Equal rights for adulterers
Equal does not equal equal. Let me break that down. Equality in worth does not translate to equality in opportunity, nor in rights. For example: non-citizens can’t vote; my 30-year old son can’t run for president; a convicted felon can’t own a gun. And a man with one wife is at his limit.
But suppose said married man falls in love with another woman, but doesn’t want to divorce his wife. He wants to be married to both, but the law says no more than one at a time. Unfair! he claims. We love each other – you must have something against love. My wife doesn’t really seem to mind…we’re all adults. What’s the problem? I have the right to marry whomever I want, just like anybody else.
You see where I’m going with this. The argument for same-sex marriage says that denying that right to gays is discriminatory and unfair. No…it’s not. No more than denying the right to have multiple spouses, have sex with a ten-year old, or marry your mother. Equal worth does not mandate equal opportunities.
Laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman are written as safeguards and buttresses for the protection and support of the traditional family unit that is so essential to a stable society. I’ve written some here about why it deserves protection, and here’s a link to an excellent defense of that position.
No one is trying to stop gays from setting up house together. But redefining marriage should absolutely be off the table. Why are gay rights advocates insisting on it? I believe the primary reason is that only then will they feel that their lifestyle has legitimacy and acceptance. And that’s what they want more than the tax, healthcare or visitation benefits.
But legitimizing homosexuality by redefining marriage will inevitably result in my right to religious freedom being infringed on, as I will be forced to condone (or at least not oppose) and help support a lifestyle that I believe is a sin. Just as normalizing and destigmatizing polygamy would. I am NOT saying I’m less of a sinner than your average, law-abiding homosexual. I AM saying that redefining marriage and sin is like introducing an indestructible killer virus into society.
Are you ready for same-sex marriage to be forced on you? Are you okay with sharing your spouse? Polygamy is almost certainly next in line to be demanded as a human right. What defense would we have for prohibiting it once the traditional family unit is debased?
Caroline, I know that you believe that homosexual activity is a sin, and I respect that. But I have some concerns with your arguments here. The idea that gay marriage is a step on the slippery slope to incest or child abuse, or even polygamy, is ignoring the simple fact that gays want to marry to *strengthen* their family and the general role of family in our society.
But of greater concern is when you say “But legitimizing homosexuality by redefining marriage will inevitably result in my right to religious freedom being infringed on, as I will be forced to condone (or at least not oppose) and help support a lifestyle that I believe is a sin.”
I am curious why you believe you will be forced to condone the activity? Are you talking about your taxes? Your standing as a citizen of a country that allows it?
I’m trying to understand how allowing loving and consenting adults to enter into a legal contract could possibly infringe on your religious beliefs.
Consider other religious beliefs. Orthodox Jews, for example, believe that eating pork is sinful. Does our government infringe on their religious freedom by allowing pork to be sold as food?
I think an important distinction is that religious freedom — like all our freedoms — is a freedom *to*, not a freedom *from*. That is, we are free to exercise our religious beliefs, but not free from others’ beliefs, except insofar as they infringe on other rights protected by law.
LikeLike
Joe – thank you for reading and thoughtfully commenting. And “trying to understand.” I also genuinely try and understand the opposite view…I really do. So, in the interest of mutual understanding, I’ll expound a little on my viewpoint.
The threat that same-sex marriage poses to the strength of the family in our society is very real. Marriage is primarily for the benefit of children, to provide them a stable environment with both their mother and father. I understand that it’s not seen this way so much today, but instead the focus is on the couple and what will make them happy. This undoubtedly is a primary reason for the high divorce rate and the children that already suffer because of it. Same-sex marriage further separates marriage from its intended purpose and will result, just as the popular conception of marriage for emotional fulfillment has, in more instability, more children living with only one parent, and suffering the loss that divorce brings on them. Because it will strengthen not the family, but the already prevailing notion that marriage is for me, and if it’s not working for me, then I want out.
The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published a paper in 2010 titled “What is Marriage?” that I haven’t read in full, but here’s a good summary of it, with a link to the complete paper, if you’re interested in a better explanation of this assessment.
To answer your question, here are a few ways that I believe I will be forced to condone and support the gay lifestyle if marriage is redefined to include homosexual unions. My taxes…yes, though I already help pay for plenty of other things I don’t approve of. My husband and I own a small business that a gay couple might want to use in their wedding plans. We could be forced against our conscience to support their marriage this way under threat of illegal discrimination. I can foresee being forced by the state as a homeschooling mom to teach my son that homosexuality is good and normal. Certainly he would be getting this if he were in the public schools. And I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to imagine that if acceptance of homosexuality becomes further encoded into law, getting this here blog shut down for “hate speech” for maintaining that it’s a sin.
To your other points…the government doesn’t force Jews to eat pork. I could be forced to accept homosexuality in the ways noted above, and probably more. You don’t have to go further than Canada to see how freedoms are being denied since legalizing same-sex marriage.
And I think you pretty much made my point with your last sentence, though I understand you to be making a plea for the gays to be able to live as they want. I don’t have a problem with that as long as they are not claiming for themselves rights that don’t belong to them and if granted will further endanger the already precarious family unit and rights of free speech and religion. They are asking too much.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing the point, Caroline. You wouldn’t be forced to teach homosexuality as “good and normal” any more than a Jewish parent would be forced to teach that eating pork is “good and normal.” You wouldn’t be forced to participate in homosexual marriages any more than Jewish business owners are forced to stay open on the Sabbath. That’s what religious freedom is: you have the right to make choices based on your religious beliefs.
But you do not have the right to make choices for *others* based on your religious beliefs. Nor do you have the right to not have to come into contact with beliefs and/or actions that run counter to yours. That’s what I mean by the difference between “freedom to” and “freedom from.”
Furthermore, your reference to “further endanger the family unit” prompts the question: why now? Why this? That is, why are you not pushing to make divorce illegal? Single parents? Marriage by those unable to have children?
LikeLike
Joe, I wish it weren’t so, and if everyone was as concerned about protecting all rights as you obviously are, maybe it wouldn’t be. But consider what is already happening in other countries that have legalized same-sex marriages:
“in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.” You can read more here.
The following are regarding events in Canada, from National Review Online:
“it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.”
“The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. “
“(wedding) commissioners with theological objections are now facing the loss of their jobs,”
“In small-town British Columbia, a Knights of Columbus chapter rented out its building for a wedding party. They were not aware that the marriage was to be of a lesbian couple,… The managers of the hall apologized to the couple but explained that they could not proceed with the arrangement, and agreed to find an alternative venue and pay for new invitations to be printed. The couple said that this was not good enough, and the hall management was prosecuted.”
“two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage,”
You can see in these examples evidence of how the elevation of homosexuality has resulted in gay rights advocates being given authority to “make choices for *others*” based on their beliefs. Efforts to force defenders of traditional marriage to act against their faith, or prohibit them from acting in accordance with it, are being made in this country as well. The brouhaha involving Chick-Fil-A is one example; another is the Colorado baker targeted for protest for refusing to provide a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, which I wrote about here and you can read the news story here.
What I and others who oppose same-sex marriage are aiming at is not to “make choices” for anyone, but to defend what we are convinced is crucial to the well-being of children and all of society, and that is the traditional family unit of wedded man and woman and the children (if any) they produce or adopt.
“Why now? Why this?” I have acknowledged, in this exchange and elsewhere, that easy and accepted divorce has already weakened the stability of the traditional family unit and society as well as a result. I would like to see the laws changed on that. But I believe at this time my efforts to make that happen would be wasted. Perhaps if we are successful in convincing enough people of what marriage is intended to be and why that needs to be protected, we can persuade them to strengthen it by committing to honor their marriage vows.
As for single parents and childless couples, defending the traditional understanding of marriage does not discriminate against these groups, and we’re not trying to force anyone to marry before they have sex, nor deny them marriage if they can’t or choose not to have children. As for the argument for same-sex marriage from the reality of childless heterosexual marriage, I’d like to quote from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy paper I referenced above:
LikeLike
“But consider what is already happening in other countries that have legalized same-sex marriages”
Oh heavens, No! People saying bigoted things were reprimaned?
Where will this intolerance of intolerant people end? Next you know, legislators will have to apologize for calling Hispanics “wet backs”. What? You mean they already have? Oh Woe! The end of civilization is nigh!
LikeLike
Caroline, those are indeed some scary scenarios. But let’s take them one by one:
“Legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality.” No specifics here, which is telling. But even assuming this is legit, it’s a result of hate-crimes legislation, not gay marriage. The two don’t go hand-in-hand. (As for Pastor Ake Green, he appealed and was acquitted — twice.) We could discuss the sense of that kind of legislation, but it’s a completely separate topic.
As for the other article: “it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Estimated by whom? And what constitutes a “proceeding”? And what percentage of those included any government involvement? And what percentage of those actually resulted in any ruling against the “critics and opponents”? “And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.” Hmm. Surely!
“The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage.“ He was “charged” with human-rights violation in *complaints* filed with the Human Rights Commission by individuals. (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2005/03/bishop-charged-with-human-rights-violations/) People are jerks. Stopping gay marriage isn’t going to change that.
“(wedding) commissioners with theological objections are now facing the loss of their jobs,” As they should. As should anyone who is unable to do the job they’re hired to do. Religious freedom doesn’t mean freedom to pick and choose what parts of your job you’re comfortable doing. Can’t do the job? Find one that doesn’t conflict with your religious beliefs.
“In small-town British Columbia, a Knights of Columbus chapter rented out its building for a wedding party. … The hall management was prosecuted.” This “prosecution” was essentially the equivalent of damages in a civil suit here. And the ruling explicitly stated that “The Roman Catholic men’s group was entitled to refuse to rent the hall on the basis of religious belief.” (The problem is that they “caused undue hardship to the couple.”) http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002655954_webknights30.html Note that the whole thing was clearly a misunderstanding: “It didn’t occur to the person who showed them the hall that they were marrying each other, officials said.” and “We would never have booked the hall if we had known who the Knights of Columbus are, because we wouldn’t want any hassle on our special day.”
“two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage” Again, no details whatsoever. I couldn’t find any source for this online in my (admittedly limited) search. But “considering” “likely” and “even in private denominational schools” are tellingly vague statements.
The article you link to is loaded with such misleading citations. A TV anchor fired? Nothing to do with the law. A government-funded religious organization being required to update its employment policy to coincide with that of the government? Reasonable and expected. Am I missing anything?
We hear from opponents of gay marriage all kinds of scary stories about what can happen. But all it takes is a little digging to determine that the vast, vast majority of them are either baseless or irrelevant.
LikeLike
Whoops, forgot to address the Harvard Journal article you’ve linked. From what I can tell, it relies *very* heavily on the idea that marriage is primarily for procreation. That’s, um, not a position I’m very comfortable with. (The authors seem to try to wave off the objection regarding infertile couples with a sports analogy, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.)
LikeLike
Joe, you bring some valid rejoinders to Caroline’s examples.
I was intrigued though by your discomfort with marriage being procreation-centered. In your view, what is the central aspect that government should concern itself with when dealing with marriage?
I don’t know how the Harvard Journal article tries to deal with fertility, but I don’t see any reason that, all things being equal, government would start to probe individuals’ fertility. It seems an unwarranted slippery slope to me.
So what’s the reason to re-define marriage?
LikeLike
CD, my wife and I are unable to have children biologically. According to the prevailing logic in the Harvard piece, what we have ought not be considered marriage. Follow the logic of the piece to its ultimate conclusion and one is forced to assume that yes, the government ought to verify a couple’s fertility before granting marriage.
You talk about “redefining” marriage. I think one of the fundamental issues in this debate is that when we say “marriage” it can refer to two separate concepts: the legal definition of a contract between two consenting adults that results in consolidation of property, rights, and so forth; and the religious definition as a covenant, sacrament, or other religious union that is overseen and supported by a divine being. (And another note about “redefining” marriage: Let’s not forget that the definition of marriage has been in flux through its entire history. Consider the biblical examples of multiple wives — still prevalent in Middle-Eastern countries — or, for that matter, the very recent practice of polygamy among Mormons.)
I think that the debate arises, in part, from conflating the two. There is an assumption that legalizing gay marriage in the legal sense would somehow impact marriage in the religious sense. That’s demonstrably false: take the Catholic Church, for example, which is universally able to deny marriage to noncatholics, divorced individuals, and so on. The legality of divorce or noncatholic marriage has no bearing on the church’s right to deny marriage to those individuals.
Conversely, consider the legal element: what other legal contract can be withheld from otherwise competent adults based on their genders?
LikeLike
Joe – first of all, I appreciate the additional research you did into the cases I passed along. It was a reminder to me to dig a little deeper for more details before presenting anything as evidence. Nevertheless, I believe they serve as indicators of the prevailing climate in Canada as well as in the US that threatens free speech and religion. There are other cases in this country that give additional support to that. The New Mexico Supreme Court is currently deciding on a case involving a photographer who declined her services to a lesbian couple. And a Methodist Church in New Jersey was successfully sued for not allowing a lesbian couple to use their pavilion for their civil union ceremony.
About the definition of marriage – the Harvard piece makes the point that true marriage involves three things: a comprehensive union, a special link to children, and norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. The comprehensiveness includes bodily union through coitus. When a man and woman commit themselves to each other and seal their commitment through sexual intercourse, they are in a very real sense becoming one because our reproductive systems are alone in being incomplete without the involvement of a mate from the opposite sex.
Such a union is uniquely oriented towards the bearing of children but does not depend on the creation of children to be valid. To quote from the paper What is Marriage?: “By extension, bodily union involves mutual coordination toward a bodily good—which is realized only through coitus. And this union occurs even when conception, the bodily good toward which sexual intercourse as a biological function is oriented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception…Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought.” Here’s the link to the paper itself if you’d like to read further.
I believe the “separate concepts” of marriage are not so much legal and religious, but legal and inherent or natural. A group of siblings can legally contract to co-own property and share rights to it, but they don’t need to (and could not legally) be married to each other. Likewise, two homosexual men can contract to own property together, and otherwise be legally responsible for each other, without recognizing their relationship as a marriage. The traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is based on the inherent realities of the human body and the value of protecting and providing for the well-being of children.
The likelihood of same-sex marriage severely threatening the institution itself is defended in the paper, with quotes from gay advocates like this from Ellen Willis in an article in The Nation titled “Can Marriage Be Saved?”: “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.” And this one from Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, (Same-sex couples) should “fight for same‐sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, [because] the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake. . . is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
The paper also touches on the extremely high rate of infidelity in homosexual male couples, which I believe gives evidence that separating marriage from its particular orientation towards children leads to a rejection of its traditional norms of monogamy and exclusivity.
I respect and admire your concern for those you feel are being unfairly treated, Joe. I believe we ultimately want the same things, but disagree on how to achieve them, and what is truly fair and just.
LikeLike
Joe, I read the fertility section in the Harvard Journal article (v.34:no.1 pp.265-269) but not the piece commenting on it. The authors explicitly declare fertility tests to be unjust and invasive. I see no “logic in the piece” leading to the conclusion of government requiring fertility tests. What premises from the article do you see supporting this?
The article pins civil, or legal, marriage on the consummation of the heterosexual act. The authors argue that marriage, as a norm for heterosexual conduct, is an inherent good. They affirm that committed heterosexual couples contribute to that norm regardless of their fertility or intent to bear children. They cite studies showing a decline in well-adjusted citizens when heterosexuals abandon the norm. I agree with them that the state has a compelling interest in upholding the good of marriage, certainly as much as other goods that contribute to the general welfare: property rights, universal adult suffrage, trial by jury, etc.
You’ve offered a challenge by asking what other legal contracts are withheld from individuals on the basis of gender. Without commenting on your wording, it’s a fallacy to think a class of contract need be eliminated because it seems dissimilar from all others in a single respect. Consenting adults remain free to craft custom contracts according to their desires. States are free to create new classes of contracts as needed, such as civil unions. No need to redefine or expand the scope of civil marriage.
To change how the state treats civil marriage on the basis of entitlement benefits or other positive rights detracts from the state’s ability to signal approval of committed marriage as a norm for practicing heterosexuals. All laws have a normative aspect to them. I’ve laid on the normative implications of civil marriage as traditionally understood, without invoking religion.
LikeLike
“I know that you believe that homosexual activity is a sin, and I respect that.”
Why do you respect that? If she said she supported slavery because the bible gives rules for how to treat slaves, would you respect that too?
I try to reserve my respect for ideas that are respectable.
LikeLike
I respect her right to her religious beliefs because the belief itself has no material negative impact on anyone else. If you can’t respect others’ right to their beliefs if they don’t match up with yours, you’re going to have a bad time with life.
LikeLike
The absurdity of the U.S. justice system trying to negotiate invented positive rights is striking to me. Whatever the SCOTUS outcome, keep up the good work.
LikeLike
Thanks, Duck. The encouragement is much appreciated.
And right back atcha’!
LikeLike
By your reasoning Shrimp should be banned. Should it? Have you ever eaten shrimp?
LikeLike
Actually, John, I had some yesterday afternoon. And it was delicious. I assume you’re referring to Leviticus 11. Why do you believe that by my reasoning shrimp should be banned?
LikeLike
“Laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman are written as safeguards and buttresses for the protection and support of the traditional family unit that is so essential to a stable society. ”
I don’t think that is actually the case, Caroline. That may be your opinion, but if it is not based on fact, then it is hardly a valid argument.
LikeLike