I'd like to preface this discussion first by saying that I sincerely wish happiness and peace to everyone, especially my gay friends and fellow citizens. My thoughts here were provoked by a concern over the fact that rights-based arguments that fail to draw a distinction between inalienable rights and vested rights are endangering our freedom. The LGBT community (hereafter just "gay") should be equally concerned about the direction this country is taking with regard to inalienable rights. Neither gays nor natural family advocates should have to worry that government will infringe on their inalienable rights. What follows is my attempt to revive a proper view of rights and see how we can best meet everyone's needs fairly.
I'm amazed that people can get away with the rights-based argument for gay marriage. It is an astounding misunderstanding of individual rights. Gays have the inalienable right to do what they want with other like minded adults. But marriage is an institution that implies the blessing of others. You cannot demand that other people give you their blessing. It is their individual right to give it or withhold it.
The judge who overruled California's Prop 8 today relied on the argument that "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment" and "[it] was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples".
In 1983, Martin Luther King Jr. Day became a national holiday. This was a great honor for a great man. The creation of this holiday cost the federal government an extra day of holiday pay to every federal worker. Doesn't MLK Day discriminate against all other great Americans who were denied the honor of having a day named for them? I guess all these other Americans "aren't as good" as Mr. King. That is a glass-half-empty argument that should be rejected.
When people democratically decide to bestow an honor on someone or a group of people (such as 9/11 workers) it is not a disparagement of the rights of anyone else. And honors such as these are not rights! You cannot demand that somebody else think well of you.
Gay marriage which is forced onto a people undemocratically is a violation of their right to honor whom they will. Take away the economic benefits (which shouldn't be that much anyway in a limited government society) and marriage is nothing but a blessing of your peers. You cannot demand that blessing, it has to be given freely. I have the right to band together with like-minded individuals to give my blessings to whom I may. Government is one way in which people band together.
The fact is, there is only one pairing of human beings that has a perpetual risk of bringing new people into the world: heterosexual unions. Gay unions might have kids from prior marriages or from adoption, but they never have to run the risk of pregnancy planned or otherwise. This special character of heterosexual union makes it fundamentally different than gay union no matter what activist judges may believe. We can give the emperor a new set of clothes, but nobody will be fooled. If some people want to give their blessing to couples who will be creating new members of society, that is their right. Gays can ask for a similar blessing, but it is not an inalienable right to receive it.
If Gays really believed in inalienable rights they would demand that the government stop giving preferential treatment to anyone. Asking that they receive preferential treatment on par with heterosexuals still leaves huge unfairness gaps. What about single parents? What about Catholic Nuns? Shouldn't they have a life partner that can make decisions for them when they are incapacitated? How about two celibate males who live together as friends and are soul-buddies? Why are they "singled out" for discriminatory exclusion from marriage and all the appertaining benefits? You know I'm right. If there is anything that needs to be fixed it is first, we shouldn't be doling out benefits at tax payer expense to any special groups. Second, if we need to fix the law to enable significant-other visitation rights, power of attorney rights, etc. all we need is a "life partner" law. It wouldn't be marriage, it would just be a special legal instrument to fulfill a broad need. Third, marriage should be left to the private sector.
Life partner laws, private marriage, inalienable rights. Problem solved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
yikes. I hope that some day you are able to look beyond your personal feelings and see this as equal rights issue. Ask yourself what do you have that gay couples do not, and is it just in the eyes of the law, not your God.
Sang, if we conflate vested rights with inalienable rights we all lose. My blog here is to illustrate the difference. I hope you at least understand that the right to marry is bestowed by others. It is a given right, not an inalienable one. I use the term "vested" to refer to rights which are granted by agreement. And if we start pushing the notion of equal vested rights, then where do we stop? Any government program that offers a benefit would have to give that benefit to everyone equally. That means I should be able to sign up for food stamps regardless of my income. I should be able to get farm subsidies for my garden. If everything is going to be "equal" you have to concede that we can no longer consider *any* group worthy of special consideration. And I agree that government should not be in the business of singling out groups for special treatment. I am not for farm subsidies and the like. If you are in favor of subsidies, than I think you should ask yourself whether your notion of equality extends farther than this issue.
Please do not infer that I have negative feelings for gays. I was speaking of this when I spoke of the glass-half-empty. Why does my support of the unique procreative union have to mean that I dislike gays? I understand the reasons for gay marriage and I support them conceptually. But why can't I continue see a difference between procreative and non-procreative unions?
I see that you support bestowing your blessing on homosexual unions. Great! That is your inalienable right. I support you all the way. Did I not just say here that I support private groups bestowing the title of marriage on whom they may? I am willing to give my blessing to gay unions as well in the life-partner sense.
Did I not just propose a life-partner law that is even more fair than gay marriage at extending benefits to an even wider audience? If you really believe in equal rights you wouldn't make sexual attraction a precondition for special treatment.
I'm basically trying to separate out the benefit aspect of marriage from the blessing aspect. The former should be available equally. The latter cannot be available equally without violating the inalienable right of personal conviction. I sure hope you don't support taking away my inalienable right to form my own world views.
I would have to agree that one of the main purposes of marriage is the protection of young brought about by such a union. To create a stable environment for their best nurture and benefit. Marriage can not be an inalienable right, calling it such would discriminate against every single person. Is there an age at which every person then deserves to be married? How do we compensate those who would like to be and are not married? And what of those who choose by way of religion or personal need to not marry? Do we castigate them for not being married or compensate them? Marriage is an institution based on the rearing of children. If someone seeks recognition by government or by social piers does the recognition have to be one that is already being used?
[Re posting this comment because it didn't take, and revising it too]
I agree Vince. The heterosexual marriage institution has been "subsidized" because we have in the past seen it's value. Much the same way that we subsizide clean energy or even charity (through tax treatment). I continue to see its value. I see the value of gays creating life partnerhsips. And I see the value in calling them different things. By equating the two unions it forces a lot of false equivalencies that bleed into the law and into cirriculums so as to violate the inalienable right of conscience.
I have long felt that many gay activists aren't interested in equality so much as they are interested in changing world views. They have that right, but by using the power of the government to force acceptance, it is no different from having a national religion.
So do gay unions deserve to be subsidized? This is a democratic matter, not a judicial one. I think gays already enjoy above average economic status and above average amounts of free time. At this juncture, I don't see a need for a subsidy. Related to this idea of subsidizing everyone equally....if you subsidize everything than you subsidize nothing. It is very much like that line in "The Incredibles" where Syndrome says "when everyone is Super...noone will be"
Let's have the debate as to whether or not to subsidize certains kinds of unions. I know that many folks out there are worried about overpopulation and would love to see natural familes be less procreative. Some see more non-traditional unions as a way to de-emphasize procreation.
The question here is whether we subsidize something or not. This is not about inalienable rights! The recent court decision degrades inalienable rights for everyone and it federalizes more power that should have been left to the states. Double whammy!
I would be surprised if LBGT people don't see the dangers to all of us here.
Anyway here is a great opinion at the NY Times that mirrors my "subsidy" thoughts:
here
I'm going to need to write another blog about this topic. I keep coming across new insights. Such as this about how the pill brought about the paradigm shift that enabled the concept of gay marriage in the first place. Then this about how the bigot card is played in cases like this.
I agree with most of what you have written; very similar to what I have been saying for quite a while. I think the problem lies in the fact that the majority of people ENJOY the personal benefits currently given by our government for being in a heterosexual marriage.
But if we look beyond our own immediate personal $$ gain/loss, then we might recognize that the government should not BE involved in marriage at all.
If people need to be able to designate another person to take responsibility for them and/or their affairs, fine; create laws to allow people to do that. If people want a tax break for supporting another person, fine; create laws that specify what that requires, and what, if any, exemption or credit will then be allowed.
If we truly believe in the separation of religion and government, then marriage should not be supported nor restricted BY the government.
Cyndy you're profile wasn't active, I'm interested to read your blog if you have one.
I agree. I do enjoy being honored for my willingness to stay married and be there for my children. I'm glad there are still people that honor that. But honors are best bestowed in the private sector, in your churches and commmunities. I allow that the government can also play a role in honoring people, but it should never be mistaken as an inalienable right to be honored.
I suspect a certain amount of confusion is inevitable when 'marriage' is defined as both a religious and civil institution. It should not be the business of the state to ensure equal treatment in religious institutions - though I frankly have no use for cults which subjugate sexually through social subterfuge and indoctrination.
How can you defend civil discrimination ? It is a fact that - in the usual manner ( or not) followed by alienation of affection, violence,abandonment or death : all common events - parents will end up alone with children. To then deprive these kids of adoptive parents is to also deprive the children of protection and assistance of their partners' resources.
The usual response is that this keeps the kids safer from sexual assault - something not borne out by statistics. Besides - there are reviews already in place which put the state in the dubious position of 'approving' parents while it has a demonstrated record of abdicating responsibilities to corporate profiteering surrogates and of subjecting children to a childhood lacking the social/emotional bonds of family.
So much for the superior care of the state.
'Marriage' partnership not being an 'inalienable' right is only a correct technical description of situations in which equal treatment under the law is being objected to. So far the objections I find are specious rationalizations.
After all, there are many situations between so-called 'straights' where procreation is obviously not the point of personal partnership which still include the ability to intercede on behalf of incapacitated or immature members of the family unit. To turn around and deny 'bisexuals' civil union protections under similar circumstances is again to dangerously intrude on private affairs without point of justification or plan.
That's an example not of a 'nanny state' but of power without restraint : authoritarianism.
I find you in the position of advocating state power without restraining it.
So according to your argument, straight couples can also be denied just because someone else doesn't want them to get married?
Post a Comment