Really, Maine?
Well, it looks like Maine’s Question 1 passed with 53% of the vote. I have to say, Maine, I’m disappointed in you. I had so much hope when you were the first state to lift the ban on same-sex marriage through the legislature rather than the courts. But no.
This would be so much easier to stomach if I had ever heard a single coherent reason why there’s any downside to legal same-sex marriage. At all. (And no, “it’s just icky to me” does not count.)
Not in their control
I’ve been doing some thinking since I read this post over on Friendly Atheist. Hemant Mehta reported on a vote in Goshen, IN to add sexual orientation and gender identity to its list of qualities protected in its anti-discrimination laws. They didn’t—the proposal failed 4-3.
In response to a man who asked in a local news interview, “Where do we draw the line?” Hemant said:
You draw the line in favor of helping people who are being discriminated against for things that are not in their control. That’s what the moral thing to do would be.
It really got me thinking about how some people make the crazy argument that by allowing same-sex marriage, the government is endorsing pedophilia and all sorts of other actually objectionable things. That argument is still crazy, but Hemant’s statement gave me a little bit of insight into where that argument might be coming from. (I say “might” because I doubt that many people are actually thinking it through to this degree. There is some chance that what I’m about to explain is happening on a subconscious level, and in any case, I think having logically sound reasons for our beliefs is important, even if no one has noticed a hole in your logic yet. But I’m getting ahead of myself.)
The point it sounds like Hemant is making is that if a quality is innate to you, you shouldn’t be treated poorly because of it. This is almost true, but it raises some big questions about free will. What about people who were “just born with” violent tendencies or compulsive urges to steal? Is it discrimination to charge them with assault or robbery? In the limited context of this story, it’s being used to say that LGBT orientations are something that people are born with, and nobody chooses what they are attracted to or what gender they identify with. But what about people who are attracted to young children? It’s easy to imagine that they didn’t choose that attraction, any more than people choose what body type or hair color appeals to them most. I have no idea what goes on in the mind of a pedophile, but it seems reasonable to contend that they “didn’t choose it.”
Of course, even if you are sexually attracted to children, we believe you have an obligation not to act on those desires, and it’s okay for society to punish you if you do. And if you were born a violent person (whatever that means), it’s okay for society to punish you if you allow yourself to act on your violent inclinations. But! But! protests the Religious Right. Can’t we make the same argument about homosexuals?
And there we have our problem. Because you can make the same argument. But that was never the real argument in the first place. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia isn’t that one is innate and the other isn’t, it’s that one is fine and one is bad. There’s nothing actually wrong with homosexuality; it doesn’t hurt anyone in any way. Two individuals of the same gender freely consenting to be in a romantic relationship with each other? That’s great for both of them, and as good for the rest of society as every other stable relationship. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that even if someone has certain brain chemicals that make them want to molest children, acting on those desires still constitutes coercion and assault, and it’s completely acceptable to punish them.
When we make laws about how people should be treated, we have to think about what is good for society (or at least, what society is indifferent to) and what is bad for society. The innateness of a particular quality only comes into play insofar as it means we have to be more careful to be right when we come to a conclusion about its goodness or badness. (See: strict scrutiny.) I don’t know if it’s possible to have a public discussion about discrimination against homosexuals on these terms, but it feels more intellectually honest than simply repeating, “That’s just who they are!”
Marriage ad from WV
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has a project called WV4Marriage. They’ve made this short video explaining their goal of keeping same-sex marriage unrecognized in their state. (Thanks to Wayne Besen at the Truth Wins Out blog for pointing it out.) As much as I hate the idea that more people might see this video, I think it’s worth it to embed it here, for the purposes of deconstructing its message.
Marriage began in the heart of God, and he designed it perfectly.
The building block of every community, every culture, every race, every nation.
Oh, really? What about the cultures where one man is allowed to have many wives, or where one woman is allowed many husbands? That’s right, you sent missionaries there to teach the people that their cultures were evil. Then, of course, there’s the older versions of Judeo-Christian marriage which you now pretend never happened. The way they think of marriage today is the way everyone on the planet has ever, in the history of humanity, conceived of it. No arranged marriage, or dowries, or being stoned to death for coveting your neighbor’s wife, right? In these statements, “God” naturally refers only to the Christian deity as we currently understand the concept, which is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
But today, that ideal is under an unrelenting attack, and same-sex marriage in West Virginia is a closer reality than you may think.
One misconception here has to do with what the “ideal” is. Proponents of legalizing same-sex marriage realize that the “ideal” marriage is one in which both partners love and respect one another, and can provide a supportive home for children if they choose to have them. This so-called “family” organization is caught up in the genders of the couple being married, which has nothing to do with the quality of their relationship or how beneficial their relationship is to a stable society. (I don’t know in the case of this one in particular, but many “family” organizations also advocate against divorce in cases with serious emotional abuse or other awful situations. They’re too focused on the one mother, one father look of a marriage, and not focused enough on what really makes a relationship good.)
There’s another misconception relating to the word “attack.” Same-sex marriage advocates don’t want to ban these traditional marriages, but rather to allow all adults to marry their consenting adult partners. If you think the ideal is the one that WV4Marriage describes, then by all means, have your marriage be like that. There’s no “attack” forcing you to have something different. Imagine a backyard barbecue expert who knows how to cook the perfect steak. Maybe he even hosts parties for his friends where they all come over and talk about how this steak is the perfect meal. Are any of them under attack when a vegetarian moves in down the street? Do they need to enact local ordinances forcing the vegetarian to learn to love beef? No. No one is attacking anyone, or even mildly inconveniencing anyone. Everyone can eat their dinners in peace.
But activists outside our state…
Yeah, very cute tactic here. All the gay people live in other places, weird and crazy places, but definitely not West Virginia! Well, they certainly won’t admit to being gay while ads like this are out there.
Church daycare. Faith-based marriage counseling. Christian adoption agencies. Religious schools. Christian businesses. Doctors. Professionals. Para-church ministries. Even the church, its clergy, and lay leadership.
This is the litany of things which are supposedly under attack. I admit I don’t understand the issues referred to by each item in the list, but you have to agree some of them cast a pretty wide (vague) net. Christian adoption agencies, religious schools, sounds like federal funding regulations, perhaps nondiscriminatory hiring practices. Doctors, probably that’s abortion- or contraception-related. But really, professionals? Yes, someone save the professionals!
With the full weight of the law standing against the faithful.
Just another example of alarmist rhetoric. If you think your church is under attack from the government every time there’s a law permitting someone nearby to refrain from becoming a member of your church… yeah, I guess there’s cause for alarm. But please, get real.
A weekend trip to San Francisco for a West Virginia same sex couple plus a pro-bono ACLU attorney could easily become a nightmare for marriage in West Virginia.
Wait, I thought this was all being done by activists outside your state.
What’s also clear is that to pass a marriage amendment in West Virginia this year, the church must lead.
Translation: if people aren’t constantly being berated by their religious leaders to vote a particular way, West Virginia might commit the unspeakable atrocity of letting individuals control their own lives in circumstances where their actions have no effect on others.
2009 is West Virginia’s best opportunity to take a stand for God’s design.
About God’s design, I’m still not quite sure… which one?
There are, of course, a million other objectionable things I could pick out of that video, but we all have better things to do with our time. The bottom line is that FPCWV is promoting a message that is callous, misguided, and misleading. Remember, their side is the one pushing for legislation that genuinely harms another group of people — and they want it enshrined in the state constitution. The other side wants laws that allow everyone to make their own decisions about what’s best for their lives. Think about who’s really the attacker here, and who’s really under attack.
Civil unions for everyone
With all the recent gay marriage controversy in California and New York, I’ve been thinking about an idea I’ve actually had for quite a while. I think that every state should offer civil unions — but not just for same-sex couples. In fact, I think civil unions should completely replace marriages, at least legally.
Now, of course, this will probably seem extreme. End marriage? But the really important thing here is that such a move would in no way end marriage. Churches would still perform marriages. There would still be weddings, and rings, and vows, and everything else. None of that is remotely related to the legal institution of marriage. Legally, marriage is a contract of sorts between two people where they agree to a standardized set of promises towards each other. As a society we formally recognize this for two reasons. First, we think it’s beneficial socially as a structure for families. Second, it’s easier to keep track of things that way, since so many decisions/transactions are made at the family level. (For example, if we want to see if a child is poor enough to qualify for free school lunches, we need the combined income of both parents, not just one.)
I’m all for giving those legal protections to married couples. I do think it’s a good social structure to encourage, and it provides for a lot of expediency throughout society. Civil unions would also do this. (The civil unions I have in mind, very similar to those that actually exist, would be complete replications of the legal status of marriage, but with a different name.) In a way, it’s a meaningless change. However, I think it would have an important effect. There’s a reason that civil unions, despite being essentially equivalent, are meaningfully more acceptable to many people than gay marriage. To say gay couples deserve marriage is to make a strong statement about the cultural and religious institution of marriage, not just the legal one. Now, I fully support social as well as legal equality, and I believe churches should be willing to perform marriages for gay couples. Some already do. However, it seems better to me if the government stays out of that decision. The government already does, technically — even if gay marriage were legalized, a church could easily refuse to perform marriages for gay couples — but it doesn’t feel like that to most people. I think changing the name to “civil union” would clearly distinguish the legal institution from the cultural/religious one. Very few people actually oppose hospital visitation rights for gay couples. Making it clear that that kind of stuff is what we’re talking about would allow for a much more intelligent debate, and probably a better outcome for everyone.