Thoughts on the Prop 8 decision and the battle over same-sex marriage
Having voted against Prop 8 in 2008, I was happy to hear that the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
As a heterosexual man, I have no direct stake in the battle over same-sex marriage. Whether or not Dick and Steve or Emily and Jane can tie the knot — get “married” — has no bearing on my own relationships and sex life. (Frankly, right now I am unsure what the purpose of marriage is in an age when nobody seems committed “’til death do us part.” Also curious to me is the supposed necessity of marriage, which is a central theme of “Paths,” the long essay I was working on.) However, the precedents created by either the prohibition or allowance of same-sex marriage will have lasting consequences and I do not want to live in a country that legally sanctions discrimination. To me, Prop 8 was hypocrisy and intolerance to the nth degree. Having recited the “Pledge of Allegiance” at school every morning from kindergarten to third grade — “…with liberty and justice for all!” — I gladly voted “no.” Needless to say, I was dismayed that a majority of my fellow Californians felt differently.
Despite yesterday’s ruling, the bigots will likely appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit Court or directly to the Supreme Court. The whole thing will likely be settled by 2013 or ’14, at least judicially and for the forseeable future. (Roe vs. Wade galvanized the pro-life caucus and abortion rights are eroding yearly.)
Though my opinion has not changed since voting against Prop 8 — I still believe wholeheartedly in liberty and justice for all (!) — my stance regarding the debate has shifted slightly. Michael J. Sandel’s meditations on same-sex marriage in Justice were informative and thought-provoking: philosophically, he wrote, the whole issue revolves around the definition and purpose of marriage. Through that lens he wonders who can get married and why. Defenders of so-called “traditional marriage” argue that marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. (In his Third Reich trilogy, Richard J. Evans quotes a leading Nazi as saying something along those lines. Eerily, leading Republicans in the Iowa legislature echoed, almost verbatim, the Nazi’s sentiments last year during debates on same-sex marriage.) If that is the case, Sandel argues, then why are those unwilling or unable to have children able to marry? Why are men and women on their deathbeds allowed to marry since they are unable to have children? If the purpose of marriage is procreation, the government will no doubt need to determine who can and cannot marry. What about those who married with every intention of having children but could not conceive? Should their marriage be annulled? You get the idea; predictably enough for a philosopher, Sandel opens a pedantic can of worms further complicating the debate.
However, what was most interesting and convincing for me was when Sandel wrote about marriage as a religious matter. If we define marriage as a sacred religious institution, as many do, then the government has no business deciding who can and cannot get married or why; that should be determined by individual faiths and denominations (some of which embrace same-sex coupling). In effect, he wrote, government would need to remove itself from the marriage equation altogether and instead recognize civil unions only. To me that seems like an ideal compromise: people are free to get married according to their beliefs, but the government can only perform and recognize civil unions. Those wanting only to get married and not obtain a civil union are free to do so, and vice versa; regulations regarding divorce and common law marriage (which would need to be renamed to “common law union” or something similar) could be amended appropriately.
However, I guess that compromise makes too much sense since nobody is talking about it. Instead of seeking cooperative solutions, we have decided to fight in terms of right and wrong, when everything contrasts starkly with its opposite.
As a heterosexual man, I have no direct stake in the battle over same-sex marriage. Whether or not Dick and Steve or Emily and Jane can tie the knot — get “married” — has no bearing on my own relationships and sex life. (Frankly, right now I am unsure what the purpose of marriage is in an age when nobody seems committed “’til death do us part.” Also curious to me is the supposed necessity of marriage, which is a central theme of “Paths,” the long essay I was working on.) However, the precedents created by either the prohibition or allowance of same-sex marriage will have lasting consequences and I do not want to live in a country that legally sanctions discrimination. To me, Prop 8 was hypocrisy and intolerance to the nth degree. Having recited the “Pledge of Allegiance” at school every morning from kindergarten to third grade — “…with liberty and justice for all!” — I gladly voted “no.” Needless to say, I was dismayed that a majority of my fellow Californians felt differently.
Despite yesterday’s ruling, the bigots will likely appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit Court or directly to the Supreme Court. The whole thing will likely be settled by 2013 or ’14, at least judicially and for the forseeable future. (Roe vs. Wade galvanized the pro-life caucus and abortion rights are eroding yearly.)
Though my opinion has not changed since voting against Prop 8 — I still believe wholeheartedly in liberty and justice for all (!) — my stance regarding the debate has shifted slightly. Michael J. Sandel’s meditations on same-sex marriage in Justice were informative and thought-provoking: philosophically, he wrote, the whole issue revolves around the definition and purpose of marriage. Through that lens he wonders who can get married and why. Defenders of so-called “traditional marriage” argue that marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. (In his Third Reich trilogy, Richard J. Evans quotes a leading Nazi as saying something along those lines. Eerily, leading Republicans in the Iowa legislature echoed, almost verbatim, the Nazi’s sentiments last year during debates on same-sex marriage.) If that is the case, Sandel argues, then why are those unwilling or unable to have children able to marry? Why are men and women on their deathbeds allowed to marry since they are unable to have children? If the purpose of marriage is procreation, the government will no doubt need to determine who can and cannot marry. What about those who married with every intention of having children but could not conceive? Should their marriage be annulled? You get the idea; predictably enough for a philosopher, Sandel opens a pedantic can of worms further complicating the debate.
However, what was most interesting and convincing for me was when Sandel wrote about marriage as a religious matter. If we define marriage as a sacred religious institution, as many do, then the government has no business deciding who can and cannot get married or why; that should be determined by individual faiths and denominations (some of which embrace same-sex coupling). In effect, he wrote, government would need to remove itself from the marriage equation altogether and instead recognize civil unions only. To me that seems like an ideal compromise: people are free to get married according to their beliefs, but the government can only perform and recognize civil unions. Those wanting only to get married and not obtain a civil union are free to do so, and vice versa; regulations regarding divorce and common law marriage (which would need to be renamed to “common law union” or something similar) could be amended appropriately.
However, I guess that compromise makes too much sense since nobody is talking about it. Instead of seeking cooperative solutions, we have decided to fight in terms of right and wrong, when everything contrasts starkly with its opposite.
Comments
Post a Comment