A proposal to meet everyone’s needs
CommentsToday there’s more evidence the gay community’s self-destructive obsession with the word “marriage” has nothing to do with actual marriage, civil rights, or protections for same-sex couples. The expected rush of bookings for gay weddings in California has simply not materialized. The Wall Street Journal says wedding venues across the state “report a surprisingly small number of gay-wedding reservations.”
Canada experienced a similar lack of any rush to the altar when it legalized same-sex marriage earlier in the decade.
This lack of interest in actually getting married comports with the the fact that many, many gays who have absolutely no interest in ever getting married are working hard to change the nation’s marriage laws. For example, a lesbian who calls herself gaylicious, when asked about gay marriage, said “Don’t know if I’d personally get married..but I do believe in some sort of union that is equal to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Lesbian city councilmember Rosie Mendez wrote in Gay City News how she feels marriage is not about achieving benefits, but about feeling equal:
To deny to us what “society” deems is the greatest form to express one’s love - marriage- goes to the core of our basic rights…. You cannot tell us you are going to give us the same rights as married folks, but we will call it something else…. any separate statutory construction creating anything short of marriage in New York will ultimately be seen as a loss. While it would be a victory in addressing the political and legal inequities, in order to achieve social equality, the statute would need to label it a marriage.
One of the smartest GaysDefendMarriage.com readers, a supporter of same-sex marriage named Dan Dirksen, has shared how in his view gay marriage is not about benefits but about dignity and equality:
For many (and perhaps most) gay couples, the primary stress associated with not being able to get married is not about financial burdens and legal rights. It’s about dignity and equality. Look at the initial take-up rates for marriage versus civil unions and other alternatives. A much higher % of gay couples avail themselves of marraige than of civil unions and domestic partnerships when initially offered. That’s because people know that marriage is different and gets you something no alternative gets you–respect and dignity. And many gay people are willing to wait for that rather than to avail themselves of these second-class statuses, which they see as demeaning.
What’s going on is that LGBT people are not motivated by unfairness or the lack of equal benefits. If that were the problem, I’m sure I could work out a compromise with someone like Dan that would address nearly all the concerns about unfairness and equal benefits. The same-sex marriage movement, as Dan admits, is about the intangibles - a sense of dignity and equality. And as someone who grew up gay myself, I fully understand the pain and frustration of being called names, and being discriminated against, and feeling like a second-class citizen. Unfortunately, most gays and lesbians have so blindly attached themselves to the word “marriage” as a quick fix to achieve dignity and a sense of full citizenship in American society that they cannot see the harms they are causing - to orphans who want both a mother and a father; to traditionally religious people who don’t want to have to start to behave as if a definition of marriage they abhor is actually true or face the loss of their assets, employment, and even freedom; and most sadly of all, to same-sex couples in many other states who now have no rights at all because same-sex couples in two states that already had many, many rights insisted on the word “marriage.”
So I would like to propose a solution, that I believe would address the true concerns of people on both sides of this issue.
1. We pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
2. All Defense of Marriage amendments to state constitutions, including the 18 amendments that ban civil unions, are repealed as they are now made unnecessary by the FMA.
3. We pass a nationwide mutual beneficiary law based on the Salt Lake City model, that provides important protections for non-married couples of any gender, relation, or sexual orientation.
4. Congress passes an annual appropriation of at least $25 million to be parceled out in community grants to deal with the important problem of LGBT self-esteem. These grants cannot be used to promote or disparage gay sex, nor to promote or disparage same-sex relationships. They simply focus on helping people with same-sex attractions and LGBT identities feel good about themselves and overcome the stigma and shame that has been associated with having a minority sexual identity in America. The programs can employ psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, counselors, clergy, and teachers to reach out to LGBT people who don’t feel like full citizens in American society, and help them achieve self-worth in healthy, positive ways that don’t involve harming key societal building blocks like marriage.
I think the above plan would help everyone. Gays and lesbians can get direct aid from the government in feeling good about themselves, but marriage will remain intact in all 50 states, plus same-sex couples in every single state can have protections currently available to less than a quarter of all Americans.
Any takers?
‘Unfortunately, most gays and lesbians have so blindly attached themselves to the word “marriage” as a quick fix to achieve dignity and a sense of full citizenship in American society that they cannot see the harms they are causing - to orphans who want both a mother and a father;’
Well certainly we can’t see that we’re causing harm to orphans, but we think that’s because you haven’t made a case - any coherent case at all. There’s at least some case that on balance children are better off with their biological parents but this has precisely nothing to do with SSM. You prevent children being raised by non-biological parents by stopping parents dying, stopping parents breaking up, stopping parents giving up children for adoption (including surrogacy arrangements), and stopping parents being so disfunctional that their children need to be taken away, but banning SSM is a total distraction. There’s a quite strong case that two parents are better than one, but again this is no argument of any sort against SSM. And we don’t see that you’ve made any case at all that when adoption is required that the parents need to be opposite sex. You keep asserting it, but you assert it in the teeth of what data there is, and the only argument I’ve ever heard for it is not an argument that it’s true but that you have a right of religious freedom to be allowed to believe it. Well indeed you have that right, but you don’t have the right to expect anyone else to take you seriously in a public policy debate.
‘to traditionally religious people who don’t want to have to start to behave as if a definition of marriage they abhor is actually true or face the loss of their assets, employment, and even freedom;’
It’s not that we’re blind to this, it’s that we don’t care, and we don’t see why we should care. Overt anti-gay animosity is now very highly correlated with traditional religious views and it’s a fair bet that as pseudo-secular rationalizations continue to be exposed as nonsense, that the correlation will approach perfection. Therefore, for better or worse, it’s a zero-sum game - for gay people to achieve full civil rights, traditionally religious people have to lose. I intend for them to lose pretty much totally. I think it’s very important that they have spaces to express their religious disapproval of gays, but outside purely ritual contexts I don’t propose to allow them an inch of freedom to act against gay people or to make the slightest accommodation to them in public policy that affects gays.
And while SSM is currently an effective wedge issue in that it separates overtly hostile homophobes from those who want to consider themselves reasonable and centrist, I’m afraid that I just don’t accept that there is a reasonable case against it, or that there’s anything to be gained by making concessions to people who seem to think there is.
‘and most sadly of all, to same-sex couples in many other states who now have no rights at all because same-sex couples in two states that already had many, many rights insisted on the word “marriage.”’
I don’t accept that this is a trade-off. Different states are at different places. Yes we can’t forget that we need to be fighting for really basic protections in places like Alabama. At the same time, it’s important that gay couples be getting married in places like Massachusetts and California, because when the sky doesn’t fall, the rationalizations for religious bigotry will be exposed for the nonsense they are.
‘We pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). [...] Any takers?’
You’ve got to be joking. You can’t plausibly be ignorant of the polls that show that the younger generation is overwhelmingly more pro-gay than the older. This is a fight we’re going to win resoundingly in a decade or two or three, and the stupidest thing we could possibly do is freely accept an offer to lock in a defeat up-front.
Interesting, but I’ll pass. The problem here is that I just don’t think that your traditional view of marriage constitutes even a majority opinion in the US, let alone a concensus view that warrants a constitutional amendment. Here’s my rationale.
The majority of those who support traditional marriage are not pro-marriage but rather anti-gay. They are actually fairly agnostic on the importance of marriage as a fundamental organizing principle for families and, instead, simply are uncomfortable with gay people and, even more so, with gay people who have sex with each other. Most people view the core meaning of marriage in terms of sex-neutral concepts like mutual love and commitment. While most Americans probably believe that man-woman marriage constitutes the best situation for raising children, they simultaneously also understand that marriage is an institution that goes beyond child-rearing and is, at is essence, the best way, legally and psychologically, for couples to form long-term relationships, regardless of the possibility for child-rearing.
The end result here is that about a third of Americans are homophobic bigots who use the marriage debate as a way to vent their bigotry. Perhaps a third actually support your concept of marriage and a third support marriage for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. That’s just not a situation that warrants a constitutional amendment. Bigots should not constitute the “swing vote” on such an important issue.
It is extermely difficult to disentangle advocacy for traditional marriage from anti-gay sentiments. As I have said to you already David, you have cast your lot in this debate with a very nefarious group of overtly anti-gay bigots. FMA is a thinly veiled attempt by these bigots to ensconce homophobia and anti-gay sentiment into the US Constitution.
If you really want to begin a serious dialogue with gay people on this issue, it has to start with taking FMA off the table. This is a completely unacceptable solution with ramifications for gay people that go far beyond the ability to marry. FMA would constitutionally define same-sex relationships as “less than” marriages, and, by default, define gay people as less than their heterosexual counterparts. The slippery slope of FMA for gay people is simply unthinkable and defies basic American principles of justice, fairness and equality.
In our democracy, the California process probably presents the best road forward. The elected representatives of the people (legislature and governor) have weighted in–same-sex marriage is fine. The courts have weighed in–denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Now the people get to vote. If they do not pass the proposed the amendment, then it’s settled law. All parties in the democracy agree. If the people overturn the court, then their will prevails.
Why is that not the appropriate compromise? You are so concerned for the welfare of gay people outside of California, but my strong sense is that they are more than happy to accept local backlash in exchange for broad movement on this issue. And they realize that they are always better off without FMA.
So my compromise is to just let Californians vote and let the rest of the country grapple with the outcome within the framework of our constitutional democracy. That process got us through slavery and a civil war to a point where one of our major political parties is about to nominate an African-American for president. It’s an ingenious system and I have no doubt that it will work in this case toward a resolution that is best for all concerned.
FMA should be tossed out, it doesn’t do anything useful. And you don’t address same-sex conception at all - as long as we are going to allow same-sex couples the right to conceive together - just in theory, it doesn’t even have to be actually doable - then we should allow same-sex marriage, since we should be promoting the idea that people that want to conceive children together someday should get married first, before they attempt it.
So, to “meet everyone’s needs”, all we have to do is three things: enact a federal ban on use of modified gametes, preserve marriage’s conception rights, and then offer the federal benefits for same-sex couples (I think in the form of equal federal recognition for Civil Unions that are defined by the state as being exactly like marriage but lacking conception rights, but if you think some other federal benefit is needed, that could be done instead, or also.)
The combination of prohibiting modified gametes and preserving marriage’s conception rights effectively prohibits states offering marriage to any couple that is prohibited from attempting to conceive together, as same-sex couples would be. So it would define marriage as a man and a woman without having to be arbitrary or exclusionary, and instead truly define it in terms of what it does for the couple, ie, guarantee a right to attempt to conceive children together.
David, to protect marriage, as marriage, it is necessary to also prohibit the misconstruction of our marriage laws as a mandate for civil union attached to the hip of marital status. Where civil union has been enacted, it has been done through an outright merger with marriage recognition, thus transforming marriage into civil union.
So that point in your compromise is contentious for many reasons based on the best defence of marriage itself. I’d be pleased to see a compromise that at least places the federal marriage amendment on the ballot across the country. Let the actual arguments in favor of marriage stand or fall in an open state-by-state campaign rather than be squelched in Congress. We ought to seek to reassert the principles of good governance since these principles have been undermined via the SSM campaign.
The mutual beneficiary law is a sound concept. It is well-utilized across the country because these provisions exist already beyond Maryland. However, it is important to emphasize that these provisions are for protections outside of marriage. Those eligible for marriage ought to be ineligible for these provisions. The alternative that you offered must be clearly understood as nonmarital — it is not marriage in all but name because it is not serving a marriage purpose. And it is not based on gay identity politics but on justice and reasonable access in terms of social policy.
Have you presented your basic points of compromise to individual leading voices of the SSM campaign? What sort of response have you received?
* * *
Mark Barton, you spoke here as “we” — please state how you became the leader, or the spokesperson, for whatever “we” you have assumed.
As for coherency, please state the essentials of the relationship type that you have in mind when you use the word, marriage.
You appear to make much of the distinction between marriage as understood by the major religions and marriage as understood by the Law. So, whatever the essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind, please list the definitive legal requirements that show these essentials are in intrinsic to the marriage laws.
The SSM campaign attacks both the essentials and the definitive legal requirements that recognize these essentials.
The rules the pro-SSM side uses to attack the core of marriage, these same rules ought to test the asserted replacement relationship type that the pro-SSM side favors. They are proposes a substitution even if their rhetoric claims mere “extension”.
The core of marriage does not fit the one-sexed arrangement (gay or not, sexualized or not, religous or not).
The man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes, but the one-sex scenario excludes one or the other sex and is segregative. Where children are present (via adoption or other means), the one-sex scenario segregates motherood and fatherhood. The marriage presumption of paternity, a requirement to which husband and wife consent when they enter the social institution of marriage, stands for the contingency for responsible procreation, but no such presumption can apply to a scenario lacking the both sexes. The SSM campaign seeks to have society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.
These legal requirements of marriage prominently distinguish marriage from nonmarriage both in religious and irreligious terms. Further, society draws boundaries around these essentials, the core of marriage, based on the coherent whole — the social institution — that the Law, via the government on behalf of civil society, recognizes but does not own. Yet as a preliminary step, the SSM campaign begins with the audacious assumption that the government does indeed own this vital foundational social institution of civil society. That is an affront to the basis of our republican form of government: the People have a government, not the other way around.
So, what are the legal requirements that define the relationship type that the SSMers have in mind? Usually the answer, if an answer is even offered, amounts to a shrug that marriage is whatever the government says it is — arbitrarily — except when it comes to the two defining requirements that I have just reminded you about. What they have in mind, when it is stated as legal requirements, is nonmarital and fits the the provisions for designated beneficaries, long-established even before Maryland’s innovation. SSM agumentation works against the special status of marriage but works in favor of the special status of gay identity politics.
The integration of the sexes, *combined* with the contingency for responsible procreation, is not a quasi-secular description of marriage’s essentials, by the way, but SSMers too often seek to marginalize the irreligious case against their favored reform.
They do so not by engaging the actual disagreement, but by asserting that all reasons to maintain the man-woman criterion of marriage are religious and/or as you put it, religious bigotry. The claim is flimsy but it is how the SSM campaign has sought to discredit the major religions as well as the major secular case against the merger of nonmarriage with marriage. This harms society across the board.
And it indicates that this SSM line of complaint is highly prejudiced (in some pro-SSM hands it is unapologetically bigoted) and stands or falls on gay identity politics rather than justice or good social policy. It does not on what marriage actually is.
Dan said: “FMA would constitutionally define same-sex relationships as “less than” marriages, and, by default, define gay people as less than their heterosexual counterparts.”
Objectively, that is a falsehood.
A marriage amendment would reaffirm that marriage is both-sexed, as it has ever been. The man-woman criterion is not a test of heterosexual or homosexual or whateversexual orientation.
The SSM campaign has got things upside down and inside out.
In California the People reaffirmed marriage but the legislators rushed to undermine this by enacting a localized merger of nonmarriage with marriage via the domestic partnership statutes.
It is false that Prop 22 was just about the word, marriage, and not about marriage itself.
So the legislators and the judiciary got it wrong. They started with a predrawn conclusion that stands against the reaffirmation of the People’s directly expressed will.
That is antithetical to our republican form of government.
SSM argumentation declares, axiomatically, that the one-sex-short arrangement is a subset of marriage. It does not begin with justice nor with what marriage actually is. This is not about government regulation of romance. And it ought not be about that subset of the nonmarital category that is gay-identified, either. It is the SSM campaign which has pushed this debate as beiing about both of those things rather than about marriage.
On the other hand, marriage is not axiomaticaly both-sexed, for it arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the both-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community. Marriage is a social institution and is not a creature born of the state’s authority. Even these obvious facts have been undermined via the SSM campaign’s push to reject the preferential status of the union of husband and wife.
How is it pro-marriage to press identity politics into marriage law and social policy? How is it in keeping with our republican form of government to declare that the government owns a foundaional social institution of civil society? How is it justice to merge sex-integration with segreation? How is it justice to reject the core of marriage and to substitute a vague nonmarital abstraction?
None of it makes much sense. But I see that in your comment you would depend on the will of the People — provided that will has been led, rather than followed, by the judiciary and the legislature, provided that these branches of government openly contradict the will of the People. That is the connundrum of those who favor SSM even as they seek justice, fairness, and equality. Your side of the table begins with identity politics and ends with identity politics, whatever the means used.
Rosie Mendez says “You cannot tell us you are going to give us the same rights as married folks, but we will call it something else” - well, civil unions should not have the same rights, they should not have the right to coenvei children together, that shoudl be prohibited to same sex couples. This concrete difference would also allow Dan Dirksen to have his dignity, because he would agree that is a rational and necessary difference and therefore he wasn’t being insulted or slighted just to insult or slight him. Surely he doesn’t feel that being allowed to conceive children together is required to have dignity, because what if it never proves safe enough to allow in humans, would that mean same-sex couples could never have dignity? It’s better to not demand conception rights, then dignity might be easier to come by.
“I’d be pleased to see a compromise that at least places the federal marriage amendment on the ballot across the country. Let the actual arguments in favor of marriage stand or fall in an open state-by-state campaign rather than be squelched in Congress.”
To be clear, what you’re arguing here is to just throw out the Constitution and our representative democracy with it.
I’ll pass on that too. I’m a patriotic American who believes passionately that our Constitution is a brilliant document that has served us extremely well in our first 230+ years. Statements like this demonstrate the contempt so many traditional marriage advocates have for our Constitution and for the principles that guide this great nation.
That is not clear, Dan.
How is putting a constitutional amendment to a ratification vote, as per the amending process, “throwing out throw out the Constitution and our representative democracy with it”?
The amending process is how we ratified the Constitution in the first place. It is how each subsequent ammendment was ratified.
To be clear: I’d be happy with a compromise that entailed agreement in Congress to move the marriage amendment to the ballot — which is the step in the amending process that produces a state-by-state campaign for ratification.
Read more carefully in future, please, and perhaps ask for clarificaton rather than jump to falsely accuse. Thanks.
Chairm, with due respect, please explain to me where the US Constitution articulates a process whereby it can be amended via a vote of the people, within a state or otherwise. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’m quite certain that the Constitution can only be amended via (1) a proposal by convention of states and ratification by 3/4 of individual state conventions, (2) a proposal by convention of states and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures, (3) a proposal by Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state conventions, and (4) a proposal by Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. The people only have a say in the amendment process either through their elected representatives or though attendance at a state convention. A direct popular vote is not a part of the process. I stand by my assertion that advocating such a national vote (as you did in your comments) is not consistent with the principles of our representative democracy.
Mark-
I never said adoptive parents “need” to be of opposite sexes. I believe it is preferable, all else being equal, when they are. The appropriate policy is to allow all kinds of couples to adopt, but to give preference to families with both a mother and a father, whatever their sexual orientation. You can read more about my nuanced view of same-sex parenting here: http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=12
I love that you said that same-sex marriage advocates “don’t care, and we don’t see why we should care” about the risks to the jobs, assets, and freedom of people who think marriage is between a man and a woman. Because no lesbian has ever lost her job, her assets, or her freedom for running her business, writing for her newspaper, or teaching her students consistently with her belief that marriage is a union of any two people who love each other, fair-minded people are bound to realize that in order to keep the most freedom to the most number of people, the California Marriage Protection Act must pass. I have never heard anyone on my side say they want gays to “lose totally.” The more you speak out about how you’re not looking for fairness or compromise, you’re trying to keep people like me from having even “an inch of freedom” to practice what we preach, the sooner your side will lose.
You say “we need to be fighting for really basic protections in places like Alabama” which is of course correct, but you cannot have them because fear of the gay community’s marriage lawsuit caused the people of Alabama to react in the most extreme way possible. Now, a lesbian couple in Mobile will have absolutely no protections until one of the following things happen:
• The Federal Marriage Amendment passes, providing cover for Alabamans to repeal their constitutional amendment barring both marriage and any similar arrangement for same-sex couples; or
• such a repeal takes places on its own, which is highly unlikely to happen; or
• the Supreme Court finds a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which nobody thinks will happen soon; or
• The U.S. Constitution is amended to force every state to let same-sex couples marry.
Now, all four of those possibilities are extremely unlikely, and they all exist because of the gay community’s shortsighted rush to sue for marriage. In Massachusetts, there were a few new benefits, none of which couldn’t have been done by a domestic partnership law, and in California there were no new benefits beyond the word marriage. It makes no sense that someone like you cannot see how the marriage lawsuit strategy has done real and lasting harm to the very gay people who most need help, while doing virtually nothing substantial for gay people who didn’t really need the help in the first place.
As for your rejection of the FMA, that’s your choice. But there’s no quicker way to protect the 34% of Americans who are constitutionally barred from any protections in their states. Obviously, you don’t much care about them if you think the word “marriage” in California is so important it justifies keeping gay men from visiting their partners dying in the hospital in places like San Antonio, Toledo, and Atlanta.
If we took this deal, this is how things would shake out:
1. Passage of the FMA.
2. Not going to happen.
3. Not going to happen.
4. Certainly not going to happen.
The people who don’t want to see gay people receive couples benefits aren’t even going to cough up a paltry $25 mil for “self esteem issues.” (And the thought that the gay community needs self esteem counseling is insulting.)
Let’s look at California. The group that put the California Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot have started collecting signatures on another one that would terminate domestic partnership benefits.
This is clear: they are not drawing a line at marriage vs. no marriage, they are drawing a line at rights vs. no rights.
Their goal is not to preserve tradition or protect procreation, but to shove everyone back into the closet and nail the door shut.
And if marriage were really about procreation, here’s a proposed Marriage Protection Amendment for you:
1. This act shall be referred to as the Marriage Protection Amendment.
2. As marriage is inextricably linked to procreation, no couple with a child under the age of eighteen years in their household shall obtain a divorce.
3. Divorces obtained by couples with children under the age of eighteen years in their households in other states shall not be recognized by the State of California.
What do you say? If children have a right to a mother and a father, should we let the divorce laws get in the way of this? And more so, what do your “marriage protection” friends say?
Dan-
Your comment is the first I’ve heard to suggest that most of my allies don’t really care that much about marriage. I’m not saying you’re wrong - I’ve never known you to make things up. But I’d like to be pointed to some evidence I can evaluate.
As for nefarious bigots, you don’t know the half of it. (I’m not referring to everybody on my side, just a minority of really dreadful but mainstream folks.) I will eventually blog about it, once I collect all my data. It won’t be pretty. At the same time, some of my allies in the Republican party (but not Bush or McCain) want to deport 12 million illegal immigrants, and some of your presumed allies in the Democratic party think AIDS is a genocidal plot by the U.S. government to kill black people. In politics you sometimes have to hold your nose and work with people whose positions you abhor.
I understand that you want the FMA off the table. But it is the quickest way to get the most rights to the most gays and lesbians throughout the country. What is your proposal to quickly help lesbian couples in El Paso and gay male couples in Akron have legal protections that they desperately need? The FMA isn’t my first choice; I’d gladly support a nationwide system of relationship recognition in exchange for the LGBT community’s agreement to stop litigation and legislation to pursue marriage.
As we have discussed previously, you and I are 100% on the same page in terms of the proper process for deciding whether there’s same-sex marriage in California. My proposal was for dealing with the distress of same-sex couples nationwide. They have virtually no distress in California, because they already have every single right accorded by the state to married couples. I am very interested in seeing evidence that same-sex couples in Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wisconsin don’t mind the fact that they are unlikely to have any rights at all even to hospital visitation for at least a generation as long as gays living in San Francisco and Boston can call their relationships a “marriage.” I find it hard to believe, but I’m open to evaluating the evidence.
But as for your compromise of letting the system work, I’m with you all the way. I have no problem whatsoever in letting the levers of our democracy function. That doesn’t mean I approve of cheating like same-sex equality advocates convincing society to approve of various laws in part by saying that they won’t affect marriage and then using them to implement same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts, California, and New York. But if both sides play fair, I will have nothing to complain about even if my side loses.
Chairm-
I prefer relationship recognition laws like the one in Salt Lake City, but I can live with civil unions and domestic partnerships that are enacted democratically and are clearly not marriage.
I have no access to the powers that be in the SSM campaign, so I don’t now how I would get them to consider my proposal.
By the way, Dan is right in his disagreement with you about the process of amending the constitution.
John D, regarding divorce with children, that seems like a good policy to me, at least unless there is fault, of course. No-fault divorce should only be available to couple with no dependent children.
David, have you thought about the benefits of finding a distinction between one’s rights with someone of the other sex versus with someone of the same sex? You don’t think you should have a right to attempt to conceive children with another man, do you? One doesn’t need to know too much about this to have an opinion, it doesn’t matter how soon it might be done or how risky it might be, it is best to approach this question very generally, and to decide to prohibit it very generally.
I’m willing to take baby steps with you through this issue, so don’t feel you have to have a final answer right now, just let us know that you nnow know about this issue and let us know your initial thoughts. Those initial thoughts will be a starting point for discussion, not an end point for discussion. Thanks.
David, I am skeptical of several of your assertions. First, I simply disagree that gay people in Kentucky are somehow better off with FMA than without it. Quite frankly, I think that’s ludicrous. The long-term negative impacts of FMA on the lives of gay people in Kentucky and in every state in the union are much, much worse than the potentially short-term impact of backlash created by the CA marriage decision. The ramifications of enconsing gay people and their relationships as second-class in our Constitution are enormous. Sodomy laws were used to deny a wide range of rights to gay people, including custody of their own children. The impact of a Constitutional Amendment is potentially much worse.
Second, while there may be Democrats supporting some of the things you suggest, they are sufficiently marginalized in the party that their views have virtually no impact on the actual legislative agenda of the party. The same is simply not true in terms of the relationship between the Republican Party and the Christian right. Their views have often driven legislative agendas. On a local and state level, they’ve even managed to occasionally inject intelligent design, a completely unscientific view of the origin of the universe, into science curricula. I believe that their religious views of homosexuality as inherently sinful and abhorrent primarily drive their push for FMA and other anti-SSM initiatives. Marriage is a convenient mechanism to achieve a much larger goal of marginalizing and stigmatizing gay people. While they might have some vague concern for the institution of marriage, I simply do not believe that this is their driving motivation in this debate.
Third, the lack of marriage rights creates enormous stress for same-sex couples and for gay people more generally. You simultaneously defend marriage as this core institution in our society and dismiss gay people’s desire to be married as “symbolic”. That’s incongruous. The point is that marriage is not just symbolic for anyone. The societal recognition that accompanies marriage (beyond any legal rights) is not symbolic. It’s tangible and the lack of that recognition creates real harm.
Fourth, for argument’s sake, let’s say that you are right that FMA will somehow create better conditions for same-sex couples nationwide. I think it’s much more likely that the long term negative consequences of FMA for all gay people would far outweigh any possible short-term gain. And I think that most gay people in Kentucky would agree.
There is ample evidence that anti-gay laws have broad effects on the lives of gay people. I’ve not seem any concrete evidence that same-sex marriage has negative effects on the institution of marriage where it has been implemented. Beyond theorizing and speculation, what is the clear evidence that same-sex marriage undermines marriage? It’s all basically a slippery-slope argument with no solid evidence.
Dan, how can you just ignore the argument that people should not be allowed to conceive with someone of their same sex? You should have a right with a woman that you shouldn’t have with a man, and that right is the sine qua non of marriage. All marriages should always be allowed to procreate with the couple’s own genes, the government should not be allowed to prohibit any married couple from conceiving a child together, and, the government should prohibit same-sex couples from conceiving a child together.
Civil Unions would have all the “pair-bonding” and legal benefits and protections and all the rights of marriage except conception rights, and marriage would be preserved and be meaningfully distinct, to reflect the distinct right that people have when they couple with someone of the other sex.
Dan and David,
I’m happy to further clarify.
First, we are discussing a proposed compormise that includes an amendment to the US Constitution. I favor moving such an amendment to state-by-state ratification campaigns.
I’d hope that you’d both agree, that this is not unpartriotic nor is it anti-democratic nor is it contemptuous of our form of constitutional government.
I said earlier: “I’d be pleased to see a compromise that at least places the federal marriage amendment on the ballot across the country. Let the actual arguments in favor of marriage stand or fall in an open state-by-state campaign rather than be squelched in Congress. We ought to seek to reassert the principles of good governance since these principles have been undermined via the SSM campaign.”
Dan, you mistakenly assumed that I proposed circumventing the amending process.
Many states have placed marriage on the ballot — for ratification of amendments to their state constitutions. In California the direct vote enacted a statute but it no less expressed the will of the People on marriage than would a state constitutional amendment. It is part and parcel of our republican form of government that the People may use direct democracy to settle this sort of contended question.
So it is not unpatriotic to call for placing marriage on the ballot in each of the states. It is not categorically unpatriotic to include a direct vote on marriage. But you seem to have latched onto a narrow view of the amending process, in your elaboration, so I will speak to that as well.
Here we are discussing an amendment of the US Constitution, not a state constitution, and although there is no means by which a direct national vote would ratify such an amendment, there is still loads of room to include referenda in a proposed compromise.
In fact, that may be the only way to prod Congress to move the amendment to the state-by-state process. Failing such agreement in Congress, the states can, and should, go forth with an Article V convention to propose the marriage amendment. There is more than enough support for that, surely.
Whether referenda are part of the prodding, or part of how a state shows support for an Article V convention, or part of how a federal marriage amendment gets onto the ballot, across the country, is really a matter of logistics and strategy for breathing life into the proposed compromise. It will focus elected representatives on the actual issue rather than treating it as a throwaway ‘wedge’ issue.
The People are sovereign in o\ur form of government which is protected by the text and the framework of the US Constitution. Direct votes are not unpatriotic. Far, far, far from it.
A referendum can be enacted as binding or as non-binding on a state legislature. It can be initiated by the legislature or by the People — in more than enough states to prod Congress or to push for an Article V convention. It would direct the state legislators to act on the express will of the People and with this support remove the logjam that exists in Congress, one way or another. David’s compromise has interlinked pieces and these can all be part of the referenda process, if need be.
This would produce a positive expression of the will of the People that is achived by a process that would be far more fair, just, and reasonable than assuming that the logjam is a negative expression of that will, as per the SSM campaign’s rhetoric.
As part of the compromise, the FMA needs to go forward. If you reject the compromise, then, the process forward would probably be objectionable to you no matter what I’d say. But this is not an unpatriotic proposal that David put forth and breathing life into it requires more than a panel of well-intentioned peopel shaking hands.
So to be clear: a direct vote on a federal amendment is not what I proposed in my comments (although I stand by my comments on republican government regarding the state constitutions), however, referenda are certainly a viable tool to move a compromise, such as David proposed, toward its fulfillment. It is not enough to just say, let’s compromise. One must also impliment it as best as possible both in spirit and in substance — that is, both sides of a compromise must work toward its implementation.
I added, above, that it would be best to have the disagreement aired democratically and to let the argument for an SSM-merger stand or fall on that basis. Placing the federal marriage amendment on the ballot serves that purpose very well.
On the other hand, the SSM campaign is all over the place. In Massachusetts it got the legislators to act not as conventioners who vet a citizen-initiated amendment but rather to vote it up or down; such an amendment could not be ratified by the state convention for that is what a direct vote and only a direct vote is empowered to do — so it is nonsense that the SSM campaign now points to this procedural hindrance as a postiive expression of the will of the People “in favor of SSM”. Likewise in California the legislators and the judiciary explicitly rejected the will of the People on a specific question that was decided only a few short years ago. Claiming that Prop 22 was just about out-of-state SSMs was one angle; then they claimed it was contrary to the popular will because the legistors had gone ahead and abused marriage as if it was merely a word and not a substantive issue already decided by the People.
So to make things more forthright, put marriage on the ballot to produce certainty in the state-by-state amending process that would settle the federal marriage amendment.
If a person agreed to a compromise and would in good faith work toward its implementation, then, there is no good reason to rule out referenda and certainly no good reason to declare their addition to be unpatriotic.
David said: ‘I can live with civil unions and domestic partnerships that are enacted democratically and are clearly not marriage.”
I dunno. Wherever civil union or domestic partnership has been enacted in the USA, the new government created relationship status is joined to the hip of marital status. It is a localized merger; if it were to become uniform across the country, it would be a national merger of nonmarriage and marriage in all but name.
Merger is the issue. Not the label alone.
I agree, however, that if such a merger is to be enacted, it ought to be done democratically. In the best case scenario, the pro-merger side would acknowledge the loss of the preferential status of marriage. It would admit that they are seeking to grant a subset of the nonmarital category a special status — or open the status up on some basis other than gay identity politics.
In effect, this would demote marriage from a preferential status to a protective status — and in the culture perhaps a barely tolerated status at that.
We’d lose special treatment of the core of the conjugal relationship type. Sex integration would be blurred with segregation. The contingency for responsible procreation would be equated with its lack. This is fundamentally unjust.
So a merger ought to be opposed whether it is called SSM, Civil Union, or Domestic Partnership. However, the provisions for designated beneficiaries is the solution for protections that has been right under our noses all along. It should not be abandoned easily.
Frankly, I can see no reason, apart from identity politics, to enact a special relationship status that is based on presumed gayness. Can you?
Dan said: “The ramifications of enconsing gay people and their relationships as second-class in our Constitution are enormous.”
But that is not what the FMA would do.
You’d disagree, I suppose, so please explain how such a second class status would be the effect of the amendment.
That’s more important than your leap to an assertion about enormous ramifications for gay people. Start at the beginning. Please state the essentials of the relationship type you have in mind such that society can identify it and assess its merits and demerits.
Dan asked: “Beyond theorizing and speculation, what is the clear evidence that same-sex marriage undermines marriage?”
You have things backward. The reformer carries the burden for justifying his proposed change.
Marriage is not one-sexed — based on the two-sexed nature of humankind. You are axiomatically asserting the contrary. But based on what, precisely? Please don’t theorize and speculate but simply speak of the evidence.
The merger is what undermines marriage, Dan, not the practice whereby you might choose the one-sexed alternative which is nonmarital. That is a liberty to exericsed, not a right denied.
Dan, how can you just ignore the argument that people should not be allowed to conceive with someone of their same sex? You should have a right with a woman that you shouldn’t have with a man, and that right is the sine qua non of marriage. All marriages should always be allowed to procreate with the couple’s own genes, the government should not be allowed to prohibit any married couple from conceiving a child together, and, the government should prohibit same-sex couples from conceiving a child together.
Civil Unions would have all the “pair-bonding” and legal benefits and protections and all the rights of marriage except conception rights, and marriage would be preserved and be meaningfully distinct, to reflect the distinct right that people have when they couple with someone of the other sex.
David:
“The appropriate policy is to allow all kinds of couples to adopt, but to give preference to families with both a mother and a father, whatever their sexual orientation.”
I’m sorry, I’m not mollified by a compromise. The evidence is not that same-sex couples are not so dreadful that they can’t be considered in an emergency, the evidence is that they are not inferior at all.
‘Because no lesbian has ever lost her job, her assets, or her freedom for running her business, writing for her newspaper, or teaching her students consistently with her belief that marriage is a union of any two people who love each other, fair-minded people are bound to realize that in order to keep the most freedom to the most number of people, the California Marriage Protection Act must pass. ‘
Doesn’t follow. You’re conflating the right to believe or preach ideas with the right to have them implemented or impose them on others. If SSM is upheld in California, it will be no imposition at all on religious people’s right to believe or assert that marriage should be opposite-sex or that “real”/religious marriage is opposite sex and that same-sex civil marriages are invalid for strictly religious purposes. I’m sure it will suck for them that civil marriage doesn’t align with their religious ideal, but I don’t acknowledge they they have any right of remedy under freedom of speech or religion. And I certainly don’t care because I think the religious ideal is bigoted. Like I said, implementing SSM is a win/lose situation and I intend you guys to lose.
“You say “we need to be fighting for really basic protections in places like Alabama” which is of course correct, but you cannot have them because fear of the gay community’s marriage lawsuit caused the people of Alabama to react in the most extreme way possible. ”
Certainly that’s a perfectly real negative and not an insubstantial one, but in my judgement it’s offset by the fact of actual same-sex marriages happening in Massachusetts and, hopefully, California. The importance of facts on the ground in changing opinions can’t be oversold.
Equally, while passing an FMA might conceivably give cover to Alabama moderates who are prepared to vote for workplace protections but baulk at SSM, it also has the very real negative of tending to send a message that anti-SSM arguments (and anti-gay arguments more generally) actually have some merit. I don’t concede that, and I don’t think the gay rights movement should either. I don’t think your arguments are weak, I think they’re literally nonsense - masterful rhetoric but gibberish as logic. I’m confident that, in the long term, every argument you’re making here will be universally regarded with embarrassment and tossed down the same memory hole as Biblical defences of slavery, and I’m very hesitant to slow that process down for short-term advantage.
John D-
If the gay community doesn’t need self-esteem, why is it spending millions of dollars to retain the word “marriage” when there are much, much more pressing needs by gays and lesbians in real distress? Clearly, gay marriage in California is intended to make gays feel good, as opposed to addressing any actual needs faced by same-sex couples.
You’re concerned that the group trying to block same-sex marriage will next try to stop domestic partnership benefits. I don’t agree with that. But whose fault is that? There were no ballot initiatives to stop domestic partnership benefits before gays started suing for marriage in the mid-1990s. If your side stops suing, I am certain my side will stop trying amend constitutions.
When did I say marriage is really about procreation? I don’t believe I ever said that.
I am more than happy to respond to arguments that object to things I say, even really, really solid arguments. But please don’t ask me to respond to things you imagine I say. It’s just not productive.
John Howard-
Your persistent efforts to engage me on your theory of same-sex procreation are admirable. But they’re not going to work. I have limited time and energy and I am going to spend them primarily responding to people I disagree with on this blog. You and others who oppose same-sex marriage are welcome to use any argument on this site that you wish, no matter how repetitive. If someday I get interested in same-sex conception, I’ll visit your Web site and we can discuss it there. For now, I’m going to focus on responding to the arguments and questions of people who want to change the definition of marriage.
Dan-
You claim there are “long-term negative impacts” of passing the FMA on gay people, but give no specifics other than the denial of custody to gays because of sodomy laws. If you can show a serious likelihood (as opposed to theoretical possibility) of harm to gays and lesbians such as the loss of their children or the shutting down of gay bars or the return of sodomy laws because of the passage of the FMA, I would be willing to refuse to support any FMA that does not contain a clause clarifying that it cannot be used for any of the purposes you have shown to be a likely result. Personally, I just don’t see any such ramifications, but if they exist, I will work with you to prevent them.
I never said all gay people’s desire to be married was symbolic. I said that of California is symbolic. Given that gay couples in California will have no fewer rights the day after the CMPA passes than they had the day before other than the word “marriage,” I think it’s self-evidently clear it is symbolic.
You say “The societal recognition that accompanies marriage (beyond any legal rights) is not symbolic. It’s tangible and the lack of that recognition creates real harm.”
Can you give me, say four concrete examples of real harm? Wounded self-esteem doesn’t count. I’m willing to address self-esteem as outlined in my compromise. You say it isn’t symbolic, it’s tangible, and it causes real harm. What harm? If you can show me real harms, I might change my position.
As for the negative effects of same-sex marriage, it’s been about four years. I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude so quickly that there have been no harms. Under your reasoning, we should let kindergartners view pornography and let priests molest choir boys, because there have been no double-blind longtudinal studies revealing concrete harm to the children involved. There are some changes you just don’t make whether there are documented scientific harms or not.
Nikita Khrushchev — err — Mark Barton, you are pounding your shoe, again.
Your fervent belief in your cause might be commendable if it were not for the complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from your own on this issue. Such a bias is based on an embraced prejudice, or prejudgement, that to disagree with you is itself an act of hatred or bigotry.
The irony stands there, rebuking you, even as you impatiently demand submission.
So there is no merit in argument against your pet project, you say, with the certainty of one in the grip of identity politics and moving away from reason, logic, and common sense.
It is tragic that the totalitarian impulse of many (but not all) SSMers lurks just beneath the surface of their claims that logic, reason, and justice are on their side and entirely absent from the side they disagree with.
The compromise that David put up for discussion here, in good faith, is not beyond discussion just because you claim to have gazed into your crystal ball and have prophesized your quasi-religious victory over all of society.
Of course, any of us, yourself included, may count himself out of the discussion of such a compromise. But one who claims to have reason and justice in his corner, might depart from such a compromise with more than an appeal, a false appeal, to emotivism.
Chairm-
You’re just incorrect in terms of the process for amending the Constitution. In my study of American history (and I’m getting a Ph.D. in the subject) I’ve never come across an amendment that was approved the way you describe.
Mark-
I never said gays should adopt only in an emergency. I wish we had that luxury! But there are far too many children who need parents, and it is far better for an orphan to have two Dads than no parents at all. On the other hand, a policy like that in Massachusetts that an agency cannot favor families with both a mother and a father when all things are equal is not right either.
What you claim “doesn’t follow” certainly follows. I have spoken to several “marriage equality” advocates who think a journalist should face libel suits if he says a “married” gay man is actually a bachelor, and that a teacher should be fired if she tells her students marriage is the union of a man and a woman. I recognize that you “don’t care” because that journalist and that teacher are “bigoted.” I just plan to make sure every Californian knows that the only way each side of the debate can continue having the right to express its viewpoint is to pass the initiative. Under the old system, gay newspapers called same-sex couples “married” all the time and were never sued for libel. GLSEN has been promoting curricula for years that suggests that same-sex couples can marry, and no GLSEN educator has ever lost her job. But if we don’t pass the initiative, people on my side of the debate will have to fear libel suits and teacher firings. So a vote for the CMPA is a vote for fairness.
Your willingness to sacrifice the ability of same-sex couples in deeply homophobic environments to have any sorts of protections because of your fear that someone will find my arguments have “merit” rather than being “nonsense” and “gibberish” is scary, selfish, and cruel. I am confident that gay and lesbian scholars looking at this debate in 100 years will be amazed that my attempts to provide as many protections to as many same-sex couples as possible was viewed as homophobic nonsense while the preference of people like you to do nothing for the urgent needs of LGBT people while you focus on defending a purely semantic achievement by those in already safe environments was treated as “pro-gay.”
David, I did not say there was perfect historical precedent.
But that does not preclude an Article V convention. Neither does it preclude the use of referenda as I described to support the amending process.
If the FMA is the center piece of the compromise you proposed, then, moving it to the state-by-state ratification stage is the key to that compromise being implemented.
How do go about that?
Well there is a decisive minority of federal representatives who hesitate to support the FMA even though they support the man-woman criterion. They have concerns about state rights and federalism. As do a significant minority of our fellow citizens who have supported state amendments and DOMAs.
Now your proposal asks them to support the FMA and at the same time asks them and the supporters of the FMA to plan on the repeal the state marriage amendments.
To do the latter you will need direct votes. To do the former, you need to move the FMA to the ratification stage of the amending process and win that campaign.
I think, to do both, you will need to encourage referenda in many states to answer the federal question first. Your own blogpost strongly suggests that the FMA is the linchpin.
If a majority of the state assemblies resolve in favor an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing the FMA, then, concerns about state rights ought to be put aside. Some state assemblies may need the prodding of direct votes of some sort — clearly in favor of the FMA. But these would not count as direct ratification of the FMA which at that point would not have entered the ratification stage.
The completion of referenda in all states, or even a majority of states, may not be needed. Perhaps such direct votes — advisory or binding — are needed only where support for the FMA, in the judgement of either marriage defenders or state assemblies, is deemed too close to call. Citizens can initiate such votes in most states. But how these are setup will vary.
On the other hand, an Article V convention might be the very setting for hashing out the sort of compromise you proposed. For it includes a federal amendment, inter-state uniforming of beneficiary provisions, and repeal of state amendments, as well as federal legislation on unique social policy programmes.
I don’t mean that a convention can knit all that together. It would not have that mandate. But a convention might set the stage for advancement of the interlinks you envisaged. While the states deal with their proposed federal marriage amendment, Congress could be working on the other pieces, and state assemblies could be t-ing up the machinery for repeal of state amendments.
The prospect of an Article V convention could prompt Congress to act on most of your compromise — so as to avoid letting the states take the lead. But it might be best for the states to take the lead, given that marriage has been regulated by the states and they’d be injecting federal authority into that.
Your compromise is not easy to forge but referenda would certainly add impetus to the enterprise. Referenda could add clarity on some of the key decisions.
The marriage issue challenges the principles of good governance in any case. Direct democracy is far from anti-thetical to our republican form of government and it may be a big part of the solution to the erosion of social consensus on this foundational social institution.
It would have the additional advantage of reminding the judiciary and the executive branches of our state and federal governments that The People have a government, not the other way around.
‘I never said gays should adopt only in an emergency. I wish we had that luxury! But there are far too many children who need parents, and it is far better for an orphan to have two Dads than no parents at all.’
Err, that’s what I meant by “emergency”.
‘I have spoken to several “marriage equality” advocates who think a journalist should face libel suits if he says a “married” gay man is actually a bachelor, [...]‘
Someone’s being silly. If the man is civilly married in say Massachusetts, then I see pistols at dawn and a dressing down from the editor but not libel. It’s a calculated insult to the man’s relationship and (given the way I confidently expect the usage to evolve) a willfully misleading way of describing his status to the readers, but it’s not defamatory. Bachelor is a perfectly honorable status, it just won’t be idiomatic to describe a man married to another man that way and so it will be misinformation.
‘[...] and that a teacher should be fired if she tells her students marriage is the union of a man and a woman.’
This one depends. If she specifies that she’s talking about say, marriage in the view of most religions and keeps it descriptive, she’s fine. But if she preaches the view of one particular religion (and she’s a public school teacher) she’s in breach of church/state separation and should be disciplined. And if she doesn’t qualify that it’s religious marriage then she’ll be willfully misleading her students in the same way as the journalist and should be disciplined.
Mark, she would not be preaching religion, just the objective truth based on the sociological and anthropological understanding of the social institution of marriage.
You keep harping back to some false dichotomy. The man-woman criterion is not a purely religious basis for marriage. Your view is highly misleading. Even where there is a localized SSM merger, you’d be wrong in your assertion.
You might hope to see the teacher coerced into promotion of your brand of identity politics, but that would make you the sectarian with a religous-like bias, not the teacher.
John, that is basically correct but it makes no sense to use a heavy hand to fire a teacher for a correct teaching that happens to be incomplete.
Marriage unites the sexes AND provides contingency for responsible procreation. This is a coherent combination. Regulation of the parameters of the relationship status would be unjust if merely an arbitary act of government. Children should not be misled. The government recognizes, but does not create and own, civi society’s foundational social institution.
While there are nonmarital alternatives, and tolerance is usually meritorious, it is still perfectly okay for a teacher to describe marriage recognition as minus the identity politics that some would press into the discussion — such as the racist kind, the ethnic kind, the religous kind, or as in this case the gaycentric kind. Marriage entails preference for its essentails, not for identity politics of any kind.
Mark-
If you want to characterize my position as “gays should adopt only in an emergency, but we’ve been in an adoption emergency in America for at least 100 years” I guess that’s true, but it hardly seems like an emergency if it’s lasted that long.
You claim that if a teacher “preaches the view of one particular religion (and she’s a public school teacher) she’s in breach of church/state separation and should be disciplined.” Well, in 1999, before there were any legal gay marriages anywhere in the world, GLSEN published curriculum that told teachers to tell their students that mariage is “a relationship of emotional and financial interdependence between two people in love who make a legal and public commitment to each other.” Now, every single legal definition in the world at the time insisted that marriage was between a man and a woman - not “two people.” Yet I have seen no evidence any teacher was every disciplined for teaching the gay definition of marriage when it was inconsistent with the law. Yet you think teachers should be disciplined for teaching the traditional definition of marriage when it is inconsistent with the law.
In other words, if voters want teachers to be able to continue to teach whatever they believe about marriage, the only fair-minded vote on the California Marriage Protection Act is yes.