Defending Traditional Marriage Unjustly

CONSERVATIVE GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS COME OUT

Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:

"Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed 'miscegenation.' How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'"

I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.

I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.


PRINCIPLES

Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:

• I do not support change for change's sake. I think blind "progress" without regard to consequence is irresponsible and haphazard.
  
• I do believe the rights and freedoms of religions are attacked by a few ill-willed anti-religion crusaders and that religions need to stand up for religious freedom.
  
• I do believe children have a right to opportunity and to be raised by loving parents who will teach them true principles of happiness, and I think the ideal family unit includes a mother and a father, all else being equal (which it never is, but for the sake of argument...).

UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8

That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.


LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS

My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.


THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.

OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?

I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."


TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE

Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:


I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.


MY PLEA

To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.