One thing I don't understand... is exactly how this proposition affects heterosexual and/or "Judeo-Christian" families.
As far as the family in the video, I don't see what the big deal is about the book that was sent home. It seemed like it is introducing the idea that some people's families are different, not that homosexuality is OK. I don't think teaching children to be tolerant of other people's lives is something that we need to be afraid of.
Still, I do think it's ridiculous that the school administration wouldn't acknowledge these parents' right to choose how to introduce this topic to their child, and I think (at least from what the video showed) that the father was completely justified in his rebellion against the administration.
However, the issue with the school administration does seem like a separate issue from gay marriage itself. Couldn't this same scenario have come up regarding sex education or the teaching of evolution in a science class? Some parents have objections to their children being taught these issues in public schools and want to opt their children out of it. If an individual school decides not to inform parents or give them the opportunity to opt out their children, then isn't that an issue that needs to be taken up on a local level with the school? It doesn't mean that we need to make sex education illegal, but that we need to see that parents are given control over what their children are taught. If the school and/or school board won't accommodate that for whatever reason, there are still private schooling options for parents that want their children taught in a religious way.
I think it's fine that religions have their own way of viewing homosexuality and same-sex marriage and that the state doesn't have any right to change the way religions approach the issue, but also don't think religions have the right to impose their views of homosexuality on people that aren't of their faith. If these same-sex marriage ammendments really do negatively impact heterosexual families then I think it's something we should all be aware of, but so far I haven't seen anyone give an explanation of why traditional families need to be concerned.
I'm reposting this because I really would like to see a discussion about the effects on traditional families. I don't mean any disrespect to Starla or my own church or anyone else that is opposing same-sex marriage in the political forum, but I would like to hear your opinions about how traditional families are affected by these ammendments.
39 comments:
i just saw her response. i'm guessing she isn't open to views that disagree with her. so here is my comment i left her in case she censors the information.
1. false. while they may teach that there are homosexual marriages, that such marriages are moral will most not likely be made. kids are already taught (as they should) that some kids have both a mom and and dad, some kids have two dads, some kids have two moms, some kids have just a mom, some kids have just a dad, some kids don't have parents and live with their grandparents, some kids live in foster care, etc. this is the christlike thing to do - or would you rather have kids feel humiliated at school because they are told they don't have a real family?
2. false. if a church is private organization, they can perform whatever marriages they want to and deny whatever this wish to as well. for a hundred years the lds church did not allow interracial marriages in their temple, even after federal laws banned racial discrimination. that is because it is their religious right.
the case back east that is so often pointed to where a church was required to perform a lesbian wedding was because their pavilion was a public pavilion paid for with public money. as such, they were required to. you can't call something public and then discriminate who can use it.
3. false. for the same reasons above.
4. false. bob jones university, which is often pointed to as an example of this was sued because their school prohibited interracial dating. they were unable to show that a ban on interracial dating was a necessary aspect of the christian worship, or even their own particular worship.
5. false again. there are racist churches all over the nation that preach white-supremacy in their chapels. it is their right of free speech and free worship. the lds church had and taught racial discriminatory practices for years without being sued for it.
6. money? you would choose your money over someone else's happiness? i find that difficult to pass off as a christian belief. so far over $40,000,000 has been spent fighting against the rights of two people who love eachtoher from getting married. money that could have been well spent doing the things christ explicitly taught that we should do in the scriptures.
PS: Starla actually wrote a second blog post addressing my question, so that's what Loyd is responding to. (I'm just posting the link for anyone trying to piece together the whole conversation across a couple of separate posts. Sorry for the confusion.)
PPS: If you write your own blog post with your ideas, will you please post a link to yours here so that I (and anyone else reading) can follow it?
Sorry for the multiple comments on my own blog. (I'm sure that breaks some kind of blogging etiquette or something.)
Here's a link to the blog post that I wrote about two and a half years ago. I think the main ideas still hold up, although I would word things differently if I were to re-write it.
http://blogdorthejourninator.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
I still struggle with the idea of government involvement in private matters. If anyone wants a killer read on this, try The Law by Frederic Bastiat or Ezra Benson's "The Proper Role of Government." I know I've passed these recommendations on before, but seriously, check them out. They are as close to a political handbook as I have.
I don't think there should be any gov't meddling, but as long as there is, I want it to go my way. It's like if a referee is going to mess up an otherwise honest game, I want to be on the side that benefits. Or if the other side is cheating by changing rules mid-game, should I cheat too? Either way, it's an ugly feeling.
Long comments here. Sorry.
Here's another really long comment for you:
The basis of this is - what is marriage? Where did it come from? One of my friends that used to be atheist thought of marriage as proof that God exists. Who else would come up with the idea of that kind of commitment? It certainly doesn't fit in with what man would naturally want to do. God came up with marriage, He decided what it is. Just because gays don't fit the criteria to be married doesn't mean we don't want to be friends with them. It doesn't mean they don't get tax breaks or things like that. It just means that they're not married. They can still live together, be committed to each other, but if they want to be married, that is a religious ceremony designed by God.
In response to the idea that kids will feel humiliated if they are taught they don't have a real family, what about families where crime is acceptable, or drug abuse? Should we teach that those things are okay also so those kids don't feel humiliated about their families too?
When talking about teaching kids in schools, you may say that they will just be taught to accept the differences of other people, but it wouldn't be surprising if some of the teachers don't teach it the way you expect them to.
I initially didn't see what the big deal was either way, but I think my main concern is what would be accepted next? Marriage will always be redefined to include people or animals or who knows what.
First, Becca and Russ: Thanks for your comments, and I don't think they're too long at all, so don't worry about that.
Bec,
God came up with marriage, He decided what it is. Just because gays don't fit the criteria to be married doesn't mean we don't want to be friends with them.
I appreciate that point of view and I think it's probably as a healthy of a viewpoint as is reasonable on the subject. I think regardless of what people's political or religious stances are,
As far as I can tell (because Wikipedia didn't know much about this, and that's my main source of historical information) marriage probably does have its origins in religious rites. However, if we accept that marriage is a religious issue, then by having legislation regarding marriage (whether that defines it or puts restrictions on how it can happen) aren't we using the government to push our religion on other people? Doesn't that take away religious freedom if we make laws about how a religious rite is to be performed?
...what about families where crime is acceptable, or drug abuse? Should we teach that those things are okay also so those kids don't feel humiliated about their families too?
Well, actually, we'd probably call social services in those cases, so that's probably a different issue. However, I think I get your point that we can't possible protect children from embarrassment by predicting every weird family situation. Back to the actual family issue at hand, though, are we actually causing children any harm by teaching them to tolerant of homosexuals? Is that really something that hurts traditional families? And if so, how?
...but it wouldn't be surprising if some of the teachers don't teach it the way you expect them to.
That's very true, and that was one of my points in the original comment, that exactly how tolerance is taught is much more an issue with that particular school, and not directly related to same-sex marriage at all.
Marriage will always be redefined to include people or animals or who knows what.
Well, actually since animals aren't people and can't consent to a contract, there's not really any potential for people to be legally married to them. I think when people bring up the "slippery slope" argument they tend to be more worried about what will become accepted by society than about what will be legalized. (If that's not what you're getting at, then I apologize and you're welcome to correct me.) I think the whole issue of society's acceptance is very relevant to the discussion, though.
Which, I think, will lead me right into Russ's comment...
Russ, I'd kind of forgotten about your old post on this issue, but I'm glad you referenced it because I think it's still very relevant. I think it's very refreshing to have someone admit that the real underlying issue of same-sex marriage is about whether it is to be accepted by society.
With this blog post I'm asking people to tell me how same-sex marriage will negatively impact traditional marriages or families, and while I would love someone to give a good argument, I'm not holding out much hope for it because I think you were right in that initial blog post. These things that are spreading about the negative impacts are just covers for the fact that we're just trying to send a message that homosexuality isn't acceptable in our society.
It's like if a referee is going to mess up an otherwise honest game, I want to be on the side that benefits. Or if the other side is cheating by changing rules mid-game, should I cheat too?
That's a very interesting analogy, and I think it points out two fallacies regarding this debate.
The first is that "the other side is cheating by changing the rules mid-game". Who really is changing the rules here? If we were really concerned with the definition of marriage, then I'd think we'd take it up with Merriam-Webster, not the state legislature. However, as things stand right now there is no legal definition of marriage, and these propositions are seeking to establish one. (This also goes to Becca's use of the term "redefining" marriage, which technically the homosexuals are not seaking to do, but rather we're seeking to define it in the first place.) In that sense, then it's us who are trying to "change the rules", not the other team.
That of course only applies as long as we're talking about the definition of marriage, not about what the state will accept as legally binding. In that sense, it's true that it's the other team trying to "change the rules". That brings me to the other fallacy: that the current situation is an "otherwise honest game".
To use your sports analogy, if we were playing a game where the other team got double points for scoring a goal while we got only got single points, would we consider that an "honest game"? And if we petitioned the referee to change the rules mid-game so that the scoring was consistent, would we consider that "cheating"? While the other time might gripe about losing their advantage, I think any reasonable person would agree that making the rules fair does constitute "cheating", nor does it mean that the game ceases to be an "honest" one (but rather that it only becomes an "honest game" because the rules were changed).
The difference, of course, is that in the current rules of government-acknowledged marriage, ours is the team that is getting the unfair score advantage. Traditional, heterosexual marriages are acknowledged by the government as a legally-binding contract, and the government enforces property-rights, civil rights, and tax benefits for those marriages. If the other team petitions to "change the rules mid-game", then are they really "cheating", or just trying to turn it into an "honest game"?
I don't think there should be any gov't meddling, but as long as there is, I want it to go my way.
I also would prefer that the government not "meddle" with marriage in the first place, but as you pointed out in the old point you referenced above, it's probably too late for that. However, as long as the government is already "meddling", is it ethical for us to have it "go our way"? Wouldn't the "honest game" be that the government "meddles" fairly and evenly, whether it "goes our way" or not?
This statement kind of brings me back to my original question (and your old post). Is there actually anything that traditional families stand to lose by allowing same-sex marriage, or is "going our way" just meaning that we want our religion to become the law?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was a long comment. I hope you made it through.
And Russ, I haven't yet read those papers you mentioned, but I'm planning on it. I'll comment on those on your new post instead of here.
The sports analogy brings up another question: Is this a zero-sum game? Maybe (whether conscious or not) we end up treating this issue like a zero-sum game, as though a gain to the other team is a loss to ours. Is that really true? Or is it some under-lying fallacy that we haven't addressed as such?
I know this is basically a re-phrasing of the original question, but if homosexuals gain a state-acknowledged marriage, what (if anything) do we lose because of their gain?
Becca,
I just noticed re-reading my comment that first response to you ended in the middle of a sentence. Sorry about that.
I was just saying that I think it's good that people can "be friends" regardless of their political and/or religious views.
i'm just going to add one thing to bryant's comment to bec.
Marriage most likely arose out of property rights over women. In many ancient societies women were seen as property owned by the men, just a pay grade over being a slave. Many of marriage rituals are actually modified emblems of slave ownership or relics of those practices.
For example, the wedding ring is a remnant of ancient slavery where the slave was identified by his/her ring which identified which master they belonged to.
Asking groom first getting permission from the bride's father is a remnant of the bartering and trading that went on as the groom traded property for property. This trading of property is portray in the Mormon class Johnny Lingo where one for of property (8 cows) is traded for another form of property (Mahana).
The bride taking the groom's surname is likely from slavery.
The Mosaic Law's rules about marriage are usually very identical to laws between master and slaves. The commandment to not commit adultery was not about just sex (having sex with an unmarried woman went on all the time unpunished). It was about having sex with someone else's property. These men often gave lots of money and property to their wive's fathers for exclusive sexual rights with them - they did not want someone else stealing or using their wives which they didn't pay for.
The trading of women was also profitable for trade in itself. By purchasing a daughter from a daughter or another group, it opened up trade with mercantilism with others.
Polygamy and the prohibition of incest (according to Levi-Strauss) were also results of the commodification of women. When women are property, supply and demand increases their sell value.
I could go on and on and on about how marriage, slavery, and women as property were very likely the source of marriage, but I think this these examples point it out well.
I really don't think any of us want to return to 'traditional' marriage.
I forgot to add...
If marriage is a remnant of slave and property practices, I wonder where our traditional gender inequality and submissive role of the wife arose from?
Loyd,
I hadn't heard that origin of marriage (not that I'm that surprised to hear it), but if it's true and verifiable then you should clear up the Wikipedia articles on marriage and it's origin so that lazy folk like me can look it up. (Though, as a lazy folk, I wouldn't blame you if that was more work than you wanted to put into it.)
Anyway, I don't really want to derail this into become a debate on gender inequality (thought you're welcome to go to Loyd's blog post if you want to debate how gender inequality relates or doesn't).
The only way I think this idea about marriage's origin is related is if you want to oppose the idea that marriage has religious origins. We tend to use our religions' histories of marriage to say that it should stay the way that religion made it (kind of like we're claiming ownership on the concept). I don't know if that argument goes away or changes if you stop considering marriage as having a religious origin.
Though, from my point of view, origin aside, if you do see marriage as a religious rite (whether it originated that way or not) then I don't know if you can argue that it doesn't infringe on religious beliefs to legislate it.
When did we, as a nation, start looking to the government as our moral compass? At what point did we allow the government to fill the role of moral adviser? Shouldn't we rather let our morals fill our government? That, more than the legal recognition of homosexual unions, is my real complaint here. I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but that's what is really bugging me about this whole deal.
Ol' George once said, "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. [Add morality here too.] Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master." When we look to use the compelling force of government to back our personal beliefs, it is wrong.
This cuts both ways in the same-sex marriage argument. BOTH sides are looking to use the FORCE of government to COMPEL the other side to recognize their beliefs. BOTH sides. When I say the rules are changing mid-game, this is what I mean: turning to governmental force to back individual belief. There is currently no legal definition of marriage because once upon a time we didn't look to the government as the ultimate arbiter in matters of personal morality. Now that's changing and it makes me sick, but if we're going to enforce morality via the government, I'd rather have it be my view. Sadness.
If the government could not compel action in matters of personal belief, whether by monetary or punitive means, this whole debate would be moot. There's the root. Now back to the branches.
Russ,
I understand your frustration with treating the government as a "moral compass". I also wish this weren't even an issue. Unfortunately, it still is an issue.
I think that you're right that both sides are wanting the government put a stamp of approval on their moral viewpoints. I probably wouldn't have realized that until you pointed it out, but you're right. The homosexuals hope that their lifestyle will be more accepted in society if the government acknowledges their marriages and we hope that their lifestyle will be less accepted in society if the government more-explicitly refuses to acknowledge their marriages.
So, while you're right that both sides are doing the same thing, that only extends as far as you view the issue as manipulating the government to send a message. It doesn't apply if you consider the means by which that message is being sent. The current status quo is that the government acknowledges heterosexual relationships as a legally-binding contract and it recognizes no such thing about homosexual relationships. The means of sending these messages to society about what is morally right and wrong is about which parties we allow to have that legal contract.
So, while I agree that both sides are using the government as a vehicle for their social/moral agenda, the difference is that their side wants to send that message by having a law applied equally to everyone and our side will send that message by applying a law only to a subset of the people.
So in the end, Russ, even if you and I think that the contract of a romantic relationship isn't one that the government should be enforcing in the first place, does that really mean that we'd rather have it enforced unilaterally? Would we really rather have our message sent by an unjust law than not have it sent at all?
I think that ultimately my point with all of this is that we (as Christians/heterosexuals/families) don't actually have anything to lose by this. I see your point that if the other side wins this issue then they will gain one more level of acceptance in society (and that maybe our religious part doesn't like that), but the fact remains that we won't lose anything. If they gain social acceptance, that does not mean that we will lose social acceptance. If they gain civil liberties that does not mean that we will lose any civil liberties. If they gain a legally-binding contract for their relationship, we will not lose the legally-binding status of our relationships. For heterosexuals, nothing will change if same-sex marriage is legalized.
"The current status quo is that the government acknowledges heterosexual relationships as a legally-binding contract and it recognizes no such thing about homosexual relationships."
I have to disagree with you on this statement. California actually passed a law (Prop 22) back in 2000 to the same effect as the one being debated here, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It was a big deal back then; I remember heated debates in my HS classrooms over it. Prop 22 passed, but the California court system overturned it a few years ago, mandating that homosexual unions be recognized as marriages. Three people overturning the will of millions. That's why Prop 8 is an amendment to the California Constitution- to take the question out of the hands of the judges, who can overturn laws but not Constitutional amendments.
So as it currently stands, although the people have already decided in favor of the traditional view of marriage, and the courts have decided against it. But in California, the government does acknowledge homosexual relationships as legally-binding.
I know this doesn't address same-sex marriage hurting heterosexual families, which is what I think you intended this post to be about. More on that later. (I'm supposed to be working.)
the california constitution, like the u.s. constitution is set up to prevent the majority from unjustly limiting the rights of the minority. i am so sick and tired of hearing people whining about judges overturning the will of the majority (as they do in the church-produced propaganda and misinfomercials (i just coined that term)). we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional democratic republic.
anyone thinking prop 8 will end the debate in california is living in a dreamland. most likely if prop 8 passes it will be later ruled that the amendment is actually a revision and thus susceptible to being easily undone. even if that doesn't occur, the will of the people will eventually change and the amendment will be overturned anyways.
all this crying about prop 8 is essentially no different in argument from those who were arguing against the civil rights movements and interracial marriages. fifty years ago people (and many church leaders) were saying that if blacks were given more rights and if interracial marriages were not banned the world and society would fall apart. we seem to be doing all right i think.
just thirty years ago people were telling my dad how his potential interracial marriage with a japanese woman would be detrimental to society.
A constitutional democratic republic allows for the people to place certain things beyond judicial review through a constitutional amendment. It's not an abuse of the system; it is the system.
The U.S. has done the same thing to ensure freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition-- and that's just the 1st Amendment. No judge can overturn those things. Same thing with the all the amendments, including the ones upon which the civil rights movement was based.
russ,
i was addressing those who complain about the california supreme court overturning prop 22 - something repeatedly whined about in the church-produced misinfomercials.
and amendments can be repealed, just as the 18th was repealed by 21st; just as prop 8 if passed will eventually be repealed as self-righteous homophobia begins to fade in the country.
I apologize if I am repeating something already here. I believe Mr. Andrews may have already touched on what I have to write:
Genderless marriages are a threat to our traditional notions of man-woman marriage because genderless marriages narrowly define marriage as a “pure relationship that has been stripped of any goal beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological, or sexual satisfaction which the relationship currently brings to the two adult individuals involved.” True, such marriages retain the social goods of love, friendship, security for adults and their children, economic protection, and public affirmation of commitment. However, such marriages strip away other social goods provided by a traditional understanding of man-woman marriage. Man-woman marriage promotes the following additional social goods: (1) effective means of supporting a child’s right to know and be reared by his mother and father (with exceptions only when in the best interests of the child), (2) of maximizing the private welfare provided to the children conceived by heterosexual intercourse,(3) of sustaining the optimal child-rearing mode (married mother and father), (4)of bridging the male-female divide, and (5)of furnishing the status and identity of “husband” and “wife.”
If we adopted the view of marriage furnished by genderless marriage we would likely lose the additional social goods wrapped up in our notion of traditional marriage. An example of this already occurring was the introduction of “no-fault” divorces. When society began to understand marriage with the possibility of no-fault divorce, people began to have more divorces in years past. This trend has also appeared in LDS temple marriages suggesting that even religious institutions are not immune to the effects of legal-social understanding of the institution of marriage.
Even though I think genderless marriages constitute a substantial threat that will weaken society, I don’t think it will be the sole fault of legislation or court opinions if these threats are realized. Obviously, legislation and court opinions are a reflection of the attitudes and values of the public. Simply put, as long as our society views homosexual sex as morally equivalent with heterosexual sex, values personal liberties greater than other virtues, and seeks to silence contrary opinions with the rhetoric of bigotry, homophobia, or ignorance, then it is irrelevant what types of laws are passed—society’s sickness will continue unabated.
***The social goods arguments come from Monte Stewart’s paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Finally, I would like to see Mr. Andrews or Mr. Casteel attempt the ultimate physical challenge from the third Floor of VP (dropping from a balcony only to catch oneself on the handrail of the lowest balcony). Until I see photographic evidence of this feat’s completion, I refuse to answer any questions directed at this post.***
Addition to last post: apologies to the narrator who may have already read a couple of these arguments posted on his blog.
Mr. McFall,
I don't think you're repeating anything that's been said, and the idea of the "social goods" is new to me. I think it's a very interesting point if regarding government involvement in marriage, so thank you for bringing it up.
The problem that I see with the argument you've presented is that it doesn't explain any changes in the social goods because of a legalization of same-sex marriage.
Let's accept for a moment that same-sex marriage does not offer the same social goods that a heterosexual marriage offers. If our government acknowledges same-sex marriage, then how does that change the social goods offered by traditional marriage? Traditional marriages will still exist and will still be acknowledged by the government, so why would they lose any of their social goods because there is also another form of marriage that is also acknowledged by the government?
If anything, it seems to me that the social goods argument in favor of same-sex marriage than against it. Even if the same-sex marriage does not offer the same social goods as heterosexual marriage, and even if the goods that it does offer are inferior to those offered by heterosexual marriage, we've still acknowledged that it does offer some social goods. Therefore, if it doesn't change the ability that a traditional marriage has to offer its goods, then the addtional goods offered by a same-sex marriage still leaves society with a net again of these "social goods".
So, in closing, I will give you photographic evidence of the Ultimate Physical Challenge as soon as I am awesome enough.
I lied about refusing to post until the physical challenge had been met. Now I will annoy you by posting a series of comments. They are long, but I can’t seem to condense them without giving serious thought to your question.
Should a law pass permitting gay marriage, the law will most likely define marriage as “the union of any two persons”. That way the law covers both same sex as well as man-woman marriage. It just doesn’t make sense to define marriage in two different ways when one definition does the job—hence my usage of the term “genderless marriage.” “Gay-marriage” is misleading because: (1) nowhere is marriage defined legally, socially, or otherwise as the union of 2 persons of the same sex. In Massachusetts (and I’m guessing Connecticut as well) marriage is defined as the union of any 2 persons. The other 48 states define marriage as between a man and woman. And gay marriage is misleading because (2) gay marriage connotes a separate marriage arrangement that will coexist with traditional man-woman marriage. This is not the case for the following reason. Once the judiciary or legislature adopts “the union of any two persons” as the legal definition of marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same sex or man-woman. I think this is an answer to the heart of your question, “Traditional marriages will still exist and will still be acknowledged by the government, so why would they lose any of their social goods because there is also another form of marriage that is also acknowledged by the government?”. I will elaborate with the following:
Because I believe (and as history has shown in Massachusetts and elsewhere internationally) that a definition of marriage will be broad enough to encompass both gay and man-woman marriage, we will lose the social goods of traditional marriage. The definition of Genderless marriage will replace the definition of man-woman marriage. The change in definition will change the “currency” of terms and values associated with man-woman marriage. They will not peacefully coexist. I think the whole point is that one definition is dominant. I referred to an example of a modern definition of marriage supplanting the traditional one when I brought up the idea of no-fault divorce. Changing the legal definition of marriage so that it could be terminated by no-fault reasoning, replaced the man-woman marriage social good of permanence to the modern marriage concept of “falling out of love” and temporariness. The law has the powerful effect of changing our social structures (which by the way is the reason that proponents of gay marriage are so interested in genderless marriage laws—they hope to change the current social structure so that, as the narrator puts it, self-righteous homophobia will fade in this country [among other more responsible reasons]). If you doubt the impact of legal definitions on social structures consider the effects of increased divorce rates after no-fault divorces. Obviously there are other factors, the hearts and minds of the American public is chief among them, but it is surprising to see just how many of these divorces occurred after the no-fault doctrine. Outside of marriage law, an easy and ready example of the power of legal definitions on a social structure is the definition of currency in the social structure of exchange. The definition of legal tender makes my twenty dollar bill worth more in our economy than a blank piece of paper, though they are quite similar in most physical respects.
I think the idea of the genderless marriage is to put the focus squarely and solely on the happiness of the two adults involved. I think it is easy to imagine that heterosexual couples adopt this notion of marriage as well—especially if the law changes so that it honors this value to the exclusion of others. The benefits of traditional man-woman marriage over genderless marriage are largely child centered so the most probable ill effects of a change in definition will be on the children (referring to the social goods argument in my previous post). Though appeals to children are not very fashionable arguments, they are compelling because they implicate the quality of society’s self-perpetuation. But there are also the social goods of bridging the male-woman divide. Mr. Casteel, as a married man, do you understand the female gender better now that you interact with one in a more intimate setting? Must you learn to cooperate with someone who may approach problems in a uniquely feminine way? Of all the talk about marriage’s ability to subject women to an unfair union, marriage has also served to enlighten both sexes.
Part 2
Naturally, after genderless marriage becomes the law, people will still have children and associate with the opposite sex. Genderless marriage won’t get rid of that. However, I wonder if having and raising children as well as associating with the opposite sex will be qualitatively different if the currency we use has changed to mean something other than what society has traditionally valued. Will we look at our marriage as essentially the means to our own happiness? Will we see the birth of children as an unfortunate consequence of heterosexual coupling (or by other scientific means) that we are not absolutely responsible for? If my marriage is primarily about my happiness and my child does not make me happy, why not put up for adoption. Better yet, why not have a state sponsored child placement service that will take children at birth and divide them to the couples (same sex or otherwise) who will be happiest with them (That was an extreme argument, but I couldn’t resist. Reductio ad absurdum). Of course this whole problem becomes more difficult if we consider the interests of children. Do they have an interest in who raises them? What about their happiness? Personally, I think the best and most efficient solution to the consequences of heterosexual coupling is the already institutionalized structure of marriage.
Genderless marriage (and gay marriage specifically) necessarily separates a marital union from the natural consequences of marital sex. Surely we are seeing this separation without genderless marriage. People use contraceptives, abort children, adopt children, etc., but the point about genderless marriage is that this separation is given profound force. It is impossible for two men to have a child through natural (as opposed to artificial) male coupling.
Lastly, I think we already live in the world posited by your question (or at least prior to the judicial opinion overturning prop 22). Our laws (at least in California) recognize both the union of man-woman and two gay adults. In this world, we retain the values of traditional man-woman union by calling “marriage” the union of a man and woman, while simultaneously creating a new union with different values and calling it “domestic partnership.” I think the federal government need only jump on the bandwagon by giving domestic partnerships the same rights and privileges and both unions will be identical under the law but sufficiently different when it comes to preserving or creating social institutions. This is the happy world we would (and already do to some extent) live in. We would all have what we want—unless gay marriage proponents still want the concomitants of traditional marriage, the advantages of traditional marriage, the history of traditional marriage, and the recognition that their unions are just as valid and equal as man-woman unions. At a broad level of generalization, gay marriage proponents can have exactly what man-woman marriage provides. But the more narrowly you define marriage, the less equal gay marriage is with man-woman marriage.
Sorry about length. Even though these are important ideas, by making a long post, I have hereby failed to keep it real.
McFall,
Here are some quick problems i have with your arguments.
1. As I pointed out before, the idea of some sort of historical traditional marriage is a myth. The history of marriage shows a wide evolution of practices including sexist property ownership, slavery, polygamy, homoracial, and male dominance. A romantic element as a primary reason for marriage did not really become popular until a couple centuries ago. A social prohibition of interracial marriage did not begin to be lifted until a few decades ago. The sexist notion that the male was to rule the family was also not lifted until more recently. To assume that we have somehow arrived at the pinnacle of what the traditional marriage ought to be is a bit presumptuous to say the least.
2. The notion that SSM will somehow be detrimental to society is highly speculative. There is little if any evidence to link SSM to the social ills that homophobes have been claiming. Pointing to certain European countries is highly problematic because they do not take into account the myriad of other contributing factors.
3. Though many have begun to do so, I think calling SSM "gender-less" marriage implies a rather simplistic and antiquated notion of what gender is.
1. True—the notion of marriage is evolving and we are probably not at the pinnacle of marital fulfillment. However, there are social goods provided by man-woman marriage that are unique to the social goods provided by genderless marriage. Traditional marriage evolving into genderless marriage will likely strip those social goods from what it means to be married.
2. The detrimental effects of genderless marriages are speculative but that does not mean we should discount them. I think the appropriate risk calculus in this situation is: If (the burden of adopting genderless marriage > cost of injury x probability of occurrence), then we should not adopt genderless marriage. I think you know the values I assign to each of the three variables. However, let me further my case for the cost of injury: Registered domestic partners generally “have the same rights, protections, and benefits and [are] subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law … as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” (In re Marriage Cases). Excepting federal law for the moment (because this is a state issue), the legal cost of injury is zero (or so close that the court thinks that the injuries are negligible). It is zero because, under the law, traditional marriage is the standard by which injury is measured. Since domestic partnerships do not deviate from that standard, then they are no more (legally) injured than traditional marriage. As a practical matter however, gay people suffer great costs of injury that are extra-legal. Though I disagree almost completely to the rhetoric you use to make that point, I think you are justified in making it and your heart is in a good place. I perceive that you are responding to what must (or should) be patently obvious to everyone—Gay people are still brothers and sisters that demand respect, dignity, and security. Unfortunately, many people (even religious folk) lack compassion in this regard. The injuries born by gays from the uncompassionate, however, fall in the social and religious realms and should therefore be remedied in those realms rather than the legal. You may think my arguments sound like “separate but equal” rhetoric but I don’t think it is quite as pernicious as Plessy. First, I think the social goods of man-woman marriage are legitimate whereas segregation reasoning was fallacious (a point with which you may disagree). But even if you don’t think the social goods are legit, I think you should recognize that, at the very least, man-woman marriages function quite differently than gay unions, if only in “function’s” crudest sense. These differences may even lead to additional legislation that would further protect the union of a domestic partnership of problems not relevant in man-woman marriage. Still though, even if you assume that gay marriages are equal to man-woman marriage in every respect, gays cannot say they have suffered injuries comparable to blacks in the late nineteenth and twentieth century. To make such comparisons would be shameful and disrespectful of the injustice born by these citizens. The injustice done to gays today does not warrant the risks inherent in departing from traditional marriage structures today. A more reasonable approach today is to educate people concerning the dignity, respect, and security interests of the gay community; a task in which many people have already seen success.
3. By using genderless marriages, I do not attempt to explain what gender is. I use it merely to describe the type of legal definition which would necessarily result if marriages were to include gay unions. That legal definition of marriage is: “the union of any two persons.” It is simple, yet eloquent. It does the job the courts need it to do. If only all laws were so easy to understand.
Mr. McFall,
Sorry it's taken me all day to respond to you. I don't mind the length of your comments. I don't know if other people will still read it, but I do.
I see your point that the legalization of same-sex marriage won't mean that the government sees two types of marriages. As far as the government is concerned there will be one type of marriage, "genderless", as you call it (though that word seems to describe the way of viewing marriage more than the type of marriage).
I also agree with your point that the "law has the powerful effect of changing our social structures". Russ has been very vocal about pointing out that both sides of this debate are seeking for that change in social structure. I accept that social change is part of this debate.
You've put a great deal of effort into explaining that the "cost of injury" to society and/or traditional marriage needs to be considered, but you have yet to show a more equilateral definition of marriage has potential to cause any injury. I don't see how the adoption of a genderless view of marriage (whether by the government, or society by extension) explains any change in the production of social goods.
You could break down marriages not just by sexuality, but also by whether or not they are religious in nature, whether there are cultural boundaries crossed by them, whether there are children, and so on. These categorizations don't need to be defined by the government in order to have different properties. For instance, a marriage that crosses cultural boundaries generates both unique challenges to those involved and unique social goods as a consequence of them. The fact that the government doesn't care about the cultural origins as part of its definition of marriage does not change the social goods of the individual marriage that crosses cultural boundaries.
So it would be with marriage if the government stops caring about the sexual orientation of those involved. Marriages could still be classified by sexuality and there would still be unique properties of each class. The social goods offered by each class won't change. All of the social goods provided by a heterosexual marriage (benefits to the children, "bridging the male-woman divide", etc.) will still be provided by any of the couples that provided them before.
As for your concerns about the children and their happiness, this doesn't seem to have much to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage at all. People already have the choice as to whether or not their heterosexual relationships will bear children (as you've acknowledged, people can "use contraceptives, abort children, adopt children, etc."). You imply that this choice separates the idea of marriage from that of child bearing, and that might be a valid way of looking at it. Even if a genderless view of marriage furthers that separation, how does that lead to any of the consequences you've described?
Let's say that couples begin to completely view marriage "as essentially the means to [their] own happiness", being concerned "solely [with] the happiness of the two adults involved" and not with the happiness of potential children. This does nothing to change what those couples believe will bring them happiness. There will undoubtedly be couples that believe that having children will not bring them happiness, while other couples will believe that they will be happier if they have children. If the idea of marriage to these couples (and in society at large) has become separate "from the natural consequences of marital sex", then the couples can make the decision to have children completely independent from the decision to be married. How is that a bad situation? Shouldn't it already be that way? Why would you want children to be born to a couple that doesn't believe they bring happiness?
Your examples of the state-run child placement service and of putting up for adoption a "child does not make [one] happy" are not just "extreme", but unrelated. A separation between the ideas of marriage and child-bearing might lead one to believe that they don't need to have children just because they get married, but there's no reason to think that it would lead couples who chose to have children to give them up. Even if a person showed such disregard and a lack of love toward their own child, what exactly does that have to do with how they view their marriage? People today don't keep their children because they think it's part of being married, they keep them out of love for the child. It's a non-sequitor to think that people would stop being able to love their children as a result of child-bearing to become a separate decision from marriage.
At the risk of patting myself on the back, I think this has been an extremely level-headed, interesting debate on a topic that typically disintegrates into name-calling and cliche. There have been excellent, well-thought, and unique arguments on both sides. My compliments to all involved. I look forward to more.
Sorry Russ,
I'm not living up to my reputation. I think you're an idiot.
Now that's more like it. (Although I can only hope that was tongue in cheek.)
I was thinking about Mr. McFall's social goods argument, Bryant's responses, and Loyd's assertion of marriage's historical origin as a property right, and I had an epiphany: maybe the SSM debate hinges on the concept of gender roles, and not a referendum on homosexuality itself.
If you believe that males and females have fundamentally different, complimentary, and vital roles in a marital relationship, you are probably voting for Prop 8. If, on the other hand, you believe that those roles can be filled regardless of sex and/or gender, you are probably not against same-sex marriages.
Maybe I'm just late to the party here, but that just struck me as a major underlying difference that much of our discussion has been based upon. I thought I'd air it. If I'm totally off-base, please say so; after all, it's late.
As a footnote- I tried to phrase this comment in such a way so as to avoid "the simplistic and antiquated notion of what gender is." I acknowledge the nuances between "sex" and "gender". It brings up an interesting and tangential question: are there people who are in favor same-sex marriages, but not same-gender marriages?
If you believe that males and females have fundamentally different, complimentary, and vital roles in a marital relationship, you are probably voting for Prop 8. If, on the other hand, you believe that those roles can be filled regardless of sex and/or gender, you are probably not against same-sex marriages.
Actually, I just believe that it's a decision that individual couples should be free to make on their own. How I feel about it doesn't hold much sway to Steve and Bruce.
PS: I think Russ is right. Thanks everyone for being respectful.
Mr. Casteel
Sorry about another long post. Even these posts are edited so that I don’t feel quite so guilty. I am sorry if I haven’t directly or adequately answered your rebuttals. I think to do so would require more time, more thinking. All have raised really important and complicated issues. Personally, I don’t think what follows is quite adequate but maybe it will give you something more to chew on. It’s been fun and enlightening. Cheers!
I think your argument underestimates the force of the social structures which support the institution of marriage. First, I think it is possible that inherent in our current social structure of marriage is the notion that a married couple is responsible for their offspring. You point out that people feel responsible for their offspring out of love for their children. I think that is a part of why people care for their offspring but not the only reason. I think that they feel the invisible forces inherent in the social institution of marriage. It is not inconceivable that these social structures might play a significant role in shaping our family relationships. The narrator points out that even the notion of romantic love has not always been a part of marriage contracts. The concept seems foreign to us today, but we still have vestiges of this concept in the form of arranged marriages. My only point is that the traditional institution of marriage has something to do with honoring the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified when they are in the best interest of the child).
Now, imagine a world where everyone was gay and all marriages were gay marriages. When people married, marriage would not honor the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents—at least not in a way that is familiar to our understanding of family and parenthood. Why? Because two male married partners cannot have a child from their gametes (I am not a scientist so I don’t know if this is absolutely true). Thus, any child would not be raised by her parents. The social structure of a child’s right cannot be supported under this conception of marriage because marriage will be two people only one of whom has the possibility of being the child’s parent.
Obviously a genderless marriage law would not restrict all marriages to gay marriages. People will still man-woman marry. But what it will do is change the social institution of marriage. This new institution will suppress the child’s right to be raised by its married parents (among other things already mentioned). That right is suppressed because the institution must support all marriages and give all marriages equal currency. This is a matter of fairness. The genderless marriage institution cannot tell one class of people that marriage means an obligation of rearing children while at the same time telling another class that marriage means you have no obligation to rear children (even if that is because you are and ever will be incapable of producing your own). This is not the same as our current institution of marriage where a couple who is infertile cannot have children. Infertile marriage partners are the exception not the rule. Infertile gay partners are the rule, not the exception. A genderless marriage law seeks to create one with the appropriate social structure supporting it. I am not saying that people will automatically stop feeling the responsibility of raising their child due to the child’s rights, but that this obligation will be lessened over time as social structures demand equality in the meaning in marriage.
As always, I don't think the risk of even possibly losing these social goods are worth the adoption of a new marriage institution that eliminates two existing and adequate structures.
Ooops. I meant to thank everyone for contributing as well. Everyone has brought up important issues.
dewey,
I must admit, the more you argue the less sense it seems to make. Are you saying that those in a heterosexual marriage are legally obligated to reproduce?
Lesbian couples with the of some of my special formula are able to conceive - many of them do. Gay couples with the help of a surrogate are able to do the same.
Perhaps it may not fit your ideal, but marriage is hardly synonymous with child-bearing. Many married couples choose not to have children, and many unmarried couples choose to.
Your imagined world is just bizarre and I can't see how it can be used without the obvious reductio ad absurdem arguments to show the futility of it in light of single parents and other already socially accepted 'non-traditional' families.
Mr. McFall,
Thanks for posting again, despite that I still haven't submitted any evidence of the ultimate physical challenge.
In regards to your comment, I think you're right that there are "invisible forces" that make a couple feel "responsible for their offspring", but I don't think that marriage causes that invisible force. To see this, consider an unmarried heterosexual couple that chooses to have children. They exhibit just as much responsibility (and even love) for their children as a couple that is married. Granted that this couple probably has a strong commitment to their relationship at this point, but that commitment and the responsibility for their offspring occur independent of whether they participate in the institution of marriage.
In fact, even heterosexual couples that accidentally become pregnant and have offspring generally feel a degree of responsibility for the child. While this might be easier for this second couple (particularly for the male, who's not physically bound to the child during pregnancy) to ignore the responsibility of the unwanted child, it seems to me that this is related to the fact that the couple did not choose to have offspring, and not because they are not in the institution of marriage. Note that in the event that a male denies responsibility for the unwanted child, this can only take effect if he terminates his relationship with female and leaves her to handle the prenancy on her own. In the event of an unwanted pregnancy during wedlock, the male still could ignore the responsiblity, but his marriage commitment gives and added reason to accept responsibility for the child. It's only in this case that the marriage itself gives any strength to the responsibility for the child, and this is because the male in question does regard his marriage "solely on the happiness of the two adults involved". He might not have any more responsibility for the unwanted pregnancy, but he does feel responsibility to his wife.
My point with these examples is that while there is a very strong element of responsibility for the child, it's not from the institution of marriage, but from the choice of having brought the child into the world.
One more example to illustrate this point: If a married couple bears a child and is later divorced, it is the biological parents are held responsible (not just by our social structure, but in this case by the government) for the continued care of the child. Even if one party or the other remarries, it is not the existing marriage contracts that determine responsibility for the child, but rather child's biological parentage. This further illustrates that this responsibility you refer to comes from the choice to conceive, not from the marriage contract.
To your second point, let me just say that I love a situation that starts with the phrase, "imagine a world". That's how we know it could make a good movie. Anyway, I think it's fair to say that in your imagined world there would still need to be biological parents that were both male and female, and that these parents would ultimately be the ones responsible for the child. Other arrangements might occur to determine who actually raises the child (as they do now), but those would obviously need to be with consent of the biological parents. The point is that even in your imaginary world, responsibility for the child is based on the genetics of conception, not on marriage.
So, to sum up, your agrument that the legalization of same-sex marriage "will suppress the child’s right to be raised by its married parents" contains a hypothesis contrary to the fact: there is no such right to be raised by married parents. There is a society- and governement-accepted responsibility of the biological parents, but that social structure is in no danger of changing because the biology of conception is in no danger of changing.
Mr. Casteel,
All your examples, the unmarried heterosexual couple that have kids, the accidental parents, and the divorced parents that remarry, can still feel part of their responsibility to raise their children as a result of the current social structure of marriage. For example, the unmarried couple may view their arrangement as a family whose ideals are borrowed from the existing social institution of marriage. My point is that people feel the responsibility to raise their child in part because of the social structure. They can also feel responsibility to honor their child’s right to be raised by her biological parents out of love (your last argument) or out of their choice for having brought the child into the world (your current argument), but some of that responsibility is learned through the social structure. (as an aside that is not necessary for my argument, I think both of your arguments, raising a child out of love and choice of conception are both elements derived from the social structure revolving around marriage and family. My thoughts are that this love for children is, to some extent learned from the institution of marriage. As an example, consider a culture where having children occurs mostly in marriage because the marriage institution shuns bastard children. Thus all socially meaningful relationships between parents and children occur in marriage. In this culture, male children are favored over females. When a female child is born, the social structure in this culture may cause the parents to feel less responsibility in raising that child, despite having chosen to conceive the child. The parents have learned to treat/love the child differently than the male.) Furthermore, your examples are exceptions to the dominant institution of marriage, not the rule. You may argue that the exception is becoming the rule and I might agree with you. It is my contention that the institution of genderless marriage serves only to speed this process up. In general, my feeling is that most people associate the life of a child with the child’s two parents who are married. I think most people consider this the ideal. The threat of genderless marriage is the creation of a different marriage institution that suppresses (read not completely destroy) this ideal of a child’s right to be raised by her biological parents.
As to your criticisms of my imaginary world: You wrote: “Other arrangements might occur to determine who actually raises the child (as they do now), but those would obviously need to be with consent of the biological parents.” That example illustrates that it is not obvious that parents would need to give consent for other arrangements in raising their offspring. Why would the parent’s consent matter if they will not both be raising the child? This would cause problems for every couple in the imaginary world to decide which kids they would want to raise. Suppose A and B are married and C and D are married. Both couples want children. Therefore A and C have a child and B and D have a child. Which child goes where? B and D and A and C can still be required to give consent but this is need not be the obvious (or even most efficient solution). Another arrangement might be for A,B,C,D and to agree beforehand that the children will be assigned by a lottery to each family, thereby bypassing any conflict the two couples might have if the paternal adults were required to give consent. Or you could just say that A + B and C + D can remain a couple and just raise their own offspring. As I am sure you can see, this would be something quite different than the scheme we have now.***Now I am going to stop there because this is how I end up wasting a lot of my time—thinking about things to support an imaginary world all for the sake of one minor point. But, if you would like to play this game further, I’ll sell you the rights to this idea which you can turn into a movie or a role playing game. ***My only point is, a pure same-sex marriage law might very well create whole new social structures to support a new institution of marriage. While this would never happen ( we will never outlaw heterosexual marriage) a genderless marriage institution would be informed by the values of a same sex marriage institution.
I realize my argument puts me in a difficult place because it requires me to argue in the language of our current social structure. I sort of see it like the problems I imagine would result when people living at the time of Newtonian mechanics were to discuss “matter” with people living at the time of relativity theory. (To make myself less pompous, I can be the Newtonian mechanics guy and you can be the relativity theory guy). In a similar manner, I see your arguments ( love and responsibility born from the choice to conceive) as still talking like the traditional institution of marriage is still around. My task is in trying to forecast what the world will be like when the institution of marriage is genderless marriage. That was your initial question—the dangers to family posed by the adoption of genderless marriage. That is why I have tried to bring up examples such as a world of gay people. These serve to direct our thinking to what is possible, not because it will ever happen, but because there are principles that arise out of those situations.
Mr. The Narrator,
I am not at all saying that married couples are legally obligated to reproduce. I am saying that marriage is society’s most efficient means at ameliorating the consequences of passionate, heterosexual sex.
To Both,
While I enjoy this, I do spend considerable time trying to understand all your arguments and crafting responses (and I do have other things going on outside of creating imaginary worlds). Oh and the narrator, sorry if I have not responded as long to your posts as Mr. Casteel’s. I mean no disrespect. I have read your blog and have thought a lot about your posts and even commented on a couple (at least I think I have). I especially enjoyed the guest blogger who was gay talking about his experiences.
I am getting tired and I can see that we are just about to the point of diminishing returns. I assume you are not satisfied with my responses in the aggregate but I also see that continuing these posts will probably not do much more to satisfy either of you (which of course is not a problem. I never expected to “win” anyone to my side. If anything I hoped to offer something to consider.). If someone else wants to take the reins and construct an argument either why genderless marriage will hurt or not hurt marriages and family, that might be cool.
If you are interested in the arguments that I have tried to present, I refer you to Monte Stewart’s Marriage Facts article in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 31, Number 1 Winter 2008. While not all of my arguments have come from this, a large portion has been verbatim. Also, I took some material from In re Marriage cases, the CA Supreme Court opinion that called proposition 22 unconstitutional (I am also trying to cover myself for plagiarism).
One last point, part of the reason that I have come to both of your blogs is because I understand that both of you are members of the LDS faith. I have tried to offer intellectual forecasts for the potential problems with a genderless marriage law. The interesting thing about this debate among members of the LDS and other churches, is that it has forced many to scrutinize their faith regarding principles of morality, obedience to leaders, etc. I think these are all serious considerations and ones that must not leave the debate. My epistemology is informed by reason, faith, and probably social structures, habit, etc. (I had to throw social structures in one last time). As I see it, the LDS church asserts a unique position which claims to have prophets who are in the job of forecasting. I obviously have no idea what this means to any of you or what exactly these prophets are forecasting but I guess there is a reason why they have an interest in this issue. In no way am implying that either of you deny your faith. In fact, I really don’t even know what your positions are on this issue or what would constitute a denial of your faith. We have only been sparring, not soul searching. I am only suggesting that this is an extremely important issue, which demands one’s entire self.
**Final Disclaimer. I recognize that there are many other extremely important issues which demand one’s entire self. Examples are: Poverty, Crime, Punishment, whether to go beardless or not, salt, cinnamon.
In my next blog post I'll see that we examine the social consequences of beards.
Thanks everyone. I haven't contributed, but I just wanted you to know that I'm reading and thinking.
Dewey,
I explained this in a new post, but I wanted to address it here since you brought it up the religious motives for opposing same-sex marriage. I realize that for a lot of us the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage have everything to do with our religious beliefs and little or nothing to do with these secular reasons that we've been debating. That was the entire point of this post. I think that the secular reasons are mostly fabricated to go along with our religious beliefs, and that the secular reasons hold very little water (if any).
And though this has been said before, I just want to point out that everyone here has been very respectful. I appreciate that.
B,
I made my prop 8 post today. Here's the link if you are interested in my view.
http://lauren-myblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8.html
Thanks for the discussion.
Post a Comment