As you will see if you follow the link, the organization that is protesting HR 254 is the American Family Association, which is basically one more in a long series of right-wing fundamentalist Christian organizations trying to legislate the morality of our nation based on their very narrow and religiously-influenced view of right and wrong. These are the same groups who want to ban abortion, have "Intelligent Design" theories taught in the Science classroom, send all homosexuals back in the "closet" (or worse), make Christianity the official "state religion" for America, and more.
When I read what the AFA had to say about HR 254, I had to respond. I am simply not able to ignore such blatant disregard for the truth (I will address some of the AFA claims in a subsequent post), or the hypocrisy of claiming to stand for morality while advocating looking the other way if the object of a hate crime happens to be part of a group that isn't marching in lockstep with Christian doctrine.
I posted my opinion in the comments to Dissident's post, and one of Paradoxum's other regular readers, Everett, responded. Thus a debate regarding the issue of same-sex marriage began, which you can read in the comments section.
In Everett's most recent reply, he made several assertions and posed questions that require an answer. I did some research to provide evidence for my responses, and then realized that in order to form a proper reply, I'd need to use quotes and links/citations that just wouldn't work well in the limited formatting of a comment. So I decided to move the discussion here.
In his post, Everett began with:
You correctly observe that the government does regulate heterosexual marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses and confers special privileges on those relationships. This is done for one reason and one reason only: heterosexual sexual relationships are the relationships that produce the next generation. Of those relationships, the ones where a marriage commitment is made are going to provide the most stability for the children.
I would disagree with this quote on two points. The first is that nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the government has an interest in ensuring the production of successive generations, or that it is the charge of the federal government to ensure children are raised in a "stable" home. Regarding the procreation issue, I would venture to guess the lack of any language about it in the Constitution reflects the fact that our founding fathers knew that no such language was necessary, since the urge to procreate is part of our biology anyway, and so future generations were already guaranteed by nature.
Secondly, I would beg to differ with Everett's assertion that marriage provides the most stability for children. It can, under the right circumstances - but quite often the circumstances are not right, and when that happens, the children suffer the most. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that marriage between two homosexuals would provide any less stability for any children they may choose to have, or for anyone else's children either.
In fact, unlike heterosexuals, who can and do "accidentally" produce children (often unwanted children) with or without being married, simply because they "forgot" to use contraception in the heat of the moment or were ignorant of the methods available (thanks to Christians blocking effective sex education in our schools); homosexuals cannot have an "accident". Where a heterosexual couple, married or not, (or any heterosexual "one-night stand") can produce children, often without giving any serious thought to the welfare of the child or whether they even want or should have a baby; homosexuals must spend a great deal of time thinking about whether they want a child, planning how to go about it if they do want one, and going through the actual process of insemination, surrogacy, adoption, etc. The process for a gay couple to have a child can take years, can cost thousands of dollars, and can be filled with heartache and disappointment. It is not for the faint of heart, and any couple (gay or straight) that is not truly committed to each other and the goal of raising a family will not make it through that process.
Therefore I submit that children born to or adopted by a homosexual couple are much more likely to have a stable home than children born to heterosexuals simply because no one would willingly go through all that unless they were truly committed to each other and to being parents. I find that an infinitely preferable situation for a child to be raised in when you compare it to the number of children that are born to hetero couples that:
- may or may not be married or have a good marriage - or even know each other well,
- may or may not have wanted a child at all,
- may or may not have any idea how to be good parents,
- may or may not have drug or alcohol problems, or be involved in criminal activity
- may or may not be abusive or neglectful
- may or may not be able to support a child
- may or may not stick around to actually raise the child.
On to Everett's next point:
You mischaracterized my argument about the government’s reason for regulating a sexual relationship. It has nothing to do with promoting procreation. It has to do with the welfare of the children that are created. Your arguments about the heterosexual couples that choose not to have children and gays that have them by artificial means don’t make sense. Heterosexual unions produce children. Whether some individuals fail to or elect not to has no bearing on the fact that these are the relationships the government has interest in because they produce the next generation as a rule. Every culture since the beginning of time has recognized this. Homosexual unions do not produce children. Gays can’t produce kids without going back to an inherently heterosexual process. Just because there are exceptions, does not make the rule.
I will grant that I may have misinterpreted the original comment Everett had made regarding the government's interest in procreation. However, while by today's standards, our government has a responsibility to protect children, that has not always been the case. In fact, less than a hundred years ago there were no child labor laws, no protections for children who were abused, little to no enforcement of school attendance, and almost no intervention by government authorities in the "private" conduct of any family. Parents could and did beat their children, sometimes to the point of permanent injury, with no legal repercussions whatsoever.
So while I certainly do not advocate returning to a time when children were considered property and an asset because of their ability to work the fields or maintain the house, I see little precedent within our own history to back up the claim that the government's concern is the welfare of the child. That may be true now, but even under current law, that responsibility only extends to protecting children from abuse and mistreatment, deciding custody issues, and in the case of poor children or wards of the state, ensuring that they have adequate housing, food, education and medical care. Even in this regard, the laws regulating such things are variable based on location, with only the broadest policy being dictated by the Federal government.
As to the last two sentences in that quote, I will grant that creating a child still requires both egg and sperm, and if you consider this to be the "inherently heterosexual process" mentioned, then I suppose you are technically correct. But considering the various ways in which the joining of those two parts can be achieved without any physical contact or even an exchange of names between the two "donors", I hardly think that qualifies as a traditional heterosexual act of procreation. It certainly does not qualify as a reason to bar same-sex couples from marrying.
Everett said:
You mention that domestic partnerships are denied in many states. This is for the simple reason that special recognition is given to a man and woman in a committed marriage relationship because the government recognizes that our children are our future and is charged with protecting them.
Again I see no explanation or evidence offered to support the claim that allowing a same-sex couple to marry is any threat to the future of America, or to any children that couple may choose to have or adopt, or to anyone else's children. Therefore I would ask Everett to please explain, with references and supporting evidence wherever possible, how the children of America (regardless of the demographic characteristics of their family) would be threatened by same-sex marriages.
Everett continues:
You say that lack of domestic partnerships limits the options of individuals to be with the person of their choice. That’s exactly right. Let me borrow Greg Koukl’s argument here because he says it well:
“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples. The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned
matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and
restrictions all citizens share equally.I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
This part of Everett's reply constitutes one of the most illogical arguments I have heard yet on this subject. Basically, and I'm sure Everett will correct me if I am misunderstanding him, what he's saying is that there is no case for discrimination because both gay and straight Americans have the right to marry, but only to marry a member of the opposite sex. This completely ignores the fact that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". How can one pursue happiness if the only way they can be married is by marrying someone they do not love, do not want to have sexual intercourse with, and are not attracted to in any way?
Yes, there have been cases of gays marrying a member of the opposite sex, but those marriages often end in pain and suffering for all concerned - and most especially for the children of that marriage. Furthermore, such things take place for reasons that have nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with trying to survive in a culture that is hostile to gays. The recent case of New Jersey's former Governor is a perfect example of this. He lived a lie of heterosexuality for most of his life just so he could pursue his political career without fear of losing an election over his sexual preference, including getting married to a lovely woman and having a family with her. Yet he could not completely deny his nature, and engaged in secret relationships with men. In the end the lie was revealed, and not only his tenure as Governor, but his marriage and other relationships were permanently damaged. And I can only imagine what his children have gone through.
Similar situations have arisen all over this country, including with some relatively well-known Christian leaders.
That kind of disaster, and the ensuing harm done to the children, is an excellent example of why same-sex marriage should be legalized. If it had been, then not only would the governor have not been forced to lie to everyone from his constituents to his wife and children about who he really was, but his children would not have had to endure the public humiliation of having their father's lies exposed, his forced resignation, and the breakup of their family. I daresay all of that has been much more emotionally damaging for them than if they had been raised by an honest and open, loving couple who happened to be of the same gender.
Everett said:
Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
I'm not sure this is a fair analogy, on the grounds that it is based on two citizens of one country and the right to vote in a different country. The simple answer would be that if Jones cared that much about France's politics, he should apply for French citizenship. This does not equate with two Americans who want to marry, because the one who is gay cannot simply go somewhere else to achieve their end. Even with the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusettes, only those who already live there will be granted a license, and at this time, those marriages are still not recognized by the federal government or most other states.
Furthermore, no matter how much Jones may care about the French political scene, his inability to vote in the French elections will not impact his American life in any way. But for a gay person who is unable to marry their partner, the impact on their life can be devastating:
from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?
These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?
These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.
And from http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=14362&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
Although the federal government has taken the lead in protecting many minority groups from discrimination, it has not only failed to do so for lesbian and gay families, but actually penalizes same-sex couples for being unable to marry.
For example:
- Lesbian and gay families are denied the same benefits married heterosexual families receive under Social Security.
- Lesbian and gay families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners, while married heterosexual families are not.
- After the loss of a job, lesbian and gay families are not guaranteed the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, although married heterosexual couples are.
So here you have a wide range of ways in which gay American couples (and their children) are being denied the ability to function in society as a family, with the same level of ease and legal protection as straight Americans, simply because they are gay. Can you honestly claim that stopping this glaring discrimination would be harmful to our society as a whole, or to anyone's children (whether their parents are gay or not)? If so, then I ask that you produce evidence to back up that claim, because I have looked for such evidence and have found none.
The truth is that there is only one reason the Christian right opposes same-sex marriage, which is that according to their beliefs, gay sex is an "abomination". That is all fine and good, and every person is entitled to believe what they wish. But no person has the right to impose their beliefs, or their religious morality, on the rest of us. Just as no Christian would want to be forced to live under the thumb of Islamic law, no American should be forced to live under the yoke of Christian doctrine when they either are not Christian or do not subscribe to the same sect of Christianity as the one's attempting to impose their morality on us all.
