http://www.backlash.com/content/news/2008/news_2008_11.html
November 15, 2008 5:45 a.m.
Heterophobes strike back
by Rod Van Mechelen
Recently an associate and I argued the issue of "gay marriage." She considers it a human rights issue, and decries the discrimination she and her friends see:
"Welcome to California. Where chickens have more rights than I do. ... That was one of the most common signs I saw yesterday at the Los Angeles Mormon temple. ... MTV News talked to protesters outside the temple and got to hear what they felt about the situation, and one thing became clear: The majority felt they were standing up for equal human rights more than anything else."-- Protesters Bring Their Anger With Gay-Marriage Ban To The Mormon Church, by Elena Torres, MTV News, Friday, November 7, 2008
But there is no discrimination, only obfuscation.
Marriage not at issue
First, same-sex couples already can and do get married. This has been the case in every state in the union since the 1970s. The issue is not marriage, but the marriage license.
Same-sex couples can have wedding ceremonies and get married, but in most states they may not obtain a marriage license. The license imposes certain responsibilities and confers certain rights.
Second, there is no discrimination: Homosexuals have precisely the same rights that straight people do. They may obtain a license to marry a consenting person of the opposite sex. This is precisely the same right that everybody else has and that's what they want to change, but it's not discrimination.
Same rights, different wants
If gays, lesbians and transsexuals were prohibited from getting a license to marry a consenting member of the opposite sex, that would be discrimination. But under current law gays, lesbians and transsexuals can get a license to marry a consenting member of the opposite sex, so there is no discrimination.
The anti-miscegenation laws so often cited in support of "gay marriage" prohibited a person of one race from getting a license to marry a member of the opposite sex of another race.
To apply to the gay marriage issue, current law would have to deny a license to homosexuals wanting to marry a heterosexual member of the opposite sex. But no law in America does that.
Hence, the comparison is specious and proves only one thing: those who compare it to the anti-miscegenation laws want us to believe that homosexuality is comparable to race, which is ludicrous, and that there is no sex, only gender, which is contrary to biological fact.
Change is inevitable
I write this as a lukewarm opponent of gay marriage. In my opinion, it's inevitable. As 21st century pioneers move into the next new frontiers, building cities beneath the sea and above the planet, they will break free of existing laws and customs to create their own.
Moreover, gender roles will blur in some of those communities as nanotechnology and other technologies allow individuals to change their sex at the molecular level. Most of those experiments will fail but some will succeed. And as a non-Jehovah cultural conservative while I think we ought to resist experimenting with radical changes, I recognize that change always comes.
Humorless haters
This and most issues need less hyperbole and hate, and more honesty and humor. If some imbeciles want to destroy the very fabric of civil society, unearth the foundation of the universe and rewrite the code of creation, then the very least we can do is to listen respectfully before we burn them in effigy.
That was a joke.
Yes, I know heterophobes don't find it funny. Haters seldom find anything funny. But as one who has been the target of a lot of violence I claim the right to find humor in ironic hyperbole and jokes about effigy-burning.
It's legal and hurts nobody.
Copyright © 2008 by Rod Van Mechelen
Posted by RodVanMechelen at November 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Email ThisThe real answer to this problem is liberty...real liberty. We should deregulate marriage; eliminate the "marriage" license altogether. Like you said, anybody can get "married" through a marriage ceremony but that doesn't confer any change in legal status without the "marraige" license.
The problem is that our government has hung a whole host of legal status and rights off of a religious ceremony. We need to separate those rights from the religious "marriage" ceremony and make them available to any two consenting adults through a standard civil contract for all people to use to establish the legal status currently associated with "marriage".
The state has interest in recognizing and regulating liability, tax status, shared assets and inheritance, custody of children, power of attorney, etc. The government could easily create a "check all that apply" type of legal contract that two people, any two people, could fill out, sign, and get witnessed. If you want to get married, go to a church and get married, but if you want to pool assets and share custody of children, and all the rest, you fill out the contract.
The contract then serves as the basis for probate proceedings and arbitration when two people wish to cancel such contracts.
We already have the ability to establish these legal status and rights independently of the marriage process. Children can gain power of attorney for parents, grandparents can gain custody of grandchildren, any group of people can buy a house together. So let's just eliminate the regulation of marriage and create a single legal contract for establishing the legal status and call it a day.
Marriage would not be redefined to include homosexuals. In fact, marriage would once again return to its previous status as an exclusively religious institution. We will also end the perceived discrimination by making the legal process the same for any two people: heterosexuals or homosexuals or non-romantic couples just wishing to share assets and inheritance or what have you. All people would have the same means to share in the benefits and rights conferred by the new legal status apparatus.
A nice side effect of going the liberty route is that it gets government out of the way and provides a path for everybody to seek their own happiness on their own terms. It would do its part to reduce the stakes of any given election and move us one step closer to ending the culture war outright. Liberty does that.
We should just leave people alone and stop telling them how to live their lives. The state's primary responsibilities include protecting the rights of citizens, not granting exclusive recognition of religious institutions.
When in doubt, vote for more liberty.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 10:58 PMliberty is win-win-win. with liberty, you go about your business and your fellow citizens go about theirs. you do what makes you happy. they do what makes them happy.
Posted by: blindman on November 19, 2008 11:05 PMSo you ask yourself "What will make me happy?". This kind of attitude never results in morally sound conclusion because it's starting from the wrong place, the self. Morals don't work this way, as much as a lot of people today would like to think it.
The most glaring example of this unsound ethical thinking is the pervasive belief in moral relativism, the idea that each person ought to act in keeping with his own moral code, that what is right for one person isn't necessarily right for another person, and that each person has a moral obligation to be tolerant and not pass judgment on alternative moral viewpoints. This is probably very familiar to you because it is the most commonly expressed position in the market place today. The view is expressed in more popular terms as, "You have your moral truth; I have mine;" or "Don't push your morality on me;" or the even more vacuous, "You can't legislate morality."
Most of what people are doing is not ethical thinking. It is rationalization. They seek to rationalize their own self-interest, their own desire, what would be satisfying to them. That's why when people argue about abortion, it's never about what is really most critical, which has to do with the civil rights of the unborn child. Does the unborn child have civil rights? Is it a person? Is it a human being that should be protected under the law? No, the discussions revolve around the difficulties people have if they raise the children, about whether they have enough money, whether they can handle it with their careers right now, basically things that relate to a person's self-interest. So they argue what should be moral, what a person has the liberty to do, based on what is most comfortable, and very little discussion is given to should we view decisions in this way? Should we view unborn children as something that is just a throw away item? Or should we be a different kind of person? Should we be encouraging people to be compassionate and kind to children who are born with a defect, instead of just throwing these children away because they're awkward and difficult and justifying it because we have a right to do so.
To fight for the right of all individuals to make their own moral decisions is to make a moral statement, that you are seeking to impose on others, that all people should be allowed to make their own moral statements, and that any individual should not interfere.
This leads to a self-centered and egoistical set of ethics. There is no morally neutral ground.
Posted by: Al on November 20, 2008 11:11 AMThat's a false assumption. Previously on this blog I specifically stated that I believe the State has no business being in the marriage business.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on November 23, 2008 09:40 AM