I’ve been reading, from afar, a lot about San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and while I find it interesting from a number of perspectives I have no real interest in debating it here. I do, however, have one question that I want to ask because I know that some people here have different viewpoints on the matter.
How does allowing same-sex couples to marry “destroy the family” as is often touted by those against it? I mean, I follow the religious argument even if I don’t agree with it, but the “destroy the family” argument doesn’t make any sense. I’m going to wager that my family isn’t going to be “destroyed” by gays and lesbians marrying. And were I legally able to marry another man I’m pretty damn sure I would still marry a woman and create a classic nuclear family.
So, what’s the rationale behind this? Am I’m interpreting the statement incorrectly? Because it seems (to me at least) that the vast heterosexual majority is going to continue to create families regardless of homosexuals’ ability to marry.
Regardless of whether or not homosexual marriages are ‘destroying the family’, I’d suggest they still might be banned. Much like the previous discussions we’ve had here, society ~does~ legislate morality. Suicide, euthenasia, underage-sex, drug use, all of these things are legislated morality that doesn’t necessarily impinge on others. The question is whether most of america not only believes something is wrong, but also believes it is worth banning. Many may simply disagree, but not feel that they need to legislate, while other topics are so important to our core values that we feel the need to legislate. According to CBS News, gay marriage is apparently one of those topics (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/11/national/main599586.shtml):
“But as CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, arguments that might win over a California court may not work in the rest of the country — where polls show a majority favor banning gay marriage.”
However, even without that, to explain the line of reasoning that homosexual marriages destroy the family, I think the reasoning goes something along these lines. First of all, homosexual marriages would lead immediately into homosexual adoptions, and now suddenly you’re not just involving two consenting adults, but a child as well. If we believe that homosexuality is a wrong thing, then it seems reasonable to want to protect a child from those ideas. Not just that homosexuality exists, but that it is condoned and accepted. I believe the concept of defending the nuclear family has to do with defending the idea of what the family is, much along the same lines. If homosexual marriages are allowed, then the state is essentially saying this is an acceptable thing. Not a thing you may want to do, but acceptable none the less. For those who believe homosexuality is a sin, or even just wrong (heck, what’s the evolutionary view of homosexuality but a dead-end outlet for genes), to present it as an acceptable thing is an affront to their beliefs.
Consider polygamy. Most would consider that an affront to marriage; it is a distortion of what our society currently considers appropriate, and as such, we defend the institution of marriage from that distortion by outlawing it. Homosexual marriage might be considered the same. Despite the recent trend to make it acceptable, appropriate, and just another loving act between two adults, I still consider it wrong, unacceptable, and something I would have the government legislate against if it will.
Left by Jordan on February 21st, 2004
I find that this (and every other religiously linked topic in American politics) is about as fun to debate as whether Taiwan is part of China or not is with Chinese people. Actually, I think the entire San Francisco thing is a really interesting look at how our system works, how jurisdictions can fight it out in court to decide who’s law is right. It’s cool, and it’s led at least one non-American (an Aussie that I work with) to volunteer for a short session explaining American federalism, so I figure it’s worth it if for nothing else.
That said, I’d be shocked and awed if a Constitutional amendment (which seems to be the only viable long-term way of stemming “the recent trend to make [homosexuality] acceptable”) cleared 75% of the state’s legislatures. And I think that right now, with far more pressing matters assaulting the White House, this is not the sort of thing Bush wants to deal with in the face of reelection. It should be interesting, though — the Republican party has sold a lot of their ideals to gain the support of the religious right, now I suppose it’s time to put up or shut up.
I’m still interested in the ‘destroying the family’ remark. In your line of argument, we still have the same number of heterosexual families, just a few more homosexual families (though that is a pretty loaded term, as there’s no (to my knowledge) convincing study that shows children reared by a same-sex couple have any higher percentage chance of being homosexual) and less kids bouncing around the state child welfare system. Granted, making them legal does infer their acceptability, but unless one alternative is clearly superior (and I would argue that they cater to totally different groups of people) having choices has never rendered one choice useless by default. I mean, that’s what I don’t understand: there were still be plenty of families, no less than before, because the decision wouldn’t affect the vast majority of people, you and I included.
Oh, and while it may be an evolutionary dead end, it certainly happens in nature.
Left by John on February 21st, 2004
John,
I don’t believe that the “destroying the family” argument is intended by its proponents to suggest that those who would otherwise have married someone of the opposite sex will decide to marry within their own. Even if that were true, it seems to me that the total number of “families” would mathematically remain the same (just Adam and Steve, rather than Adam and Eve).
Rather, I believe that the argument is that by opening marriage to relationships which, by their nature, are non-procreative, the institution of marriage is weakened. As a consequence, over time people (as a whole) would feel less of an desire to marry at all, perhaps preferring serial monogamy or multiple contemporaneus relationships. This, the argument goes, would be a bad thing: if marriage promotes stable relationships and if stable relationships have societal benefits, then anything that decreases future marriages is a “bad thing” for society.
My view: let the state legislatures decide. The benefits of civil marriage are not a fundamental right, so the states should be able to provide them to whomever they choose - or to no one at all. One of the advantages of our federalist system is the ability of the states to try different approaches and compare their results. For example, Vermont has chosen to extend some of the “spousal” rights to homosexual couples. This advantage disappears when a “fundamental right” to gay civil marriage is found by a court. However, it would also disappear if a constitutional amendment fixed the definition of marriage nationwide - if at some future time a majority of the citizens in a state decided that they DID want gay civil marriage, they would be unable to enact it without another amendment.
One idea that I do believe has merit is an amendment clarifying that the “Full Faith and Credit” clause shouldn’t be construed to require one state to recognize another’s marriages. In any event, it’s an interesting debate.
Left by Dan on February 23rd, 2004
As far as I can tell from having been married in the state of Florida, Florida has no marriage laws, only divorce laws. So, all we need to do is allow gay people to get divorced. Surely everyone can agree to this.
Left by Matt on February 23rd, 2004
Florida has no marriage laws?
Left by Dan on February 24th, 2004
Didn’t you have to read the state-sanctioned marriage pamphlet before you got your marriage license? It was supposed to tell you all the laws about marriage in the state of Florida, but it was really just a list of all the things that would happen if you got divorced. That’s why I say that FL only has divorce laws.
Left by Matt on February 25th, 2004
I don’t think same-sex marriage a family, but it does destroy the current concept of family and replaces it with a different one.
I read that the Supreme Court has already decided that homosexuals can adopt children. I think that they based this on discrimination, because unmarried heterosexual people are allowed to adopt children, so the logic goes, why shouldn’t unmarried homosexual also be allowed to adopt children?
I think that a slippery slope argument could actually have some vildity when it comes to homosexuality due to the “progress” of the last few decades. Every victory that they incur opens doors to new problems and new needs for new victories. I’ve seen people get upset about this type of reasoning here before, but I think that it can be valid because things do happen through a progression quite often.
This is why I disagree with allowing the states to decide this. I am all for states rights, but I think that the momentum will continue to push toward homosexual marriage. State after state will allow it, as is already happening, and in under two decades a large majority of the states will have homosexual marriages. One example that I think is vaguly similar to this is Utah’s situation with polygamy (polygyny is probably more accurate.) They were one state that held it’s one view on marriage and eventually the pressure from other states caused it to fold into the fray as well.
I think that we should go ahead and create a national understanding about civil unions. These people do have definate needs to have their property transferred properly after their deaths, and hospital visitation is important to anyone who has loved someone who is very sick. Allowing civil unions and firmly defining marriage as a civil and possibly religious union between a man and a woman of a certain age — by mutual consent seems like a fair compromise. The only problem I see is that people are less and less willing to compromise.
Finally, I think that homosexuals have an agenda — even though they tend to deny it. It seems obvious that they want to be accepted in any and all of the same ways that heterosexuals are accepted. That is a strong desire that they are taking action on constantly, and that is something that I’d call an agenda.
Left by David on February 25th, 2004
Good comment, David. The legal need for some sort of system to allow, as you said, transfer of property after death and the like is pretty clear, I think, even to those who disagree with homosexual marriage on religious grounds (though perhaps I’m wrong). Another reasonable argument is that since many states and corporations provide benefits to the homosexual partners of their employees but to the spouses of their heterosexual employees that they are providing probably more benefits than they need to because at least some percentage of the homosexual couples would have never gotten married (and thus qualified for benefits) were they able to. Economic reasons for moral decisions are always interesting because, let’s face it, politics is all about money.
About your last paragraph: when did having an agenda become a bad thing? I mean, I’m not saying that you’ve made it into a bad thing, it’s been a bad thing for a long time, like anyone with an ‘agenda’ is a shadowy, subversive figure. That’s like saying the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s had an ‘agenda.’ Well damn straight they did! If I were a member of a social group that was treated differently than the majority group I’d have an agenda, too.
Left by John on February 25th, 2004