When tackling the issue of same-sex marriage, it is important to explore several factors. The first is what constitutes a right. The second is the role of the State in protecting that right. The third is how the State protects the rights of those whose interests might be infringed upon by the exercising of the aforementioned right.
Exploring every facet of the history of marriage law would take far more space than this column allows, but suffice it to say, the institution as a legal matter – setting aside its religious aspects – has not been a simple cut-and-dry case of one-man, one-woman. The suffragettes fought for the rights of women to own their fair share of property within marriage. Civil rights activists fought for the right of interracial couples to marry. Now, gay rights activists are arguing that same-sex couples should be given the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples.
And they’re winning.
Regardless of where one stands now, the fact remains, the day when same-sex civil marriage is widespread will come. Maine became the fifth State to legalise same-sex marriage, and it was the second to do so through its legislature. Jon Huntsman, the Republican Governor of ruby-red Republican Utah, supports same-sex civil unions.
But here’s a better way to look at it: Who needs marriage anyway?
This is not a call to abandon the culture wars, nor is it one to fornication. To the contrary, this is a call for equal rights as well as for a reduction of the State. This is a call to ban same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, give all consenting adults contracts conferring the legal rights to which they are entitled and then let those adults call their unions whatever the hell they want. Civil marriage is a contract, not a sacrament – as such, if there is so much debate over its locution, change its name in the civil realm, and let the contracted parties refer to it as they see fit.
There is no reason whatsoever that any two people should need the approval of society or the State to recognise their union in any respect other than the rights and protections they are constitutionally afforded. Government licensing of marriage makes about as much sense as licensing baptism or entrance into a religious order. Unless one’s spouse has a gear shift or a trigger lock, the idea that one needs a marriage licence to guarantee basic rights, such as joint-filing of tax returns, immigration benefits, hospital visitation rights and so on, is idiotic.
In fact, the way marriage is currently structured by the State, individuals entering into it are in fact losing many rights. If a single person buys a car, that is his car, period. If a married person buys a car, his spouse owns that car, too. Should the married person choose to terminate his civil marriage, that contract holds that half of all of the property acquired in that marriage is his spouse’s, regardless of how much of the wealth was actually created by the spouse. Had the two individuals elected to keep their union a purely private matter, without the intervention of the State, they would be able to split relatively amicably and leave with the property which is rightfully theirs, divorce lawyers be damned.
Of course, the matter of civil marriage is not the issue. Rather, it is a part of a larger cultural struggle over how to deal with sexuality in contemporary society. Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a young, gay Wyoming student who was tortured and murdered in 1998 and whose two male, heterosexual attackers claimed that they were driven to temporary insanity by Shepard’s alleged sexual advances. The Act extends hate-crime legislation to protect victims based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Opposition to the bill was just as stupid as the bill itself. North Carolina Republican Representative Virginia Foxx said, “[W]e know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay.... This – the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” Right, just like how we know that Shepard’s killers claimed “gay panic defence” when in court. Shepard’s mother was reportedly in the House gallery when Foxx made her ignorant comments. Nice.
The real reason to oppose bills like the Matthew Shepard Act has nothing to do with the nature of sexual orientation versus race or gender or hating homosexuals or being a bloody dolt like the, um, distinguished Representative from North Carolina; it has everything to do with opposing the criminalisation of thought.
Matthew Shepard will be no less dead if his killers have their bias against homosexuals held against them in a court of law. The fact is these two individuals sadistically murdered an innocent man in cold blood. In fact, the jury in the original case initially considered giving one of the defendants, Aaron James McKinney, the death penalty, but Shepard’s parents showed him mercy and brokered a deal giving McKinney two consecutive life terms, without the possibility of parole.
Whether he was executed or imprisoned until natural death, charging McKinney for his “hate” wouldn’t change the end result of his punishment, and the intent of the murderer is irrelevant outside of whether he intended to kill the victim. Killing a man because he is homosexual or black or Jewish is the same as killing a man because he had an affair with your wife; in either case, you hate him. There is no such thing as a “love crime.” A “hate crime” is a redundant concept.
It is this same attempt to control thought which has overtaken the gay rights movement. Emboldened by their recent court and legislative victories and embittered by their losses at the ballot box, same-sex marriage proponents have begun to demonise and blacklist those who disagree with their agenda.
Consider Miss California representative Carrie Prejean, who was asked her opinion on whether every State should follow Vermont’s lead and legalise same-sex marriage during the interview portion of the Miss USA pageant last month. Prejean answered that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman (or, as she put it, “opposite marriage” – no-one said eloquence was a staple of the Miss USA pageant).
The judge who asked the question, openly gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, was furious at her answer, and after the pageant ended – and Prejean received second runner-up – he posted a YouTube video of himself on his blog in which he shrieked, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage; she lost because she’s a dumb b***h!”
But remember, we must be tolerant.
Of course, dismissing Prejean as a two-bit bigot is easy, but you know who else agrees marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman? President Barack Obama. In fact, Obama’s not only against same-sex marriage, he’s flip-flopped on the issue. Obama was for same-sex marriage before he was against it, but when Hilton was confronted with this fact, he gave the President a pass, saying that Obama “also says that he believes gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples [have].”
Ah, all right. So it’s awful that Prejean called Hilton “a second-class citizen” who doesn’t “deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get,” but Obama, who wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he supports the right to “a civil union that confers equivalent rights” – not marriage with equal rights, is a gay rights hero?
Seriously, girlfriend. If you had asked Obama the same question and received the same answer, would you go on the Internet and rant against his intolerance, even going so far as to call him “a dumb n****r”? I would say Hilton should be charged with a hate crime, but I don’t believe in hate crimes.
Yes, same-sex marriage is coming, but it might get here more quickly if it weren’t for the tactics of its supporters. Harassing those who donated to Proposition 8; forcing Catholic Charities of Boston to end its adoption services, rather than infringe upon its deeply held religious opposition to same-sex adoption; suing a photography company owned by a Christian couple who refuse to provide their services to same-sex weddings – all of these incidents only serve to put a damper on same-sex marriage support. Tolerance is mutual; understanding is vital. Changing public opinion requires more than just waiting for older generations to die off; it means demanding the same right to dignity and privacy as everyone else while simultaneously reassuring those concerned that their beliefs will be violated that they will be respected.
I will concede that the one sexually liberating policy with which I do agree is the option of genderblind rooming on college campuses – but only for me. Miss Prejean, if you’re reading this, I will have two vacancies in my room next semester. Let’s make something happen.
Exploring every facet of the history of marriage law would take far more space than this column allows, but suffice it to say, the institution as a legal matter – setting aside its religious aspects – has not been a simple cut-and-dry case of one-man, one-woman. The suffragettes fought for the rights of women to own their fair share of property within marriage. Civil rights activists fought for the right of interracial couples to marry. Now, gay rights activists are arguing that same-sex couples should be given the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples.
And they’re winning.
Regardless of where one stands now, the fact remains, the day when same-sex civil marriage is widespread will come. Maine became the fifth State to legalise same-sex marriage, and it was the second to do so through its legislature. Jon Huntsman, the Republican Governor of ruby-red Republican Utah, supports same-sex civil unions.
But here’s a better way to look at it: Who needs marriage anyway?
This is not a call to abandon the culture wars, nor is it one to fornication. To the contrary, this is a call for equal rights as well as for a reduction of the State. This is a call to ban same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, give all consenting adults contracts conferring the legal rights to which they are entitled and then let those adults call their unions whatever the hell they want. Civil marriage is a contract, not a sacrament – as such, if there is so much debate over its locution, change its name in the civil realm, and let the contracted parties refer to it as they see fit.
There is no reason whatsoever that any two people should need the approval of society or the State to recognise their union in any respect other than the rights and protections they are constitutionally afforded. Government licensing of marriage makes about as much sense as licensing baptism or entrance into a religious order. Unless one’s spouse has a gear shift or a trigger lock, the idea that one needs a marriage licence to guarantee basic rights, such as joint-filing of tax returns, immigration benefits, hospital visitation rights and so on, is idiotic.
In fact, the way marriage is currently structured by the State, individuals entering into it are in fact losing many rights. If a single person buys a car, that is his car, period. If a married person buys a car, his spouse owns that car, too. Should the married person choose to terminate his civil marriage, that contract holds that half of all of the property acquired in that marriage is his spouse’s, regardless of how much of the wealth was actually created by the spouse. Had the two individuals elected to keep their union a purely private matter, without the intervention of the State, they would be able to split relatively amicably and leave with the property which is rightfully theirs, divorce lawyers be damned.
Of course, the matter of civil marriage is not the issue. Rather, it is a part of a larger cultural struggle over how to deal with sexuality in contemporary society. Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a young, gay Wyoming student who was tortured and murdered in 1998 and whose two male, heterosexual attackers claimed that they were driven to temporary insanity by Shepard’s alleged sexual advances. The Act extends hate-crime legislation to protect victims based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Opposition to the bill was just as stupid as the bill itself. North Carolina Republican Representative Virginia Foxx said, “[W]e know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay.... This – the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” Right, just like how we know that Shepard’s killers claimed “gay panic defence” when in court. Shepard’s mother was reportedly in the House gallery when Foxx made her ignorant comments. Nice.
The real reason to oppose bills like the Matthew Shepard Act has nothing to do with the nature of sexual orientation versus race or gender or hating homosexuals or being a bloody dolt like the, um, distinguished Representative from North Carolina; it has everything to do with opposing the criminalisation of thought.
Matthew Shepard will be no less dead if his killers have their bias against homosexuals held against them in a court of law. The fact is these two individuals sadistically murdered an innocent man in cold blood. In fact, the jury in the original case initially considered giving one of the defendants, Aaron James McKinney, the death penalty, but Shepard’s parents showed him mercy and brokered a deal giving McKinney two consecutive life terms, without the possibility of parole.
Whether he was executed or imprisoned until natural death, charging McKinney for his “hate” wouldn’t change the end result of his punishment, and the intent of the murderer is irrelevant outside of whether he intended to kill the victim. Killing a man because he is homosexual or black or Jewish is the same as killing a man because he had an affair with your wife; in either case, you hate him. There is no such thing as a “love crime.” A “hate crime” is a redundant concept.
It is this same attempt to control thought which has overtaken the gay rights movement. Emboldened by their recent court and legislative victories and embittered by their losses at the ballot box, same-sex marriage proponents have begun to demonise and blacklist those who disagree with their agenda.
Consider Miss California representative Carrie Prejean, who was asked her opinion on whether every State should follow Vermont’s lead and legalise same-sex marriage during the interview portion of the Miss USA pageant last month. Prejean answered that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman (or, as she put it, “opposite marriage” – no-one said eloquence was a staple of the Miss USA pageant).
The judge who asked the question, openly gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, was furious at her answer, and after the pageant ended – and Prejean received second runner-up – he posted a YouTube video of himself on his blog in which he shrieked, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage; she lost because she’s a dumb b***h!”
But remember, we must be tolerant.
Of course, dismissing Prejean as a two-bit bigot is easy, but you know who else agrees marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman? President Barack Obama. In fact, Obama’s not only against same-sex marriage, he’s flip-flopped on the issue. Obama was for same-sex marriage before he was against it, but when Hilton was confronted with this fact, he gave the President a pass, saying that Obama “also says that he believes gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples [have].”
Ah, all right. So it’s awful that Prejean called Hilton “a second-class citizen” who doesn’t “deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get,” but Obama, who wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he supports the right to “a civil union that confers equivalent rights” – not marriage with equal rights, is a gay rights hero?
Seriously, girlfriend. If you had asked Obama the same question and received the same answer, would you go on the Internet and rant against his intolerance, even going so far as to call him “a dumb n****r”? I would say Hilton should be charged with a hate crime, but I don’t believe in hate crimes.
Yes, same-sex marriage is coming, but it might get here more quickly if it weren’t for the tactics of its supporters. Harassing those who donated to Proposition 8; forcing Catholic Charities of Boston to end its adoption services, rather than infringe upon its deeply held religious opposition to same-sex adoption; suing a photography company owned by a Christian couple who refuse to provide their services to same-sex weddings – all of these incidents only serve to put a damper on same-sex marriage support. Tolerance is mutual; understanding is vital. Changing public opinion requires more than just waiting for older generations to die off; it means demanding the same right to dignity and privacy as everyone else while simultaneously reassuring those concerned that their beliefs will be violated that they will be respected.
I will concede that the one sexually liberating policy with which I do agree is the option of genderblind rooming on college campuses – but only for me. Miss Prejean, if you’re reading this, I will have two vacancies in my room next semester. Let’s make something happen.
2 praise(s):
I got called out by some folks that refer to themselves as "Small Government Conservatives" when I made the statement that instead of even debating gay marriage, we should remove government from the marriage debate entirely.
You want to really solve this problem? FLAT TAX.
My favorite part of this post? Your inviting Prejean to bunk with you. I was beginning to think that I was about the last straight male in the US. Which would be a good thing, by the way.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/10/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Post a Comment