![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What follows is a somewhat edited reponse to an argument posted on a meetup group I belong to. A Civil rights one, ironically enough, regarding Proposition 8. Proposition 8 was the ban against Gay Marriage in the State of California. I'm posting it here, because the argument
The argument, which I've seen a lot and heard a lot is:
"The problem comes when, the government forces church's to wed those -to which, doing so, would violate their beliefs! It is a violation of our 1st Amendment rights! We can not ignore its religious connotations -because, it is clearly, a matter in which, religious leaders (as well as, those who gather in their churches) will be affected by. It is unjust, to force your beliefs on others. If, it were not a religious matter, than, there would not have been such, an up-roar caused by the whole matter. Again, I stand-by the U.S. Constitution! We do not have the right, to dictate others religion! Regardless, of our own personal feelings of right and wrong(going by such, emotional decisions is how our Constitutional rights -have always, been violated and trampled upon -for, "a higher good" or, "a higher cause"). It is unjust. Period. "
Marriage is not in the United States governed by religion, because in the US we have numerous religious doctrines - not just Christian or Jewish or Muslim. Under the US constitution - there is a separation of church and state. What this means is that the government does not interfer with its citizens' rights to practice the religion of their choice as long as that religion does not "harm" or significantly interfer with the rights of other citizens. Harm is not defined as offending your delicate sensibilities or your beliefs. It is defined as physical harm or preventing you from getting married, living your life, eating, and shelter. Also the right to religion and freedom of speech does not grant you the right to prevent those who you don't agree with to practice their religion and speak.
If we were to do as you suggest, and ban gay marriage merely because it offends your church and your religion, then why stop there? Should we also ban the internet because its existence interfers with the Amish's religious beliefs? Should we ban medical science, the search for a cure for breast cancer, and vaccines because they interfer with Christian Scientist's belief in faith healing? Should we ban the eating of pork because it offends a specific group of Jews and Muslims? Also what happens when religions disagree? Mormons practice polygamy as part of their religion - not all Mormons, just a specific sect. This practice is offensive to other religions.
The problem with freedom is - in order to have it, ourselves, everyone must have it - which means we have to tolerate things others do and say that we may not like very much. But if we want them to tolerate our behavior and our views, we have to tolerate theirs, within reason of course. As long as our rights do not significantly infringe on someone elses we are okay and free to do what we will.
You have not proven in your post that gay marriage in any way shape or form "significantly" infringes on anyone's rights. If anything your desire to prevent it - is infringement and an infringement on the very rights you are so determined to protect.
You argue that legalizing gay marriage forces churches to marry people. This is not true.
First you are assuming that marriage is only a religious practice. It's not. A good
percentage of people in the US do not get married in a church. There are more civil unions in NYC alone than there are in the Catholic church. A civil union can be done by anyone who has a license - they can get this license on the internet.
My brother and his wife, for example, were married in a swimming pool, by their best friend, who was licensed to marry by the church of crafts. Their union was considered legal - since they obtained a "marriage" license from New York State. What this means is that they share property, including their daughter, and if anything should happen to my brother or his spouse - the surviving spouse does collect the life insurance in the event of their death, and has power of attorney, as well as the right to make major decisions regarding their health care. In New York State - you have to be legally married in order to share benefits, to collect life insurance, and for joint property ownership. New York unlike California is not a common law marriage state - you do not get to share benefits etc, without marriage. In California - if you are a man and a woman (after Proposition 8's passage) - and having been living together for about ten years (forget how long) - you are considered married under the law. (I'm pretty sure California is a common law marriage state.). Marriage in the legal sense is about the division of property. Historically that property included, incredible and offensive as it may sound, children and women. It was also based on ownership of land - a woman had no property. Unless - when she married her husband, and there were no surviving heirs from her father's side of the family, her husband would get her family's land as a dowry. Property passed with her upon her marriage.
Without proposition 8 - churches would still have the right to turn away gay couples. No one is forcing the church to do otherwise. The only person who is being forced to marry the gay couples is the Justice of the Peace - who is a representative of the State of California or the "government", not any religion.
If you argue that a Justice of the Peace shouldn't be forced to do this, then you might as well argue that a doctor shouldn't be forced to treat someone whose religious views he disagrees with. It's silly. And falls under the definition of "significant harm". The right of two people to get married overrides the Justice of the Peace's delicate and somewhat homophobic sensibilities. He/she is not operating within the boundaries of "religious belief", he/she is operating within the boundaries of the law, and upholding the law.
While, you could argue that permitting gay marriage is no different than permitting incest, polygamy, child/adult, two children, animal/person, etc - your argument would still fall apart. First of all - the signficant harm definition comes into play. Incestuous marriages are prohibited because of birth defects, and health issues. If a parent/child, two siblings, or two close relations get married - there is a high risk of genetic defect. It's simply not safe.
Granted, homosexual unions cannot produce children the old fashioned way - either, but when two people of the same gender have sex they will not produce a genetic disaster. With modern medicine - homosexual unions can have children via artificial insemination and adoption, and have been proven to be good and nuturing parents. An incestuous union - has not had such a successful record. Two people who are underage getting married - they are not consenting adults. And a human and animal? The animal is not a consenting adult who can clearly communicate its desires nor is it considered covered by the law. None of these are good "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage, any more than they were good arguments against bi-racial marriage.
The Mormon Church's funding of Proposition 8 is a bit ironic, not to mention hypocritical - considering their practice of polygamous marriage has long been banned by states outside of Utah. Polygamy to my knowledge has largely been banned due to the division of property issue.
Also, the fact that women's rights are considered at risk. In polgamous marriages, men marry many women, and the women or harem, may be considered "property" of the man - this goes against the woman's right to be considered an equal party to the marriage under the law. Same-sex marriages do not pose this problem. We do not have one party who has more power than the others nor are we attempting to divide property numerous ways.
The procreation argument - that gay marriage does not result in procreation is a bit ludicrious in this day and age. If a woman can have six babies by herself with artificial insemination, why can't a homosexual couple have a child? Heck, my ex-college roomate did with her partner and is a fine parent to two children. Or at the very least adopt one? Also, a good percentage of people who get married choose never to have any children. So, the procreation argument? Doesn't work any more. Sorry. You may not like that, you may believe it is "morally" wrong - but tough, your moral sensibilities are overridden by an individual's right to have a child or not have a child if they so choose.
I have yet to see a logical and rational argument against gay marriage. What I see are increasingly emotional, selfish, ignorant, and irrational diatribes from people who are afraid or homophobic.
The argument, which I've seen a lot and heard a lot is:
"The problem comes when, the government forces church's to wed those -to which, doing so, would violate their beliefs! It is a violation of our 1st Amendment rights! We can not ignore its religious connotations -because, it is clearly, a matter in which, religious leaders (as well as, those who gather in their churches) will be affected by. It is unjust, to force your beliefs on others. If, it were not a religious matter, than, there would not have been such, an up-roar caused by the whole matter. Again, I stand-by the U.S. Constitution! We do not have the right, to dictate others religion! Regardless, of our own personal feelings of right and wrong(going by such, emotional decisions is how our Constitutional rights -have always, been violated and trampled upon -for, "a higher good" or, "a higher cause"). It is unjust. Period. "
Marriage is not in the United States governed by religion, because in the US we have numerous religious doctrines - not just Christian or Jewish or Muslim. Under the US constitution - there is a separation of church and state. What this means is that the government does not interfer with its citizens' rights to practice the religion of their choice as long as that religion does not "harm" or significantly interfer with the rights of other citizens. Harm is not defined as offending your delicate sensibilities or your beliefs. It is defined as physical harm or preventing you from getting married, living your life, eating, and shelter. Also the right to religion and freedom of speech does not grant you the right to prevent those who you don't agree with to practice their religion and speak.
If we were to do as you suggest, and ban gay marriage merely because it offends your church and your religion, then why stop there? Should we also ban the internet because its existence interfers with the Amish's religious beliefs? Should we ban medical science, the search for a cure for breast cancer, and vaccines because they interfer with Christian Scientist's belief in faith healing? Should we ban the eating of pork because it offends a specific group of Jews and Muslims? Also what happens when religions disagree? Mormons practice polygamy as part of their religion - not all Mormons, just a specific sect. This practice is offensive to other religions.
The problem with freedom is - in order to have it, ourselves, everyone must have it - which means we have to tolerate things others do and say that we may not like very much. But if we want them to tolerate our behavior and our views, we have to tolerate theirs, within reason of course. As long as our rights do not significantly infringe on someone elses we are okay and free to do what we will.
You have not proven in your post that gay marriage in any way shape or form "significantly" infringes on anyone's rights. If anything your desire to prevent it - is infringement and an infringement on the very rights you are so determined to protect.
You argue that legalizing gay marriage forces churches to marry people. This is not true.
First you are assuming that marriage is only a religious practice. It's not. A good
percentage of people in the US do not get married in a church. There are more civil unions in NYC alone than there are in the Catholic church. A civil union can be done by anyone who has a license - they can get this license on the internet.
My brother and his wife, for example, were married in a swimming pool, by their best friend, who was licensed to marry by the church of crafts. Their union was considered legal - since they obtained a "marriage" license from New York State. What this means is that they share property, including their daughter, and if anything should happen to my brother or his spouse - the surviving spouse does collect the life insurance in the event of their death, and has power of attorney, as well as the right to make major decisions regarding their health care. In New York State - you have to be legally married in order to share benefits, to collect life insurance, and for joint property ownership. New York unlike California is not a common law marriage state - you do not get to share benefits etc, without marriage. In California - if you are a man and a woman (after Proposition 8's passage) - and having been living together for about ten years (forget how long) - you are considered married under the law. (I'm pretty sure California is a common law marriage state.). Marriage in the legal sense is about the division of property. Historically that property included, incredible and offensive as it may sound, children and women. It was also based on ownership of land - a woman had no property. Unless - when she married her husband, and there were no surviving heirs from her father's side of the family, her husband would get her family's land as a dowry. Property passed with her upon her marriage.
Without proposition 8 - churches would still have the right to turn away gay couples. No one is forcing the church to do otherwise. The only person who is being forced to marry the gay couples is the Justice of the Peace - who is a representative of the State of California or the "government", not any religion.
If you argue that a Justice of the Peace shouldn't be forced to do this, then you might as well argue that a doctor shouldn't be forced to treat someone whose religious views he disagrees with. It's silly. And falls under the definition of "significant harm". The right of two people to get married overrides the Justice of the Peace's delicate and somewhat homophobic sensibilities. He/she is not operating within the boundaries of "religious belief", he/she is operating within the boundaries of the law, and upholding the law.
While, you could argue that permitting gay marriage is no different than permitting incest, polygamy, child/adult, two children, animal/person, etc - your argument would still fall apart. First of all - the signficant harm definition comes into play. Incestuous marriages are prohibited because of birth defects, and health issues. If a parent/child, two siblings, or two close relations get married - there is a high risk of genetic defect. It's simply not safe.
Granted, homosexual unions cannot produce children the old fashioned way - either, but when two people of the same gender have sex they will not produce a genetic disaster. With modern medicine - homosexual unions can have children via artificial insemination and adoption, and have been proven to be good and nuturing parents. An incestuous union - has not had such a successful record. Two people who are underage getting married - they are not consenting adults. And a human and animal? The animal is not a consenting adult who can clearly communicate its desires nor is it considered covered by the law. None of these are good "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage, any more than they were good arguments against bi-racial marriage.
The Mormon Church's funding of Proposition 8 is a bit ironic, not to mention hypocritical - considering their practice of polygamous marriage has long been banned by states outside of Utah. Polygamy to my knowledge has largely been banned due to the division of property issue.
Also, the fact that women's rights are considered at risk. In polgamous marriages, men marry many women, and the women or harem, may be considered "property" of the man - this goes against the woman's right to be considered an equal party to the marriage under the law. Same-sex marriages do not pose this problem. We do not have one party who has more power than the others nor are we attempting to divide property numerous ways.
The procreation argument - that gay marriage does not result in procreation is a bit ludicrious in this day and age. If a woman can have six babies by herself with artificial insemination, why can't a homosexual couple have a child? Heck, my ex-college roomate did with her partner and is a fine parent to two children. Or at the very least adopt one? Also, a good percentage of people who get married choose never to have any children. So, the procreation argument? Doesn't work any more. Sorry. You may not like that, you may believe it is "morally" wrong - but tough, your moral sensibilities are overridden by an individual's right to have a child or not have a child if they so choose.
I have yet to see a logical and rational argument against gay marriage. What I see are increasingly emotional, selfish, ignorant, and irrational diatribes from people who are afraid or homophobic.
