richard
|
|
The Gay Marriage debate
| 
Dec 2 10:20 UTC 2003 |
Interesting column on the gay marriage debate by William Safire in the
New York Times today:
"On Same-Sex Marriage
By William Safire, The New York Times
I'm a "libcon." To that small slice of the political spectrum called
libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central.
With a consistency that strikes some as foolish, I'm pro-choice on
abortion before the quickening, pro-choice on my investment in Social
Security and pro-choice on private competition to Medicare.
That also explains why libcons demand that government protect rather
than intrude on privacy, and why we excoriate government officials who
permit media mergers that limit public access to all shades of opinion.
The libcon credo: respect majority rule and deeply ingrained cultural
custom unless they step on individual freedom, at which point wave the
Bill of Rights and holler.
That mind-set, so helpful in providing instant certitude on everything,
is generating the jangle of cognitive dissonance on same-sex marriage.
The issue is often posed as one of simple legal fairness: why shouldn't
two adults of the same sex who want to become life partners have the
same opportunity and gain the same legal rights of government
insurance, pension protection and hospital visitation as a couple who
choose op-sex marriage?
That encouragement to making homosexual relationships more permanent is
the primary argument for "civil union," the euphemism for "legal
marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people
angry." Many gay people, like many casually cohabiting heterosexuals,
will embrace the principle but not the practice, as it would involve
the consequences of dissolution of such a contract: alimony, child
support when applicable, division of assets, and the law firm of Nasty,
Brutal and Short.
The libertarian in me says: civil union corrects an inequity in the
law. There should be no legal or economic discrimination against
homosexuals anywhere in the U.S. And what is lawful in Vermont or
Massachusetts should be recognized in every other state because we are
one nation when it comes to basic rights, popular statutes to the
contrary notwithstanding.
That's the easy part. More difficult is the argument that the primary
purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear
children in a home of male and female role models known as caring
parents. But now that there are adoptive and scientific substitutes for
old-fashioned procreation, and now that 43 percent of first marriages
fail, the nuclear family ideal is not what it used to be. Little lock
is left in wedlock.
But what about the religious dimension to marriage? The ceremony
performed by clergy in a house of worship involves a sacrament, invokes
God's blessing on a man and a woman who take a solemn vow on entering a
spiritual and not just a physical union. Won't pressure to marry people
of the same sex split denominations, dismay millions of churchgoers and
infuriate many ardent believers?
Yes. Divisive it would surely be. Proponents of s-s-m who want more
than a city hall wedding who want more than a civil union would
seek clergy and congregants who welcome them. It would be a source of
bitter doctrinal debate in many neighborhoods. So was racial
intermarriage; but this faces scriptural admonitions as in the doomed
city of Sodom.
That brings us to the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy
law in Texas. That victory for privacy slammed the bedroom door in the
face of prosecutors who disapproved of forms of consensual sex engaged
in by homosexuals and others. The stinging dissent by Justice Antonin
Scalia, however, was prescient: the court decision opened the door to
agitation for same-sex marriage. It may not be the slippery slope to
polygamy, polyandry, incest and bestiality, but s-s-m is surely upon us.
The conservative in me wonders: if equal rights can be assured by civil
union, why are some gays pushing so hard for the word "marriage"?
The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil
union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant
recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes
society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment
reversed.
The pace of profound cultural change is too important to be left to
activist judges. As moral-political issues go, this big one deserves
examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal
contradictions which is the libcon way.
12-01-03 06:50 EST
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company."
|
richard
|
|
response 1 of 293:
|
Dec 2 10:22 UTC 2003 |
I think Safire is waffling. Early in that piece, he says that our
country ought to have one set of basic rights, and that the right of
two consenting adults to be able to get married ought to be such a
right. He also says it is teh responsibility of the courts to uphold
those rights. But then at the end, he seems to contradict himself, and
says judges shouldn't decide this, that states and communities need to
decide. Also, at one point Safire says:
"marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with
previous moral judgment reversed."
I think Safire is wrong here as well. That is the same faulty logic
right wingers use in the abortion debate. They argue that iif you are
pro-choice you APPROVE of abortion. In fact, one can strongly
DISAPPROVE of both abortions and gay marriages, and still vote that
those things ought to be legal because they think people should have
the right to make their own decisions in those matters.
I can be against a bill to outlaw smoking, and it DOESN'T mean that I
approve of smoking.
Also, I disagree that there need be religious grounds to oppose gay
marriages. The courts can only make gay marriage legal under the law.
They CANNOT force any church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, if
those marriages are against church doctrine, or temple doctrine. All
legalizing gay marriage means is that a gay couple who are in love, can
take out a marriage license, and can legally try to find a church, any
church-- even the church of Elvis in Vegas or whatever-- that might
perform a ceremony for them if they so choose.
You are not approving of gay marriage by agreeing to such a law. You
are simply saying that two consenting adults in this free country ought
to be able to make their own decisions about their own lives. That
ought to be, as Safire says before contradicting himself, a basic
right.
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 293:
|
Dec 2 10:31 UTC 2003 |
And this is by the way going to be a big issue in the upcoming election year.
Bush and his advisors are just salivating at the idea of turning the general
election into a referendum on the "institution of marriage" Particularly if
his opponent is Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont, signed the first such
law in the country to legalize civil unions for gays. The Bush people will
argue that Massachusetts legalizing gay marriages is some proof that the
country is going to hell. They will say that we ought to cling to a highly
religious, highly idealized concept of "marriage" as only being between a man
and a woman, and that somehow our society will decay if we allow gay couples
the right to get married. I believe Bush is going to propose a constitutional
amendment to outlaw gay marriage, which the Democrats' nominee would almost
certainly oppose, and try to use that as a way of trying to make the election
into a cultural debate instead of a political debate. It stinks but its going
to happen.
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 293:
|
Dec 2 13:43 UTC 2003 |
"The culture is not going to change because the law changes."
Well, I don't know about that. Around 1953 one might have said the same
thing about racial segregation in the American South. Then the law changed,
and the law was enforced. There was much resistance to change within the
culture, but cultural change eventually did follow. Without the impetus
provided by the changes in laws, I very much doubt that this would have
happened.
|