Gay Marriage and the Democratic Hazard

"Moral hazard" is a phrase more of us know in this era of reckless trading on Wall Street, and now we can apply it to politics. Traders who use other people's money aren't exposed to the risk of losing their own money; therefore, they act less responsibly than someone who is fully exposed to the consequences of a risky decision -- that's the moral hazard. In politics, irresponsible behavior happens when there is little or no consequence to be felt, the only difference being that you play with someone else's life, not merely their money.

The latest example is over gay marriage. The rest of the country is watching to see if a ballot measure in California, Proposition 8, will ban gay marriage in that state. Since June California has legalized same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. The court decision that paved the way for this change outraged the usual groups. Social conservatives and various religious groups, including a massive influx of money from the Mormon Church in Utah, are campaigning heavily for Prop 8 to pass. One wonders what business it is of theirs. Marriage has its public side, but given the sharp decline in marriage since the Seventies, what precious institution are they protecting?

If the answer is that a sacrament is at stake, these religious groups have no business interjecting their beliefs into public policy. Various religions traditionally ban the eating of pork, shellfish, and meat on Friday, but we don't allow those strictures to govern policy. As for the condemnation of homosexuality by scripture, many of those same scriptures advocate polygamy. Trying to condemn homosexuality on religious grounds is a ship that has already sailed in every secular society, and the vast bulk of psychological research has already removed homosexual behavior out of the category of pathology.

What gives the anti-gay marriage forces their influence comes down to moral hazard. If you run no risk sticking your nose into someone else's bedroom, some people are weak enough to go ahead and do it. What gives them permission is a toxic tradition, deeply embedded in the right wing, of shameless intrusion. McCarthyism, the right to life movement, school prayer, anti-immigration, and a string of other rabble-rousing campaigns have been based on harming other people without risk to yourself. What makes these movements immoral is that the whole situation is upside down. In finance, you are supposed to take extra care of other people's money, not less, when you are entrusted with it. In a democracy, majority rule is based on respect for minority rights, the basic idea being that a bond of trust allows minorities to feel safe when they are outnumbered.

Popular democracy sorely tests the bond of trust. Therefore, we have certain bodies, such as courts and the Senate, where the tide of popular sentiment can be checked. In California, the system of ballot initiatives for changing the state constitution is pure democracy at work, without restraint of any kind. If half the citizenry favor a change, their whims override all checks and balances. Prop 8 is the latest in a long line of disturbing, misguided initiatives that amount to a roll of the dice. Will the majority decide to stamp on a newly fledged right of a gay minority? The contest is too close to call, but as an outsider who hopes that California voters will say no to Prop 8, they should think seriously about moral hazard and the trap it poses.

What You Can Do:

-- Support Deepak Chopra's Intent about Prop 8

-- Read Same Sex Marriage: Equality for All by Mallika Chopra

-- Make a Donation to Vote No On PROP 8 (Referral Code 527)

Visit www.intent.com to read more from Deepak Chopra and other prominent voices.

Comments

[devdil]

Those of you up in arms against people for prop 8 dont seem to understand why prop 8 is even closed to being passed. I have posted this question a couple of times but no-one answers it. Hoping for some enlightenment here.

Gay marriage doesnt affect churches and other religious bodies per se.
BUT what if a gay couple wanting to marry sues the church on grounds of *discrimination*? what if a gay couple requests a school district to include gay marriages in the curriculum and then sues the district for discrimination if they dont comply? Gay marriage per se doesnt make churches and other religious bodies lose tax exempt status: but a lawsuit alleging discrimination may well do that. Didnt a gay couple in MA sue a photographer for not photographing their wedding? Didnt a Catholic adoption agency in MA shut down because of their refusal to let gays adopt from their agency? This refusal stems primarily from religious grounds....why are they being forced to act otherwise. So can I can get sued if I--because of my beliefs or otherwise--refuse to rent out my house to someone who I personally happen to disagree with? Whether you wish it or not, gay marriage DOES threaten other freedoms because it has taken the form of a civil right. THIS is the reason why people are for prop 8, not because everyone is a bigot although that is what the majority here is likely to feel.

[gaydm]

I do not wish to dirty my feet in a church that hates me so much they would toss me to the curb.
I would not taint my marriage in any way shape or form by asking for your blessing.

However, if you take public money, provide a public service, or expect public protection for your religious organization, you will OBEY all public laws.
You may drive 85 miles an hour in an 70 miles per hour speed limited highway. When you get stopped for speeding tell the cop "G-D" told you you can speed, and I betcha, you will still get a ticket.
People have already been put to death, or face life behind bars, because a G-D told them to kill. Simply because you have a religious view does not keep you from being wrong.

Now having said all this, I have NO intention of taking away any religious persons right to disagree with me. However, I have every intention that I will defend MY beliefs, and MY right to equal treatment, under the full weight of LAW.
I served my country in the Navy, I have worked in one form of government service, be it Federal, State, and local government, Over 22 years of service. I paid my taxes, UNLIKE your religious organization.
YOU have your freedom to believe what you want because of OUR government. Try to show some respect for my different beliefs, and in return I may have more respect for yours.

[sammdphd]

Wake up and Grow up devdil. This issue has nothing to do with you and your homophobic idealogy. I don't know what kind of school you went to, but who teaches about marriage? ...other than in church? Religion has no place in public policy...but it's ironic that the polygamists and pedophile priests support traditional marriages.

[RallyGrrrl]

"What gives the anti-gay marriage forces their influence comes down to moral hazard. If you run no risk sticking your nose into someone else's bedroom, some people are weak enough to go ahead and do it. What gives them permission is a toxic tradition, deeply embedded in the right wing, of shameless intrusion. McCarthyism, the right to life movement, school prayer, anti-immigration, and a string of other rabble-rousing campaigns have been based on harming other people without risk to yourself. What makes these movements immoral is that the whole situation is upside down. In finance, you are supposed to take extra care of other people's money, not less, when you are entrusted with it. In a democracy, majority rule is based on respect for minority rights, the basic idea being that a bond of trust allows minorities to feel safe when they are outnumbered."

Please, Californians - don't let the rest of us down, who are still awaiting gay marriage to be legal in our state. This is one of the most passive ways you can make history - thirty years from now you can say, "Yes, I did vote on that - I helped pave the way for others. I was an important part of American history - and no one could have done it but me."

[BluePrideSMW]

Very reasoned article... Outlaw divorce if you really wanna protect marriage.

A 1965 Voting Rights Act national radio campaign: Things Are Changing

http://current.com/items/89388751_obama_08_things_are_changing

[Vivek]

What right do the Mormons have of forcing their ideas of sacred marriage on the rest of us? I have Mormons as close relatives, and I can tell you their marriages are as screwed up as anybody's. I say all those who want to be married should be given every chance to succeed regardless of their gender.

[roylmack]

It’s no surprise that some of us prefer cats and some dogs . . .
While some of us prefer cats and some dogs, most of us agree they are both domesticated animals that are to be tolerated and protected in our society. However, we all understand that dogs and cats are different, and it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that a cat is the same as a dog or that dogs have actually always been cats . . .
Similarly, while both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are to be tolerated and protected in our society, it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that there is no difference between each relationship.
While I happen to prefer dogs, it neither makes me prejudice toward or intolerant of cats, nor does it require that I must now pretend that dogs and cats are exactly the same. In our home we have room for both dogs and cats. People can and Should Support Proposition 8’s clarification of marriage and still love, respect and tolerate everyone!!

[maribelle1963]

1. This is about protecting the rights of individuals to marry, so your "cat/dog" analogy makes no sense.
2. What problem does Prop 8 hope to solve?
3. Where is the compelling interest to the majority of Californians?

[antaeus]

Your use of metaphor is tortured.

[Gidster]

It is legislating a second class citizen. A slippery slope.

Although many want to see marriage as a private expression of their love for one another, for centuries matrimony has been a very public institution impacted by tradition, culture, religion, and laws. Arranged marriages do not take into account the wishes of the individuals being married, multiple wives still involve a man and some women......

Marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.

How does it harm your marriage if two other people that wish to enter into matrimony happen to be of the same sex?

You have no argument.

[RallyGrrrl]

So are your dogs protected by the ASPCA, but not your cats?

Legal marriage is very different from religious marriage. If you don't want gay marriage within your religion thats something you take up with your religious leader. Under the law, two consenting adults should be afforded the right to marry and all that legally comes with that. My gay aunts are not going to be recognized as spiritually married in the local Church any time soon, but we don't pay taxes to the local church - we pay taxes to our government. It is our government who needs to recognize these marriages, and it is that right that Proposition 8 addresses.

I respect others' religion enough to acknowlege that I am not welcome within it - please respect our laws enough to acknowlege that people who are gay are allowed to marry under it.

[DJKarma]

Your analogy is flawed, because we're talking about the SAME species here. And furthermore, this has nothing to do with our sexual orientation or "preference." We are talking about basic equality and rights for all human beings to receive the same treatment, the same tax breaks, and the same recognition from all government institutions. I am in a "conventional" heterrosexual marriage, but I don't see how gay marriage takes anything away from mine. In fact, who am I to say you can't have the same rights, if you have chosen to be in a loving long-term commitment like I have. We're not talking about cats and dogs... marriage is marriage- just as love is love. There is no distinction and there never was. Jesus would've voted No on Prop 8.

[Michale32086]

It's actually nice to be able to make a comment that allows my liberal leanings to take a jaunt.. :D

I am firmly in support of ANY kind of marriage between human beings.

All things being equal, the ONLY requirement should be that two adults love each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives together...

Michale.....

[twofish]

Well said. I compare straight people who want to ban gay marriage to Aesop's Dog in the Manger:

A Dog lay in a manger, and by his growling and snapping prevented the oxen from eating the hay which had been placed for them. "What a selfish Dog!" said one of them to his companions; "he cannot eat the hay himself, and yet refuses to allow those to eat who can."

Since these snapping dogs don't wish to marry people of the same sex, they will be fine no matter how the vote goes.

What other bits of Leviticus shall we put into our state constitution -- the death penalty for wearing mixed fabrics? Or for adultery? Now THAT one would solve California's overcrowding problem.

[Gidster]

How about selling your own children into slavery!!! That is always a winner!

[thebigbike]

If you can't abide by same sex marriage, then by all means do NOT marry some one of your sex! seems kinda simple to me...

[DeSwiss]

Very good article. The problem is that these socially conservative groups and in particular religions, don't believe in a democracy. All of the religious motifs speak of kings and rulers. As such, they represent the most anti-American elements within our society. While we tolerate them, they attempt to tear down the protections of individual liberty so that their worldview and religious beliefs become the law of the land.

What bugs me most, is that there are many American who claim religiosity, and yet don't even know their religion, nor what it is that they believe. They believe what they are told. They support civil rights, but fear being ostracized by their peers and church-folk, so they allow others to put words into their mouths and they tow the line. Most just remain silent and condemn others to second-class citizenship by omission. Believing they escape responsibility.

If the church chooses to meddle in politics and secular life, then they should be TAXED.

[RallyGrrrl]

"If the church chooses to meddle in politics and secular life, then they should be TAXED."

AGREED.

You know, anyone who has ever been divorced should be disallowed from voting on this - that'd drive the numbers down in opposition!

(I'm kidding - everyone should vote who can - but it's funny to think of the hypocrisy)