As we know, last Tuesday’s election didn’t exactly go the way conservatives and other right-minded individuals might have wanted. Values voters as I’ve heard them called, or religious folks as they likely are, also got what might appear to them as bad news as well. I have another take.
Several states had the redefinition of marriage on the ballot, and the values voters’ position for the understanding of marriage as it has been for the last several thousand years lost. That’s progress for you. But in a way in the America of 2012 I think it just might be.
Up to last Tuesday, over 30 states had voted to reject the redefinition of marriage, and the defenders of traditional marriage hailed that as a victory for common sense in American culture. But for the first time when put to a vote of the people of several states the traditionalists lost, much to their chagrin. But notice the vote totals in these reliably liberal states (in percentages):
Washington: 53-47
Maryland: 52-48
Maine: 53-47
Minnesota: 51-48 – Didn’t legalize, but voted against changing the constitution to deny marriage to homosexuals.
Reading and listening to media all over the ideological spectrum since the election one might think that the tide of American culture away from traditional marriage is tsunami like; hardly. Well, if it is not a tidal wave of change, then it is at least, we’re told, in due course inevitable; hardly.
But getting away from Marxist interpretations of history as inevitable (ask those who thought the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union would never fall), having Americans vote on this issue, and letting their decisions stand is actually a good thing for the body politic. If a majority of voters in a certain state want this to be their law, so be it. No one is forced to live in a state that is governed in a way that contradicts their values.
The votes in these states also says that the marriage issue is not what the redefinition advocates are constantly trying to assert: that marriage “equality” is synonymous with racial justice. If it were, then putting it to a vote of the people would be immoral.
This is why the victory in these states on Tuesday was a hollow one for many gay-rights advocates. To them it’s like putting slavery to a vote. A Wall Street Journal article I read after the election explains:
Voters in Maine and Maryland made history Tuesday by permitting same-sex marriage. Returns still being counted in Washington state suggest voters there made a similar choice. Campaigners in those states celebrated their wins as models for persuading voters through direct campaigns to permit gay marriage, rather than relying on lawmakers or courts to sanction it.
But many gay-rights leaders said their strategy going forward—built on lessons from the African-American civil-rights movement—doesn’t bank on taking their cause directly to voters in many more states.
“Rights should not be put to a vote,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry, a national gay-rights group that supported Tuesday’s initiatives. “While we have now shown we can do it, it doesn’t mean that we should have to do it, and it doesn’t mean that it is easy to do.” He said “very few” states are likely appropriate battlegrounds for future ballot fights, given the expense and organization required.
It really couldn’t be put any better or more clearly. Think of the implications. Almost 50 percent of the voters in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota, based on this man’s assumptions, are bigots, basically akin to racists. In most of the rest of the United States, the majority of state voters would be bigots. It is interesting that most African Americans don’t buy this argument, but that hardly seems to matter to the determined progressive.
Thus it must come down to courts, and progressives hope the Supreme Court will impose the redefinition of marriage on the entire country by judicial fiat. If it does, the culture wars up to that point will seem like child’s play.
On the other hand, the much more politically healthy approach is to let state voters decide. This would keep America from a cultural civil war. It would also keep a large swath of the American population from being considered by law bigots no different than racists simply because they believe marriage by definition is only possible between a man and a woman. But I’m sure for the so called progressives, that is not progress enough.
The demand for the redefinition of marriage is not and has never been about letting two people of the same gender who love one another have certain rights married folks have. These can easily be had by civil union laws, and have. No, it has been, is and always will be about forcing Americans to accept the moral legitimacy of homosexual sex, that it is no different than heterosexual sex, and to delegitimize the Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality. Forcing this view via non-democratic means down the throat of the American public lies only turmoil.
Thank you for a very intelligent even keeled article. Although I enthusiastically support marriage equality, your statements are well founded, unemotional and clear. @ points of contention: same sex marriage advocates are ONLY concerned with civil marriage…leave religious marriages to the various religions….also, we are not talking about the “redefinition” of marriage, as much as the “inclusion” of others into a truly wonderful institution. Thank you again.
The statement that equal rights under the law can easily be had under civil unions … and already have been … is blatantly untrue. No civil union law passed anywhere in the US has done so. No civil union law will be able to do so until the Federal Government recognizes civil unions for same-gender couples. Even the overturning of DOMA won’t change that. And it has been the experience in states that have experimented with civil unions (e.g., Vermont and New Jersey), that the separate-but-equal approach still invites discriminatory treatment that overburdened law enforcement officials and courts simply don’t have the resources to pursue.
Dave, you miss my point and make it at the same time. You use the phrase “separate-but-equal” as if modern day America were the Jim Crow South for homosexuals. It isn’t, and a very large majority of African-Americans don’t buy it either. As long as people like you are determined to equate this issue with racial justice, you will be condemning over half of the American public as bigots. And this approach will threaten religious liberty; most Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews will never accept that homosexuality is the moral equal of heterosexuality, and that marriage should be re-defined to accommodate it. If it ever is pushed into law from the top down nationally, the push back will be enormous.
Having said that, I’m not well read enough on civil unions to be able to affirm or challenge your claims. Can you give me some examples of the “discriminatory treatment” under these laws, and what exactly overburdened law enforcement?
Thanks.
I use the phrase “separate-but-equal” because that is precisely what civil unions are … an attempt to provide equal treatment using separate laws and phraseology. Any parallels to Jim Crow exist because such approaches typically don’t work … they invite confusion (real or feigned) and second-class status to those they allegedly protect. The state governments of both Vermont and New Jersey instituted non-partisan Civil Union Review Commissions which studied the effectiveness of their civil union laws. Both commissions came to the same conclusion, documented in their final reports: civil unions don’t, and probably cannot be made to, provide equal treatment for same-gender couples. Both reports can easily be found on the government websites of the two states. As for the continuing major disparities inherent in such laws where federal benefits are concerned, I hopefully don’t need to provide references on those.
There is no threat to religious liberty involved here. We are talking about civil marriage … not religious. Virtually nobody is interested in interfering with how religious bodies exercise their religious rites in the context of their own private worship spaces. Further, many religious bodies — the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest US Lutheran body (ELCA), the United Church of Christ, the two largest US Jewish bodies (accounting for over 80% of American Jews) and others allow consecration of same-gender relationships and/or the ordination of clergy in such relationships. So casting this as an affront to Judeo-Christian practitioners in this country is way off base.
Finally, there is no substantive difference between the arguments for same-gender CIVIL marriage and interracial CIVIL marriage … except that homosexuals are able to only enter into healthy, successful state-recognized marriage with people of the same gender. Laws against same-gender marriage are more discriminatory than antimiscegenation laws ever were. If people opposed to same-gender civil marriage wish to avoid the “bigot” label, they need to come up with some constitutionally-valid arguments based on facts rather than distortions of the scientific/sociological realities involved and purely religious-based arguments.
Why do you assume the arguments against your position are religious arguments? You also assume that race and homosexual behavior are immutable genetic traits. This is something that has not been proven and cannot be proven. Black skin color is a genetic trait that cannot be changed, and over which a person has no control or choice. Homosexual impulses are simply not comparable.
As a friend of mine pointed out, homosexual activists may claim that these impulses must be acted upon and are immutable, and they are welcome to believe it and act as if it were true. That is their right. But society shouldn’t force others to act on the same premise if they dispute those claims. To force people to act against their conscience is to destroy an essential liberty.
I didn’t say they were all based on religious beliefs … I also included distortions in the scientific/sociological evidence. Regardless, much of the time the arguments are based on religion … as was the case in much of your article.
As for comparisons between race and sexual orientation, the broad consensus of mental health professionals is that sexual orientation is something that is set very early in childhood, and is NOT something that people have control over. I don’t believe I have ever heard … nor do I know anyone who has said they’ve heard … of anyone feeling like they chose to be gay or straight. Even Exodus International has given up on that assertion … they now focus on helping homosexuals live celibate lives, rather than “reparative therapy.”
Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race. Choosing to marry somebody of a different race is no LESS a choice than choosing to marry somebody of the same gender … except that, as I said, for homosexuals there is no alternative if one wishes to engage in a healthy, successful marriage. If antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional discrimination, laws against same-gender marriage are even more so. People are free to believe whatever they want, and to engage in whatever private worship practices they want. But when it comes to laws … in this case, civil marriage law … people do not have the right to enshrine their own personal beliefs in discriminatory laws that do tangible harm to a minority, unless they can come up with constitutionally-valid, non-religious reasons for discriminating. I have yet to hear any such arguments.
Actually it is more your first response that focuses on religious reasons for opposing same-gender civil marriage … though the only reason cited in the actual article also is religion-based: the claim that it “delegitimize(s) the Judeo-Christian view of sexual morality,” and more generally about personal moral beliefs about sex, as if sexual activities were what same-gender relationships are all about.
“Sexual orientation is no more a choice than race” because “the broad consensus of mental health professionals” say so? Really? Let me repeat, because obviously you don’t read very carefully: this cannot be proved, period. It is your assertion, period. Never saw a black person become white, but there are plenty of folks who thought they were homosexual and decided they weren’t. The very idea of some definitive ontological existence of something called homosexual is a modern idea with dubious foundations. No, you want and need homosexual inclinations and activity to be equal to race to justify your anti-religious bigotry. You read it here: it won’t work.
It is not just my assertion that sexual orientation is not a choice; you can look at the website of any of the major mental-health societies … the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, etc. … and you will find that they have, based on the scientific research, arrived at that conclusion. Science rarely proves things with absolute certainty, but the strong consensus on this issue is a pretty good indicator. And, as I said, I’ve never known anybody … or known anyone who has said they were acquainted with anybody … for whom their sexual orientation was a choice. I have known people who entered into opposite-gender relationships, only to come to the realization later in life that they were homosexual; none would tell you they had changed from straight to gay … all would tell you they were always gay, and that there was something fundamental missing in their attempted straight relationships from the very beginning. I also know of bisexual individuals who have been in opposite-gender relationships and subsequently in same-gender relationships, but that does not represent a change from gay to straight either. And all the instances I’ve read about people “converting” from gay to straight seem to have been about people who engaged in homosexual sexual activity purely as a matter of lust … not because they developed healthy same-gender romantic relationships as homosexuals and later “decided” to develop only straight romantic relationships.
Your focus on sexual intercourse and “impulses” suggests to me that you don’t really understand what all is involved in sexual orientation. Your acknowledgement that you’re not all that familiar with how civil unions have worked, or how they are lacking when it comes to providing equal treatment under the law, while still feeling qualified to make the claim that they already “easily” provide equal treatment, makes it appear as though you actually are mostly just shooting from the hip; you really don’t seem to be very familiar with the legal or scientific aspects of the issue at all.
Also, I’m not sure where your “anti-religious bigotry” attack came from. I’m a life-long Christian who has had an active faith life for decades. Most people of faith I know support same-gender relationships and legal recognition of same-gender marriage. The majority of same-gender couples I know are Christian. As I noted earlier, a great many Judeo-Christian denominations already support same-gender couples in their relationships.
The fact of the matter is that public opinion has been moving steadily in favor of legal recognition of same-gender marriage for years. A key reason behind that … and in fact, a key factor in the development of my own thinking on the matter … is that getting to know same-gender couples and their families personally makes it very clear how just normal and healthy and functionally equivalent they are to families built around straight couples, and how damaging the discriminatory status-quo is to such families. You can pretend that it’s not happening, and keep on spreading misinformation about homosexuality and civil unions, but that just isn’t very effective when people are seeing first-hand how erroneous your claims are.