Intellectual Exercise otDWM: Addendum.
In summary of my previous post on gay "marriage", the current debate over whether or not homosexual couples should be granted government-issued marriage licenses is not over whether or not gays have the right to marry (they do; a gay man has the same rights and restrictions to marry as do I) or even whether or not gays should be granted the right to marry whomever they want (and only gays; few are interested in granting polygamists or pedophiles the right to marry whomever they want). Instead, the central issue, at the heart of everything is what is marriage for, and what should the government's involvement be.
Those on the side opposed to gay marriage typically agree with the Catechism's teaching that marriage is the foundation of family life, which itself serves as the initiation into life in society. It "is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom." They think that the government should protect marriage and grant families special privileges because "Civil authority should consider it a grave duty 'to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity.'"
Those on the side in favor gay marriage tend to think that marriage is something I do because I want to do it and it will make me happy. They think the government should be involved because... well, I don't know why. I have yet to hear a good reason for why the government should be involved in marriage if not because it is specifically in society's best interests to foster it.
But anyways, it is ironic to note that the foundations of the gay rights debate, the philosophy that leads to the thought that marriage is something only to make me happy and serves no other purpose, comes from heterosexual Christians.
As was pointed out in a recent article in First Things: "By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals. Thus in a bizarre but real sense did [the 1930 Lambeth Conference's] attempt to show compassion to married heterosexuals inadvertently give rise to the modern gay-rights movement—and consequently, to the issues that have divided their church ever since."
The article is entitled "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" and is a very good read.
I caught the link from the esteemed John C. Wright's live journal, where the most insightful comment was perhaps this one: "Often it is argued that homosexuals are attacking the 'sanctity of marriage' when the initial and decisive blow against the sanctity of marriage occurred during the Sexual Revolution and the normalization of contraceptives by heterosexuals, especially Christians. Few Christians realize how the normalization of contraception is the philosophical lead into gay marriage - because what is the difference between a contracepting heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple? Neither is engaging in sex that is aimed towards procreation."
I think the main question we need to ask is Why is the government involved in marriage? Marriage, in and of itself, is a religious construct. So why are Church and state mingling? Because the fact of the matter is, anyone can get married, as long as you have someone to officiate it. The marriage may not be recognized by the government, but anyone has the right to marry.
ReplyDeleteNow as to why the government should allow this. It is as simple as one thing: money. The state of California will be issuing thousands of extra marriage licenses, all of which need to be paid for. This money gets put into the budget and could potentially balance it, were enough gay couples to wed.
And onto the next question (which you didn't quite post here and I'm not 100% sure whether it was in the previous post): why do gay people want to get married? Why not just be happy and live together? Again, it comes down to a few things (and when I mention these, please understand that while I am from California, this is not the same as all over the country). Number 1: Being married affords people the right to have hospital visits. Number 2: Being married allows people to file taxes jointly.
Joe's answer will inevitably be (and I know this because we've talked about it) why not just change all the other laws? Why not allow domestic partners hospital visits and allow them to file taxes jointly? And were that possible, I would not be pushing so hard for Prop 8 to not be passed. However, not all states will allow this to come to pass and the fact of the matter is, if you can't get the states to do it, how do you expect the federal government to do it?
(Wow, Devin. Do you, like, subscribe to my blog's RSS feed? Because you're fast on the response.)
ReplyDeleteI remain unconvinced.
"Marriage, in and of itself, is a religious construct." Mm, I'd say a social construct. Otherwise atheists, or other non-religious types, wouldn't get married. But that is another topic for another time.
As to the first reason you give, allow gay marriage for the extra tax money: at the risk of sounding condescending, come on. You can do better than that. There are far, far better ways for the state to make more money more easily. At $45 a pop, 100,000 extra marriage licenses a year (guesstimate) wouldn't amount to squat for a state with a $14.5 billion deficit. A better way to make money would be to raise the sales tax a hundredth of a percent. And you'd meet with less resistance to that than trying to redefine a millenia-old institution. Not to mention that this reason is in direct contradiction to reason number 2 you gave for why gays would want to marry: joint filing status. In the end, allowing gays to file jointly would end up costing the government more money, considering what they'd be saving with their joint filing status.
Which is a good segue to that topic. You say gays would want to marry to get joint filing status. Ignoring the fact that they already have that ability under CA's domestic partnership laws, why should the government even allow joint filing status to begin with? This goes back to the topic of why should the government grant any special privileges to married couples, if marriage is only a private agreement, not the foundation of society? The only reason I can come up with are those expounded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reasons which the gay rights movement expressly rejects.
Thirdly, you mention hospital visits. Again, you can do better. You honestly would find it easier and less of a social overhaul to redefine marriage than to pass a law that allows very close friends in to the emergency room? You think a majority of people will go for gay marriage but not for hospital visitation for non-related persons in a long-term relationship?
Honestly, Devin, you sound like you are grasping desperately for a reason. I know you are an intelligent young woman and normally provide rational, well thought-out arguments. But your arguments here don't show that. The only reasons you provide are contradictory to each other and necessitate tremendous social upheaval for what is, relatively, trivial.
All excellently stated, Joe. Several years ago when I was there, the Family Research Council underwent a major internal upheaval over this very issue: how can we possibly condemn homosexuality when we condone sterile heterosexuality? What exactly do we claim is the philosophical difference?
ReplyDeleteI think what this issue all boils down to is that homosexuals want unconditional approval of their behavior. They don't like being told they can't do or have something (who doesn't?). So they make up all kinds of reasons why gay "marriage" should be allowed, none of which really hold water. But it's almost as if subconsciously they feel guilty about what they're doing, so to remove the guilt they want to force everyone else to tell them it's okay. Considering the sad histories of probably most of this subsection of society, it's understandable that they're hungry for approval. I think that to deal with this issue our side could use a little more "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Unfortunately some of the opposition are unable to see that those two are indeed distinct.
Yeah, I'd have to say that marriage in and of itself is primarily a social construct. Without doing any actual checking, I'm pretty sure that every major religion and world culture with all their variety (and even small isolated cultures that developed independent of Western Civ) recognize an institution of marriage. I've never heard of a human society that had a totally marriage-free (maximally poligamous) culture, although I'd be curious to know if there has been one.
ReplyDeleteThis confirms my belief that it's a natural, instinctive, fundamental component of human nature and society. The Catholic Church recognizes a great deal of spiritual and theological significance to it, being specifically established by God and purposefully ingrained in human nature, but I don't believe a religious understanding of it is necessary for understanding its role in human society.
That being said, I believe the reason the laws are the way they are now was because it was "obvious" to the writers of the law that marriage is a fundamental social institution that ought to be recognized by government. That's the way it always was, they assumed it would remain obvious to people why it should stay that way.
Status quo is not in and of itself a reason to resist change, but when the status quo being discussed is so potentially critical to civilization, the reasons for changing it need to be carefully and thoroughly addressed, and the need proven.
I have not seen anywhere a convincing demonstration of why homosexuals have the right to have their relationship recognized by government in the same way it recognizes the fundamental social construct for the continuation of society.
The Catholic Church actually teaches that government is not required for marriage: all that is needed is basically the free consent of the spouses. The Church also teaches that the laws of a just authority must be obeyed insofar as they are in accord with the Natural Law, so as long as the government does not prohibit valid marriages, Catholics ought to work within the government's framework (pay for marriage licenses, etc.).
Church and State are involved in marriage for different reasons, and neither holds the position it is a purely religious construct.
If two gay people want to publicly pledge their support and fidelity to each other, and freely enter into a binding contract to love and care for each other, no one is preventing them. But such a contract between either heterosexual or homosexual couples by itself means little to society, and is only a part of what marriage is.
I have a question: If the definition of the word "marriage" is changed to include unions between same-sex couples, what word do we use to describe the unique union between a man and a woman who commit themselves to one another for life, accepting the responsibility to bear and raise children?
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell made the point in his novel 1984 that if an idea can't be said, then it can't be thought. That was the purpose of "Newspeak", a simplified version of English enforced by the totalitarian government in the novel. The regime banned words from the language in order to make certain concepts impossible to express or even think.
What better way to abolish the concept of traditional marriage and family as something uniquely valuable, than to rob the language of any word with which to express it?
Bishop Vigneron of Oakland wrote a very good pastoral message about the nature of marriage in response to the California Supreme Court ruling that imposed same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic bishops of California also issued a press release after the ruling.
The proponents of same-sex marriage are amassing huge amounts of money to defeat Proposition 8 in California, which would restore the ancient and universal (throughout all cultures and all of history) definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The news media routinely describe Proposition 8 as "banning same-sex marriage". California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a liberal Democrat and former Catholic seminarian who is (surprise!) a proponent of same-sex marriage, changed the previously neutral official ballot description of the proposition to state:
"ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
"Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That is what people will see on their ballots when they go to vote. California voters are usually reluctant to take "rights" away from anybody. Opinion polls already indicate that support for the traditional definition of marriage is barely over 50% in California.
If we can't pass this amendment to our constitution in California, be assured that you will have de facto recognition of same-sex marriage in your state. California has no restrictions on people coming from other states to get married in California, and there are already many out-of-state same-sex couples coming here to get "married". Then they will go back to their home states and pressure for recognition of their status as a "married" couple.
And it wouldn't be long before there would be pressure to allow "marriage" between more than two people, or even between human beings and animals. There would no longer be any logical reason to forbid it.
If you want to help fight for traditional marriage, you can go to the Protect Marriage web site and donate.
Here is a very good statement from the Catholic bishops of California in support of Proposition 8. They make some excellent points about the nature of marriage.
ReplyDeleteside argument: Why should states recognise other state's marriages? This is not a legal question as I know about the "full faith and credit" stuff. I'm asking from a philosophical perspective. Let's say a state allows 5 year olds to marry or for brothers and sisters to marry. Why should my state recognise that at all when they move to my state?
ReplyDeleteAs I ask this question I consider the fact that the feds need not intervene in an issue that is being handled reasonably among the states. I had such an argument about abortion when (if) Roe v Wade would be overturned and the legal authority would be returned to the states. I basically made the point that as long as neighboring states can tolerate their differences there is no need for fed intervention, but as soon as one state goes off the deep end like legalising all murder (and murder is handled at the state level), then the states that wish to protect their citizens (or humanity in general) from some nutty state will demand fed intervention (see civil war).
This of course led to silly libertarians arguing how horrible the 14th amendment was (blah blah blah). Anywho, so my point I'm rambling around is, why is there a need for my state to recognise what some other nutty state does? Why can't we just decide to ignore each other? I'll ignore your lunacy if you ignore my "bigotry". I'd imagine it would be in the best interest of the gay community to argue this point so the bitter clingers don't have to sit here wondering if CA legalising it means that my state has to recognise it.
Follow up to clarify:
ReplyDeleteI do oppose gay marriage. I also oppose public drunkness, but I don't care if some city in FL an hour away from me legalizes it (yet). I just assume let some areas experiment with their laws within reason, or I'd be demmanding that everything be defined at the federal level. I think it's healthy for some areas of the country that want to try something "new" (read bad), be alloud to give it a reasonable chance and thus further bolster my arguments against such an idea (see New York's welfare state budget, Massachusset's state health care, DC's and chicago's overly restrictive gun laws*)
*well actually, those are outside the bounds of "reasonable" given our very explicit 2nd amendment. So those really should never have been allowed, and yet they still illustrate my point.