Here's a memory:
When I was in 9th grade, 1992, Idaho had an initiative vote coming up. It was a preemptive piece of legislature refusing to grant homosexuals minority status and therefore the "special" rights afforded other minorities, such as not being fired or evicted because your gay - "special" stuff like that.
My dad was super constitutional, ultra liberal and very vocal about his opinion concerning gay rights - his views became mine just as most of my school chums adopted the views of their parents. There was a lot of juvenile debate on the topic.
One night, after a frustrating day of trying to convince my peers that people should be treated equally, that gays weren't asking for special treatment, they just needed to be treated fairly, I did the only thing I could think of to speak to everyone: I wrote a letter to the editor of the SIP (South Idaho Press, I think), put it in the mailbox that very night and forgot about it.
About a week later, my LDS Seminary teacher (we were studying the New Testament that year), I think his name was Johnson, noticed my letter in the paper and brought it in and read it to the class. All I remember about the letter was that I used the word "damnation," was confused as to why my good Christian community seemed unwilling to treat homosexuals with Christ-like love and tolerance. Good gravy I'd like to dig through the SIP archives and find my letter. I believe Bro. Johnson said something along the lines of "love the sinner, hate the sin," but I was too embarrassed to listen.
Little did I know that 16 years later I'd still be confused.
Last night Greg did a good bit of debating with me. He's really good about not resorting to calling me stupid and stubborn and staying on topic. But I should have written it down, because today I couldn't get it. Here's Greg's email (replacing the IM conversation you may or may not have seen earlier:
I don't think that the argument is circular. Marriage is not a private matter, it's a societal institution. Because marriage is a societal institution it also means that society gets to define what it means. Currently, society defines marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman.
Fundamentally, it is a contract between two people and society. Society has dictated for many thousands of years that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can find instances where society allows homosexual marriages, but in all of those cases they are isolated societies without a lot of choice in their marriage prospects.
Gay activists like to use the argument that Marriage is a right that heterosexual people enjoy and they cannot. It is not a right, though. You cannot have it just because you want it. Because it is a contract, there are limits and requirements set around it. Many of them are societal in nature.
Gay rights activists want to compare their fight to the fight against segregation. I think that the argument that segregation being struck down as unconstitutional is in any way similar to gay people getting the right to marry is insulting to african americans everywhere. There's a difference between being beaten, killed, abused, and oppressed wholesale as a people and a handful of activists wanting to redefine a societal convention using the courts.
There's no mental gymnastics here. Marriage has almost nothing to do with love or sex or feelings, though that is what it seems gay activists would have you believe. The issue becomes clouded when they start saying that since they are in a committed loving relationship they should be allowed to get married when being a committed loving relationship is not what a marriage is about. It helps, but it's not what it is about.
If gay activists want to be married, then they simply need to change society's definition of what marriage is. The problem is that they tried that and failed. Now, instead of waiting for conventions to change, they sued the courts for the right. This is similar to what happened with segregation except that the change segregation imposed was changing the societal definition of what a person was, not what a marriage was. In the case of the ruling on segregation there is a clear cut precedence in the writings of the founding fathers indicating that slavery should be done away with and that black americans should have all the rights of white americans.
There is, however, no clear mention of the definition of marriage anywhere in the constitution. This isn't because the founding fathers were split on it and just couldn't come to a compromise. It was because the definition of a marriage was so obvious that there was no need to write it down. Unlike in the case of segregation, there is no writings for the judges to base the issue in fact. There is nothing except the thought that marriage is a right, something to be regulated by the government and taken and given at will, as opposed to a societal contract that has been around far longer than america.
This leads to the other problem with the gay marriage as an issue. It is the job of the legislature and only the legislature to make laws. This is for a very specific reason: to combat confusion and to provide checks and balances. The Executive branch has the option to veto any law and the judiciary has the right to interpret the law to the best of their ability the intent of the law in unique circumstances. The problem is that since the judiciary made found this new interpretation of the law, there is no way to provide checks and balances for the decision.
In fact, in California, the first time the gay marriage issue came up it was overwhelmingly rejected by the population, and then subsequently found unconstitutional by the court that provided the ruling in the first place. That's why Prop 8 is in place, the need to modify the actual constitution instead of just making a law.
This is a problem since most people (including me) think that the decision is wrong and had no say in it. Before the judges ruling, there were no laws on the books to deal with this issue, though it was pretty clear then and now which way the population of united states would lean towards. Since there were no laws, the judges (to my eyes at least) made one up to satisfy the case. This is why the precedent is so dangerous. It takes the power of law making away from the legislature and places it in the hands of a small elite group of unelected judges. That is not a representative democracy anymore: it's an oligarchy.
Of course, it's no where near that bad yet. It's not like all the laws are being dictated from the bench, but the precedent it sets goes in that direction.
So, essentially, there are three reasons to go against the Prop8: First, societal tradition and history. Second, that marriage is a contract between society and two people. And Third, limiting judicial activism from making legislation without checks and balances.
Greg
It's hard to analyze stuff with an active 2 yr old running round and a baby in your arms...
As far as I can tell - he's saying that society has determined, by tradition, marriage is the public joining of one man and one woman. Case closed.
And I'm saying, "Case closed? Wait, why?"
To me, his argument is circular - why is marriage just 1 man 1 woman? Society says so. Why do we say so? Because marriage is one man and one woman.
I get that the state should not support prostitution or lottery, should not be able to tax activities that are illegal if I do it in my basement. Things are not that way, but shouldn't they be? If the government is saying it's okay to gamble or pay for sex as long as we do it on their terms, so they can tax me, what right does the government have to say it's bad for me to do it on my own? So, if you come at it that way, maybe one could argue that when it comes to a vote, I can vote my moral conscience at not feel like I (as part of the government of, by, and for the people) have to legislate that everyone gets to do everything what they want to do. I can say, sorry, kids, prostitution is naughty, gambling is naughty, gay marriage is naughty - the government won't support or be supported by immoral activity.
uggg... I'm trying, but I can't twist my mind that way, I can't do the mental gymnastics required to get me to think that two people in a loving committed relationship, who for all intents and purposes are anything but married. Heterosexual couples, living together, sharing finances bed, have a common law marriage. Convince me how and why it's the plumbing that makes the difference.
8 Brilliant Bits of Inspiration:
for the record, this post doesn't make sense anymore and my husband is mad at me.
blert
NOW it's better, though. IM message dumps are never a good way to explain anything.
Well, Greg's argument that 'society' has defined marriage as between a man and a woman for thousands of years really doesn't quite hold water....um you guys are Mormons, no? How about David, Solomon, Moses, Abraham, and a bunch of other biblical figures? And what about the idea of the Catholic church that nuns are 'married' to Jesus (they even wear wedding rings)? There is also Boston marriage, where two women set up household together and basically lived like a married couple...Edith Wharton even has a novel called The Bostonians. My point is that 'society' is a nebulous and really fluid term, as is marriage.
Also, there is a bit of circular logic here...if society has defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman for thousands of years, then how can gay people 'simply need to change society's definition of what marriage is.' It's not going to happen anywhere BUT in the courts. Also, since when have gay people not suffered the same sort of beatings, torture, and even murder that people of color have and continue to face every day. What about Matthew Shepard? Gay bashing is not an isolated crime; gay people have indeed been beaten oppressed and killed. It occurs all the time. And it neither negates nor enhances the suffering that African Americans endured during and after slavery. The two are completely separate affairs.
One thing Greg is spot-on about, though, is the judicial activism. However, there are precendents for this, in the fact that most of the rights gay people DO have come from decisions made by courts....Bowers V. Hardwick in 1984 and the overturning of it in 2003 are two that come to mind right away. So, I have to say that yes, we do need actual legislation (ammendment anyone?) but no lawmaker is going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole, unless it's to ban it.
Finally, I have to ask. Um, I study slavery and slave narratives extensively, and while my focus is really about 1820-1860, I have never known of any founding fathers who wrote anything indicating that slavery should be done away with and that black americans should have all the rights of white americans. As far as I know, Thomas Jefferson struck out the clause in the Declaration of Independence that pertained to slavery (claiming that King George 'forced' the colonists to enslave people...ha!), and the constitution only ended the international slave trade by the year 1808. All the FF had slaves, and as we all know, Jefferson famously had children with Sally Hemings (and even with the DNA evidence, the Jefferson society STILL won't let her people in!) Neither slaves in bondage or escaped into freedom were actually considered as people, and even free black people could be kidnapped into slavery, and regularly were. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 (determined in St. Louis) held that black people (free or otherwise) were not citizens at all. It was not until the 14th ammendment that they became citizens....and it is an ammendment that we all can thank our lucky stars for.
Which brings me to my next point:
Slaves and black people in the 19th century were not allowed to get married (legally or otherwise). Most of them were not even allowed to practice Christian religion. This is where the term 'jumping the broom' comes from. Since they were forbidden to have these rituals (for fear that they would rise up) they concocted their own rituals.....until they could participate legally, after the Civil War. Often, despite being sold away from their wives and children, they sought out to reconnect their families after the war. So their non-legal, yet still binding 'marriages' were important to them. Hmmmm.....sound familiar? I guess my point is that yes, marriage is not necessarily about love and all the mushy stuff, it is about the structure of the family, so why should we stand in the way of people who want to have that for themselves?
Sorry Greg, if I sounded harsh on you. I didn't mean to.
Catherine
PS--Full disclosure: I forgot to mention that my husband's great grandparents got together nad started having babies at the absurdly young ages of like 14 and 16. However, they weren't legally married until they were together for almost 50 years, when they realized that they would have to be for social security purposes. So they got married and celebrated their 50th just as if they had been all those years. So the story goes, I am told. I guess Michael and I come from a long line of fornicators. I thought it was kinda funny.
I think that taking a proactive stance regarding the definition of marriage is kind of like passing proactive legislation that states red heads or people with naturally curly hair shouldn't have special rights. The Tao told us long ago that the more a society legislates morality the less moral society becomes.
This isn't an issue for the courts and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Greg is right in that society already defines marriage. Interestingly there is more than one society within the known universe. There's no reason we all have to believe the same things. If two people of the same gender want to be "married" I don't think it's my right to stop them. Of course I think that a piece of paper isn't nearly as binding as the spiritual covenant you enter into with your spouse. In my opinion the piece of paper making a "legal" marriage should be done away with all together. There are other legal ways of protecting property, making decisions, etc. A couple is no more married when their union is recorded by the county clerk than they were when the ceremony was performed. They are no less married before the county clerk records the marriage document either.
I am glad that Baby Olivia pointed out all of the violence that has occurred and continues to occur against homosexuals.
I have a very hard time fully respecting the current societal institution of marriage when half of the marriages end in divorce and any old man and woman can get drunk as skunks in Vegas and get hitched. If these things can occur, then perhaps we really DO need a reevaluation of what marriage means. While it is a legal contract, we have very romantic values placed upon marriage and people do decide to marry for love and affection so that argument doesn't seem to hold up for me either.
Also, I'm tired of hearing my own voice say this- but there is a separation of church and state in this country, which our country's founders were more clear about than just about anything else given the situation in which this country was founded. The morality related to religion that people impress upon this issue should be a moot point.
I forgot to add that interracial marriages were also illegal (and maybe still are....) in parts of this country until the latter part of the 20th century. I was just reading an article in a book called "A Question of Manhood" by Darlene Clark Hine that said that black men in consensual interracial relationships were routinely arrested, charged with rape, and then sentenced to death. However, this was due to the embarrassment of the women involved, who were then heavily disparaged in their communities. My point, again, is that marriage as a definition, has changed and continues to change.
The statements put in there in regards to slavery and segregation were actually in there because I have heard several gay rights activists compare what they are doing to ending slavery and segregation. The whole point, however, was to show that they aren't the same. There are already plenty of laws on the books about crimes, and violence and abuse because of a person being homosexual does rightly fall under the hate crimes definition which provides extra penalties. My goal was not to say that gay people aren't being persecuted, because there has certainly been violence perpetrated on them. Terrible things in fact that no one should have to experience and my heart goes out to anyone who has been at the receiving end of such abuse. Thus, the quest for gay marriage was NOT similar to the abolishment of segregation and slavery. Perhaps I shouldn't have even mentioned it...Also, my wife brought it up when we were debating it a couple of nights ago so it was on my mind.
You are also correct that society and marriage are malleable. But since society defines what marriage is, forcing a different definition down societies throat doesn't make it so. Right now, it seems that society has chosen to define marriage a certain way. Not even Barack Obama is willing to go against that definition. Society changes over time and with region. Essentially, you can define a society to be any way you want, so you have to make sure that you're defining it correctly. Ideally, Prop 8 would be simply defined as being the members of California who are voting on it. The problem is that since the constitution declares essentially that any marriage contract made in one state must be enforced in every other (see Article IV. Section 1), it could be argued that this decision affects the entire US, not just CA.
Also, the argument isn't circular in the least about society defining the contract, it's just that society changes. In the time of David and Solomon there still was the idea of 1 man, 1 wife. They simply didn't put a restriction on how many contracts the man could enter into. I don't think the women were allowed to marry each other.
Also, you are right that there are precedents for judicial activism (would that be a precedent for not having a precedent?). Case in point: Brown v. Board of Education to abolish segregation was a great decision. Also one in which there is little precedent for. The fact that it has been used, and used to good effect, does not mean that it still doesn't need to be looked at. There are still no checks and balances on the judicial decisions except to amend the constitution (and even then...), and that is a little scary. Especially when the judicial decision is going against society's definition. I mean, if you can only get one of the most liberal state in the nation to split 50/50 on this issue at best, it's a fair bet that most of the rest of the nation isn't going to fall that way.
The whole thing really is confusing, and to make matters worse everyone likes to throw logic out the window because there is SO MUCH emotion involved. To me, I can justify it logically in my mind using these arguments. But there are certainly other reasons that I believe this should be the definition of marriage.
Um, no, the definition was not one man, one wife, it was one man, many wives. If it were one man, one wife, he would have to divorce the others before taking a new one. Anyway, I don't think that's what happened. Or it would be more like the guy in the 1001 Nights who killed each of his wives before getting a new one. Not too savory. And while I admit my knowledge of 'plural marriage' is derived entirely from viewing a couple of documentaries and an episode of Oprah (so it is pretty piss-poor, if you will pardon the expression), the women on the shows all said that they considered themselves to be married to each other as well as to their husband...that they consulted each other before they took on a new wife, and that they felt it was a group thing. Also, one of the women Oprah interviewed specifically compared her situation to that of gay marriage.
If gay people can marry opposite sex people, then why can't they marry those they love? My mom says it's because people are afraid that suddenly there will be this whole big group of people sucking out benefits previously reserved for married people only....like social security...but I pointed out that these same people could marry each other for the benefits anyway.
Finally, I have to say that how are gay people supposed to change society's perceptions when african american people have been unable to change society's perception of race since the start of abolitionism? The goal of Garrisonian abolitionism (which began with the start of the publication of The Liberator in 1830) was passive resistance to slavery and racism through moral suasion...or convincing people that slavery was wrong by convincing people of the essential humanity of African American people (their main slogan: "Am I not a man and a brother?"). Since we are STILL dealing with rampant racism today and talking about the Bradley effect and it's been only about 40 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, I would have to say that trying to change society's mind in an entrenched environment is indeed a tough path to travel. I just don't think it can happen without the courts.
I guess I just don't understand how what people do in in their own private lives affects me or you or me or anyone else in the slightest. Why not live and let live?
Post a Comment