Gay Marriage
Posted by Lexington Green on May 17th, 2004 (All posts by Lexington Green)
I too am sick of this subject. But some things which strike me as obvious are not being said, so, even though this is a libertarian-oriented blog, and I’m an outlier on this topic, I’m going to post something. First, full disclosure. I’m a Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual conduct is objectively evil. Can’t get much stronger than that. (The Catholic leadership in this country has barely dared to whisper this doctrine, if they say anything, but the doctrine is what it is.) That said, even that strong pronouncement leaves entirely open the question of what our public policy should be on the issue.
My inclination, as a Jacksonian American, is to say I don’t give a shit what they do or what they call it. And, in fact, I don’t. However, by calling a homosexual union marriage, and making it a Constitutional right, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and soon many like-minded courts around the country, are more or less intentionally making Christianity illegal. Repeat: Christianity is being made illegal. The teaching that homosexuality is a sin is embedded in Christianity. It is in the Pauline letters. There is no getting around it. I have heard the counter-arguments, and they don’t cut any ice. The Christian teaching against homosexuality is organic, it was part and parcel of the attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire and it is fundamental to the Christian conception of marriage and sexuality. So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously.
But, I don’t imagine most of our readers will give a damn about that. Many might say, good riddance, I hate religion anyway. OK, try this instead. Even if I weren’t a Christian, I’d object to gay marriage because it is a threat to civic peace, and because it is undemocratic.
I can’t think of anything which will cause so much damage to the public peace and respect for the government, or to an acceptance of the government’s legitimacy, in exchange for so little objective gain to anyone. 100,000,000 or so church-going American Christians will not quietly acquiesce to having a fundamental part of their moral beliefs declared illegal, merely because five unelected judges in Massachusetts chose to revise a foundational element of a 2,000 year old civilization, with no legal or democratic basis at all.
The mere fact that a massive issue like this can be jammed down the public’s throat with no democratic accountability whatsoever is pretty damned offensive, too. Moreover, it is a practical disaster because, just like Roe v. Wade, far from ending the issue, making it into a question of “rights” will only inflame it, polarize it, prevent any kind of moderated resolution or local variation, and keep it perpetually alive as a source of anger. There is a reason we resolve contentious issues democratically — it forces moderate, centrist, unprincipled but acceptable solutions. Doing it by judicial fiat can only to lead to massive and angry opposition which has no viable outlet. Additionally, public debate has a way of forcing an issue to be examined from all sides, which to some degree cuts down on unintended consequences. We’re getting none of that here, and there will be a tsunami of unintended consequences, some foreseeable, many not.
Incidentally, I disagree entirely with Glenn Reynolds and others who, based on anecdotes, say the public is fine with this. I have an objective basis for this, not just my personal preferences on the matter. The fact that Kerry is ducking it and Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois is not supporting it shows that it lacks anything remotely near majority support, either nationally or in moderately liberal Illinois. When liberal democratic poiticians are trying to hide from an issue like this, which is a natural for them, you know the votes are not there.
A prediction. This process will mobilize opposition which will make the Pro-Life movement look tiny. Another prediction: Public schools will soon (next year, September of ‘05) have mandatory education in which the struggle for gay rights is depicted alongside the struggle for Black civil rights as central to American history. No teacher who does not teach and support this view will be employable. This will provoke even more, in my view justified, outrage.
One response to the foregoing may be to say, Lex, you’re exaggerating, this will be no big deal. I wish I thought so. But, see, I know lots of liberal activist lawyers. They are smart, and they work hard, they believe in their causes, they never give up, and this is going to place a powerful new weapon in their hands to attack their biggest and most hated enemy, the “Christian Right,” including the Catholic Church. Anyway, I understand the “don’t worry, be happy” argument, but I’m sure it’s mistaken. I expect very rapid movement on this, many lawsuits filed in the next several days and weeks, and an accelerating tempo of activity. Time will tell.
Is there any silver lining? Perversely, the backlash from all this may lead to two outcomes I have always dreamed of but never dared to hope I’d live to see: the wide-scale abandonment of the public (government) schools as the predominant source of educating American children by very large segments of the population, and the end of the abusive, unaccountable, illegitimate federal judicial “review” as we have come to know it in recent decades. Ask me in five years how we are doing on those two predictions. They’ll take time to ripen.
Update: Quite a tempest in a teacup. I gave up on the comments around number 60. Thanks to the few who agreed with any of what I said. Thanks also to those who disagreed, even fervently, but did so with civility and rationality. That is what makes this blog enjoyable. Thanks to the rest of you for demonstrating my point that silencing or shouting down anyone who even raises questions about how this is being accomplished, let alone its purported merits, is a step that far too many supporters of gay marriage will be happy to take if they can get away with it. I did make some predictions. I’m actually more pessimistic than I let on. But, I hope I’m wrong, and that all those who say nothing particularly bad will happen are right. Jonathan puts it well: Most predictions are wrong. I promise all friends and enemies that I will revisit this topic in a year or so, and I hope I will get to admit then that I was overly alarmed. In the meantime, I’m done talking about this topic. I’m going to watch and listen for a while, as far this business goes. We’ll see what happens next.
May 18th, 2004 at 12:12 am
Amen Lex. Excellent post.
The first thing the Soviets did after coming to power was to kill Christianity along with other religions. Liberal activists are taking a page out of their playbook and going full bore. Sad to see really. If I can afford it, there’s no way I will send my kids to a public school.
May 18th, 2004 at 12:25 am
Right on all counts, Lex.
May 18th, 2004 at 1:49 am
WTF? How does letting gay persons get married in a civil fashion make the beliefs of 100 million American Christians illegal?
There are all sorts of things that are legal, that many people believe are immoral, and that doesn’t force them to engage in such acts or “make their beliefs illegal”.
I’m sorry, your logic here is deeply flawed. Please explain to me how this is so?
May 18th, 2004 at 1:54 am
Why was government granted the power to define marriage in the first place? Isn’t “state” marriage just a hand me down from previous theocracies to begin with? I’d propose that allowing state certified homosexual marriages isn’t making Christianity illegal, because that was done when government took the power to define marriage away from Christianity and society. The issuance of government marriage licenses should have been the first clue that government was stepping where it shouldn’t.
Recognizing marriage “rights” to the lowest common denominator logically takes us to the two individuals involved. Ultimately, it is what is in their hearts and heads that defines their marriage. From there, we’d include their family, friends, and sometimes their choice of religion. Now, no one else may choose to recognize that marriage and call it by that name, and that should be fine also. The Catholic Church shouldn’t be forced by the government to preside over homosexual marriages, just as the Catholic Church shouldn’t be able to dictate to the government what constitutes a marriage or a divorce.
I’d agree that government shouldn’t try to force those that disagree with homosexual marriage to call it such. Perhaps government should give up the power to define marriage and return that power back to the two individuals, family, friends, and religion. Government could instead recognize civil union contracts between whoever chooses to join in that contract and get out of the officially licensed and government defined marriage business.
Gay marriage should be a Constitutional right for those who choose to view it as such. Likewise, it should be a Constitutional right for others not to recognize gay marriages. The Constitution doesn’t define marriage for anyone and it shouldn’t.
Additionally, I’ll ask, was Christianity also made illegal when we abolished laws that put homosexuals in cages and took their freedom for their private behavior? My point here is that the government shouldn’t hold the power to enforce Christian beliefs as laws, but should allow people the freedom of those Christian beliefs.
I agree with a lot of what you say however. Judges created this mess and public schools will probably amplify it. I just don’t think the solution is to define marriage in our Constitution, but rather government should stop trying to define it. It’s not a perfect solution that will make everyone happy, but there never is when it comes to government.
May 18th, 2004 at 1:59 am
“So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right.”
This is just absurd. Pro-life activists aren’t thrown in jail for preaching against abortions and neither will anti-gay activists be thrown in jail for printing anti-gay screeds.
There are a number of things that can be done to strengthen marriage such as getting rid of no-fault divorce. Until you and others of a like mind start arguing for them as vehemently as you do against gay marriage, I’m not inclined to view your opinions on this subject as anything more than empty-headed, anti-gay hysteria.
May 18th, 2004 at 2:13 am
Wow.
May 18th, 2004 at 2:52 am
Absurd.
The new Constitution will grant a right, not an obligation.
May 18th, 2004 at 5:56 am
I still haven’t seen any cogent argument why supporting gay marriage doesn’t open the door to polygamy and even stranger variants.
And those who say that’s ok too are neither conservative, nor Hayekian. They’re effectively saying To Hell with tradition, in favor of Reason and Modernity.
This will not stand, but it’s hard for conservative libertarians to say this in polite company as the positions are rapidly hardening on this issue.
The mandatory teaching that being gay is okay will drive up enrollment in religious schools.
May 18th, 2004 at 6:23 am
Lex, I’m not quite with you on the making Christianity illegal part, but there is a larger issue here and I have no doubt that a lot of the people pushing this are fully aware of it. I think overt Christianity has already been largely purged from the government which may not a particularly bad thing in a vaccuum, but the next step is to purge it from American society, and use government to do it.
There are a lot of people on the exterme Left in America (the middle of the road left in Europe) who detest Christianity for a host of reasons. These are the people who don’t like America or Americans, and believe that American society is somehow inferior and even dangerous. The fact that most Americans, even non-religious ones like myself, still cling to the Judeo-Christian values that are the basis for our culture and our government is an obstacle. I think many leftists rightly understand that this country cannot be made into what they want it to be as long as religion and our libertarian, individualist traditions that arise from the values of Protestant Christianity, give people an authority higher than government. One of the chief objections that liberals like the honorable manslaughterer Ted Kennedy had to the nomination of Clerance Thomas to the Supreme Court was his belief in Natural Rights that are granted by a power greater than government. There is a fundamental religious basis to this even though you may not be able to find a specific passage in the Bible (or maybe you can).
These are my pet theories, I don’t have a lot of evidence to back them up, but I’ve seen little to contradict them.
As far as Gay marriage goes, if gays wanted to go quietly about their business they would simply call their contract something other than marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman throughout time. Even in ancient cultures where homosexuality was socially acceptable like Rome and Greece, there was no such concept as a gay marriage. Homosexual conduct was simply looked at as recreational, not the basis for societies most fundamental building block.
Personally, even with all the desensitizing homosexuality that is on TV and in the media on a regular basis it is still something I find a little distasteful. Call me whatever politically correct name you like. I know a few gay people and don’t have anything against them, I just don’t want to see them kissing and such.
But, I have no right to tell them what they should do in their free time any more than I would presume to tell anybody else who wasn’t harming others directly with their conduct.
But the real issue here for me is the judicial review that Lex brought up. I don’t think that the current system is what the Constitutional Convention meant when they wrote the Constitution. This is a whole subject unto itself and I will have to get out my “Federalist Papers” to do more research. But, I’m going from memory here” the Supreme Court grabbed the idea of Judicial Review for itself (by interpreting the Constitution to say so) in the first few decades of the Republic and it has been precedent ever since. I don’t know what should replace it but the practice is at best “barely” democratic.
More later.
Good discussion, hopefully somebody will do my research for me!
T
May 18th, 2004 at 8:51 am
All things change. Angels no longer sit on pins; adulery no big deal; divorce ok; birth control available; women vote; the universe no longer revolves around the earth; planes now fly in the sky!; word processing replaces IBM Selectric, and on and on …you like tradition? fine. Stay with it…and let the world move as it will.
May 18th, 2004 at 9:23 am
Cats and dogs…living together!! The sky is falling. Come on, guys. One state. One, out of 50.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:44 am
“One, out of 50.”
Some people interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution to say that one out of 50 means 50 out of 50. We’ll see.
ALthough in a post-States Rights America, the Feds can simply overrule the States.
May 18th, 2004 at 12:14 pm
So, as another prominent blogger has grumbled about, why is the full faith and credit clause not applied to gun carry laws.
Vermont Carry everywhere! huzzah!
May 18th, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Calm down Lex. We’re not quite at the gates of Sodom yet. I recall that Churchill lost the 1946 elections by predicting that Atlee’s socialist innovations could not be implemented without use of gestapo. Churchill was right but the crisis only dawned in the 1970s with Arthur Scargill’s proposal to legally limit emigration to avoid the brain drain.
While gay marriage will eviscerate the tradition bulwark against more pernicious forms of marriage, it’s going to take some time for the human cost to mount up to the point where it breaks into mainstream consciousness. Libertarians and the right have performed the least well in predicting the timeframe of the coming disaster whenever the left proposes something idiotic. Don’t fall into the same trap.
May 18th, 2004 at 1:25 pm
I have to disagree with your premise that making homosexual marriage is tantamount to making Christianity illegal. Noone is stopping you, or can stop you, from practicing your religious beliefs. In addition, your right to free speach guaruntees your right to be critical of the practice, the court decision and law.
I also have to admit, I’m one of those who see this as essentially a nonissue. I see it as practically harmless from a social perspective. Here’re some reasons:
1. The major problem facing society WRT marriage is not with people getting married. It’s with couples who’re rearing children getting divorced.
2. Homosexuals live together in our society. What damage is that doing to your marriage now? Any?
3. Through legal recognition of their ‘marriage’, homesexuals are seeking a certain legal status that impacts their ability to make financial and legal decisions: wills, property, medical benefits, etc.
4. Granting that status does not require that you or I endorse their decision to marry one another. Is marrying outside one’s religion or race an attack on tradition? Yes. Does that mean we should make it illegal? It seems to me we need some very compelling reason to deny people the right to make decisions about how people choose to live here in the Land of the Free. More than Christians feel it’s sinful, therefore it should be illegal.
5. We could make the AIDS argument, but then we could make the bicycle argument. A person is more likely to hurt themselves riding a bicycle than almost anything they do. How about gun ownership, or tobacco use, or skydiving? All dangerous activities. Make them illegal?
Finally, it occurs to me that in many ways your argument parallels the school choice argument, oddly enough. The secular purists argue that in granting a citizen the right to educate their children in a religious school infringes their right to not support certain (or all) religious institutions. The popular varition on this idea is that it amounts to state support for religion. It does no such thing. It meerly leaves the decision to individual adults; free citizens. In fact, it is the epitomy of noninterference of the state in the religious or nonreligious decisions of the citizens.
All in all, I just don’t get it. I don’t think you’ve made a very compelling argument that justifies denying the same legal protections you and I enjoy to certain other citizens by demonstrating some irrepairable harm that will result. I simply fail to see it. How does the act of two women two blocks over from you getting married affect your life? Are they adults, free adults, in a society that aspires to freedom from undue interference in the lives of it’s citizens? Wasn’t this republic founded on the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
May 18th, 2004 at 1:34 pm
If people thought getting judges on the USSC was hard w/Roe v. Wade, you aint’ seen nothing yet.
It was coming in a few decades. However, the Catholic Church is becoming more conservative. It’s largest membership is coming from Africa and Asia. They are more conservative.
Lex is right. We are being forced to “accept” their “marriage” by judicial fiat and in a way, “accept” them. Think about it, their lifestyle is legal, so they are. There’s an activist from Yale(?) who said something quite interesting when this came up and of course I didn’t save it. It was enlightening. I wish I could find that quote, it clarified some things.
I’m all for live and let live for the most part, however, it’s not marriage.
As to European thinking, well, they’re going down the tubes because they’ve replaced spirituality w/religion of the state.
Besides, I still don’t understand this need to get married. During my lifetime marriage was bad, discouraged by the 60s boomers, much less a badge of honor living together and defying “the establishment.” Now it’s trendy.
May 18th, 2004 at 1:53 pm
Wow.
I really don’t get the Christianity illegality reasoning at all. For starters, we are talking about Massachusetts.
Second, how does granting some the right to marry make it illegal to believe they don’t have that right ? Or Christianity illegal ? Where and how does it make it illegal to believe homosexuality is against God’s law if that’s what you want to believe ?
Third, if there is such thing as separation of church and state, I don’t see why such matters should be resolved according to the tenets of one religion, as seen by some of its followers. I’m Roman Catholic too and I happen to think they should have the right to marry. If this or that church or religion does not want to marry gays according to their rites, that’s fine by me. But what right does the Catholic Church have to prevent people from getting married at City Hall if they want to ? And why should its opinion be any more relevant than anyone else’s ?
Fourth, you may believe marriage is a religious commitment first and foremost. That’s perfectly all right. It’s your right to believe so. But the government has no business imposing choices according to religion. And if you disagree, see Iran. As the famous quip has it, “Religion is an individual choice in this country. Thank God…”.
Fifth, the civilization might be 2,000 year old but today’s version has very, very little to do with what it was 2,000 years ago, if anything at all. Including marriage. Civilizations, however you define them, are not anymore static than language is. Today’s tradition often is yesterday’s outrageous change to the status quo. Claims of the end of our civilization are also 2,000 years old. In a way, screaming about great unraveling of society as we know it is probably the oldest tradition, and one that has changed very little in style and substance.
Sixth, the notion that gay marriage threatens the institution itself is silly given the evidence. Between infidelity, high divorce rates and the large number of single-parent families - all issues that have been described by conservatives as major marriage criris for years - it seems heterosexuals can inflict a lot of damage to that ‘foundational element’ all by themselves. And have been doing so with abandon for quite a while, thank you very much. But suddenly, granting a right that many of us heterosexuals have been mistreating and taking for granted for decades to people who actually want it and show more respect and desire for it than many heterosexuals, and that’s a threat more serious than all of the above ? A bunch of people actually show so much interest in marriage they are willing to campaign for it and travel far and wide to get it. And that’s a threat ? Please.
Sometimes, it feels as if the Church was in the business of losing followers and shooting itself in the foot. If so, it is getting better at it by the day. Finally, I find it incredibly hypocritical at this time to hear supposedly strong “moral” statements from an institution that has spent a few decades covering up for the child molesters in its own ranks, repeatedly using some of its vast funds to settle confidential lawsuits. When they’ve cleaned up their own mess, maybe they can come out and get in the way of people who are not even asking nor expecting anything from it.
May 18th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
I read an article a little while ago about the effects of gay marriage in Northern Europe. Ministers who disagreed and preached against homosexuality were purged. This is a legitimate complaint.
All they’d need to do would be to do would be to pass a hate speech law and then speaking against homosexuality would become punishable. Like how they’re prosecuting Bridget Bardot for racism in France. So yeah, a major tenet of Christianity would be illegal.
May 18th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
–Between infidelity, high divorce rates and the large number of single-parent families - all issues that have been described by conservatives as major marriage criris for years - it seems heterosexuals can inflict a lot of damage to that ‘foundational element’ all by themselves.–
60s boomer ideology going against the establishment? Correlation is not causation…..
May 18th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
-From a legal perspective, marriage is primarily a contract for the protection of children. It is only secondarily about personal fulfillment. Indeed the legal rules are intended to protect the interests of children at the expense of parents’ personal fulfillment, if necessary. Whatever else gay marriage may be, it is not, in most cases, primarily about raising children. Recognizing gay marriage as legally equivalent to conventional marriage risks changing the nature of all marriage, perhaps for the worse. As an all-or-none decision, I don’t think it’s a worthwhile risk for our society to take.
-Marriage as we know it has evolved over hundreds of years, and despite its flaws seems to work better than any other arrangement for raising children. Nobody knows what the long-term consequences of gay marriage would be. Gay marriage by judical fiat amounts to a huge social experiment that would be difficult to reverse if it turned out to be unsuccessful. I agree with Lex on this point: it would be much less risky to allow the issue of gay marriage to be defined by state legislatures on an incremental basis over a long period of time.
-There may be incremental reforms in rules regarding insurance, inheritance and so forth that would accomplish most or all of the gay-marriage agenda WRT those issues, without creating an unprecedented new category of marriage.
-I also agree with Lex that gay marriage is not as popular as some of its proponents believe. If it were, it would be enacted by legislation rather than judicial fiat. (Clayton Cramer makes the same point.)
May 18th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Sandy, since when are single parents and those who divorce “60s boomers” or people who act on “60s boomers ideology” ? Most of those I know were not even born in the 60s. As for their politics, they’re all over the map.
Jonathan, I agree that state legislatures is where it should happen. And which is where it is happening. Which, incidentally is the position of Democrats like Kerry while Bush and others want to use the Constitution to ban it outright.
Finally, I don’t care whether it’s popular among those who are not affected by it whatsoever. Was desegregation popular in the South among whites ? Popularity is a very dubious argument to me. It certainly matters from a political standpoint - as we saw around the Iraq argument - but it is irrelevant to the actual matter at hand. Popularity, or lack thereof, do not make anything right or wrong in and of themselves.
May 18th, 2004 at 3:53 pm
As far as the “purging” priests in Northern Europe, I would like to see proof this came from outside the Church. While imams are routinely sanctioned - and recently deported, as in France - for teaching some traditional bits of Islam about the inferiority of women and the like, I have never heard of priests being submitted to such treatment. The Church, however, has replaced priests based on demands from the rank and file. Not every Christian on Earth is a doctrinaire follower of everything the Vatican says. And not everybody agrees on what is fundamental either. I was raised a Catholic, went to Sunday school for years and through the whole education process until I was well into my teen years, and I was certainly never taught anything about the sin of homosexuality. And none of the values I was taught tell me I should prevent those people from being treated equally and to marry at City Hall if they want to. Christianity is certainly no ideological monolith.
In my experience, that’s especially true in Europe. The shame of the Vatican’s response - or rather the conspicuous lack thereof - to the ongoing Holocaust and the coverage of this dark period over the years has left a lot of people somewhat ambivalent with respect to the institutional organization itself.
May 18th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
Sylvain, it’s not popular. No state legislature has enacted it. The governor of liberal MA is against it. Kerry avoids it as much as possible. For him to say that a legislature should allow gay marriage, is like a legislator saying that a bill should pass when he knows that it is certain to be killed in committee. Only a few pols will take a stand in favor of it, and they represent places that are politically unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. Bush et al can get away with posturing about constitutional amendments because gay marriage is so unpopular. (And BTW, a constitutional amendment isn’t judicial fiat but more like the opposite — reserved to overrule legislatures that flout the popular will.)
I don’t think gay marriage is comparable to racial desegregation. It’s not a civil-rights issue. It’s more like polygamy, something that may not be wrong per se but may be socially destructive if encouraged. That’s the point I was trying to make by mentioning social experimentation.
May 18th, 2004 at 5:50 pm
Kerry did come out early on saying he thought states should decide. The governor of Mass. is indeed against it. But the overall accusation that the process is undemocratic does not stand up to scrutiny. The proposed amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman will have to be ratified by both houses in two successive legislative sessions, and then ratified by the voters; the likely date seems to be November 2006. So not only will the people be able to decide, but they will do so with a minimum of experience and a couple of years to digest the heated propaganda. I wish all social experimentation worked like this i.e. trial run followed by popular vote to continue/stop.
As for constitutional amendments, I’m not sure we entirely agree. There is often a large difference between the intent of the process and the intent of those who use it. In this case, their intent seems to nip in the bud any present and future attempts, however legal or popular they may be, and make it much harder for popular will to change things. As to how and why this kind of tactics are consistent with some sort of moral high ground, beats me.
May 18th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
Correlation is not causation…..
I’m always amused when someone uses this phrase in a way that indicates they don’t know what it means.
Causation: I flip the switch, the light goes on. I flip the other way, the light goes out. Barring a circuit failure, it works that way each and every time. The light does not go on by itself, does not go out by itself. Cause and effect. ‘X’ causes ‘Y’. No variations.
Correlation: Smoking increases the likelyhood of dying from lung cancer. It does not mean each and every smoker will die from it. Nor does it mean those who do not smoke wil not die from it. However, it does mean that if you smoke, your probability of dying from lung cancer goes up in a measureable way that is both mathematically demonstrable and scientifically proveable. Correlation matters. To flip off correlation as if it’s meaningless indicates you don’t understand it.
Whatever else gay marriage may be, it is not, in most cases, primarily about raising children.
Are those couples who have no intention of raising children entitled to marriage? Or are incremental reforms sufficient for them? Would you support a constitutional ammendment barring couples who are still raising their children from divorcing? That would actually do more to combat the social damage that you, rightfully, allude to than denying marriage rights to others.
WWJD (What would Jefferson do?) Here’re a few quotes:
The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.
– Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:465
To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse.”
– Thomas Jefferson, to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
– Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
[The] best principles [of our republic is to] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights.
– Thomas Jefferson, Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809. ME 16:336
May 18th, 2004 at 7:36 pm
I agree it should be an issue dealt with by the States, absent a Constitutional amendment, which I think shouldn’t be used on trivial issues (like whether people can buy alcohol).
But the real problem is that due to the Full Faith Credit Clause it can be argued (and people already have) that a marriage liscence given by one state must be honored by all others. In fact this is the case today. It’s also the reason you can drive in Idaho with a Missouri driver’s liscence. It’s no longer just a Massachusetts issue.
The real problem is governments interference in the issue for hundreds of years. Why do you need a permit from the govenment to get married in the first place? It’s a contract like any other. The government (the courts) should only come into play if there is a failure or dispute in the contract.
May 18th, 2004 at 7:42 pm
Jonathan, I’m not so sure it’s not a civil rights issue. Granted, the nature and severity of the harm cannot be compared with segregation. But in the end, this is about equal treatment before the law. Some couples can marry. Others cannot even though they do live as couples.
The protection of children is actually an argument for gay marriage; a growing number of gay couples raise adopted children (one of them being on the front page of today’s Boston Globe as a matter of fact). So if marriage matters for children, then one ought to consider it for those couples. But then why just them ? Many married heterosexual couples never have children. And quite often, out of their own choice. Michael explores this point above.
In the end, I agree with DSpears (shit happens uh ? :) Seriously D, we love you). This is matter of individual choice. So is religion.
May 18th, 2004 at 8:27 pm
Actually, the people of Massachusetts have spoken, and they spoke against it. A binding referendum was passed about 2-3 years ago, which obliged the legislature to convene a constitutional convention and draft an amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. The state senate president convened the session, recognized an immediate motion to adjourn, and closed the convention. A lawsuit seeking to enjoin the senate to perform its duty under the state constitution was dismissed by the same Supreme Judicial Court. Amazing that they can find these implied rights in the state constitution and be unable to read the plain text of it. This is a judicial coup d’etat.
May 18th, 2004 at 8:34 pm
For those wondering how it will make Christianity illegal, read this. It’s not making Christianity illegal by passing a law banning that particular religion, it’s making it illegal to have a right to run your business as you see fit. I’m not saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, but all the people (not necessarily in these comments but throughout the web) using their snarky voice to say that gay marriage hasn’t affected anything are not looking in the right places.Putting in laws to recognize gay marriage negatively affects the freedoms of other citizens. The question is, does it negatively affect the freedoms of Christians in the same way that racial desegregation negatively affected the freedoms of racists? I’m no expert in the law but I don’t think it does. My intuition is gay marriage is qualitatively different from racial desegregation. But I’d be happy to hear why I’m wrong.
May 18th, 2004 at 9:14 pm
Mitch, to the extent that the voters will have to ratify it, I don’t see where the coup is. Obviously, the courts do not read the same plain text as you do.
May 18th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
Sylvain - 60s boomers weren’t born in the 60s, they were born beginning 1946.
They were teens-20s in the 60s. They were Fischer, Kerry, Bush, Bubba and Evita. They are in charge of our schools, our lower courts, the bureaucracy, the policy makers or 68-haters.
I’m a tail-end boomer, born in 60. They were protesting when I was playing.
–
D Spears, I happenend to catch an attorney from GWU(?) on Hume yesterday. The FF&CC can be overridden in the public interest, and the states may just go that route. Because this means 1 state can make policy for all 50, and the other 49 won’t like being told what to do. We need to learn from Roe v. Wade. This is going to further divide US.
–
And no, we don’t need a constitutional amendment against divorce until the kids are gone, how about getting rid of no-fault and see how it goes. We’ll see how it goes from there. The funny thing is, the spawn of the 60s boomers are more traditional, staying home for awhile to take care of kids and things like that (recent article, read the 1 paragraph then moved on and didn’t save). Maybe being put thru life’s wringer taught them something. I wonder if that decision was a cause or a correlation????
And wouldn’t it have been interesting to ask Jefferson if his statement meant gay marriage? I wonder if he gave it a thought?
–
Michael - I was being nice, I lay a lot of today’s issues at the 60s boomers’ doorstep. I think they are the cause of downward spirals in some areas, like education, coming up w/victimization, etc. Don’t get me wrong, did some good things, but sometimes I wonder at what price? We’ve now lost 2-3 generations of blacks. Black families were better off in the 50s because they were married families - mom and dad, which brings us back to the topic.
I’ve read at least one theory that they hated their fathers. They knew they could never live up to the greatest generation so they tore everything down.
I understand there’s an interesting book called “Generations” which I haven’t read yet and it goes thru the 13 generations since our country’s founding. Either that or they’re so enamoured w/Europe they can’t see straight, they want approval from their supposed betters.
May 18th, 2004 at 9:31 pm
Sylvain: It isn’t a civil-rights issue any more than forcing everyone to drive on the right side of public roads is a civil-rights issue. Currently, one is free to drive one’s car on his front lawn, or to have almost any kind of sexual relationship with a consenting adult(s). But the law restricts how one may drive on the expressway and what kind or marriage contract the law will recognize. Or, to draw a different parallel: the law recognizes only certain kinds of business organization: corporations, sub-S corps, LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, etc. Each of these organizational forms evolved over time; none was imposed by a court against significant popular or legislative opposition. You can invent a new form of business organization, and even get other people to go along with you, and even show some hypothetical benefits from allowing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea, or that you are being victimized if the State doesn’t recognize it.
Perhaps one day it will be obvious that same-sex marriage is generally beneficial. Fine. I await that day. But it’s not here yet; much more experience is needed before anyone can say how it will turn out. Much more discussion is needed, which includes discussion by ordinary people (not just policy wonks and journalists), which means politics and legislative give-and-take, which is not the approach (it’s the antithesis of the approach) that proponents now take. And the stakes are high (at least they seem high to me). I would be less cautious on this topic if gay-marriage advocates would agree that it is conceivable that legally ratified gay marriage will turn out to have more costs than benefits. So far, many of the enthusiasts (I don’t mean you) do not recognize such a possibility, and accuse opponents of bigotry. I don’t trust enthusiastic crowds.
Michael: My comments to Sylvain mostly apply to your comments too. Sure, not all heterosexual married couples have or want children, but most do. I don’t think the same generalization is true for homosexual couples. Of course there are exceptions, but the question is whether the risks are worth the benefits overall. I don’t know yet, and I don’t think anyone else does. I think it’s a matter of experience and cannot be evaluated wisely without that experience. And popular opinion isn’t always right, but I think it’s prudent to respect it, especially when, as in MA, an unelected elite is trying to impose an unpopular policy on the public.
Mitch: Thanks for reminding me about the referendum.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:16 pm
If you accept the arguments made for homosexual marriage, then you have to accept that those reasons equall justify incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages, etc.
Some think this is a problem; some do not.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:33 pm
Jon/Sandy: Just to be clear, when I suggested the constitutional ammendment against divorce between child-rearing couples, I was doing two things simultaneously. One, I was trying to point out that constitutional ammendments seem like an absurd way to deal with these issues, although I do take - and agree with - the point that we need to ease into this carefully. Two, I was addressing Jonathons ’subtext’, if you will. His concern, which we all share, about cheapening marriage. My point was he was trying to make the lawn greener by chasing bees. The two issues are, in my mind, unrelated (like the lawn and the bees). The problem we face in society is NOT people getting married. It’s people getting divorced, especially those raising children. Denying homosexuals the right to marry does nothing, that I can see, more than symbolicly at least, to address that real and very damaging problem.
Also, I agree about the generation coming up post-boomer. Judging from my daughters and their friends, all in their late teens and early twenties, this is much more conservative, sceptical, respectful, traditional, unashamedly pro-American generation. I’m very impressed with them as a group. I feel very confident America is going to be extremely well served by them in the coming years. Just look at the kids (our kids) serving in Iraq. I’m so proud of them sometimes I can hardly put it into words.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:36 pm
If you accept the arguments made for homosexual marriage, then you have to accept that those reasons equall justify incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages, etc.
That’s absurd. If I recognize your right to own a shotgun, does that mean I must recognize your right to own an atomic bomb? The world is not an either-or, all-or-nothing place. Don’t pretend it is.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:44 pm
Lex,
Your statement is, to say the least, overwrought. Unlike most European countries and Canada, the Free Exercise Clause to the 1st Amendment is about as ironclad a protection of religion as society will ever get.
And if you think the gay/lesbian rights people will try to force Christianity “out of business” due to it being a “hate crime,” think again. One of the many reasons why the Pro-Life movement has been as successful as it has been is because its opponents (NARAL/NOW) tried to put them out of business with RICO_type lawsuits and other actions. On Feb 26, 2003, SCOTUS ruled such an action an improper use of the RICO statutes (Scheidler v NOW). Among some of the folks behind Joe Scheidler were such right-wing lunatics as PETA and Martin Sheen.
If the gay/lesbian rights crowd tries something equally ham-fisted, expect the same sort of result, with the same sort of strange bedfellows fighting and winning. There are ways to go too far, after all.
May 18th, 2004 at 10:44 pm
Sandy, if they weren’t around in the 60s, they certainly weren’t in 1946. Ahem.
Jonathan, I disagree. Your race, gender or sexual orientation does not define whether you have the right to get a driver’s license or not. If it did, it would certainly be a civil rights issue. There are requirements to get one, but as far as I know, they have nothing to do with factors that are irrelevant to what is being licensed. The ability of two people to live as a