Proposition 8

A lot has happened since I last wrote and it's difficult to process it all, but I want to begin with a song that always calms me down. It would probably depress me if I understood what he was saying:




João Gilberto - Estate


As I said, a lot has been going on. Things have gotten rockier with North Korea (and they are on the path to becoming rockier still), Obama nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and met with Mahmoud Abbas, and the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8, making same-sex marriages illegal in California once again.

I want to use this entry to discuss the issue surrounding Proposition 8 and a following entry probably coming tomorrow to speculate a bit about Obama's meeting with Abbas and the possible future of the North Korea issue.

Anyway, on to Proposition 8. If you don't know what it is, please go read about it just a bit; it's a very important issue that poses some serious questions about what kind of society we are and should be living in. I want to examine some of the arguments made by people who support it (in other words, people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriages) based on what I believe to be a well thought-out essay I read by freelance writer Scott Bidstrup.

I will paraphrase a few responses to some of the traditional arguments against allowing same-sex marriages from Bidstrup's essay and link to it at the bottom if you wish to read it for yourself. I believe he makes a lot of good points that I had never thought of before reading his essay.

1) Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman - He raises a good point here: Who has decided what marriage is and who can be "married?" Even the Constitution, that oft-cited document of American history (or certainly, at least, in maudlin courtroom dramas), doesn't even mention marriage, much less its definition. Of course many have and will answer this question (who decides what marriage is) with "The Bible," and things like that. Well, that's true, the Bible does go into detail that is hard to ignore. However, we don't live in a theocracy, or even an officially Christian nation sworn to protect the values of Christianity. You can't say that our society is based entirely on Christian values and laws either, because our laws allow adultery and divorce, two things which (if I'm not mistaken) are pretty explicitly forbidden in the Bible. In Bidstrup's own words:

It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Even Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce and remarriage. It's wrong, but people still do both every day and US law allows it. I'm not debating the Bible's stance on homosexuality; that's a different issue altogether. But if homosexuals are denied this right on a biblical basis, why do they have to follow the laws of the Bible if nobody else in the US is? Furthermore, if you grew up in Sunday school like I did, you'll remember that Jesus shared meals with prostitutes and thieves, forgave a woman caught in adultery, and stayed in the house of a leper, an unspeakably taboo act at the time. Obviously I wasn't around for those particular years, but based on what I've read and heard since I was a baby, I don't imagine that Jesus, a man who regarded everyone as equals and equally loved by God, would have done something as mean-spirited as voting to ban same-sex marriages before voting to ban anything else. Jesus, I'm rather proud to say, was far too nicecore for that.


2) Same-sex couples aren't a good environment in which to raise children - There are a few problems with this one, mainly the fact that our legal system allows for convicted murderers, rapists, and even child molesters to marry and have children. So, Bidstrup argues, if people are worried so much about the children, why the double standard here? I don't understand the logic of denying an otherwise completely capable same-sex couple the right to raise children in a legally recognized, monogamous marriage when murderers, rapists, and child molesters are given that right and nobody bats an eye. Could all this be because people are really more uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality than worried about children? I can't say; I don't read minds. But nonetheless, it's interesting. He links to many studies indicating that the outcomes of children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples.

In addition, people like to say that the only families fit to raise children in are those with a mother and a father. Okay, so what about the countless people raised by single mothers and fathers all over the place? Are the opponents of same-sex marriages going to fight for laws restricting single parents from raising children? Didn't think so.

Besides, tons of same-sex families already exist out there, and they are actively raising children. Why continue to make half of the partners legal strangers to the children they are trying to help raise? In this case, I'd argue that by continuing to deny homosexuals the right to have the same marriages that heterosexuals already have, you're actually making it difficult and awkward for the tons of children out there already growing up with same-sex parents.


3) Same-sex marriages would threaten the institution of marriage - I have often wondered about this one. As Bidstrup points out, it's rather silly to think that allowing more marriages would actually threaten the institution of marriage. If homosexual people are allowed to marry each other, then it stands to reason that there would be fewer heterosexual marriages ending up in divorce courts. If people are going to continue to be denied a marriage to someone they really love if they happen to be homosexual, they are more likely to be pushed into a heterosexual marriage that they feel ultimately uncomfortable and unable to express themselves in. The result is that there is a chance for more innocent children to be brought into families with tons of problems. And we're really worried about children, isn't that right? Also, let me remind everyone that the US sports one of the highest divorce rates in the world (number 2 or 3 if I'm not mistaken), with over half of the marriages here ending in divorce, and I believe it's on the rise. It's interesting to me that we're freaking out about a possible threat to the institution of marriage as it dissolves for unknown reasons right under our noses. Why not extend civil rights to another disenfranchised group of Americans, make marriage even more widely available, and at the same time give marriage a big ol' shot in the arm by reinforcing its importance in our culture and society? Geez, you can kill like, a hundred birds with one stone! Awesome! Seriously though, don't kill birds with stones.

In an interview with The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, columnist Jonathan Rauch has this to say:

The signal we need to send now is that everybody should be getting married. The big cultural problem with the family in America is not that gay people want to get married – it’s that straight people are not getting married or not staying married. And to me, one of the important cultural effects of gay marriage will be to send a very strong signal that marriage is something that is available to and expected of everybody, not just a few.

He has a good point - allowing more people to get married will reinforce the importance of marriage in our culture, not threaten it. Gay people are not godless, amoral, or interested in operating on the fringes of society; they are as nuanced and diverse as anyone else and they too want and deserve to have the same loving, fulfilling, and long-lasting marriages that straight people enjoy.


4) Same-sex marriages would start us down a "slippery slope" towards the legalization of all kinds of horrible things (incest, bestial marriages, etc.) - This is a funny one which simply doesn't stand up when it's actually examined a bit. There are a lot of good reasons to be against bestial marriages and incest that would probably be debated if it came up, but what logical connection does that even have to same-sex marriages? That's not being debated here; it's not even remotely on the agenda of anyone in favor of allowing same-sex marriages, nor does it even have the slightest bit to do with same-sex marriages. Homosexuals are only asking for the one thing that straight people have that they don't, and nothing more. A straight guy can marry any consenting woman in the world except his sister or his mother, but a homosexual person can't marry anyone.

As Bidstrup points out, the whole "slippery slope" thing is an argument calculated to freak people out and, what a surprise, it's worked beautifully. There are other countries in the world where same-sex marriages have been legal for a long time and there has not been even the slightest hint of demand for the legalization of these other things, proving that they simply aren't even connected.

Radical Christian clerics like Pat Robertson love to continually remind us of the terrifying "ultimate conclusion" of allowing same-sex marriages, but let's not forget that these people used the very same arguments to argue in favor of the anti-miscegenation laws until 1967. Anti-miscegenation was all about racial purity (Nazi Germany, anyone?) and it made marriages between whites and any other races illegal.

Religious activists and politicians back in the day argued that God made the races separate for a reason and therefore they were not meant be mixed (and they quoted scripture too). They also said it would threaten the institution of marriage and that a multi-racial home was no home for children. However, we can now see that those peoples' worst fears were realized, as the "ultimate conclusion" of the repeal of anti-miscegenation law and allowing blacks and whites to marry and raise children has culminated in something truly horrifying for them:

Oh snap. Anyway, it's just interesting to see the parallel. Moving on...

5) Legalizing same-sex marriages means that businesses now have to provide the same benefits to them - Wait, is this actually an argument? Yes, they will provide the same benefits, why wouldn't they? If a situation should arise in which they aren't legally discriminated against by our laws as they are now, they can start to be treated equally and fairly in other areas of the law, right?

Anyway, I'm not much for business mumbo-jumbo, but apparently many companies already do provide benefits to same-sex couples. I'd really rather just quote Bidstrup here, as he explains why the cost of providing benefits is no big deal:

This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.

5) Same-sex marriages would force churches to marry same-sex couples when they have a moral objection to doing so - This one doesn't really stand because there's nothing saying that any church anywhere will have to support and marry same-sex couples. Many never would, but there are many who have openly declared that they have no problem with it. Churches can and often do refuse any couple they wish the right to be married in their particular church on many bases besides the fact that the couple is of the same sex. Go figure, offering churches the opportunity to legally marry same-sex couples actually improves religious freedom in the US, not stifles it. What a wacky world!

Anyway, that's that. Of course there are other things I didn't go into because my hands are starting to hurt from all this typing, but you get the idea. I think those are some of the biggest ones people have always said.

I found it interesting yesterday that a poll showed that US opposition to same-sex marriages is around 57%, but US support of Roe v. Wade is somewhere around the upper 60s. Now, that interests me because some of the very same arguments (namely the moral/religious ones) are used in these two debates - but why do Americans support one and oppose the other? My mom pointed out that Roe v. Wade is around 30 years old, whereas the same-sex marriages issue, while not necessarily an old one (homosexuality has been around forever, folks), is definitely still fresh in American public life. What that tells me is that this issue probably just needs more time. The polls show that young people are the most approving of same-sex marriages of any age group, and I don't even have to check because I'm just that positive it was the same way during the age of the anti-miscegenation laws, and look what happened there.

However, right now the majority of American society seems to have spoken for the type of society it wants to live in. I won't argue against the democratic process itself if the people have spoken fairly, but I believe a change in attitudes is in order. People are being affected by this daily and it's simply not fair to deny someone a right that others enjoy just because they happen to be attracted to the same sex. I don't think anyone is being asked to be more personally or privately comfortable with homosexuality or same-sex marriages, but denying homosexuals the right to get married because one is uncomfortable with it or because of one's private religious sensibilities is simply not the way our nation works, or has ever worked. Case in point: Wouldn't it bother a lot of people in the US if Jews and Muslims here started demanding for laws against pork or Hindus for laws against beef? In regards to those who argue against allowing same-sex marriages "for the good of society," I have done a lot of searching and reading, and I have yet to find any compelling counter-arguments to the points made by Bidstrup and which have been emphasized here.

Readers (all three or four of you), I can't make any specifically scientific or legal arguments using impressively-named documents littered with words I saw on the national spelling bee last night, but I think if a wider appeal is to be made, it should be to the side of a person that knows despite whatever personal, moral, or religious convictions they might have, they might ultimately believe in the universal equality offered to every American spelled out in the Constitution. America is not a theocracy. It is not ruled by the laws of Christianity and we can't say that it is or it should be because our laws ignore other fundamental rules for a Christian life. Marriage will not be threatened by allowing more marriages to take place. Homosexual people are just like their heterosexual counterparts except that they are attracted to members of the same sex, and denying them the same fundamental rights heterosexual people enjoy is simply mean-spirited and ultimately not nicecore.

I strongly encourage everyone to read Bidstrup's article, because I didn't go into even half of what he discusses and he makes many, many good points in addition to what I discussed. Also strongly recommended is the interview with Jonathan Rauch. If you're interested, here is the counter-point to the Rauch interview as well. I hope this was somewhat informative and I shall return tomorrow!