Defense-less: Or How To Not Make a Valid Point
Jan/100
The proponents of Proposition 8 (@ProtectMarriage) linked an interesting article on Twitter today The article was published on Townhall.com, titled “Proposition 8 Trial: Loving the Sparkliest Person Vs. The Needs of Society” and attempts to make the case against marriage equality.
The first point the article makes is based on a quote from Kristin Perry, one of four plaintiffs named in the case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), is describing how she fell in love with her partner: “I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I’d ever met.” Now, I’ll admit to not really understanding what she means by this. How does a person achieve the quality of “sparkly”, but I assume it to be a term of endearment between the couple. The author of this piece, however, chooses this seemingly innocuous passage for her first salvo:
“I do not believe that those who find another to be the sparkliest—or the most wonderful, or the most attractive, or the most brilliant person ever—should necessarily qualify for state sanction in marriage.”
First, who is she to judge why it is that someone falls in love with another person. Second, the plaintiff didn’t say this was the only reason she’d fallen for her, just one.
We’re through two paragraphs and already we’ve determined that the author doesn’t have any truly credible points, but let’s keep going, because this will be fun.
Later, the author cedes a point that you’d think would void her argument: “I do think it’s true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples.” Game. Set. Match. Let the gays marry and move along. No? Oh, there’s more…
“Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes. That’s called ‘discrimination based on sex.’ Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change.”
There’s a kind of valid argument here, but not in the way the author thinks. She goes on to list one legitimate discrimination case that should be ended (women not required to register for the draft), but then lists two that aren’t viewed as discrimination (segregated bathrooms and prisons). I won’t get into my opinions on the draft (which extends to DADT), but on the later argument I see there being legitimate grounds for this separation, but also a not too hard to make case for ending the segregation. Regardless, both arguments have nothing to do with marriage and the gender discrimination imposed on gay Americans.
The fun really begins in the next paragraph, though, where we trot out the “slippery slope”:
“…[n]one of them are willing to insist on complete freedom, though they may seek it later on. They don’t plead for polygamy or polyandry; they don’t march for incest; they don’t claim that children, or any collection of in-love, committed people should gain state-approval as a ‘marriage.’”
There’s no real argument here, but I’ll go ahead and refute their points.
Incest is prohibited because the children of incestuous relationships are more likely to suffer birth defects. Want proof? European royalty has a history of anemia among other conditions. This is what’s called a legitimate government interest, because healthy citizens are more productive. This argument is only included because of the gross out factor, and it allows them to talk about pedophilia.
Children aren’t allowed to enter into any contract (which is what marriage is), based on their relative immaturity. There is an accepted tradition of growth from childhood into adulthood and when they reach the accepted maturity level. And this is only raised for the same reason as incest.
As for polygamy (and polyandry, which I give the author credit for including), there is no real rational reason to deny this, and not even the argument of “tradition” holds up to this. Throughout all of human history, a surprisingly large number of cultures have practiced this at some point in their development. But I digress…
We now get the best part of the article, wherein the author tells me that I’m fighting for something I already have:
“And as for ‘the freedom to marry.’ well, anyone is free to perform a non-state-recognized wedding.”
She presents examples of nuns being “married to the Church” and hippie communes. This is just nonsense. The point of fighting for marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with dressing up and walking down the aisle to a dais where someone witnesses us make vows of love and fidelity. It’s about the rights, responsibilities and protections that come with a marriage recognized by the state and country of our residence.
“Actually, though marriage laws may assume or specify the genders of participants, neither gender is treated differently, or suffers any discrimination. Any individuals able to legally marry one of the opposite sex. That includes everyone, and excludes or discriminates against no one.” [Emphasis as written.]
Well, gee. Thanks. You’re so generous.
And she wraps it up by laying out the red herring of the entire debate.
“I do think that for many on the left, the underlying aim is to dissolve the institution of marriage altogether.”
We’ve been found out. All along, the gay rights movement has been pushing marriage equality so we can destroy it from within. That’s also why we want to serve openly in the US Military, and not have to worry about being fired from our jobs just for being gay. The entire gay agenda is focused on destroying the very fabric of America from the inside.
Wow. What a load.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s “Reflections on Marriage”
Oct/090
Over at The Nation, the always fabulous Melissa Harris-Lacewell provides her thoughts on the marriage equality debate (and marriage in general). Just ignore the comments, because as per usual, the trolls have ventured out from under their bridges to claim–erroneously–that marriage is a “very specific social contract, between a man and a woman, with roots as a religious rite”. It’s a social contract all right, but has little to do with religion at it’s root, let alone in modern law.
Dear Sen. Brownback: Please Don’t Insult Me
Sep/090
A couple weeks ago my other half, Ben, sent a letter to our representatives in Congress via HRC’s Repeal DOMA Now website. Today, we got a response from Senator Sam Brownback, one of Kansas’ two Republican Senators. (The other, Pat Roberts, is no friend of mine either. Take his defending insurance companies stance, for example.) I did not expect our letter asking for Sen. Brownback’s support in repealing DOMA (should the Senate take up such legislation before his retirement next year) to change his mind. I also did not expect his reply to be as detailed as it was, nor did I expect him to directly insult our relationship. (Which I should have, this being Kansas. Our history on LGBT rights is less than stellar.)
A central priority for me is to work to rebuild our families in America. In the United States today, marriage is in a real crisis. Over the last 50 years in the United States, the marriage rate has gone down considerably while the divorce rate has gone up. In 1960, the out of wedlock birth rate was 5%; now, it is 26%. Put simply, we have fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad bonded in marriage. While you can valiantly raise a good child in another setting, which we ought to celebrate when it happens, the best place to raise a child is in a family with a mom and dad bonded together for life.
I’ll accept the Senator’s argument that marriage is in a crisis. I don’t think many people are okay with such a high divorce rate. Some marriages will dissolve over time for whatever reasons, but how many of these marriages were a rash decision? The marriage and divorce rate argument is not applicable to same-sex marriage as it has nothing to do with granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
The out of wedlock birth rate (to some extent) reflects the changing societal norms. No longer is it taboo to have a child before marriage (or without being married at all), nor do I think it should be. A capable parent is not dependent on being married. There are single moms and dads that are raising happy, healthy children. (For the record, I was raised by a single mother who was also going through graduate school towards her Doctorate. I don’t consider my childhood hindered in any way; I wouldn’t have it any other way. To this day I’m immensely proud of my mother for all that she did for me and my brother.) The Senator would like to celebrate raising children in “another setting”, yet he’s against gay marriage and gay adoption and gay parents. How many children are without a stable, loving home in this country? How many children go from one foster home to another? You would deny these children the potential parents out here who would love them and raise them and provide them a family? And all because of your narrow-minded view that gays and lesbians aren’t suitable parents? What’s worse: two dads (or moms) or no parents at all?
Another fundamental principle is the equal dignity of all human persons. Equal dignity and respect does not mean, however, that all relationships are the same. Marriage, as it has always been defined, involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life. I think before we redefine a fundamental institution we ought to consider the current context. Given the current crisis of marriage, the question for many is whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders the fundamental institution. For this reason, I oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Equal dignity of all human persons, but with an asterisk at the end. Who is the Senator (or another human being, for that matter) to decide what is worthy of equal rights? African-Americans were denied civil rights for decades because they were “inferior”. The same holds true of women’s rights, be they reproductive, voting, or equal-work-equal-pay. Marriage “involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life”. What in that sentence would prohibit two men or two women from that classification? If the Senator is using that to allude to marriage being historically defined as “one man, one woman”, then he is wrong again. Back in December of 2008, when Rick Warren was slated to be part of President Obama’s inauguration, there was uproar in the LGBT community over Rev. Warren’s anti-gay-marriage rhetoric. Warren brought up the same historical definition of marriage argument, and I offered my argument as to why that argument was incorrect:
It’s a large assumption to make that for [five-thousand years] every culture andevery religion has defined marriage in the same way. The very institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, and the methods of the ceremony and the very concept itself has changed over the many thousands of years of recorded history. For most of European history, marriage was little more than a business arrangement with marriages between families a common way of strengthening power and improving social class. … [W]hile it is true religious traditions throughout the world hold the word marriage to heterosexual unions, there are a growing number of exceptions, including Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, and Reform Judaism congregations. — Rick Warren and Why This is a Big Deal, Greetings from Flyover Country, December 2008
Regardless of the historical definitions (as loose as they are), using history as a roadblock of progress is counter-intuitive. Humanity and society would not have come to this point had our predecessors looked at history and said why bother changing the status quo? The Iowa Supreme Court said it best in their ruling that led to legal same-sex marriage in that state:
Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.”
Senator Brownback says that the question for many is “whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders” marriage as an institution, and that “for this reason”, he opposes both same sex marriage and civil unions. He is in opposition because of a question that he gives no answer to? Obviously, from his position, he feels “redefining marriage” would hinder marriage as an institution despite opening it up to more couples. His opposition to civil unions, however, has nothing to do with marriage as an “institution” and everything to do with his views that some relationships are less important than others. All of his reasons are for why gay marriage should not be legal, not why gay and lesbian relationships themselves are a bad thing. I would imagine his personal and religious beliefs would come in to play at this point. However, what myself and other gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships are seeking is not approval from their Senators or Congressmen. They’re not looking for acceptance. They’re seeking the equal rights and protections of their government the same as their married (heterosexual) friends, neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens.
The central question for me is how we can get more kids raised by a mom and a dad bonded together for life. Redefining marriage does not strike me as a step in the right direction. Eliminating the marriage penalty, creating a more family-friendly tax code, and supporting programs that enhance marriage and make marriages stronger seem a better start. Rest assured, I will keep your comments in mind should legislation in this area come before the Senate for a vote.
The “marriage penalty” is that some couples, each making the same amount of income, pay higher taxes than if they were filing as single (not “married filing separately”). (I can’t imagine they don’t pay drastically higher taxes. The US tax rate is already ridiculously low compared to other modern industrialized nations.) A more “family-friendly tax code”? What exactly does this mean? There are already child tax credits. And spousal benefits are deducted pre-tax while domestic partner benefits are post-tax. I’d also make at least $200 more each month if I were able to select married on my W-2. Republicans like paying less in taxes, but only if you’re straight. Gay couples are at a tax disadvantage and the GOP doesn’t seem to give a damn.
I appreciate that the Senator shared his views. I also appreciate all the good that he does to for Kansas and that he believes he is doing what he believes in, even if I disagree with him on many issues. What I do not appreciate is Senator Brownback thanking me for contacting him, while in the same breath insulting my relationship as being less than his marriage. He ends the letter with “you are the reason that I am here”. I, personally, am not. I wasn’t able to vote in the 2004 election (nor was I a resident of Kansas), and if I was I would not have voted for him. And I won’t be voting for him in his upcoming gubernatorial bid.
I am not seeking his acceptance of my relationship. I don’t want his acceptance. He is entitled to his beliefs. But I don’t want him telling me that I’m somehow less of a person because of who I am. That I don’t deserve the same federal (and state) benefits afforded to me if, tomorrow, I go down to the courthouse with some woman I met on the street and get a marriage license signed. (No religion involved, either. This is strictly a civil matter.) People say that there is too much going on to take on the issue of same-sex marriage, that it isn’t as important as health care reform or getting the economy back on track. But gay marriage affects health care of the countless couples where their employer(s) don’t extend domestic partner benefits but will happily extend those same benefits to spouses. Gay marriage effects the economy (for the better), as Keith Olbermann pointed out back in May. I’m fine taking a weekend trip to Iowa to get married so long as the federal government says my marriage is valid and affords me the rights and privileges thereof. (And, under Full Faith and Credit, Kansas should recognize the marriage as valid. I don’t care if they issue them, but they should treat it he same as any other legally valid out-of-state marriage.)
The repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) would be simple. In fact, HR 3567 as introduced by Rep. Nadler of New York is very short. I commend the Representative and the numerous co-sponsors for introducing this important bill, and I urge everyone to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them to support marriage equality in spite of Senator Brownback’s refusal to be a voice for all of his constituents.
DADT Opinion Poll
Jun/090
Via the blog Daily Dose, a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell opinion poll, separated into three “sub-polls”: for self-identified conservatives, liberals, and independents.
Yes, They Are Bigots
Apr/090
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president Maggie Gallagher wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times last Friday, upset that Frank Rich titled his opinion column about NOM’s “Gathering Storm” commercial The Bigots’ Last Hurrah. (The word “bigot” only appears twice in the whole column: in the title, and the last sentence.)
Ms. Gallagher writes:
I am not the only one Mr. Rich is calling a bigot. In a March CBS News poll, only a third of Americans said they supported gay marriage.
As with most polling and statistics, she’s right and wrong. The poll she’s referencing is this one (Adobe PDF), released April 3rd. The question was “Which comes closest to your view?”, and the options were as follows:
- “Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry”, OR
- “Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry”, OR
- “There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship”
The results are as follows, broken down by political party affiliation in the first table, and then with three previous samples in the second table:
Total
%Rep
%Dem
%Ind
%Allowed to marry 33 6 46 37 Allowed to form civil unions 27 34 23 26 No legal recognition 35 59 26 30 Don’t Know / Didn’t Answer 5 1 5 7 Table 1: Party Affiliation
Now Aug 2008 Mar 2007 Mar 2004 Legally marry 33% 34% 30% 22% Form civil unions 27% 22% 28% 33% No legal recognition 35% 39% 26% 40% Table 2: Historical Samples
So only 33% of the 1142 respondents in the poll are in favor of allowing legal same-sex marriages, but that number is 11 points higher than five years ago. And respondents selecting “no legal recognition” has gone down in the past five years as well, reaching a low of nearly only 25% in 2007. Clearly, it’s still a divided issue. But support for legal marriage has risen in the past several years. As Mr. Rich stated in his column:
[T]he majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”
Ms. Gallagher, in her brief letter, ends saying that she is “proud of the ‘Gathering Storm’ ad precisely because it lets the American people know the truth: Gay marriage has consequences”. Consequences, she says? Like the ones in the “Gathering Storm” ad? The Human Rights Campaign did a good job of giving some more background behind these “consequences”:
The examples they cite in the ad are:
- A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
- A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
- A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California [Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group], determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.
Not really consequences. All of these things are as a result of failure to abide by state laws when involved in the public sphere. Doctors take an oath to do no harm and are supposed to provide care to anyone needing it, the second was more sexual orientation discrimination than anything else, and the third involved parents wanting to dictate what all children were taught. If they feel so strongly about their beliefs, they are free to teach that to their children. But a public school setting has the responsibility to be inclusive to all of the students, their families, and their backgrounds. We don’t teach in schools that single parents aren’t fit to raise a child, after all.
This assertion of “name-calling” is–much like the very act itself–childish. Does Ms. Gallagher not understand that her discrimination of gay and lesbian couples is equivalent to name-calling? She thinks that marriage matters because children need a mother and a father, and has “spent the last five years warning” that opponents of gay marriage would be called bigots. Well, by definition, aren’t they?
bigot
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
If the shoe fits, wear it. (In the interest of fairness, it could also be said that the pro-gay-marriage side is bigoted towards those against it. Much like “special interests” and “pork barrel spending”, it’s all in how you look at it.) As for this mother and a father bit, plenty of children are raised by just one parent. And since when did marriage automatically bring raising children into the argument? Raising children either by birth or adoption is exclusive of marriage. There are plenty of gay and straight marriages and committed relationships where no children are involved. Most definitions of marriage are also exclusive of the child-rearing family structure.
If you’re going to make an argument, at least try not to come across like this is your first rodeo. Even in her appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball opposite HRC President Joe Solmonese, Ms. Gallagher came across as confrontational and standoffish, like an ill-prepared middle school debate student. Her need to write to the New York Times because someone referred to her beliefs for what they are just highlights the fact of how clueless the National Organization for Marriage is. They are a one-trick pony, with limited visibility since their “Gathering Storm” and failed 2M4M campaign (they failed to register the website 2M4M.org, now run by a gay marriage advocate). They issued a press release praising Stephen Colbert’s parody of the “Gathering Storm” ad, clearly missing the point. Her appearance with Joe Solmonese on Hardball appears below, from the HRC’s YouTube page.
What Are You Compromising?
Mar/090
The recent news on the Proposition Eight lawsuits in California have brought the issue of gay marriage back to the forefront (or at least closer than it has been the last couple of months) of the news. And while that decision can be up to 80-some-odd days away still, there was an interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times from February 22 that just now caught my attention when it was featured as part of the AfterElton.com “Best. Gay. Week. Ever.” (Goes to the third page page.) for March 5. It talks of a “compromise” on the gay marriage issue.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Now while I support gay marriage and hope that one day it will be a reality in this country, I’m also a realist when it comes to the social/political landscape of America. I know that the Religious Right thinks that marriage is some 5,000-year-old sacrament that has always been about the love between a man and a woman and the procreation thereof. (Conveniently ignoring that not even 5,000 years ago marriages were often arranged, included large dowries, had age discrepancies of 25 or more years, and were ways for families to gain power. A legal contract, if you will.) I also know that religion did not found our country and that Americans have a freedom of religion that includes a freedom from religion. With these two truths in my mind, I’ve thought that the most practical interim solution is federally-recognized civil unions: conferring all of the benefits of “heterosexual” or “traditional” marriages to same-sex partners. For one reason or another, the word itself, marriage, seems to be a huge wedge issue. This effectively tables that idea for later debate or legal decision while not having tens of thousands of gay couples wait on the hopes that one day their love will be recognized by the government.
I agree with the Op-Ed in principal. I think it’s a huge step forward in advancing marriage equality, even if it creates a “second class” of marriage that doesn’t call itself marriage. Separate but equal can be hashed out later. (The May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court was, actually, on the basis that the same-sex wording of “civil unions” instead of marriage violated the same-sex couples’ constitutional rights.) What I have a hard time understanding is this provision for “religious-conscience” exemptions. Why is the government saying to religious groups/organizations that they don’t need to recognize these same-sex unions? Is there a federal law that requires these same groups to recognize any heterosexual marriage? From the AfterElton.com article (written by Brent Hartinger):
This makes some sense to me. Yes, it’s a compromise, and it’s outrageous that we’re having to “compromise” on any of [our] rights. But let’s face it: this is a country where every one of the thirty states that has voted on same-sex marriage, even “liberal” California, has voted to ban or overturn them.
The fact is, we’re already “compromising” by agreeing to live in a country with no federal GLBT marriage rights whatsoever. This proposal could be a better compromise. Better still, if federal marriage rights were widely available, I think there’d be much more pressure on states to pass these laws, and it would also create a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend their decisions.
Yes, the proposal outlined in the Op-Ed could be better. But compromise is a common-ground between two sides. No one is completely happy with it, but it helps to bridge a divisive gap. And yes, a federal civil union law would ultimately bring states to pass similar legislation or recognize other state’s civil unions in full, the same as any other marriage. (Federal recognition of same-sex civil unions would, I’d imagine, put state-level DOMA and constitutional amendments prohibiting civil unions up for review as it would directly interfere with federally-granted rights. That plus the Full Faith and Credit clause already applied to heterosexual marriages.) I take offense to “creating a stigma where even private religious institutions that discriminated would be forced to defend” themselves. Is it wise for the gay rights movement to force a private religious group to recognize civil unions? Are we talking about employment discrimination? Twenty states, plus the District of Columbia (and 140 cities) have enacted some sort of sexual orientation anti-discrimination law (source, with map). All employees of the Federal government are also covered under a similar sexual orientation ban. Companies are also free to enact company policies that prohibit such discrimination and even confer benefits when state or federal law would not automatically do so. When hiring an employee, one can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. I’d imagine someone working for a religious-affiliated group would be subject to the same laws. Giving the same group a pass on discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong (especially in the aforementioned states). But that’s employment, and similar strife was encountered with all previous employment discrimination battles.
Getting back to the issue of civil unions and religion, no religion or church should be forced to recognize a same-sex union. My understanding is that you have to be a Catholic to be married in the Catholic church. Should we force Catholic churches to perform marriages between two protestants? Or when one of the parties has been divorced? Church and State have become strange bedfellows in recent years, but let us remember that there is an intended separation between the two. There are some religions or congregations that will perform same-sex unions. There are many more that will not. And that is their right in accordance with their beliefs. I am not one to judge how they choose to worship or how they practice their faith no matter what they may think of me, or my own faith. Church recognition of marriage is not essential for the validity of the marriage. A marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract between two parties. Each religion can give this same union a higher, spiritual meaning. Atheists, agnostics, and people of mixed or no faith marry every day. I’m sure there is religious opposition to some of those groups, but we haven’t legislated them down to second-class status. Why should same-sex couples be any different? I have never been given a reason why same-sex marriage (or civil unions) is bad, aside from ones rooted in religion or morality. I do not judge how you live your life, so who are you to judge how I live mine?
President Obama has stated that he is for giving same-sex civil unions the same federal rights as marriage. With this “compromise”, that statement can likely become a reality and provide hope to every couple who wants to be treated just like everyone else.
Flickr
