage other than the union of one man and one woman. Which means you support polygamy. You MUST support polygamy if you support same-sex marriage because all the arguments used in support of same-sex marriage—that it must be allowed for the sake of equality, civil rights and basic social justice—can be applied to polygamy.
Take Mormon fundamentalists. They believe in, and practice in, polygamy. If a man and several women—all consenting adults who love each other— publicize the cause of polygamous unions as homosexuals have publicized the cause of same-sex unions, will you be posting blog entries supporting their supposed “right” to marry? Probably not, and I find this hypocritical. If you truly believe that homosexuals are being denied rights then you must also believe that polygamists are being denied rights.
Mr. Phillips, your comment: “I have not heard or seen any evidence that same sex marriage detracts or otherwise effects [sic] my marriage in any way.” I haven’t either, nor would I feel my marriage threatened if polygamy was allowed. And I suspect you wouldn’t. So…are you comfortable with allowing polygamy? If yes, then why aren’t you arguing vigorously in defense of that “institution”? If no, why not?
Sorry guys, not all who oppose same-sex marriage are zealots. Not all of us are religious fundamentalists or pious, moralistic crusaders. Some of us simply believe that allowing same-sex marriage embarks us on a course or moral relativism, and not just within the institution of marriage.
Posted by: Russell on Tue Mar 09, 04
Gentlemen, nice to see you both back here on the comments board. Russ, I know that we're at a bit of an impasse on this issue but I'll take another stab at it and appreciate your willingness to stay in the ring with me.
I do think there's something fundamentally different about a relationship between two people and a relationship between multiple people or between people and animals -- bestiality being another station on the slippery slope often cited in your argument.
The argument FOR same-sex marriage is that when TWO people of the same gender join each other in a committed relationship they should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of TWO people of differing genders. That's the argument, that's the whole argument and I don't see how that leads to acceptance of polygamy.
However, even if you do believe that the arguments FOR polygamy and same-sex marriage are the same, certainly you must agree that the arguments AGAINST polygamy and same-sex marriage are different. The legal arguments against polygamy center around the undeniable fact that many polygamous relationships are not voluntary and are often abusive. As a result, the laws against polygamy are in place because there are identifiable victims of polygamous relationships. In other words, like most laws, the laws against polygamy are there to protect potential victims.
As many of us have argued, it is somewhere between difficult and impossible to identify the victims of same-sex marriage. Therefore, from a LEGAL perspective, it's hard to justify a law and impossible to justify a constitutional amendment.
What concerns me about this issue is not that a handful of religious zealots (or even a majority of Americans) do not approve of same-sex marriage. What concerns me is that the push for a constitutional amendment hopes to alter the institution of marriage as a legal and social contract into the institution of marriage as a specific moral, Biblical construct on which we should base both our public and private lives.
In other words, if you're against same-sex marriage, fine. Take it up with your priest.
Posted by: Bob Baxley on Tue Mar 09, 04
Re. your closing quote by Bob Herbert: Yes, in terms of perspective it's dead on. But in terms of humanity, it couldn't be more wrong, and the view espoused by it more bereft of hope. The whole purpose of overcoming wars, poverty, ignorance and suffering is so people can live lives that are filled with love, self expression and compassion. The quest that marriage undertakes fulfills those things to a high degree. Just because there is suffering in the world doesn't mean that people should strip themselves of their humanity. Yes, these same people should be simultaneously committing themselves to helping eradicate that suffering but (a) that doesn't mean they should forgo their own humanity in the process and (b) embracing that which makes them human (such as love and marriage) makes them both better equipped to undertake the battle for a better world and reminds us WHY we're battling for a better world.
Re. the polygamy argument - it's not about marriage being between a man and a woman or not; it's about marriage as a sign of commitment. As another commenter put it, there's a fundamental difference between a commitment made between two people and multiple people. The latter, by necessity, must result in reduced commitment to one person to shore up commitment to another. Chalk it up to the principle of scarcity of attention and resources.
Posted by: Rebecca Davis on Tue Mar 09, 04
Russell, Your argument connecting gays with polygamists is a nice try, but it's a simple one to defeat. There is no evidence that polygamists are born with the trait of polygamy and therefore that they should be considered a protected class of people under the constitution's equal protection clause. By contrast, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is not a choice for most people, but is a biological trait. On equal protection grounds, the US Supreme Court could rule that marriage is a legal union between two people that must not be denied to homosexuals.
Also, the law is filled with judgments that certain acts can cause great harm to society while others do not. We have decided that murder is one of those acts, and therefore we have made it illegal. We can decide similarly that polygamy is one of those acts, while we decide that homosexual marriage is not. There are clear differences in the consequences of allowing gay marriage versus allowing polygamy. Allowing those who have a biological tendency to be with the same sex to enter into lifelong commitments will cause greater relationship stability and possibly decrease the spread of HIV. It's hard to deny that would be an extremely positive benefit. But allowing a man to have multiple wives doesn't produce any readily identifiable benefits for society. To the contrary it could cause great societal upheaval and violence as men compete to gather wives. We can weigh those consequences and decide that the social damage caused by polygamy is something we will not accept.
Posted by: David Estrada on Tue Mar 09, 04
Mr. Phillips statement: “For those that are disturbed by same sex marriage my advice is simple...Don't marry someone of the same sex.”
Russell’s response: Agreed. If you’re not in favor of it, don’t do it. It’s a very simple concept, really. I also think that if you’re of the same sex and you want to get married, go ahead. Have your ceremony. In church if that’s where you want it. Go ahead and make the commitment to each other, in front of others and in a holy place. No one’s stopping you from making such a commitment, and no one’s going to interfere if you do so. We may be intolerant, conservative sons of bitches, but I promise we’re not going to barge into the chapel and attempt to stop your wedding.
So, then, what the hell is everyone so troubled by? No one is stopping anyone from making a lifelong commitment to each other. And that’s the essence of marriage, isn’t it?
Mr. Baxely’s statement: “The argument FOR same-sex marriage is that when TWO people of the same gender join each other in a committed relationship they should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of TWO people of differing genders. That's the argument, that's the whole argument and I don't see how that leads to acceptance of polygamy.
Russell’s response: So you’ve just unilaterally defined marriage as the union of TWO people who can be of the same or different genders. In your view marriage has to be between TWO people, no matter the gender. If you can unilaterally make such a decision, why can’t I decide that not only does it have to be TWO people, but it also has to be TWO people of the same sex? In both cases we’re making judgments about what should and shouldn’t constitute “marriage” based on our value systems. So seems to me you’re making an absolutist judgment, just as I am. Does that make your arguments any more or less valid than mine?
Also Mr. Baxley’s statement: “The legal arguments against polygamy center around the undeniable fact that many polygamous relationships are not voluntary and are often abusive. As a result, the laws against polygamy are in place because there are identifiable victims of polygamous relationships. In other words, like most laws, the laws against polygamy are there to protect potential victims.”
Russell’s response: This argument has no merit because in most states you can’t marry before you’re 18 years old—coincidentally, the age at which, at least according to the law, you are 100% responsible for your own actions and decisions, including the decision—or maybe “mindset” is better word—to stay in and be a victim of an abusive relationship, polygamous or otherwise. In other words, the victims you refer to, Bob, are those that are under the age of adulthood in the eyes of the law and are therefore ALREADY protected by laws prohibiting underage marriage. Are you referring to overage victims? Well, sadly those are victims of their own accord, whether or not they’re in a polygamous OR a monogamous marriage. In any event, there’s no need for laws specifically against polygamy based on your argument because such laws would only exist to protect underage victims—who by default are already protected by the same laws that recognize, or don’t recognize, adulthood. As for adult victims of such abuse, well, unfortunately, that happens in monogamous relationships, too, but polygamy and spousal abuse are two different crimes governed by two different sets of laws.
Ms. Davis’s statement: “…there's a fundamental difference between a commitment made between two people and multiple people. The latter, by necessity, must result in reduced commitment to one person to shore up commitment to another.”
Russell’s response: I’m committed to a lot of people in my life. Granted, these commitments aren’t the same as the one I made to my wife five years ago, but they’re commitments nonetheless and they could, possibly, serve to dilute the one I made to my wife. Close friends and relatives. Ailing parents. They could take time away from my relationship with my wife. But they don’t. Nor is such dilution a “must” among polygamists—not that I know definitively, because I’m not a polygamist. But seriously, if there’s a polygamist with a lot of love to give, then I wouldn’t doubt that s/he could love them all equally. Tough to argue one way or the other but because there’s ambiguity this argument holds no water for me. If you’re talking financial commitment, however, then that’s another story. But I’m sticking with stories of the heart.
Mr. Estrada’s statement: “There is no evidence that polygamists are born with the trait of polygamy and therefore that they should be considered a protected class of people under the constitution's equal protection clause. By contrast, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is not a choice for most people, but is a biological trait.”
Russell’s response: Now we’re talking biology—my forte. David, I too am aware of the evidence that suggests homosexuality is a biological trait, not a cultural one. But if we’re talking biology, bear in mind that humankind, like most species on the planet, evolved as a polygamous species. The male produces trillions, possibly even quadrillions, of sperm over his lifetime while the female produces “only” a few hundred thousand eggs (exact numbers vary but the point is that in most species the male produces an overwhelmingly greater number of sperm than the female does of eggs). Evolution has concurrently tailored the behavior of the males of these species such that they try to mate with as many females as possible. Simply put, they hoard females to maximize the likelihood that they pass on their genetic material.
How does this biology lesson translate to this discussion? Well, I’m poking holes in your argument that because of biology, homosexuals should be a protected class. I could just as easily argue that ALSO because of biology, polygamists should be a protected class. (Somewhere in the mix enters culture, which muddies the water a bit.) In fact, if we buy into your notion, there’s more validity to the argument that polygamists should be a protected class because polygamy is undeniably in our genetic make-up, whereas homosexuality, if it truly is rooted in biology, can be viewed more of as genetic anomaly. (Why anomaly? From a purely evolutionary perspective, if you’re homosexual you’re not going to pass on your genes; those anomalous genes will die without having produced offspring. Therefore, within a species at any given time the occurrence of genetic material responsible for homosexuality is very low and can only be the result of random mutation.) Until science resolves the debate as to whether homosexuality is a biological vs. cultural phenomenon, or somewhere in between, you can’t fall back on the “must protect them because they were born that way” argument.
Also Mr. Estrada’s statement: “There are clear differences in the consequences of allowing gay marriage versus allowing polygamy. Allowing those who have a biological tendency to be with the same sex to enter into lifelong commitments will cause greater relationship stability and possibly decrease the spread of HIV. It's hard to deny that would be an extremely positive benefit.”
Russell’s response: Agreed wholeheartedly that decreasing the spread of HIV is an overwhelmingly good thing. But let me state for the record—and this is going to get me into hot water, I can just feel it now—it’s irresponsible behavior among homosexuals (and drug addicts) that’s causing most of the rampant spread in the first place. It’s like saying, if you stop pounding your head with a hammer, the headache will subside, and that’s a good thing, right? Well of course it is, but if I were responsible for my actions I wouldn’t have been pounding my head with a hammer in the first place (I can hear it now, though: “Russell, please keep pounding your head with that hammer.”)
Also Mr. Estrada’s statement: “But allowing a man to have multiple wives doesn't produce any readily identifiable benefits for society.”
Russell’s response: Nor does it really do any harm in a purely social context. Look, polygamy is real, as is homosexual marriage. These were real long before the current debate started, though they weren’t legally recognized then or now—nor should they be because they fundamentally skew one of the bedrock foundations of our society. And I’m sorry, some things should be socially sacrosanct to provide a thread of stability and commonality in this otherwise diverse, tenuous and nebulous culture, and marriage is one of them. I’m not quoting scripture here, I’m not bigot, I don’t hate homosexuals (or any group for that matter) and I’m not a religious zealot—in fact, I’m not religious at ALL—but I do believe that marriage between a man and woman should be the only form of marriage legally recognized and legally sanctioned. Until someone convinces me that homosexuals are suffering as a result of non-legal recognition of their marriages, that’s my stance. And seriously, is anyone implying that homosexuals are being denied civil rights in the same way that African Americans were for three centuries (and to some degree still are)? That’s ludricrous.
No one is stopping homosexuals from marrying or otherwise committing to each other for life in any way, shape or form—in fact I encourage such commitment and I think it’s a beautiful thing. But don’t ask society to recognize it legally.
ps--Thank you all for the debate. I may not come across this way, but I do sincerely respect your views and value this discussion! Thanks.
Posted by: Russell on Tue Mar 09, 04
Wow, what a lot of food for thought! This thread has kept me riveted, and I've got a lot of catching up to do, so bear with the late response.
Russell, let me start by saying that you've definitely countered some of my own views with very well thought-out, and succinct arguments. Kudos.
Just two random thoughts to respond, and I'll be done. First, you say that there are no "victims" per se in polygamous marriages. If the participating parties are all over the legal age of consent, I fully agree. The disturbing fact is, though, that a great majority of fundamentalist Mormon polygamous marriages occur between men in their 40s, 50s and older, and girls of 12 or 13. In the fundamentalist Mormon way of thinking, as soon as a girl starts menstruation and can produce offspring, she's fair game. While you've really made me see what a "slippery slope" legalizing same sex marriage could be, the victim angle just isn't there like it is with polygamy. The Elisabeth Smart case is clear, frightening evidence of that mindset...
Second and lastly, while you've made some excellent points and caused me to rethink some of my views on this issue, I have to take the polar opposite position on the recognition of same-sex marriages. I say that if the church doesn't want to recognize them, that's their right, and no religious entity should be forced to comply with a federal mandate, any more than religion should color matters of federal law. On the other hand, I think same sex partners should be allowed the same legal consideration that is afforded male and female spouses. We've made progress in that a fair amount of insurance companies will allow a same sex partner to be covered as a dependent, but when it comes to matters of life or death, things get fuzzy. If a homosexual wills money or property to his partner, current law will allow the decedants "family" to override that provision. Also, a homosexual's partner might legally be barred from visiting their critically injured loved one in an intensive care unit by that loved one's immediate family. If a homosexual is lucky, they have an understanding family who would not do such a thing, but unfortunately in a lot of cases, the family is so hostile toward the partner and homosexuality in general, they trample any rights or privileges that the individual may have been bequeathed by their life partner.
That having been said, neither point solves the quandary of the "slippery slope", and it's very hard to know where to draw that line. I certainly don't know where to begin. But I felt compelled to address the two points you made that I had what I hope was an adequate answer for.
Cheers! Keep up the posts, they're very entertaining!
Posted by: Juli Ned on Tue Mar 09, 04