Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am less fearful of reading the newspaper or tuning into the evening news. CNN keeps my unemployed ass company during my daily job searches; it sometimes provides whispers while I'm writing. I haven't been compelled to weep for my country much in the last six months.
And then there was May 26th, 2009. The California Supreme Court ruled to uphold Proposition 8: a ballot initiative making gay and lesbian marriages (previously made legal) illegal in the state. It changes the state's constitutional language, making only marriage between one man and one woman constitutional in the state. The initiative was placed on the November ballot and passed; the implication here is that voters who came out in stride to elect Mr. Obama also voted passionately to withhold equal rights from select members of society. I hope the irony of this is not lost on anyone.
Both sides of the battle then went to court and the May 26th decision gave merit to current same-sex marriages, but stated that further same-sex unions would not be recognized as "marriage" in California.
This news brought me to tears despite the fact that I'm not gay. We may never have another civil rights struggle like those for African Americans and women in the 60s and 70s, but I've held the belief for a long time that homosexuals in America are among the most systematically discriminated against across the country today. We legalize the discrimination of this group. (This isn't to say that other social minorities are always treated equally, but - at least - as written law goes, those forms of discrimination are no longer encouraged by the government or the majority of Americans.) My hope that the election of Mr. Obama last November marked a shift in the American ideology was tarnished by the news that Proposition 8 had passed in the first place. Its supporters' continued aggression is nothing short of mind boggling to my poor, young, impressionable mind.
Some arguments against same-sex marriage are explained here:
Protect Marriage is an 'informational' and fund raising website. According to Mormons For 8, 35% of the donations are from Mormon churches. [The Daily Harold breaks the numbers down more here: LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage.] Not surprisingly, the push against same-sex marriage is coming from the religious (arguably, Christian) right.
Upon investigation of their website, 'Protect Marriage,' Proposition 8, and and anti-equality movement are concerned - of course - about religious freedom and the children. Those seem to be their reoccurring concerns. They claim that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage and that the acceptance of gays in society is somehow detrimental to children.
In understanding this first argument, I find it helpful to rediscover simple word meanings. For this, I turn to the ever trustworthy Dictionary.com for a basic definition.
Traditional
- adjective
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).
The definition of "traditional" is interestingly vague. The problem with the abstract concept of "tradition" is that it depends thoroughly upon from whom these behaviors are being "handed down." It is a line drawn by families over generations or cultural and religious groups over ages. A "traditional" marriage in India may amount to what most Americans would refer to as an "arranged" marriage. Arranged marriages are the "tradition" in many parts of the world including such industrialized nations as India and Japan. That doesn't make them practices that are inherently good (nor, granted, inherently bad). (And when I discuss "arranged" marriages, I am not even touching on "forced" marriage or any non-consensual unions, although those may certainly be included under the "tradition" umbrella as well.) This begs the question, then: from whose "traditions" are we taking our definition of "traditional" marriage (that is: marriage between one man and one woman)?
Given the amount of support Proposition 8 has from the Mormon church, it seems that looking at extremists of the Judea-Christian guild is a good place to start. I have to pick on the Judea-Christian "tradition" because it certainly doesn't appear that Prop 8 supporters are supporting arranged marriages or marriages deemed "traditional" outside of Judea-Christian beliefs. Ponder for a moment, this ad also featured on the 'Protect Marriage' website:
The first issue in this ad is: "What [does] it means when gay marriage conflicts with our religious freedoms?" The next shot is a very angry man insisting that gay marriage was "forced" on him by the courts. Then, lastly, they have a very distressed little girl and her mother questioning what same-sex marriage "means" for the little girl.
Keep in mind, none of those questions are answered in the ad nor does the ad tell you where your questions can be directly and unbiasedly answered.
Religious freedom is a foundation of American life. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue: it's a civil rights issue. My decision to marry someone who has the same sexual organs as I do in no way conflicts with your unbreakable belief that such a union is a sin, unless you and I happen to be the same person. However, your passion for denying me that right based on your belief that my union is a sin DOES conflict with my civil rights. Both freedom of religion and civil rights are protected under the US Constitution. However, my marriage doesn't impede on your ability to worship whereas your beliefs are making it impossible for me to have my full rights under the Constitution.
Religion being made the headline of this organization's ad says to me that religion is a driving force even beyond the Mormon church. While Americans often identify themselves as Christians, America is NOT a Christian country. (And I am not even totally sure Christianity still holds the majority, as even Atheism gains in popularity.) We use religious dictum - from many religions - for moral guidance, sure, but "do not murder" is going to be made into law regardless of whether God commanded it to be so because it's good for the whole of society.
Any argument based on religion should automatically be thrown out because we have a separation of church (whatever religious center in which you worship) and state (the government under which you live your daily, civil life). Religious declarations are not by default laws and, unless it is for the mortal protection of society, such declarations should not be made into laws. If God chooses to damn homosexuals then let that job be left for God; it is not the place for mere mortals. Morality is subjective; it is not something that can or should be legislated unless the lack of legislation causes harm (as in : "nah, go ahead, commit that murder").
Moving on to the angry man's argument. I'm choosing not to touch on this at length because of its utter absurdity. Unless a San Francisco judge is forcing people to marry other people of the same sex, no judge is forcing anything on anyone. Similarly to abortion: legalizing gay marriage does not make gay marriage the only legal type of marriage, just as the legalization of abortion doesn't mean every woman must have an abortion. It is simply an option for those who find themselves in those respective positions.
However, the word "force," even without any validity to the claim, is powerfully psychologically menacing. A 30 second spot, on in the background while changing diapers or making dinner, which claims that anything is being "forced" upon citizens, is going to be a powerful, though in this case preposterous, claim. It's going to raise eyebrows, but most people will take it at face value and not research the claim. Any amount of research and one might realize the he/she is not being forced to do anything accept be tolerant of different people and a slightly different lifestyle.
The final argument pulls at your heart strings. Or is supposed to. If I understood the argument, perhaps I could provide a less snarky interpretation, but the best I can offer is as follows: parents fear that the utterance of words like "gay" and "lesbian" will...miraculously...turn their kids...gay? And, apparently, they have a problem with that?
A recent bulletin posted on the site expresses outrage over new curriculum (probably put in place to promote an understanding and tolerance for those who are gay or have gay friends/family) that explores homosexuality as a lifestyle. "Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority...The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds" (Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum). Apparently, that's...a terrible, terrible thing?
I find it hard to believe that the curriculum "elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds," but even if that is true, perhaps the reason is because racial and religious groups are not legally oppressed anymore. The need to teach children to respect those groups may have dissipated slightly.
The real issue here is that parents don't want there little boys and girls to know anything about sex. Ever, apparently. Therefore, discussing sexuality and why Tommy has two mommies is a sticky situation. Sex and sexuality are sensitive issues, but lying to children or pretending "those" sorts of people aren't out there, is no way to protect your child from the inevitabilities of the real world. If you won't teach your children tolerance towards gays, someone has to. Or someone should. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would chose this kind of hate a discrimination for him or herself? Learning about a different lifestyle does not by default turn you into a practitioner of that lifestyle any more than learning about slavery makes you a slave or even an African. Learning about Islam doesn't make you Muslim. There's a difference between being something and understanding / empathizing with something.
And if your child is gay, wouldn't you want to foster a home that embraces that child regardless? Isn't that moral? Homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing about it which should make gays second-class citizens.
That is how to teach your children about homosexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of nor is it anything about which one should ever feel any shame. It is two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other. How is teaching that a bad thing?
Other arguments for Prop 8 are discussed here: What Is Prop 8? Most of these arguments are concerned with religion and children too. Many are knit-picky. It's worth a skim.
The bottom line is that regardless of the inconveniences the opposition addresses, you CANNOT deny members of society certain rights unless protecting that group's rights is gravely detrimental to the whole of society. (For example, "ageism" is okay in certain situations because you don't want twelve-year-olds driving or drinking or going to war.) The 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(Cornell Law: US Constitution, 14th Amendment, emphasis added)
The moment one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court, there is no way same-sex marriage can be denied short of a US Constitutional Amendment banning it (which George W. Bush threatened to do, more-or-less proving that denying same-sex marriage is currently unconstitutional). The basic philosophy behind the Equal Protection Clause is that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal. Granted, it was written with freed slaves and segregation in mind, but the "othering" of blacks and the "othering" of gays in terms of legislation seem to run parallel. Proposition 8 would not pass a rational-basis test: there is no mortal danger to society posed by same-sex marriage; nor should it pass the court's strict scrutiny of the law where a party must prove a compelling state interest in denying people their rights. If all gay-marriages included human sacrifice, then maybe they'd have a case, but - with the exception of "this makes me feel icky" - there is no reason for citizens of California to feel threatened by same-sex unions.
Same-sex couples can be just as devoted and loving to each other and their children as heterosexual couples. They have the same ups and downs as any couple in any sort of relationship may have. I think any abandoned child would gladly chose adoption by a same-sex couple over life in orphanages or foster homes.
Let us remember that same-sex couples were accepted in ancient Egypt as well as Rome before Judaism and Christianity became popular. (So, if you're really talking "traditional," don't forget it's buried deep in history as well...even the history of Judaism and Christianity.) Let us also remember that heterosexual couples don't necessarily provide a happy or healthy family for children. The sexes of the parents don't make or break family life; it's how well the partners interact with one another.
Six states in the US have already legalized gay unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriage, but do not perform any. Several states have legalized civil-unions. The tide is going in a progressive direction. And it has to. Throughout history, Americans have abolished status-quo doctrines that prohibit rights. (Note: prohibition didn't last long, right? Blacks can now marry whites, right? Women can now vote, right?) Maybe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible says a lot of things that we chose not to write laws banning. And, on that note, I shall end this post on an upper. Enjoy:
"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...
Posts
