I am on the mailing list of the National Organization for Marriage(NOM). This is the well known organization that produced the “Gathering Storm” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI) and the “I'm Confused” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haVqcPfeqKI) advertisements.
You're probably wondering why I am on the mailing list. Well, I stumbled upon their website about 1 year ago and saw that they were asking their members to email members of the some legislature. I felt bad for these legislators who were supporting equality, so I used the NOM form to email them but changed the email to one of my own. I guess NOM got my email address from this, but I haven't dropped off the list because I believe it is important to know what the enemy is saying in order to best rebut their claims.
I just read their most recent newsletter, and I was more shocked and appalled than usual, so I decided to tell you all about it.
In one of his opening paragraphs, Brian Brown, one of the executives of NOM, writes, “There are many good reasons why states do not have an obligation to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages, especially the fact that same-sex unions cannot serve the primary public purpose of marriage: responsible procreation. Marriage, from the government's point of view, is about bringing moms and dads together to protect children.”
Anti same-sex marriage advocates have always harped on this line: Marriage, from the government's point of view, is about procreation. Frankly, I think this is wrong. Before the gay marriage debate came up, nobody ever defined marriage in terms of procreation. My parents always told me it was about two people in love who decided to live together “till death to them part.” Look at a marriage ceremony, does the service ever mention procreation? No, it doesn't. It talks about loving, caring, and protecting each other.
“Nobody is trying to force lesbians to do anything. Gay people in these cases are saying they do not want to marry, they want to do a different kind of relationship. That's their right. But neither they nor David Boies nor the judges have the right to tell Americans we must redefine marriage to accommodate these private and personal views,” Brown goes on.
I found this a bit disturbing because he is saying that gay people “do not want to marry, they want to do a different kind of relationship.” Mr. Brown, I disagree. I do want to marry. I want a marriage in the full meaning of the word.
Finally, Brown declares, “The most basic right is the right to be treated fairly by courts which respect the rule of law. David Boies wants to go into federal court and overturn the civil rights of the 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage because he personally thinks we are all irrational bigots.”
First of all, I am a bit bothered by his last statement, where he puts words in other people's mouths. Personally, I do not think that everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot, but I do think they could stand to open their minds a bit more. However, I do think that some of the arguments against same-sex marriage a rather irrational.
However, the most disturbing part of the claim is when he argues that the “civil right” to restrict another group's rights is far more important than that group's claim to rights. That may have been a bit of a confusing sentence. Allow me to explain in more visual terms:
Right to Restrict Liberty > Right to Enjoy Liberty
I recognize the importance of voting and democracy, but we must remember that the government of a democracy has a duty to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Oh, and my two favorite parodies
6 comments:
"Look at a marriage ceremony, does the service ever mention procreation?" Actually, it does in Catholic weddings.
Anyway, whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Does a civil marriage have to be a religious one as well? No. Back to basic principles people.
Even if the civil and religious aspects are completely separated, civil society still has the question of whether to say that a same-sex relationship is the same thing as a male-female one. You can go back to Aristotle and see that he found the family to be the basic unit of society and the family to be established by the union of man and woman for the preservation of the species. So I think they have a valid point, that the state has no business ratifying people's love. It's business is providing a stable environment in which the next generation can be produced and reared.
When Brown says gays don't want to marry, I think he means it in the Aristotelian sense, they do not want to enter into a relationship which can procreate children.
There was a children's taunting rhyme, quoted a number of years ago in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes:
"[Boy's name] and [girl's name] sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love, then comes marriage,
Then comes baby in a carriage."
If, unlike the Catholic Church and popular understanding, the state never said that procreation is a purpose of marriage, perhaps it is because it was never necessary.
But one problem those of us who oppose same-sex marriage have is that we haven't been making the case against contraception on the same basis. In effect, society has forgotten that marriage is for procreation, among other things. So when society forgets that marriage is for procreation, it is understandable that same-sex couples think that their relationship can be called marriage.
However, I believe Plato (Aristotle's student) had an interesting discourse on love, and I don't mean Platonic love or the "ideal" love behind all loves.
I believe it was Plato who said that people were originally made in pairs. And these pairs were usually male-female pairs, but there were also male-male pairs and female-female pairs. Because the Gods were jealous of that love (or something), they split everyone in two - so we have to go through life to find our other.
It's been about 5 years since I last read that discourse. It might've been in Plato's "The Apology."
I believe procreation should not be a definition for marriage. If it were, then would the marriage of children-less couples or couples who adopt (but don't have biological children of their own) be considered invalid? If one were to define marriage as a "family" consisting of 2 parents and at least 1 child, there's nothing wrong for gays and lesbians to adopt. What about surrogate pregnancies?
In today's world, "procreation" might be too limited a requirement for what popular culture defines as marriage. One does not directly have to procreate to have a child these days - such notions are in danger of being outdated.
@ Aek — Plato did indeed write that (in the Symposium?); but he didn't advocate that the same sex couples be allowed to marry.
Of course, you never know if a couple will succeed in procreating. They've just got to be willing to give it the old college try (vaginal intercourse). Which is why the Catholic Church has said that an unconsummated marriage can be dissolved, and that if one of the parties has always been absolutely unwilling to have children, a marriage is invalid, as is a marriage in which the man has always been impotent.
Obviously, the state can set its own criteria. But it is a change of definition to include same-sex couples, since the common law definition included the element of its being between a man and a woman.
Thank you for bringing to my attention that Catholic weddings, and indeed the Church itself, define marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I was not aware of this as I was raised protestant.
I see the point about the importance of procreation, but I think that the definition of marriage as supporting procreation is slowly receding in the modern era. Yes, Catholics still hold on to it, but I have never really heard of it being a major definer.
Indeed, marriage has become such a large institution that it is no longer defined by one religion or even religion. Athiests, after all, get married every day. Marriage has transitioned from being purely religious to include social and even government-related aspects.
Marriage clearly has important roots in government, especially in regards to taxes, hospital rights and whatnot. I think many people are open to the concept of a "civil union," which would provide these rights.
However, I think most same-sex couples feel this is unfair because a different name inherently means a different status and because it doesn't have the same meaning. Are we supposed to introduce our partner as our "fellow unionite" rather than husband?
This gets back to how marriage has become a social institution in addition to a religious one. In fact, I don't even believe that religion needs to be a major part of marriage any more. Many people want religion to play a role in their marriage, but I never felt this way. Of course, I am in a minority of people.
Despite this, I was never told I could not get married because I did not subscribe to the religious aspects. I believe in the social importance of marriage, and that seemed good enough for the state.
Of course, I am gay, so I cannot get married in most states. I understand this seems to violate many religious precepts, but religion never bothered me before, so it shouldn't bother me now.
That leaves the final point: Social aspects. The last argument that opponents of same-sex marriage will make is that children need a stable home with 1 man and 1 woman as a mother and a father. My argument is that we allow children to live with single-parents all the time, so why is this suddenly such a big issue?
Furthermore, I think that gay marriage could actually be a stabilizing force in society. If a same-sex couple chooses to raise a child, I think most would go the route of adoption. This decision is a social good as it provides a child who would otherwise grow up in an orphanage with a more stable and (hopefully) more loving environment.
Also, interesting discussion on the philosophers here.
Hope you don't mind a couple of further points.
Marriage was apparently not created by the church or by the state. It seems to be a natural institution — men and women who had children stayed together to raise them. When governments came to be, they saw the importance of this enduring relationship and started making rules to protect and regulate it.
Single-parent families are not considered ideal. It seems that they are more likely to have problems for the children than families where both parents are present. (That isn't true in every case, but just in general.) I don't think anybody would argue that a single-parent household is just as good as one with both parents present. (Assuming no special factors like abuse.) At this point there has not been nearly enough time for any useful studies to be done a on the effect of being raised with two parents of the same sex (at least one of whom must be adoptive), as compared with opposite-sex parents, and as compared with single-parent families.
Post a Comment