Last Thursday six Democratic presidential hopefuls attended a forum focusing on gay issues, sponsored by a gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, and hosted by Logo, a gay TV channel.
There were a couple of statements that stood out to me. The always astute John Edwards said we have to speak out about intolerance lest it becomes “OK for the Republicans in their politics to divide America and use hate-mongering to separate us.” To accuse Republicans of dividing America when there are two political parties that are divided on issues is a little ironic. And talk about hate-mongering: he is guilty of fostering hatred toward Republicans by accusing them of hate-mongering. He is separating Americans by dividing non-Republicans from Republicans.
New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, indicated that he thinks the nation is headed toward marriage equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals (same-sex marriage), but thinks that “what is achievable” right now “is civil unions with full marriage rights.” In other words, what is achievable right now is to give homosexuals all the rights that belong to traditional marriage, but just call it something else. Eventually, once the public gets used to the legal recognition of homosexual couples, the name will be changed from civil unions to marriage. This approach is so deceptive. Civil unions of this sort are de facto marriage—marriage by another name. The fight over marriage is not about who gets to use the word marriage, but the legal recognition of homosexual couples.
Even though people like Richardson support giving homosexuals all the benefits of marriage, some homosexuals still aren’t happy. Human Rights Campaign president, Joe Solmonese said, “The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear.” These types of statements make it clear that the fight for same-sex marriage is not about the benefits, but social approval. The fact of the matter is that if they were only interested in being treated equally, they would be satisfied with civil unions. But they aren’t. They want their relationships to be viewed as equal to heterosexual relationships. They want the same sort of public approval afforded to heterosexual couples, and nothing short of calling their legally recognized relationships “marriage” will achieve this.
In one sense I agree with Solmonese. He has every right to question why people are willing to give homosexuals all the same benefits of marriage, but not call it marriage. This is like saying “You can be employed at the same place we’re employed, work just like we work, make the same money we make, get the same health insurance we get, but you will not have a ‘job.’ ” That makes no sense.
Thinking to Believe 
August 13, 2007 at 9:04 am
Most people, including conservatives and Republicans, feel that gay relationships should be recognized and given marriage-like benefits. So the “debate” is really over.
What’s more interesting is polygamy. It has a greater history of legal recognition, and presumably far greater numbers of people who would like to take advantage of it.
If we truly respect other people, and respect the right of consenting adults to live whatever lifestyles they choose (which is the basis of recognizing gay marriage), then it’s difficult to see why polygamy and group marriages should not also be legalized.
LikeLike
August 15, 2007 at 1:45 am
Arthur,
I disagree with your assessment of public opinion. Polls indicate otherwise. It is true that when asked if they support same-sex marriage, civil unions, or no legal recognition for same-sex couples, a slight majority favor legal recognition of some sort (50-60% depending on the poll), versus those who wish for no legal recognition whatsoever (32-44% depending on the poll), but when it is broken down by political affiliation, Republicans do not support legal recognition of any sort (58% oppose, 36% support). See http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm for a whole host of polling data on this topic.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, the majority of Americans are opposed to this. Poll after poll tells us this.
Polls seem to conflict on the issue of civil unions, when the question is limited just to civil unions. Some indicate that a majority of people support them, while another poll indicates the opposite, and another poll shows more people opposing them than supporting them (although neither had a majority). So I’m not even sure we can say the majority of Americans support civil unions. Whatever the real number is, it is pretty high. Of course, I find the reasoning to be a little fuzzy here. The public is under the same delusion that Bill Richardson, George Bush, and a host of other politicians are under: that the issue is about who gets to use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship. I do not discount the fact that there is some importance to the name, but it is miniscule. The real issue is whether we recognize homosexual relationships to be equal to heterosexual relationships. Giving them full marriage benefits sends that message. Giving them most marriage benefits does about the same. Either way the government is recognizing their relationships, and offering their approval/support. Those who oppose same-sex marriage argue that there is no reason for the government to legally recognize and sanction same-sex couples because there is no reason to do so. There is a reason why society recognizes and promotes heterosexual unions (they produce and rear children). If it were not for children, there would be no need for society to recognize and regulate anyone’s relationship. After all, the government is not interested in promoting romantic love. They are interested in perpetuating society.
I would challenge your reasoning that the debate is over since the majority of Americans favor giving some sort of legal recognition to same-sex relationships. What if those who fought slavery reasoned this way? What if those who fought against racial segregation reasoned this way? Public opinion was in favor of slavery and segregation, so should the debate have been over? No, a moral issue was at stake, and people fought to persuade their citizens and policy makers to change their minds on the issue. I’m glad they did. The majority support abortion rights, but clearly that does not mean we should sit on our hands and do nothing to change the minds of our neighbors, and change the law to prevent these atrocities.
Even if the majority of people supported same-sex marriage, the debate would not be over. So long as there are two or more positions on the matter, the debate will continue.
As for polygamy, I agree with your reasoning. While advocates of same-sex marriage try to disavow it, the fact of the matter is that the reasons being given for allowing same-sex couples to marry equally apply to polygamists. You cannot principally disallow one and allow the other. It is a logical slippery slope.
Jason
LikeLike
August 16, 2007 at 9:54 pm
You don’t get it at all. Homosexuals don’t want marriage for “approval.” They want it because right now they can spend an entire lifetime together, but if one gets sick a disapproving family can come in and deny their spouse the right to ever see their partner again. It’s about not being allowed to support each other with insurance, estate transfer at death and all of the common everyday rights you enjoy with your wife.
I personally think the government should get out of the “marriage business” altogether. The government should ONLY certify legal civil unions and leave “marriage” and all of it’s issues to the private citizen. If a church does not want to marry to men, it has no obligation to do so. But as citizens homosexuals have every right to be protected enjoy the rights of citizen no matter what your religious bias decrees.
LikeLike
August 17, 2007 at 10:23 am
I said,
Did you miss what the gay leader said? He said giving gays all the benefits of marriage was not enough. The “package” has to be called “marriage” as well. Why insist on having the name too if he’s only interested in the benefits, and not the social approval? What tangible benefit does the name add? Why not just stop at the offer of equal benefits and say, “Thanks for the equal benefits” and call it a day? It’s because it is not (primarily) about the benefits. It is about the approval. When you look at how many gays actually engage in civil unions or marriage in those states where they can, you will see that very few do in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts. Gays fight for the right to civil unions/marriage, not necessarily because there is a demand for it in the gay community, but because they know it is the fastest way to social acceptance.
The fact of the matter is that gays can get many of the benefits you describe through legal means. Society does not need to expand the historical and natural understanding of marriage to accommodate those desires.
You said the government should get out of the marriage business, and get into the civil unions business. What would be the difference other than a change in name? That’s nothing but a difference without a distinction. The government would still be regulating private relationships. They would still be giving benefits to, and making obligations on those relationships. Nothing would change.
You asserted that as a citizen homosexuals should enjoy the rights of citizens, and not be deprived those rights due to religious bias. I have several things to say about this.
First, my argument against same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my religion per se (it is a mistake of secularists to assume that any opposition to some practice by a religious person must be based on blind religious beliefs, rather than reasoned principles). My conclusion happens to coincide with my religious beliefs, but my reasoning is purely secular. It’s not even based on a prior moral evaluation of homosexual behavior. It is based strictly on policy grounds. So I’m not denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex due to religious bias. I invite you to read my argument at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/samesexmarriage.htm.
Secondly, few Americans believe homosexuals should be deprived of equal treatment under the law. But gays are not wanting equal treatment. They are wanting special treatment. The law provides everyone—homo and hetero—the equal opportunity to marry, but it requires that the person you marry be of the opposite sex. Gays have the same right to marry I do. They choose not to afford themselves of this right, however. They want additional rights. They want the right to marry someone of the same sex. But why should we grant this right? Again, see my article.
Thirdly, to argue that homosexuals have the right to marry is like me arguing that I have a right to a hysterectomy. The latter makes no sense given the natural function of the body; the former makes no sense given the natural purpose of marriage, and the reason for which government concerns itself with regulating marriage. Again, see my article.
Jason
LikeLike