Al Gore and John Mill on Gay Marriage
I had someone today say to me that “homosexual men and women enjoy the same rights as heterosexual men and women.” At first glance this assertion seems legitimate, but the underlying rationale is completely false. The government discriminates against homosexuals by blocking their right to marriage. Furthermore, it’s hypocritical to allow homosexual relationships, co-habitation, and even adoption, but disallow marriage.
A day before Martin Luther King Jr Day, Al Gore released a personal statement in favor of ending the exclusion of same-sex couples and their families from marriage and advocating that the United States allow same-sex marriage. I didn’t have the time to debate the person, but if I had, I would have said something along the lines that Gore said in his statement.
“I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of that person’s sexual orientation. I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians.
Shouldn’t we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation?
The loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged, and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.”
Marriage is love. Marriage is about committment to another whom you care deeply about and would be willing to give your life for. Marriage should not be held elusively for heterosexual couples. Ending same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage will help families and hurt no one. This is a victimless policy move, and it serves to only strengthen our social cohesiveness as people.
I’m tired of listening to narrow-minded homophobes talk of homosexuality as the end of all mankind. Homosexuality is an inherent and learned trait. It is a freedom of consciousness and the exercise of personal freedom. The restriction of legal gay-marriage is unjustified. There is no compelling or legitimate state interest for the government to restrict the practice, nor is any harm done to society. However, under the status quo, those who are discriminating against are indeed suffering a harm.
John Stuart Mill so presciently said some 150 years ago:
“To justify [government exercise over a persons freedom], the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”
No evil is done to society in allowing same-sex marriages. Al Gore rings in again with words of truth. Ending exclusion from marriage is one climate change the world will be better for.
h/t: globalizati
I agree with you very strongly on the “state interest” aspect. If there is no legitimate state interest, then there is no reason to deny the right to marry to homosexual couples.
In my experience, the anti-gay crowd wants to change the debate into a debate on homosexuality itself, not on gay marriage. I think most of them know that they cannot win the legal argument on gay marriage, but they think they can overcome it with pure moral conviction and religious dogma.
As far as the original statement goes (“homosexuals have the equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender…”) goes, here is my response to the people who say that:
We don’t use that type of logic with any of the other types of people or activities we tolerate in this country. Whether homosexuality is an identity or a lifestyle is irrelevant because we should tolerate it either way and it should be provided with equal protection under the law. Someone could outlaw all religions except Christianity and then make the argument that “everyone has the equal right to go to a Christian church.” However, the person making that argument would be an idiot. Someone could also outlaw all cable news stations except for Fox News and say that “everyone has the equal right to watch Fox News.”
The underlying crisis is that many Americans still have trouble with basic tolerance. Even though we are this many years after the Enlightenment, there are still holdouts who think that their own personal moral convictions should rule in the political sphere.
private marriage is the way to go, it would effectively end the debate. if the government only carried about civil unions or partnerships for tax purposes then the churches could fight about who they actually let get married.
Yeah, but if you allow gay marriage and (already) gay couples adopting, then gay people will make more little gay people. Thankfully, these people can’t procreate.
Before you know it, the US will be a nation defined by homosexuality, and not by the men who founded this country in the name of God.
That can’t be allowed to happen. Not on our watch….
“private marriage is the way to go, it would effectively end the debate”
This is ideal, yes. However, the social conservatives (and greedy married people) would lobby hard against it. Nevertheless, the ideal of abolishing state-sanctioned marriage sounds perfectly fine to me. Besides, as I stated above, marriage is about love. Sadly, people often marry for money, pride, prestige, and status. Or because that’s the reason they came to Harding University.
Man, gino, you pessimist.
Ah yes, good point there, gino.
Three states already ban or restrict gay couples’ ability to adopt and several more are considering such restrictions. It looks like we are going exactly the wrong way on this issue.
Hello Political Cartel folks,
I think the best argument for same-sex marriage is to apply the slippery slope argument in the opposite direction. When the family values crowd says “What’s next? What if one man wants to marry three women? What if a woman wants to marry a sheep?”, a good retort would be to ask “Should we ban interracial marriages? What about interfaith marriages? What about marriages in which one person is more than 5 years older than the other?” Or you could say you’d support a ban on gay marriage if it is coupled with a ban on divorce.
This is really more of a generational issue than anything else. People in their 20s and 30s don’t seem to care much about it the way our parents and grandparents do. It’s not that younger people are any more likely to be homosexual; it’s just that we don’t like the idea of legalized discrimination.
Hey Anthony, mighty good of you to stop by!
The slippery slope argument is good for average people, and I have indeed employed it many a time. It’s the right-wing, conservative-fundamentalist that get annoying, since they base their principle on biblical interpretations. The same interpretation that is the basis for the subjugation of women in the Church.
Even though Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts, and are not applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today, they cite passages from the Holiness Code and the story of Sodom and Gomrrah as basis for same-sex marriage promulgation (it’s like using folklore for your legal code). Both examples are cultural anachronisms, to say the least. Religious interpretations interposed between people and the government suffer greatly from a collective cognitive dissonance.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your last comment. It does indeed seem to be a generational issue, more than anything else. It will be interesting to see where we are when people of my generation (those about to graduate college) have control of government reigns.
Keep up the good writing, Anthony,and stop by whenever you get the chance.
Peace.
My response to the slippery slope argument when applied to multiple people: why should our government care if one man enters into a relationship with two women? or three? Why should people in a marriage relationship receive bigger tax breaks than a committed couple in a long term relationship who choose not to marry? (If the idea is b/c of the children, then let’s just give tax breaks for children; there are a lot of single parents already.) Consent seems to be the standard our society is operating on (and it seems to be a reasonable principle), so why not apply it evenly?
And of course, if the man wants to marry the goat, he’d have to prove that the goat is a consenting adult….
I always thought the scare tactic with the goat was false because of exactly what you just said (“he’d have to prove that the goat is a consenting adult”), but also it is just an asinine statement anyway.
As for polygamy, I think it is something that is just assumed to be justifiably illegal, but very few people have ever even thougt about it. I think you could pretty much apply all of S.C.’s arguments to polygamy just by substituting a couple of words.
I agree 100% with Anthony’s comment about abhorring the idea of legalized discrimination. Even though my religious convictions strongly oppose the homosexual lifestyle, I’m not comfortable with government interference in such a personal choice as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else. In a similar vein to the above comments, the government can’t ban marriage for people who intend to commit adultery, or ban speaking for people who tell lies.
However, I’m really torn about government-sanctioned homosexual adoption. Helpless kids who have to live in foster care rely upon the state to watch over them. The state should give kids every possible shot at a normal life. Should we add to the burdens of an orphaned or neglected child the negative attention that comes with homosexual couples? Kids are protected from physical abuse by law. Should the government even consider emotional or mental abuse? (I’m not saying this would come from the homosexual adoptive parents, but from people on the outside looking in. It’s inevitable– you know people would talk.)
On the other hand, maybe said child would be much happier with any family than at an orphanage, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. I also realize that barring homosexuals from adoption is, in fact, legalized discrimination, which I just said that I abhorred. I’m thinking in circles. Help me out here, guys.
There have been scientific studies done that have DISPROVEN the stereotype that:
1. A homosexual couple cannot raise a child to be “normal”
2. Any child raised by homosexuals will be homosexual
3. All homosexuals abuse children
Also disproven:
4. Homosexuality is a: phase, choice, rebellion, etc.
I certainly believe that a child needs both a male and female role model. However, their main role model need not be the parents. It could come from teachers, coaches, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.
“Helpless kids who have to live in foster care rely upon the state to watch over them. The state should give kids every possible shot at a normal life.”
It’s been proven rather convincingly that children who remain in the foster care system (500,000+) have anything but a “normal” life. They seldom have a permanent home to stay in, they are often beaten and abused, and their lifestyles are usually anything but healthy (drugs, unprotected sex, crimes). In fact, many of them wind up in jail or out in the streets, permanently. Many of these life vices are a cause of an abnormal and inconsistent family life, if family is what you want to call foster parents.
If the foster children are able to be adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple, who will provide the basic necessities of life and the irreplaceable role of parenting, should it be prohibited merely because it’s socially different and may result in some psychological difficulties and social barriers for the child? Well, first of all, I would say the child is more likely to face tougher psychological challenges if he were to stay in the foster care system. The psychological component set aside, it seems rather obvious that in order to provide for the best interest of the child, homosexual adoption should not only be legal but actively promoted.
“I also realize that barring homosexuals from adoption is, in fact, legalized discrimination.”
Yeah.
Should the government even consider emotional or mental abuse?
The same argument could be made about adoptive parents who are minorities, who have some sort of disability, are poor, are just plain socially strange, and so on and so forth. We need to have some sort of objective criteria for judging whether adoptive parents are legally capable of providing a good home; I’m sure some straight couples would be awful adoptive parents, as would some gay couples.
Also, it’s kind of a circular process. Interracial marriage used to be more stigmatized, but is less so in part b/c many people defied that stigma (though there’s much progress to be made here, especially in the South). Likewise, in areas where homosexual couples raising kids is less unusual, it likely becomes a more regular part of life. Allowing homosexuals to adopt children is just one of many things that would make those lifestyles more acceptable, and in turn make it easier on their children. I guess you could see that as an argument for or against gay adoption, but I think it’s true regardless.
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/quest.html
I encountered this questionnaire in a class called The Rhetorics of Masculinity and was struck by its ability to accurately poke holes in every homophobic critique of homosexuality. I appreciate this post, like most of them written here. Thanks Mr. Denney.
Marriage is not a right afforded to all. Marriage is a God-given, state-approved privilege. Governmental rights and benefits is where the problem arises. Give gay and lesbian couples the same R/B married couples enjoy or revoke the state-sponsored R/B enjoyed by married couples. Perhaps there are state-sponsored “R/B” married couples do not enjoy. I’m mostly ignorant of these “marriage R/B” as I’m still unmarried.
My main concern are people suffering long hospital stays and having their best friend, their loved one, the person who truly cares for them forced to stand outside b/c they are not recognized by the state as having the benefit of being a married couple. That should be a right afforded to anyone in that condition.
Semantics? Sure.
That is entirely un-American, at the least. The Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution and its Amendments, clearly state that there must be a separation of church and state. To use your own religious views as an argument as to whether or not to effect a law or to create a new one is unconstitutional. Talk about it, sure. But to actually take religion into consideration is immoral and unconstitutional. Now don’t get me wrong, if a church doesn’t want to perform a gay marriage, then they don’t have to. But CIVIL liberties such as CIVIL unions CANNOT be owtlawed because of anyone’s personal religious views.
There are tons of legal benefits to being married:
Tax benefits include the right to file jointly, which can allow two people to maximize their deductions and credits and minimize their tax buden.
Property benefits include joint ownership and automatic inheritance without estate or inheritence taxes if one of the partners dies.
Medical benefits include the automatic right of one partner to make medical decisions about the other if the other is unable to make those decisions for him/herself. Also, a major health benefit is the ability of both individuals to be covered under a family health insurance plan provided by an employer, as opposed to both getting insurance from separate sources (or not at all).
Social program benefits include the ability to recieve federal money from Social Security, Medicare, or the VA.
Many of these rights and benefits are beneficial to society as a whole as well as to the individuals who receive them, but as it has been observed, it is unfair and illogical to prevent homosexual couples in committed relationships from receiving the same legal recognition and protection.
If were to speak of essence, was polygamy then God-given, and state-approved? Marriage, in its purest form, is a social contract between two loving people. Anything more than that is, as you say Charles, semantics.
The Rights and Benefits of marriage you allude to are the “rights” I am speaking of when I say “equal rights.” Perhaps, marriage isn’t a “right;” however, in order to accomplish any real task we must work within the legal structure that encompasses our being. So, the Rights and Benefits should be awarded to all, since marriage, in its legal form, is a state-authorized and state-recognized concept. To bar a certain group from these rights, solely because they are homosexual, is unjustifiable legal discrimination.
What’s a possible solution? Well, as you said, “Give gay and lesbian couples the same R/B married couples enjoy or revoke the state-sponsored R/B enjoyed by married couples.” This would revert marriage back to its quintessential essence, a social agreement amongst lovers.
Thanks for the survey-link, Ian. Perhaps I’ll had these out during Chapel.
I took the time to respond to the survey. Maybe ya’ll should too? :-)
I imagine that the Young Republicans would love that, S.C. Denney. I would definitely support the effort though.
I noticed in today’s Wash Post that AR will put a proposal on the fall ballot effectively banning same-sex couples from foster care/adoption. You guys at HU should put words into action and protest against this. I don’t know if it has a chance of passing, but I wouldn’t underestimate the intolerance of Arkansas voters. There are so many kids out there who need a loving home.
I may be mistaken, but I think a nearly identical bill failed to pass in AR last November. I do hope this one suffers the same fate.
I’ll take a look into it. I would definitely come out against such a bill (esp. on this blog). However, taking it public (around Searcy) may have the opposite effect. Bringing attention to such a hot-bed issue will mobilize the largely homophobic bloc here, which would probably result in more support for such legislation than opposition.
I’ll consider it, nevertheless.
politicalcartel.org, how do you do it?