Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:42:16 PM
I’m continuing my dialogue with Fannie, who has commented on previous entries to this blog, both here and on her own blog, regarding what I call neutered marriage licensing and Proposition 8. Once I get going, I can’t keep my ramblings short enough for the comments section.
"You seem to think a couple is valuable only insofar as this couple is capable of procreation."
That is a separate issue from what I’m actually arguing. I’m arguing that the state’s interest in voluntarily personal/social relationships is greatest when it comes to both-sex unions. The same interest is not there with same-sex unions or with friendships of any sort or for roommates. If there had never been any both-sex unions, none of us would be here. The same does not apply to same-sex unions, platonic friendships, etc.
We may have a fundamental disagreement here, but it seems self-evident to me that the state should stay out of personal lives, but especially voluntary personal relationships, as much as possible. There is a compelling interest for the state to license marriage between a man and a woman because that is the kind of union that naturally produces children and gives them a role model from each half of society, and society is better off when that perpetuation of society is done within marriage.
"One way that same-sex couples contribute to society is by adopting and raising children that other people are unwilling or unable to raise."
That some same-sex couples do this (and bless them for stepping in when the only alternative is a group home) has nothing to do with their homosexuality. They could provide the same home if they were platonic roommates.
"It is also seems to be your opinion (which is different from fact) that all gay and lesbian relationships are harmful to those involved in them."
That is an opinion I hold, yes.
"Basically, I hear you saying that the state should not sanction same-sex relationships because it offends your religious sensibilities."
The state should not do things unless there is a compelling reason for the state - and not the private sector - to do those things, and the state is explicitly told to by the federal or state Constitution. One need not be religious to see that the state has an interest in licensing marriage between a bride and a groom that it does not have with other voluntarily personal relationships. However, if I allow my religious sensibilities to inform my vote, that is my democratic right, just as you are free to vote based on whatever criteria you use. I have not said that the state should stick to licensing marriage between a bride and a groom because homosexuality is a sin. I have made a secular case that is independent of whether I approve or disapprove of homosexual behavior.
"I also think it is sad that gay men have higher rates of HIV/AIDS than the general population. (Lesbians, as you know, have the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS/STDS of all groups). Regarding substance abuse, etc. you cite no sources and merely speculate that it's your opinion that these phenomena correlate more with homosexuality than a repressive society. I can respect that that's your opinion. But let's not mistake your opinion for fact."
Places in California like San Francisco and West Hollywood where homosexuality is celebrated (hardly repressive, intolerant places) still show these kinds of problems. Homosexual people will not be well served in dealing with these problems if the blame continues to be misplaced on societal/familial disapproval.
Here’s one link on substance abuse that was fairly easy to find. Here’s one on domestic violence. I live on the greater Los Angeles area, regularly read the Los Angeles Times – which has an editorial board that is staffed with people who are out and is supportive of the causes of homosexuality activism, and also see reports from the County of Los Angeles’ Departments of Mental Health and Public Health that speak to these issues, and the County of Los Angeles government is sympathetic to your side, not mine. You don’t have to go to NARTH to find this information. These negative conditions do appear disproportionately in this subculture. A homosexual friend (yes, friend) of mine recently put out the word that he's looking for a new doctor. He specifically asked for one with a "gay-focused" practice. Why would that be, unless there are health issues in that subculture that are more prevalent than elsewhere?
In the broader picture, I think these realities will bring down marriage in general as these problems will now be recorded by sociologists as part of marriage, thereby lessening the statistical demonstration that marriage is generally beneficial. For example, there are higher rates of domestic abuse in heterosexual unmarried cohabitation than marriage. But if you mix into marriage a population with a higher rate of domestic violence, then marriage no longer looks as good. I know there are those on the other side who say that having state-licensed marriage will reduce those problems among homosexual people. I wish that there true. If my side loses this fight, I'll hope it is true. I just doubt that it will be.
Ken wrote: Socially, as I’ve pointed out before, I expect an even higher percentage of children to be born out of wedlock, raised out of wedlock, or to have divorced parents, as we will have it in our laws and as official public policy that marriage can’t be about children."
Fannie wrote: “Okay, but again, that's your opinion. And while we're admitting that that's an opinion we should be up front and acknowledge that it's really nothing more than a prediction.”
We have seen the correlation in other countries. I’m well aware that correlation does not prove causation, but I can also tell you that as a man, I know that if there isn’t that encouragement to raise children within marriage, more men won’t. I predict that likewise in same-sex relationships, the partner earning more income will be reluctant to marry or stay married. State-licensed marriage, in community property states, punishes the person earning the higher income in the event of a divorce. If marriage doesn’t mean a man and a woman, than it can’t be about children, and therefore appealing to marry or stay married "for the sake of the children" will have less effect. That’s because if we’re going by "love" as the criteria for marriage, when someone doesn’t feel like they are in love, or doesn’t feel like they are in love any more, they are justified in not marrying or leaving the marriage, regardless of the children involved. After all, the marriage isn’t about the children, it is about “love”.
So maybe the decline in marriage rates and the rise in illegitimacy in those other countries has more to do with a lack of respect for marriage and not that marriage was neutered. But maybe it was that lack of respect for marriage that led to their neutering of marriage. I don’t think we should follow the marriage policies of countries with an even higher illegitimacy rate than we have.
"The reality is that the reasons for divorce and out-of-wedlock births are numerous and include things like infidelity, lack of sex ed, lack of communication between spouses, substance abuse, physical/emotional abuse, mental illness, and incompatibility."
I mostly agree and I have written about these problems, too:
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2006/10/18/marriage_not_as_popular__gee,_i_wonder_why.thtml
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/28/marriage_is_dead_%e2%80%93_part_i_of_ii.thtml
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/28/marriage_is_dead_%e2%80%93_part_ii_of_ii.thtml
"To argue that heterosexual married couples would choose to get divorced because the legal definition of marriage now includes same-sex couples just doesn't jive with the reality of why people get divorced."
Haven’t you ever heard of couples who stay together for the sake of the children? Or get married because of a pregnancy? Or deliberately avoid conceiving children until they are married? When, as a society, you say that marriage isn’t about children – that some people may make their marriages about children, but as a society, we don’t believe marriage is about children – then there is one less factor to encourage people to raise children within marriage.
I have seen over and over again in the general debate about this that children really don’t need a father. If that is true, I should ignore any guilt I might feel should I decide I would be better off living separately from my wife, right? Likewise, she has heard that children really don’t need a mother. Two fathers will do,l we are told. To most people, that a child needs both their mother and their father is self-evident. While I can’t know anyone else’s heart or prove their motivations, I suspect that the denials of this (which are like denying that the sun appears to rise in east) come from straight people who want to repress their guilt for not being there for their child, and those who must argue that men and women are interchangeable in personal relationships for the sake of advancing their political agenda. Anyone who is not neutrally bisexual can’t possibly argue with a straight face that men and women ARE interchangeable in personal relationships, and therefore parenting and therefore marriage. Would two women be better at raising a child than a group home or a single person? Quite possibly. But best for a child would be to see a healthy dynamic and cooperation between a man and a woman and have those bonding experiences with both, as the child will deal with a society that is comprised of both men and women. The child will also see their father bonding with other men and their mother bonding with other women.
I’m sure you will take offense to this, but I’m going to explain more of my thinking anyways. When you call two men or two women “marriage”, you are trying to make the relationship something it is not. That is unfair to marriage as well as the same-sex relationship. A same-sex relationship is its own thing – even if I were to agree with you that it is a good thing and beneficial to society. It is probably safe to further say that a female-female relationship isn’t the same thing as male-male relationship. We are talking about three different kinds of relationships. An affair or a fling or platonic friendship or a one night stand is not marriage, either. When you water-down the meaning of something, you take away vocabulary that is useful to society and benefits society (which, of course, includes homosexual people who won’t be immune to the ill effect on society). To use a much less serious, somewhat silly example – let’s imagine baseball is beneficial to society in a way that football isn’t. Baseball is called “America’s Pastime”, and let’s imagine football players felt slighted by that and fought to also get the official designation as “American’s Pastime.” Then, when you refer to America’s Pastime, it no longer means baseball. It means “sports”, which is much more generic. Our laws and government system lose more credibility and authority when they try to tell us something (same-sex unions are no different than both-sex unions) that most of us inherently know isn’t true. We all know people – perhaps ourselves - who violate minor laws like traffic laws, or more serious laws like those against drinking at age 20 or marijuana use and resent heavy-handed enforcement of those laws and gripe about authority and law enforcement and courts in these examples. Well, there are plenty of us who take marriage much more seriously and when judges tell us “there is no difference” we lose respect for the legal system, and when the broader governmental system “enforces” this notion against our collective will, we no longer look at it is a representative. If the state tells me that bottled water is milk, I don't say "Oh, okay." I say something is wrong.
As I’ve written before, it is very hard to come up with really good analogies because marriage is unique. Those in favor of neutering marriage claim we are trying to tell them they have to ride in the back of the bus. But we are not. We invite you to ride the bus with us and sit where you like- but you can’t come onto the bus and tell us we need to take off the wheels and make it a lounge because you are prone tomotion sickness. I understand if you are a woman and you do not want to marry a man. You don’t have to get married at all, just like as someone with motion sickness need not get on the bus for a voluntary trip.
We are not asking you for anything. We are saying “no” to your request for us (the people of California) to give you something. When you ask us to give you something that is voluntary (state licensing), we have the option to say “no”. That’s what this vote is about. I maintain that rights were equal before the California Supreme Court decision, they are equal now, and they’ll be equal still if Proposition 8 passes.