I Don't Get It
I did a post yesterday about California's passage of Proposition 8, which amends the state's constitution to bar gay marriage.
I then found out that Florida and Arizona passed similar measures.
CA: 5.3 mil./4.8 mil (52%/48%)
FL: 4.7 mil./2.8 mil (62%/38%)
AZ: 1 mil./800 K (56%/44%)
(As an aside, these measures speak to the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that you get two-thirds of the states to vote to amend the Constitution. 50% plus one is not a good idea when you are changing the basic governing document of a society. (Florida requires 60% which the measure got.))
As the title of the post says, I don't get it. I've touched on this issue a couple of times in the
past. Being a lawyer, my first instinct is to look to the law for guidance; but, it probably isn't too helpful.
"Equal protection" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments probably isn't going to get it, as gay people aren't a "protected class."
The First Amendment could be promising: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." The trouble is that we know that Congress and state legislatures CAN limit the free exercise of religion and CAN allow the promotion of religion - Mormon men can't have more than one wife, Muslims can't always stop work to pray when their religion calls for it, government can post the Ten Commandments if it surrounds the plaque with the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, etc., you can have a nativity scene in the public park if you throw in a menorah, the list goes on.
Let me back up here to look at "marriage" as a religious institution. Marriage probably is best thought of as a religious institution. But whose religion? Should we go back to allowing Mormons to have multiple spouses? Should wives be chattel as they are in some religions?
The only solution is to get government out of the marriage business. Government issues a license for two people to cohabitate. Those two people then have the relationship "blessed" in any way they see fit. They can call the relationship anything they want to call it. Government regulates the civil aspects of the relationship based on public welfare, safety and health concerns; and, the couple and their community regulate the social aspects of the relationship.
Now government treats each couple and each religion equally and has more time to address the matters it should be involving itself in. Is this going to happen? No, see the numbers of people above that think that government should be involved in religion. But it should happen.
6 comments:
Yes and in this respect -the gay marriage thing -aren't most of those who are against gay marriage ALSO against (or so they say) government meddling in every aspect of our lives? Hmmm. Is it just me, my view of things maybe, or is there maybe just a wee bit of a conundrum in that issue then?
You say: Get government out of the marriage business. Let churches bless whatever unions they see fit. I've said this myself... and been called a coward for taking this position.
And I have begun to see the other side:
I suppose that, in this day and age, most people would argue that the principal public interest in marriage really concerns its end: We have elaborate divorce laws to minimize the chances that discarded spouses or children will become a burden on the State.
BUT... let's think this through. If the only legitimate interest of the State in marriage is the regulation of divorce, and if divorce law is to be, essentially, partnership law plus child support... why should the partnership size be limited to two?
Why shouldn't Ezekiel have a wife and 17 sister-wives... or Abdul the four allowed him by the Qar'an? For that matter, why should the State ban group marriages or even incestuous relationships? We could go on in this vein... but I think the point is that, at some level, we recognize that the State has legitimate interests in marriage other than divorce.
Right now there is no societal consensus on what that interest is, or how far it extends. So: Do we impose a particular point of view from the bench, as has been done in Massachusetts, Connecticut and California?
I don't think that's very fair.
And I do think Americans want to be fair. I think we could sell civil unions that have the same legal protections as marriage and let any church that wants to bless such a union as a marriage. (I think that Sam and Sally should be able to opt for a "civil union" too if they're "hung up" on marriage.)
But let's stop trying to impose by judicial fiat manners and mores as norms that most of our people find objectionable.
Keep marriage. Add civil unions. In the eyes of the State, they are not quite the same. Keep the conversation going about where the State's interests lie in marriage other than in divorce.
What do you think about that?
First, *&^%$#* IE7 and/or Blogger ate my comment.
Second, Curmudgeon,
If it were up to me, I don't care what the relationship is called; but, I don't have a dog in the hunt, again, because I don't care. Again, if it were up to me, I have no problem with relationships of more than two people.
What I have a problem with is creating categories where there is no objective basis for the distinction being made.
Gay people can't have the word marriage soley because someone else claimed it first. "You can have civil union or domestic partnership (in a growing number of, but not in all, states); but, you can't have marriage because you are different/not as good/not sufficiently religious (as we see religion)/some other prejudicial reason.
To my mind, everyone gets the word or no one gets it. I could live with your solution but it isn't fully equitable. In any event, I don't think either of our constructs is going to be adopted anytime soon.
As an act of gracious reconciliation with my liberal friends I Big Rick, hereby resolve to treat our new president-elect with all the respect shown to our current commander in chief by the above mentioned liberal friends.
As for the gay marriage issue I say
"Let them suffer through the misery of marriage, divorce, alimony, acrimony,loss of money,that we heteros have been blessed with for so long."
Nothing to do w/this post. I'm sorry that I've missed so many. They're great ones.
PS-we know about the bed, how's the toe?
Debo Blue
The gays are now boycotting Utah. That's tit for tat in my book! Hit'em where it hurts.
Gay partnerships are a fact of life and have been for eons, recognized or not. But I suppose these twosomes are smart to go where they can live in peace.
The states that attract and keep these often very talented people are the ones who will benefit. Sorry, CA, FL, and AZ.
Post a Comment