Driving into work today, NPR had some maddeningly irksome opinion piece when I flipped on the radio, so I changed to a local station -- which was also running some maddeningly irksome opinion piece. So I flipped off the radio, though not before deciding to respond to the latter piece.
The topic was gay marriage, and the host was glibly asserting some truly stupid points. Such as:
There's no Equal Protection issue here, because everyone works under the same restructions. Both gay people and straight people are treated exactly the same under the law, insofar as they are allowed to marry only someone of the opposite sex.
We might call this the Henry Ford Principle of Gender Relations: you can have the car any color you want, as long as it's black. There's a certain facile simplicity to it. Well, yeah, I guess you could look at it that way is the automatic reaction. Followed by, Huh?
Because the cases aren't the same. Because the direction of affection is not the same.
Let us say that Town X decided that three young women in the town needed to be married off. So they declared that the only marriages that would take place were marriages to those three women. That might be fine, if you were already in love with or were attracted to one of them. But if you loved that other young woman not partpart of that group, you'd hardly feel like you were being treated fairly.
Or let's say that the Federal Government decides that everyone on welfare is going to get free food. Fine, you say, and you trundle off to the free food distribution point -- only to find out it's all cheese and milk and ice cream, and you're lactose intolerant. "Don't you have anything that I can eat?" you ask, and are told that you're being treated exactly the same as everyone else -- your particular proclivity against dairy is not their fault, and needn't be accomodated.
Hmmm. Accomodation. Let's say you went down to the government office in your wheelchair (or walker, or pushing a baby carriage) -- and found yourself facing a huge flight of stairs. "A little help here," you ask, and are told that you're not being treated any differently from anyone else -- the doors are open to anyone who decides to climb those stairs.
Or let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's pass a miscegenation law again. "It's fair," we could argue. "Blacks and whites are being treated equally -- they are limited to marrying only those of their own color." Problem is, the Supremes have already established (in 1967) that's unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia), both on an Equal Protection and Due Process basis. Without a compelling state interest, subject to the greatest scrutiny, interfering with the freedom to marry cannot stand. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
(Actually, one of the arguments against the Virginia law was a bit different, in that it imposed limitations only on whites getting married -- blacks and Orientals and Indians could marry each other to their heart's content. But the court rejected that even if it were applied equally would the law stand, because the basis for the law, racism, was not a legitimate state interest.)
The second half of the argument was even sillier than the first. It was the assertion that there is no discrimination involved because, by gosh, some gays marry different-gender spouses. The commentator granted that it was usually to hide their orientation from the general public -- but he was strangely quiet about defending the True Purpose of marriage, instead merely saying that obviously it meant that everything was fine because, see, even homosexuals can and get married under the present system.
Just not to the ones they want to marry.
But obviously that's not important. So long as they can marry someone.
Such respect for the "institution of marriage."
Feh.
Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Politics & Law
Hmmmm...We must have been flipping the same channels this morning. On the NPR piece I kept yelling at the Radio "Missing the Point...Missing the Point!."
Good times, Good times.
The other part of the argument that I heard the other night on Peter Boyles' KBDI show from two guys from "Focus on the Family" was that since things had always been this way it was the way things should stay. So was Slavery, and women not having any rights, and a great many other things that have been fixed over the years.
Yesterday afternoon's yahoo's were ranting on and on about how the Gay's/lesbians/bi/transgendered folk were hurting there cause because it was angering Conservative Christians. Somehow the CC's were going to get angry at the threat to their lifestyle and put the Gay's/lesbians/bi/transgendered back into the closet. The yahoo's felt that the GLBT's should be happy with what they already have and not push for any other "special privlages".
Yeah, I love the "tradition trumps all" argument. Slavery, wife beating, dumping raw sewage into the street, domination by the British Crown, domination by the Roman Church, exposing handicapped children, lopping off the hands of thieves -- all good, proud traditions that we should reinstate, ASAP.
I will say that fringe elements of the GLBT community are sometimes their own worst enemy (as fringe elements usualy are), not because they're "angering" or "mobilizing" folks who already oppose them, but because they alienate the vast number of folks in the middle. That doesn't mean that the fight for gay marriage is a mistake -- but fighting for it by parading in a leather harness and latex mask up and down Main Street probably is.
The whole idea that gay marriage is even a debate makes my brain hurt. If you accept the idea that gay people have the right to pursue committed relationships, there's absolutely no real argument against giving them the right to marry.
Oh, and you forgot the "this is a slippery slope that ends in incest and bestiality" argument. As my friend Lisa put it in a recent e-mail to me:
"Why wouldn't you want to increase those benefits across a wider range of society? Oh, here's the answer - because then gay activists will go on to fulminate for laws that allow one to marry your 12 year old niece and her golden retriever in one charming ceremony."
As someone who uses slippery slope arguments frequently, I find that one particularly unconvincing.
From your other topics, it's fairly easy to tell that you are both a devout Episcopalian as well as a supporter of gay rights. How do you reconcile the two? I'm not a devout anything and I support gay rights, so I don't have an internal conflict marrying up religion and gay rights. I'm curious because it seems to be a fairly uncommon occurence.
Separate church and state.
A marriage is a contract between two people, no?
Or no?
Isn't there a marriage contract signed?
(Haven't been, ever, married, and I really don't know.)
Reduce it to a contract, and it becomes blindingly obvious how very like your arguments the opposition is.
I think for most people, the act of marriage is contractual for both the church AND the state. In the church, the parties are enacting a contract between the groom, the bride, and the god of choice. The state has it's own contract between the bride and groom, granting them certain privelages under the law (like inheritance).
Traditional Christian doctrine (i.e., you can find any number of variations) put the sacriment of marriage as something between the bride and groom, or between the bride, groom, and God. The audience (and the priest, for that matter) are there to witness and support it.
The religious contract is distinct (at least these days) from the civil contract. But in neither case, unless pre-nups are signed, is there anything in writing formally agreeing to what that contract means. Part of which is why the state has stepped in to define the T&Cs -- most particularly regarding the dissolution of the contract.
Adam, we Episcopalians are a pretty big tent. Indeed, it's when we (as a whole) come down on one side or the other of some of these divisive issues that we tend to have the most trouble. The General Convention going on ... this week? next? ... is a good example, since it's faced with (as GCs have been for a couple of decades) some significant decisions about the role of gays in the church.
One of those decisions -- should there be a formal church blessing for gay unions (the "M" word is still not spoken) -- could potentially still be waffled on. I think it's true, as the bishops declared earlier this year, that there is as yet no consensus within the church about the matter, and forcing once is liable to drive some folks away, whichever way it goes.
The other decision -- to accept, or reject, the election of an openly gay bishop from New Hampshire -- is one of those black-and-white, up-or-down sorts of votes that's definitely going to drive some folks to the door. Which is either a great pity, or about time, or both.
As to how I reconsile my Christianity with my support of gay rights, I don't see a contradiction between the two. I think the orthodox Judeo-Christian position on homosexuality is deeply flawed (let alone whether it should be the basis for our legal considerations of homosexuality), and I'm willing to put it on the dustheap of religious history alongside women wearing hats in church and people avoiding pork.
That sounds flip, and it's not meant to be. And I'm aware that there are folks who consider themselves devoutly Christian who have heartfelt opinions to the opposite, and I respect those opinions -- up to the point where they unjustly oppress people.
And then Bush goes off and spouts his idiotic comment yesterday about how he's trying to legislate marriage as a heterosexual-only union.
Argh!
Nice points, Dave.
Let me further clarify that.
I think it was (and is) pretty goofy to pass legislation to that end. Indeed, we already have the DOMA on the Federal level, I believe, so the only thing further that could really be done is a Constitutional Amendment, which would be a really, really horrible idea, on so many levels.
While I have an instinctive cringe every time Bush starts talking religion, though, I have to say that his accompanying message was certainly one that was a lot more tolerant and inclusive than a lot of other politicians in his party (Santorum comes to mind, though there are many others): "I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own. I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."
And, of course, Bush is hardly the only Presidential candidate out there who has come out against gay marriage.
Still, I think he, and they, are dead wrong on this issue.
I guess I get rankled when Bush is asked about gay people, and his response is, "I am mindful that we're all sinners."
Bush has already defended Santorum after his comments. And I don't think what Bush said at the press conference was particularly tolerant or inclusive. (Both of those words have been pounded into meaninglessness anyway. Bush even said, through Fleischer, that Santorum was "an inclusive man.")
And anyway, what is the President of the United States doing talking about sinners, and paraphrasing the Sermon on the Mount, at a press conference?
I can see where it would rankle.
On the other hand, if Bush said, "Homosexuality is a sin," and someone shouted back, "Hey, Mr. Bush, we are all sinners," I don't think it would catch nearly as much flack.
Bush should certainly be nailed for any support (whether personally motivated or politically) he provided to Santorum. Though I'm the one using the words "tolerant" and "inclusive," and to me, those words mean things.
As to whether it's appropriate for the POTUS to talk about religion in public ... well, like I said, I tend to cringe a bit when he does, usually because I find much of what he says on the subject to be simplistic and self-serving. On the other hand, to the extent that it informs his moral judgments and leadership, it's probably appropriate (and certainly much has been made of his religious beliefs by his critics, so it's further proper), unless it's hypocritical.
Given that the debate over homosexuality and gay marriage in this country is one that touches on religion and morality (regardless of whether or not it should), I'm not prepared to say that it was improper for him to answer in that fashion. It's very little different, functionally, from his stating, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
I guess I would have been happier if he had come out and just said, "Homosexuality is a sin," if that's what he believes. It would have been more honest and forthright than what he did say, and at least we'd know where he stands more clearly. And also, then you could engage him in the question of how religion fits into public life, something we dance around but are afraid to confront directly.
Well, I think he did effectively say that, by noting that "We are all sinners." (I think he's wrong in saying that homosexuality is a sin, but there you go.) That he chose a more less confrontational way of saying it (and of putting it into context) is to be expected (and is probably more proper).
There seemed to me to be plenty of opening in what he did say (as your previous questions indicated), to question him on how religion fits into public life.