|
||
Moral Majority or Immoral Minority?
In the upcoming hearings to vet and confirm Supreme Court Justice David Souter's replacement, Senate conservatives are expected to center their focus on same-sex marriage, marking a departure from the past when abortion ruled the culture war divide. Their new strategy seems ill advised, unless of course there is something to gain from making oneself the Hector of the political battlefield. Indeed, the right is demonstrating a continued inclination to be stubbornly loyal to stale, unfashionable arguments (torture; global warming; fiscal austerity during a recession) that puts it in a position to be dragged through the dirt.
The fact is that, compared to abortion, there is less and less going for the anti-same-sex marriage side of the fight. With abortion, the divide is a toss-up between the stipulated life of a first trimester fetus and a woman's right to privacy over her own body, ruled to be implicit in the Constitution. Abortion is a far more intractable issue because it is centered on a third party who is argued to lack any representation or defense. However, with same-sex marriage, the consideration of this third party is absent, leaving little to no justifiable claim for two peoples' relationship to be subjected to government intervention or refutation.
And as such, an April Washington Post-ABC News poll found 49 percent of those asked to be in favor of legalized same-sex marriage, versus 46 percent who are opposed. The shift towards tolerance is especially due to younger constituents who, regardless of personal beliefs, can't see how who marries whom is any of their business. Moreover, they find it civilly and democratically -- and indeed, morally -- questionable to deny to one group of the citizenry rights and benefits enjoyed by everyone else.
If conservatives wish to elevate their fight against same-sex marriage to primus inter pares without a smarting backlash, they will have to somehow justify this exclusive denial of rights as something other than hidebound bigotry. Indeed, a mis-tackle of this issue could very well transform the soi disant 'moral majority' into an immoral minority, considering that an increased percentage of people will consider such a position to be driven more by social sadism than personal righteousness.
One often hears a claim that same-sex marriage would sully traditional heterosexual couplings, or that same-sex parents would raise heinous miscreant children. The problem is that most real-life examples of these scenarios suggest the complete opposite (and there was never any evidence to support the claims in the first place). With these arguments falling flat, all that is really left is the sad position articulated recently -- and hysterically -- by Miss California's Carrie Prejean: that it's her belief, and nobody can touch that.
Prejean's controversial answer to a same-sex marriage policy question stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman, which lost her the Miss America contest* -- a venue where real-life blow-up dolls with the erudition of a toddler are sometimes asked to proffer informed opinions on the most intractable issues of the day.
The Prejean debacle underscores a crucial distinction between one's own beliefs and others' rights that is rarely appreciated by opponents of same-sex marriage. Prejean and her defenders are correct that everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs, but they are wrong to think that personal beliefs should be allowed to have any bearing under law on the private, individual rights of strangers. In fact, the notion that the government should decide if two people may marry, or which married couples may enjoy federal benefits, flies in the face of traditional, no-government-involvement conservatism -- how conservative same-sex marriage opponents reconcile this contradiction seems a rather pertinent question.
For his part as one who must inevitably weigh in, President Obama treads the line gracefully. As The Economist put it last week, "Barack Obama says he supports civil unions but, as a Christian, opposes gay marriage. The incoherence of this stance makes it conveniently difficult to attack."
However, this position should not be viewed as incoherence, but rather as one where personal beliefs are appropriately compartmentalized from public policymaking. In fact, as soon as this is achieved, the issue ceases to really be an issue at all. In New Hampshire's same-sex marriage debate, Democratic Governor John Lynch is working to establish protection for churches and religious leaders who fear being forced to officiate and bless marriages for same-sex couples. This is not only fair, it also seems to all but eradicate the point of most contention.
As with many divisive issues, the same-sex marriage debate is falling more and more into the realm of farce, due to unremitting straw man attacks. Paranoid conservatives cry shrilly that same-sex marriage is an affront to their religion, except that most gay couples just want equal recognition under law and could care less about religious dogma. According to the Washington Post, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples over 1,100 federal benefits that are enjoyed by other couples. Most same-sex couples presumably couldn't care less about the traditional religious definition of "marriage" because they know they would immediately and arbitrarily be precluded -- the government, being a secular entity, shouldn't care either.
A dozen states already recognize some form of same-sex union under law, revealing that the dispute need not be irresolvable. The risk the GOP takes by centering on this issue now is that it could indelibly be identified as nothing more than the Frivolous Asshole Party -- using paranoid arguments to attack a group of people for demanding personal rights they've been exclusively denied for centuries, as if anyone can blame them.
One wonders when Republicans are going to figure out how to appeal to people rather than traditions. Touting antediluvian principles may very well make someone a good, loyal Burkean or Reaganite (read: Luddite), but without some updates to the political outlook, it's quite easy for that conservatism to become atavism. There are a slew of crucial issues confronting the nation; if GOP congressmen have decided to expend what is left of their political capital fighting a battle more and more people consider inane, unnecessary and, indeed, easily resolved, then it may be a presage for a rather forlorn Republican future.
*Correction: Carrie Prejean was a contestant in the Miss USA Pageant, not the Miss America Pageant.
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine - CNN.com
Law.com - Souter's Retirement Sets Stage for Nomination Fight
What religion practice will Justice David Souter replacement ...
Replacement Speculation Begins - washingtonpost.com
McCain campaign manager: GOP should back same-sex marriage - CNN.com
GOP targets gay marriage | csmonitor.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Smart and well written, Stuart!
carrie prejeans mother is gay and her father was called gay in her parent's divorce proceedings... her anti gay marriage stance has to to with her family problems...not any body elses
This is all about religious fear. The bigots (intolerant, prejudiced, and unreasonable) think that their god will destroy this nation if they allow gay people to be gay. First of all, they're already gay. Second of all fear is not faith. Third of all, your god must be like the taliban if you believe that you will be killed if you don't persecute gay people. Don't you religious bigots have it backwards?
After all, the Sin of Sodom in Ezekiel 49:50 lists haughty arrogant pride as the abomination. That pride, an unreasonable opinion of ones superiority over others, comes before a fall - not healthy pride which is a reasonable opinion of one's relation to others.
Let's remove ourselves from the same dark age delusions that justified slavery and inquisitions and murdered people for saying that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. After all, those religious bigots who accused Jesus of blasphemy committed the worst blasphemy when they killed Jesus.
I'm part of the younger generation that doesn't see gay marriage as frightening. In my freshman psychology class two years ago the professor had us answer some anonymous questions. One was whether being gay is a mental disease. Not one person said yes. Hopefully this attitude will become more common in coming years.
I'm 50 and I don't know anyone that would agree being gay is a mental disease. What an inappropriate question. It isn't even a part of the debate.
Many conservatives feel that it is either a mental disease or a choice, neither of which is true.
It doesn't matter what it is. All that matters is that we don't deliberately support an arrangement that guarantees that a kid will be either minus a mother or minus a father.
Then what about the single parents in the world? Should they lose their rights since they don't have a mother or a father included in their household for their child?
While I certainly understand that certain religious types are having fits over the thought of having to respect same-sex couples as married, I'm a bit confused as to why we are bending over backwards to accommodate their paranoia.
When interracial marriages were "forced" upon the public, there was no call to write laws that ensured that religious denominations who "didn't believe in race mixing" would be exempt from any requirement to perform interracial marriages. That's just plain First Amendment.
Divorce is legal in this country and yet not even the Catholic church is scared that they would ever be forced to marry a divorcee to someone new. Again, that's just plain First Amendment.
In and of itself, I have no problem with pointing out that religious groups are free to say that they will not officiate at a ceremony and that their private facilities are only available to those in good standing. I'm just wondering why we're going into apoplexy over gay people when we don't do this for any other reason.
By writing into the law an explicit mention of gay people, it will eventually bite people: The law only says the church can refuse to marry gay people...it says nothing about those who are divorced/black/non-converts. As soon as you start making lists, you risk having a problem with those not on the list.
This has nothing to do with religion, paranoia, or race and everything to do with the stability of society,already threatened by the casual acceptance of loose sexual practices of several kinds in addition to homosexuality.
Actually, it has everything to do with your imaginary friend and your repressed sexual desires and we all know it, closet case. Loose sexual practices (LOL!) do not threaten our society. Loony, religious nonsense from knuckle-draggers like you does. Lucky for us, there are less and less of you as young, un-superstitious people replace you dinosaurs.
Loose sexual practices???? First those aren't going to bring America down.
Second, even if they WERE, trust me, gay sex with a spouse is no more loose than STRAIGHT sex with a spouse!!!
When interracial marriages were "forced" upon the public, there was no call to write laws that ensured that religious denominations who "didn't believe in race mixing" would be exempt from any requirement to perform interracial marriages. That's just plain First Amendment.
It was 14th Amendment. Those laws weren't about race mixing, they were rooted in slavery and put into place to keep the Black children of White men from claiming inheritance or birthrights in court. After slavery, it was about race supremacy and marriage, not mixing. There had already been hundreds of years of race mixing.
Race and sexuality is very different. The argument against interracial marriage was about the superiority of the white race; and included a criminal penalty for breaking the law.
The current argument about same sex marriage is about changing/not changing the institution of marriage without real public debate. and whether sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexuality are a part of identity, a civil rights issue, human rights issues, or a behavior. There is also a desire of affirmation of the legimacy of same sex relationships but some; and a strong argument that same sex relationships should be underpinned with benefits.
Wrong, that's FIRST amendment, since they weren't trying to provide extra protection to the churches so that they wouldn't have to marry interracial couples or divorcees!
The Republicans are losing traction because they refuse to recognize how much things have changed in the 30+ years since their idol Ronald Reagan became President.
They make me wonder if they aren't the reincarnation of those people who, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century, were asking "why do we need automobiles when horses have always worked just fine?"
If they continue down their present path and the hardcore conservatives truly feel they are right about everything they espouse, they should heed an old saying. It was about driving an automobile, which seems especially appropriate too: You can be RIGHT or you can be DEAD RIGHT!
Relax, the majority of Americans are amoral, possesed by extreme apathy. Let gays marry. Then they can be as wretched as hetero-sexuals who marry. America isn't about life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; Americans seek & get license, lubricity & well earned misery.
You know the old saying: The moral majority is neither.
Mr. Whatley, you've completely ignored the most pernicious canard used by the right-wing to attack gay marriage -- that this is really all about "activist judges" who want to "legislate from the bench" and "redefine marriage"! At their hypocritical heights, right-wing mouthpieces like Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich will rail against gay marriage without ever using the word "gay" -- they simply go on and on about those pesky "activist judges" (who, for some reason, are only ever "activist" about gay marriage [and occasionally abortion or gun rights or some other right-wing wedge issue... but usually gay marriage!]) and make it seem like they're protecting America from "the homersexual agenda"! (Remember, if you're a right-winger, you have legitimate concerns... but if you're a liberal, you have an "agenda"!)
I am a 46 year old heterosexual white Christian. I have three wives, and each of them has born me children; however the law as it is currently written does not recognize my marriage as legal. Shouldn’t my right to marry whomever I choose be equally protected under the law?
polygamy creates a whole HOST of legal issues that simply aren't comparable to same-sex marriage. issues such as insurance, property and a bunch more another commenter will have to help me out with.
point being - polygamy and same-sex marriage are NOT comparable.
Actually the legal issues are precisely the same. The only advantage, or rights if you prefer, gained by homosexuals with legal recognition of their unions, are the rights of property, inheritance, insurance, tax status, etc. Even those on what is referred to as the "far right", don't wish to deny homosexual couples the right to engage in long term, committed relationships. It's all about the legal issues inherent in having those recognized under the law. This in in no way different from the marginalization of polygamous unions.
The article addresses the fact that the reality of the situation, is that denying marriage to same-sex couples, denies them many rights under law, including, for instance, the tax breaks I get as a man who's married to a woman, tax breaks my wife benefits from, too. A gay couple does indeed deserve to receive those tax benefits, if my wife and I do.
As far as being married to multiple partners, setting all moral questions aside, as the article above suggests we do, and looking at your comment in the context of that article, it looks to me like you're talking about some kind of scam, to help you cheat on your taxes.
I completely agree that it is the recognition of rights under the law which is at the root of this discussion.
As far as being married to multiple partners, setting all moral questions aside seems to be asking too much, as indicated by your "tax cheat" comment.
Polygamy is a choice (usually by men) and sexual orientation is not.
By definition, polygamy is a choice made by more women than men.
As to your assertion that the reasons for all human sexual behavior have been set in stone, you're simply wrong. Sexual orientation, just like polyamory or monogamy may be part of our individual identities... may very well be coded into our DNA, but this has not been proven, and is still a matter of some debate among homosexuals. I will say that under natural selection, polygamy is greatly favored over homosexuality. Don't blame me, blame nature.
First, I don't think that you are who you say you are.
Second, if you TRULY want all three of your "marriages" recognized, go out and get the law changed, like the gay marriage advocates are doing. Until there's a general outcry, I'm not going to support it!
How intolerant of you.
How in tolerant of you.
I think to permit or honor the marriages of some religions but not others is a violation of the 1st amendment and constitutes the establishment of preferred religions. the mormoms I believe lost that court case back 100 years ago and it was probably a bad ruling.
How can we give black people rights? They've TRADITIONALLY been serfs in the servant class. If we give them rights it will destroy the sanctity of our societal separations.
Oh... what's that? We're talking about gay people. Oh, well same argument then.
[Sixty years later and it still isn't a good argument.]
Lol!
"Democratic Governor John Lynch is working to establish protection for churches and religious leaders who fear being forced to officiate and bless marriages for same-sex couples."
This is an imaginary issue to placate the misinformed. Religious leaders already have the right to refuse to perform weddings. For example, at the temple I grew up in the head rabbi would not perform interfaith marriages because he wanted to protect Jewish heritage. As wrongheaded as this may or may not be, he had the right to do what he wishes.
Religious leaders can't really be "compelled' to do anything because of protections under the First Amendment. Passing laws to affirm this is simply a waste of time.
The problem over same sex marriage lays on the definition of marriage. Miss California's statement that marriage should only be between a woman and a man is based on a traditional/religious belief, which totally makes sense according to the Bible or any other religious "sacred" books. Therefore, I can see how conservatives feel uncomfortable allowing gay people to marry in church. However, a civil contract between two people should be reserved for EVERYONE. As society moved forward and traditional values, imposed by religions decreased, especially in the '70s, civil marriage created a new meaning for marriage. This new meaning, supported by the government, embraces/d ALL individuals. Therefore it would be unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to get married. I think that is what people are realizing and others need to realize, no matter one's own personal view.
You're wrong, you know. The "traditional" view that you claim is acceptable for the conservatives hasn't been "traditional" for longer than a couple centuries. Even IN the precious bible we see someone like Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines!
Was Solomon a founding Father of the U.S. government or marriage laws? Did Solomon have any husbands?
Ginger - I agree
Laws have definitions written into them.
The definition of marriage must be changed in law.
As the distinction in geometry is made that: all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares, so it must be made clear in law that: all marriages are civil unions, not all civil unions are marriages. This has been done in most European countries and other places in the world. (e.g. The figures in France for the year 2005 indicate that 80 percent - four out of five - couples that declared and made oath before civil servants that they would consider themselves wed DID NOT proceed to a religious ceremony.) I believe this could be done in our country. This would permit the financial advantages of marriage to accrue to same-sex couples.
The French have a Solidarity Pact option that is gender neutral and underpin with civil law/contract/benefit but is different from marriage. It is actually successful, although it was designed with same sex couples in mind, it wasn't restricted. Today, 92% of couples are man/woman.
As a conservative, I agree; I find it extremely annoying that gay marriage has been elevated to the top of Republican agenda. Key to the party's ideals are liberty and freedom. Abortion is an easy exception to these ideals because it is rooted in a strong philosophical belief that the unborn have a human right to life. But the gay marriage issue is one of obvious cognitive dissonance; it is beyond me why the party stands for restricting the rights of 2 consenting adults who want to commit to monogamy. I personally believe government should just get out of the business of "marrying" gay/straight people altogether-- government should only be concerned with the social contract-- property rights, etc-- not the religious/moral aspects of marriage. All of that stuff is between you, God, and your local pastor, priest, rabbi, etc.
Wouldn't outlawing divorce really be the defense of marriage act?
and who exactly are they defending marriage from?? terrorists???
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
