A recent group of articles here on BC raises the tricky topic of same-sex marriage. In one particularly well-written article, Jude Nagurney Camwell articulates what appears to be the core objection to the Federal Marriage Amendment:
The majority of Americans today accept the reality of same-sex relationships without condemning or ridiculing the people who choose that lifestyle. When religious fundamentalist leaders demagogue the issue of homosexuality, it often results in a narrow public debate about “moral values.” If this narrow debate translates to a political consensus restricting the civil rights of an entire class of Americans, the political acceptance of this public denigration encourages further discrimination against gays and lesbians in our country. The feeling of just how wrong that seems is palpable in terms of the civil injustice brought about by such a narrow debate on the values that the majority of Americans share in our society. It's undemocratic.
Camwell speaks for a considerable number of people in this excellent paragraph. The issue of same-sex marriage is, as Camwell states, a highly emotional one. It's also one that has threatened to forever damage the age-old debate over Federalism vs. central government dominance. This being a congressional election year, same-sex marriage will undoubtedly receive its fair share of public light, discussion, and, admittedly, misunderstanding.
The issue dividing social conservatives is not whether to legalize gay marriage, but rather who should be responsible for acting on it. Traditional federalists, those supporting the autonomy of the State and local government, tell us that the proposed amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman will remove precious social and political rights from the states, and hand them to the far less reliable (in the conservative view) federal government. The best way to handle same-sex marriage, they say, is to allow the states to legislate against it, something that appears to be happening in a majority of states.
The opposing line of thought states that the judiciary, as in the cases in Massachusetts, has already thrust gay marriage beyond the states rights debate, and into a federal matter of policy. Thus, the only way to preserve the traditional view of marriage and its purpose is to dictate constitutional law to the courts, through an amendment. In the first part of my two-part essay, I will attempt to show first of all persuasively that same-sex marriage should not be legalized. In the second part, I will give my thoughts to the support of an amendment to the US Constitution.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - wes
As a nation, the U.S. has historically set precedence for wider -- not restrictive -- inclusion in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Keep in mind that women have long been considered the “lesser sex” throughout many cultures since the beginning of time. Just because something is ingrained in our global culture does not mean it is correct. A marriage contract, in my opinion, is nothing more than a legal document that affords certain rights to married couples; one does not have to subscribe to any particular religious beliefs to obtain said contract. The same rights (tax breaks, hospital visitation, etc.) should be given to all consenting adults who choose to enter into a marriage contract. Additionally, any law that attempts to divide the population by orientation (sexual, religious, or otherwise) should be deemed unconstitutional.
2 - Bryan McKay
It's a well-written piece, but ultimately unconvincing. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have been convinced by anything you (or anyone, for that matter) could have argued, but at least you did your best. My issues:
(1) "[...] there is no serious, unbiased study of historic sociological understanding that can come to any contrary conclusion."
Who are you to determine the bias of a research study? You may be damn smart for your age, but you're hardly qualified to "peer" review a scholarly research effort. Is your red flag for a biased study simply that it disagrees with the findings you would have liked to see? There is plenty of bias in research, but it's ridiculous to claim that there can be no unbiased study that would find you wrong. Historically speaking, marriage is a far more subtle thing than a union for reproductive/child-rearing purposes. It's all wrapped up in property rights and wealth distribution. The dissection of a social institution needs to be done with a scalpel and forceps, not with a rusty hatchet.
(2) If marriage is intrinsically good, why not allow everyone a shot at it? Your argument that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman doesn't make marriage between members of the same sex less valid. Traditions are overturned all the time, often for the better. How do you feel about female genital cutting in Africa, by chance?
(3) As for your statistics on fatherless children, what are your feelings on divorce? If we follow your line of reasoning, the FMA should prevent that too, right?
(4) You should also think a bit about the terms 'gender' and 'sex.' Gender is a construction - an ideological relation to biological sex. You can have a bi-gendered household with two parents of the same sex the same way you can have a single-gendered household with two parents of the opposite sex. Maybe this is semantic to you, but to many people there is a huge difference between the two variables.
3 - gonzo marx
your Federalist argument goes the way of the same old shit that was used to try and keep Slavery as well as exempting Women from voting...so, there you lose...
and here is where you (the Original Poster) lose any credib9ility and endure a schism with both Reality and Logic.....
*If marriage is this, then same-sex marriage, which involves couples not able to procreate simply within the home unit (and thus preserve what some would call the marriage "contract"), immediately becomes a non-entity: a marriage between two non-complementary genders simply cannot exist.*
by this analysis then ANY marriage which does not procreate is not, ipso facto, a marriage...when nothing coudl be further form the Truth...
how about infertile couples, are they married? or couples who marry post menopause...are they married?
as long as adoption is a possibility, then what is the problem with these relationships being legally recognized as "marriage" under the decular definition according to our Rule of Law?
answer: there IS no good reason
as has ben brought up in many other Threads, unless you can demonstrate how recognizing this right for this minority hurts or harms the rights of others, then you have no case in the US for restricting the recognition of said Rights...
which, by the way, is what the Mass court ruled
Excelsior?
4 - Samuel James
Bryan, thanks for the compliments and the thoughtful reply. A couple of answers:
First of all, I was not referring to my whole argument when I said that not one unbiased study of history would contradict my conclusion that marriage has always been understood to be between complementary genders. I was simply my view that this definiton of marriage is age-old and has been it's understanding for as long as marriage has been around. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to the contrary, and would welcome some.
2)As stated above, I believe the core issue is simply "What is marriage?" My argument is not that gay individuals cannot marry. My case is that NO ONE can "marry" a non-complementary gender, for this is simply not marriage. I can't marry my own sex anymore than I can do nothing. It's a non-entity.
3)Divorce has nothing to do with pre-nupital capability for marriage. It is an undesirable end to the contract. It's far more horrible than our culture will admit. But I argue that divorce inside the marriage is different than redefining the marriage contract.
4)Your last objection has been raised to me before. I respond by saying that if you're willing to agree children do better under both genders but not both sexes, then are you proposing we screen same-sex couples to ensure that masculine and feminine traits are both present in the home?
Gonzo, you obviously only read a portion of my post. Read it a little more closely and most of your comments are addressed.
5 - JR
Samuel James: Divorce has nothing to do with pre-nupital capability for marriage. It is an undesirable end to the contract. It's far more horrible than our culture will admit. But I argue that divorce inside the marriage is different than redefining the marriage contract.
But since the statistics you cite with respect to fatherlessness refer overwhelmingly to children of divorced heterosexuals, it is clear that gay marriage is a relatively unimportant peripheral issue. If you are arguing to outlaw gay marriage but not divorce, you simply aren't addressing the the problem you claim to care about.
6 - gonzo marx
Samuel, all due respect for your capability in writing, but may i suggest you didn't read my comment closely enough?...i'll go over your Post again, but it seems you have fallen into the "false postulate" fallacy here...
that being that "marriage" is only such when procreation is completed...
i state that that is a false axiom, and thus renders your entire chain of Logic erroneuous, and proceed to point out a few reasons why...
i'll go over it again tho, to be fair
Excelsior?
7 - Bryan McKay
A few responses and then another question:
(1) I reiterate that simply because it is tradition does not mean it must be upheld.
(2) Why so inflexible in your definition of marriage? What is the threat?
(3) We have statistics that suggest fatherless children have more emotional and behavioral issues than children who grow up in a two-parent households. The problem with applying these statistics to the children of same-sex parents is that the conditions are entirely different. Fatherless children are (typically speaking) the products of divorce or other messy affairs. These factors are confounded with the lack of the father. This doesn't suggest that children need parents of both genders as much as it does they need a stable and supportive home environment with a dual-parent arrangement.
(4) I'm not willing to say that children do better with parents of both genders. That's a misreading (though an understandable one) of my point, which was merely that one should be careful when dealing with gender as it's a rather tricky subject.
And my question for you is this: How would gay marriage affect you personally? Would your ability to marry be restricted? Would your marriage be "devalued" or your emotional connection to your spouse be otherwise sullied? Would it affect your other loved ones in any way? Try to be as honest with yourself as possible.
8 - Jet in Columbus
Samuel, I've taken the time to read your whole intelligent and articulate article and even re-reviewed several portions of it to understand exactly what your fine mind has produced.
Ah ain't nevah seen such a load or red-nek hogwarsh disguised as intelectualism, in all mah born days boy.
to quote the song, "you can't even run your own life, I'll be damned if you'll run mine!"
9 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Amen, Jet. There's nothing more that needs to be said, you summed it up perfectly.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mr. James, it strikes me that you are missing a whole bunch of issues in your argument, so far, and creating problems you need not. But i'll hold further comment until I see the second part of your essay.
11 - chantal stone
ditto comments #3 and 8
12 - SteveS
A second reason not to enact gay marriage is that it would undermine the family by denying gender in marriage. The lack of one gender in a child raising relationship (which is what would certainly happen if gay marriage were legalized) can pose serious problems for the well-being of the child. Consider these statistics about fatherless homes:
Those homes don't have problems because there is a lack of a gender present, those homes have problems because of SINGLE parenting. Du-oh!
When mom has to work, often put herself through night school AND raise a child alone, is when problems arise. Give the family a father or another mother, it doesn't matter, but her ability to raise the child will tremendously increase. It's not like the penis comes in to save the day.
The American Psychological Association (APA), The Child Welfare League of America, The American Psychological Association (APA), The North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC), The American Psychiatric Association (APA), The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), The American Psychoanalytic Association, all have said there are no adverse effects to children raised by same-sex parents.
Yet you would counter their research with data on SINGLE parents?
Whatever, this is tripe, this is not a news article.
I look forward to your next essay trying to justify slavery.
13 - SteveS
A final reason not to enact gay marriage would be the increasingly obvious effects of same-sex marriage on Scandinavia.
Do your research. Out-of-wedlock childbearing skyrocketed in Scandinavia in the decades BEFORE laws recognizing gay unions passed, and plateaued or declined thereafter.
Even Maggie Gallagher, the right winger who was PAID by the Bush Administration to promote your bigotry, just conceded that Kurtz fails to make his case, and that it's too soon to say anything with confidence about how gay partnerships have affected heterosexual marriage.
source
As you erroneously attempt to prove that society will crumble if the marriages of men/women are not put on holy pedestals, the end result is that you will end up being unable to justify civil unions. If there is recognition of the gay relationship then society will fracture, according to your ideology, right? Or is it just if the word marriage is attached, society will fall, but if you call it civil unions and take away a dozen or so benefits, society will still prosper?
I've been with my partner for over 20 years. I apologize in advance, to anybody who just read this and realized their relationship, their family life is all the weaker because of it. I wish you all built your family lives on a little bit stronger foundation, but according to Samuel James here, you haven't.
14 - chantal stone
SteveS~~
On the contrary, my friend....knowing you and your partner have been together for over 20 years, only STRENGTHENS my marriage of 12 years.....its good to know long-lasting relationships are still possible, when MANY of my straight, married friends are heading to divorce court faster that I can spell hypocrite.
15 - Andy Marsh
Hey! As far a foundation for a relationship...how's two weeks? That's how long I knew my wife when we went to Vegas and got married...23 years later...still living in wedded bliss!
16 - SteveS
Thanks Chantal.
Well, Andy, my thought is that the foundation doesn't cease to be built upon the exchange of marriage vows, but rather that's when they really become cemented.
I don't doubt that your foundation is as strong or stronger than my own, AND totally unaffected by the knowledge that I'm in a relationship, but perhaps it's Samuel here and those who would agree with him, who needs to hear it.
17 - Andy Marsh
well SteveS...I've been meaning to talk to you about that...
You see, you and your significant other out there on the west coast are really messing with my mind...
I'm kidding!
Actually...I think that was probably one of the things that made me give up on this argument...the very fact that what you do with your life has no effect on my life...I have enough problems in my own little world than to worry about whether you marry whoever you want to marry...unfortunately for you...my opinion and about what...$6 will get youa latte at the local Starbucks!
18 - SteveS
No, Andy, it will get me more than that. If you've realized that equality belongs in all family households and that no children should be deprived of a stable family foundation, including children of gay parents, then Andy, you've actually given me a lot and I thank you.
19 - SteveS
the very fact that what you do with your life has no effect on my life.
oh, and it completely negates the whole Scandanavian argument in the original post, doesn't it?
20 - Jet in Columbus
DEAR GOD IT'S SPREADING!!!! Saturday June 10th is the third anniversary of legalized Gay marraige in Canada! No wonder we have so many illegal immigrants from there!
How many anniversaries have we got out there?
21 - Margaret Romao Toigo
So, when's part II coming out?
22 - Jet in Columbus
"Coming out" is an interesting choice of words!
23 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Oh, the ironies of regional dialects!
24 - Ray Ellis
We have spent over 200 years trying to get this Constitution thing right--and so far, we've done pretty well. That's due because we usually say "you cannot exclude."
Here's what the same-sex marriage ban proposal does--it EXCLUDES. And why?--One reason only--fear. We hate that which we fear, and we fear because of ignorance.
If we in America subscribed to "tradition," there never would have been an America to begin with. What's really at stake here is the definition of "inalienable rights."
Let me put forth this question-- does anybody really want to deny a group of people legal rights (insurance, inheritance, property rights, etc.) because they differ in some way from you?
That is where the real issue is.
25 - Thomas M. Sipos
Bryan: "think a bit about the terms 'gender' and 'sex.' Gender is a construction - an ideological relation to biological sex. You can have a bi-gendered household with two parents of the same sex the same way you can have a single-gendered household with two parents of the opposite sex."
I once read something a few years ago that made for provactive thought.
Namely, that "gender" refers solely to words (i.e., in some languages -- French, Spanish -- a word has a gender, either male or female). Humans do not have a gender. Humans only have a sex.
So applying any kind of gender to humans is a false construct, and a relatively recent one (a few decades old) at that. There's no such thing as a "bi-gendered household" or "single-gendered household."