Gay Marriage: The Crux of the Debate
[Note from Lowell: The following is a post from a brand-new blog, True North, where I'll be posting about subjects outside the scope of this blog. This particular post, however, seems like a cross-over to our politics/religion portfolio.]
The crux of the debate, huh? I know, that’s a fairly grandiose title for this post; the gay marriage debate is about many things. For one thing, gays want acceptance, and that basic human desire looms large in the discussion. So does the desire of traditional marriage proponents to uphold the ideal of a family that includes both a father and a mother.
All those important elements aside, I think the crux of the public debate in the coming years will be this question: In the context of marriage, is sexual preference the same as race? In other words, is opposition to gay marriage the same as opposition to interracial marriage?
Understanding the two principal competing answers to that question is crucial to understanding the nature of the national conversation that is under way right now.
Yes: Gay marriage proponents think the answer is clearly and unequivocally yes, and that anyone opposing same-sex marriage occupies the same moral ground as those who opposed interracial marriage decades ago. In this view, reserving marriage for a man and a woman, on the one hand; and civil unions for gay couples, on the other, is no different from the “separate but equal” doctrine that once applied to public education.
As much as I disagree with it, this position is a principled one. I am not attacking it; I am trying to describe it.
No: Traditional marriage supporters like me think the answer to the question is no, because we are talking about the definition of an institution – marriage – as between a man and a woman. Interracial marriages are still between a man and a woman. Such marriages do not test the fundamental definition of the institution. In this view, reserving traditional marriage for male-female unions, and domestic partnerships for same-sex unions is not a “separate but equal” arrangement, it is “different but equal.”
The two views can collide in ugly ways, depending on who is making the argument. Those in the “separate but equal” camp too often want to cast their opponents as little better than Ku Klux Klan members, circa 1950. That is not an exaggeration. Consider Sean Penn’s comments on receiving the Academy Award as Best Actor for his portrayal of gay activist Harvey Milk:
I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage [Proposition 8] to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support.
In other words, those who voted for Prop 8 will, in time, be seen much like those who opposed civil rights for African- Americans: their grandchildren will be ashamed of them.
That is pretty strong stuff. It also grossly distorts the debate by seeking to marginalize those who take the “no” position on the “separate but equal” question. Suddenly their position is not principled, but simply bigoted and shameful.
What will happen over the next 5-10 years? I think we as a society (through our political-legal system) will eventually decide which view is correct. Make no mistake: That will be the battle, and the entire country the battleground.
This is an emotional and heart-breaking issue. Anyone who knows and cares about any gay people knows this. That’s why I really have no patience for the people on either side who can only see their opponents as moral poison. Maybe amid all the usual messy screaming and yelling that occurs when Americans tackle an issue like this, we can actually have a national conversation about what marriage means, and whether we should adhere to the traditional definition or change it.
Then maybe we can start talking about what it might actually mean to make such a change in definition, and whether it is really a good idea. More about that in future posts.
Posted in Proposition 8 | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
RedCav on 29 May 2009 at 8:58 am #
It is difficult to understand how the truth can be so obscured by emotion in this debate. I agree that those on the other side should not be viewed as moral poison; likewise, I don’t appreciate being considered a bigot or a homophobe because I hold moral and spiritual values against homosexual behavior. An xxx-phobe fears, but I simply believe such behavior is morally wrong and dangerous and should not be promoted or advanced for thhe common good. To me, the truth is that the same sex marriage debate boils down to the quest for societal acceptance; the word “marriage” redefined to include gay unions will bring gays the legitimacy and acceptance they desire, at least in the eyes of the law at first, and in society at large at a later date.
The word “marriage” is defined as the union of a man and a woman and not the union of two men or two women or two transsexuals! Marriage as an institution is a societal cornerstone for its legal protections as well as for the simple fact that marriage is the most stable union for procreation, replenishing the people that are the society. If a gay union can be redefined as “marriage”, then the last wall has been breached and gay unions” will then be “equal” to real marriage.
Such unions are not the same as marriage; I guess that puts me on the [different but equal] side of the debate. What makes gay unions different from marriages is: 1) they are two people of the same sex and 2) procreation cannot occur between same sex partners. Those are factual differences based on thhe definition of marriage. Gay unions are not the same and should not drive a re-definition of marriage. Having said all that, I do believe, however, that gay activists will settle for nothing less than equality via “marriage” even though logic and truth should dictate otherwise.
RedCav
grundy9 on 29 May 2009 at 9:43 am #
Here is the best thing I have recently read on the subject, linking the marriage debate, religion, and policy.
“A Commitment to Truth is the Best Way to “Love the Sinner”
by Peter Sprigg
Jonathan Merritt, a young (26) Southern Baptist writer, recently criticized the evangelical church in general, and the pro-family public policy movement in particular, for how it handles the issue of homosexuality (”An evangelical’s plea: ‘Love the sinner,’” USA Today, April 20). “Evangelical opposition to . . . ‘the homosexual agenda’ has often been vitriolic and unbalanced by a message of love for our gay neighbors,” he declares.
However, his portrait of the church and the pro-family movement is mostly a caricature, drawn by homosexual activists and promoted by the mainstream media. Harsh language is sometimes used by both sides in a passionate argument, but the fact that Merritt reaches back 16, 15, 8, and 7 years for his examples gives one hint that they are not representative of the ongoing debate.
Part of the misunderstanding arises because foundational truths about this issue are routinely ignored or obscured. For example, Merritt speaks of “misinformed Christians who believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation.” But “sexual orientation” is an umbrella term for three different things–sexual attractions, sexual behavior, and sexual self-identification. We at Family Research Council understand that people do not “choose” to experience same-sex sexual attractions. (Neither are they “born that way”–developmental factors from childhood are at work.) People do, however, choose to become sexually active, choose their sexual partners, and choose whether to identify themselves as “gay.”
When pro-family activists speak of “homosexuals,” we mean people who choose to engage in homosexual acts, and when we speak of “homosexuality,” we mean voluntary homosexual activity. “Homosexual activists” are those who demand public affirmation of their sex lives (something not all homosexuals do).
We avoid the terms “gay” and “lesbian” because they reinforce the myth that homosexuality is an intrinsic “identity.” It is not demeaning to disapprove of someone’s sexual conduct–it is far more demeaning to define someone’s entire identity based on that conduct. We can show respect–and yes, love–for the people Merritt calls “our gay neighbors” by defining them not as “gay,” but as human.
Merritt therefore commits a triple fallacy when he says that we seek “to delegitimize the existence of those who share our beliefs.” Every human being’s “existence” is “legitimate,” and precious to God, because they are created in his image. But none of them are created to be “gay.” And the primary focus of controversy is not the “beliefs” of homosexuals, but their actual sexual conduct.
It is not homosexuals whose right to express their “beliefs” is in jeopardy, but those who believe in traditional family values. Witness, for example, the viciousness currently being directed at Miss California, Carrie Prejean, merely for answering a pageant judge’s question by saying (with the majority of Americans and Californians) that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Merritt says of his gay friends, “my obligation to love them is not dependent upon their capitulation to a particular belief system.” But our obligation to love them does not require our capitulation to their particular belief system, either.
The Christian church does offer a compassionate response to those with same-sex attractions, which includes therapy to help people overcome them. Yet no movement is subject to more hateful and vitriolic rhetoric–from homosexual activists–than the ex-gay movement. Such activists deny outright the existence of ex-gays, and seek to prevent those whose same-sex attractions are unwanted from having access to the compassionate care that they seek. Indeed, this care might be one of the first victims of the kind of non-discrimination laws that Merritt urges us to support.
The role of public policy organizations such as the Family Research Council is to resist policies that would amount to governmental affirmation that homosexual conduct is normal, natural, and harmless. We must “oppose even minor concessions” to this principle (as Merritt puts it), because it is false–and destructive. Homosexual conduct is harmful to the people who engage in it, and to society at large, because it is demonstrably associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse.
Merritt’s desire to express God’s love to “our gay neighbors” is both admirable and exemplary. In the public policy arena, however, I must warn him–even his own gentle affirmations of traditional values (that “God’s model is a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union,” and that “God desires a better path” for his gay friends) are more than sufficient to get him labeled a “hatemonger” and “bigot” by homosexual activists.
Such labels are a form of spiritual blackmail to which Christians must never submit–and a form of propaganda which Christians like Merritt ought not to repeat.
Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council and a long time friend of NARTH. He is also an ordained Baptist minister and former pastor.”
coltakashi on 02 Jun 2009 at 7:19 pm #
I am a child of an “interracial” marriage between a Swedish-Italian American soldier and a Japanese woman. The entire notion of “racial purity” is irrational, since there have always been children born across every racial divide, and if a particular person wants to preserve some particular genotype, all he or she has to do is marry someone who meets his own definition of the “same race”. The notion that people who are not participating in that process of voluntary “racial purity” be compelled to participate is premised on an assumption of racial superiority, nothing else, and has no basis in the Bible. The concern that is sometimes expressed in the Bible about marriage with outsiders is focused on religious differences between spouses and transmission of religious belief, not “race”. Many Orthodox Jews are concerned about the survival of the Jews as a people, in the face of growing intermarriage. That is fine, so long as they don’t try to compel non-volunteers.
People who identify themselves as LGBT are not of a different “race” or “races”. The fact that identical twins can have a heterosexual member and a homosexual member shows that DNA alone does not determine LGBT behavior. LGBT behavior is behavior, just as adultery and polygamy is behavior. It is clear that by-and-large, LGBT persons do not regard marriage to a spouse of the other sex as binding in a way to prevent them from having sexual relations outside marriage (such as the gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire). Marriage for them is not a prerequisite to sexual relations. LGBT people do not need to have legally recognized marriage in order to pursue their chosen behaviors. In California, they have long had equal rights to marriage under law. So why do they want legal marriage?
Enshrining LGBT behavior in marriage law is intended to force all other members of society to endorse LGBT behavior as equally good as normal marriage. Once that equivalency is granted, all insitutions of society, which have adopted the mantra that they must ensure that all employees must embrace “diversity”, will punish anyone who disagrees, even for religious reasons, with that equivalency. Same sex marriage goes beyond a specific need of LGBT people for the necessities of life. What it gives them is the opportunity to punish anyone who does not validate them, who questions the necessity and inevitability of their behaviors. In California, Domestic Partnerships gave LGBT couples all legal rights equivalent to heterosexual marriage, but they are interested in more than their ordinary needs, they are interested in punishing those who even implicitly condemn their behaviors, even when it does not in fact harm them in any substantive way! They seek immunity from even implied insult. The advocates of same-sex marriage are displaying a phobia of moral criticism. Rather than deal with their own emotional feelings of inadequacy when they don’t receive universal acceptance, they seek to suppress other people’s expressions of opinion. Just as they are doing in their drumming up hatred against Mormons.
Mahnahvu on 07 Jun 2009 at 11:40 am #
The crux of the debate is not whether there is an analogy between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Even from the three comments above it is clear that the crux of the debate has more to do with hetero-supremacy. Should homosexual citizens be treated as inferior in a society where the majority is heterosexual? Discussions referencing the history of civil rights in the U.S., which include women’s rights and those of racial minorities, help us put gay rights into a broader perspective. But ultimately, it really comes down to the question of what we should do with the Gays in society and is broader that the specific matter of marriage equality.
TVHall on 08 Jun 2009 at 6:57 pm #
Hetero-supremecy? Now there’s a novel concept. I suppose it springs from the same origin as homophobia as a descriptor for anyone that doesn’t toe the gay party line. If you’re actually interested in getting to the “crux of the debate” then you’re going to have to jettison the fraudulent civil rights argument.
Homosexuals have, and have always had, the same marriage rights as anyone else. What is currently being sought does not, and never has, been included in the definition of marriage.
Now, if you would like to put forth an argument in favor of altering that definition, you are welcome to do so. But I suspect you are fully aware of the futility of that endeavor. Hence your reliance on deception.
Twitter Trackbacks for Article VI Blog » Gay Marriage: The Crux of the Debate [article6blog.com] on Topsy.com on 02 Sep 2009 at 8:04 pm #
[...] Article VI Blog » Gay Marriage: The Crux of the Debate http://www.article6blog.com/2009/05/28/gay-marriage-the-crux-of-the-debate – view page – cached Religion in the 2008 Presidential Campaign: Commentary by an Evangelical Christian and a Mormon — From the page [...]