The Marriage Melee

Marriage-equality proponents have finally had their day in front of the Supreme Court of the United States; we await a decision.

Before their decision, though, let's take a moment to examine why this is even an issue in the first place. It is a perhaps unfortunate situation that the word "marriage" is used for two entirely unrelated issues in the United States (and elsewhere): we use "marriage" for the religious commitment ceremony and also for the secular legal contract. Those arguing in favor of marriage equality are not attempting to somehow force the church to condone gay marriage; the church can believe whatever it wants, and given that the separation of the affairs of the church and the state is one of the principles this country was founded on, the opinion of the church should have no bearing here anyway. Rather, proponents of equality want simply for the government to be forced to treat heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

That this is an issue at all is only because the government decided to get into the marriage business in the first place. By law, married couples enjoy all sorts of rights and benefits, such as tax benefits (the ability to file jointly, for example), medical benefits (a legal spouse is generally granted the power to make decisions given the incapacitation of the spouse), spouses not being compelled to testify against each other in court, and more. By refusing to view gay marriages as equal, all of these rights are denied to gay couples who wish to be married. Whether we turn to the 14th Amendment or simply to our own moral compass, this just isn't right.

There are two possible solutions: either affirm the right of gays to marry and have this marriage recognized in every state, with all of the benefits that entails, or completely eliminate the role of government in all marriage, returning the idea of marriage to a simple religious commitment. If we do not wish to be hypocrites in claiming America as one of the most free and equal places on the planet, these are the only options. Given these options, it is desirable to many, and frankly much easier, to take the first route.

Arguments that we should not be "redefining" marriage to "accommodate" the homosexual "lifestyle" fall flat. The church does not own the word marriage; allowing gays equality under federal law is not a redefinition of anything. Rather, for the first time in human history, science understands that homosexuality is not a choice, and more and more people are accepting this. I'd argue that all it takes is to ponder a simple question: whether you're straight or gay, is your attraction to a beautiful person automatic, or do you have to make a conscious decision every time you see one? If you answer the former, congratulations; you now understand why homosexuality is not a choice. It is, therefore, illogical to make any distinction in law between straight and gay relationships or marriages.

Religious people don't have to like it, but we do not govern this country based on religion. The equality movement takes exactly zero rights away from the religious; marriage equality does not affect a person's free practice of their religion, it does not harm the "institution of marriage", and it most certainly does not "destroy the fabric of morality of this country". It would be like a vegetarian claiming that other people eating meat in the same cafeteria as them somehow affects their ability to practice their choice of type of food to consume; the only difference is that one could make a logical argument that the smell of a delicious hamburger is tempting to a vegetarian, while marriage equality could not possibly tempt someone who isn't gay.

If you believe in the ideals on which the United States were founded, you must be for marriage equality. Love is love, and there is no rational reason to draw a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals on this issue.

A Not-So-Civil View On Civil Rights

civil rights (n): Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.

I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.

.......

Ready? Okay.

While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:

"We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."

So it seems that, in Ann Coulter's mind, a certain class of people deserve equal rights only if they have been enslaved in the past. I could go on a diatribe explaining why this is categorically ridiculous, but I'm not sure Miss Coulter leaves anything to be said. The fact that she thinks rights are some sort of currency to be doled out based on the degree to which a class was repressed is nonsensical. Whether or not this is more crazy than the fact that she seems to believe that immigrants, women, and homosexuals have never been repressed is debatable. Miss Coulter's ignorance of who deserves rights is surpassed only by her blatant disregard for current and historical events.

I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.

Let's Ignore The Issues... That We Keep Bringing Up

Mitt Romney, campaigning in Colorado, stopped for an interview with CBS Denver. After being asked about a variety of issues, Romney made it quite clear that the only thing he wanted to discuss was the economy. He answered questions about marriage equality, but a question about marijuana was just too much, apparently:

“Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about? ...The economy, the economy, the economy. The growth of jobs. The need to put people back to work. The challenges of Iran. “We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about, go ahead, you want to talk about marijuana?"

This sentiment seems to be echoing throughout the GOP politicians in the House and Senate. When asked for comment, Speaker Boehner said "The president can talk about it all he wants. I’m going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that’s jobs."

So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.

Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.

Going Forward

It seems like I've been spending a lot of time on this issue lately... but that's only because it keeps finding its way into the news.

In a history making statement, President Barack Obama has confirmed that he supports gay marriage. In this linked article, the President admits "...in this electoral map. It may hurt me." Which, most logical people would admit, is a very big possibility. While there continue to be polls that say that Americans today support gay marriage by a very slim margin, the issue loses every time it is put to a vote. This is because, as with many issues, the people against something tend to be more passionate and outspoken than the people for the same thing. These people are therefore more motivated to come out and vote.

This is a problem for the President; while this is unlikely to gain him many voters (people will vote against him over the economy, and this stance probably won't attract many of those people who happen to support gay marriage), it could be a turn-off to some of his supporters who may have been wavering. While they may not flock to Romney, some people, such as Evangelicals, may stay home instead of turning out for Obama. In an election that is already projected to be very tight, this could be a disaster.

I believe, knowing this, it took a great deal of courage for the President to come out an confirm something that he has probably personally believed for some time. I don't think he was necessarily forced into it by Biden or anyone else; Joe Biden is allowed to have an opinion on something, and that does not have to reflect the President's view. The way that the media has been beating Biden's comments to death may have had something to do with the timing of Obama's statement, however. The President did the right thing by standing firm and saying what he believes in, regardless of the inevitable political consequences.

Some call Obama's announcement a flip-flop. I suppose it could be construed that way, as the President has, in the past, argued against gay marriage. However, I also see a person's opinion on gay marriage as something that can change over time, much as Obama's view has. Being a Christian on one hand, and someone who favors equality and fairness on the other, one could see how the President could struggle with the issue. I believe it's understandable that someone's opinion on this could waver. Considering that the most likely political consequences of this announcement are negative, it would be difficult to cast this as a politically motivated statement (though cast away some on the right will).

In the end, I am proud of our President for showing true leadership and character on this issue. At a time when politics does nothing but constantly cause me to embarrassed for our country, this is a rare high note.

Going Backward

There are many reasons I weep for America, but I think this may jump straight to the top of the list.

On 5/8/12, the state of North Carolina voted to amend the state constitution to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership in the state is marriage between a man and a woman". 


This is troubling for many reasons. We have:


- A majority voting to deny equal rights to a minority,
- Religious arguments (mostly erroneous and misquoted even if we accept the Bible as truth, by the way) being the basis for laws/amendments,

among other issues. These are just the two flagrant violations of the founding principals of America that immediately come to mind. I thought that we had done away with both of those long ago, but apparently not.

As a side note, I continue to be amused at the hypocrisy of those that use the Bible to condemn gay marriage because it is convenient for their belief system based on hate, but completely ignore the parts of the Bible that are bothersome for them (i.e, the people that have been divorced 2 times. Go see what the Bible has to say about that.)

Sigh... every so often I get my hopes up that this country may finally move into the present day in terms of social issues. It seems so simple... equality. One word... about as simple as it gets. However, Americans demonstrate time and again their inability to grasp even the easiest concepts. This episode has pretty much knocked down my hopes again, and all I can do is wonder what it would be like to live in a country that doesn't openly condone hate.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, And It's The Government's Fault

To me it's very clear that gay marriage should be allowed. But maybe not for the reasons many people think.

If it were just a question of a "celebration of love" or "a holy contract between a man, a woman, and God", I honestly wouldn't care either way.

But that's not what marriage is. At least, not anymore. Government decided to get involved. In the present day world, marriage is a contract between two people and the government. There are tons of benefits of being married; actual, tangible benefits. This website has an enormous list of the benefits of marriage. Especially amusing is the quote "if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union... none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships". Also, "...you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner... and other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply".


This isn't a question about religion anymore. It stopped being about religion the moment government benefits came into the equation. It's about the fact that government has decided to endow couples certain special privileges, and as everyone is created equal, everyone should be entitled to these same privileges.


Either that, or eliminate every single privilege enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Whatever floats your boat.