The gay marriage trap

My blogging friend Brian has a piece criticizing Democratic Sen. Darrel Aubertine for his opposition to gay marriage, claiming that in this radio interview the North Country senator "basically admits that he can't justify his belief in any coherent or rational way but is closed-minded about it anyway." He headlines the post, "Irrationality, bigotry and politics."

Aubertine's radio rambling was lacking in glibness, but neither irrational nor bigoted in my opinion. He seemed to support some version of natural law -- referring to "the biology of the way that we're put together" -- along with respect for tradition and public opinion. And he seemed likely to support civil unions, although unwilling to commit in advance to supporting an unwritten bill.

Aubertine said his opposition to gay marriage was "not necessarily" a religious conviction, and if he'd said it was would no doubt have been criticized for that. In last week's Assembly debate, Andrew Hevesi and other gay marriage supporters scorned religious arguments against it, and it was probably fear of being labeled bigots that led opponents to make such a feeble showing. I think the potential threats to religious and other freedom are the key issue, which was raised only briefly on the Assembly floor. No one questioned gay parenting, and whether children, all else being equal, are likely to be better off with both a mother and a father. There are arguments to be made by opponents, but they will likely be called bigots whether or not they make them.

Comments

[Brian]

Irrational doesn't necessarily mean hysterical and crazy. Some opponents of gay marriage are. Aubertine certainly doesn't appear to be so, based on that interview.

Irrational means lacking in rationality. He didn't give a rational reason (or any reason really) as to how he came to his conclusion. Hence my use of the word irrational: devoid of a rational basis.

By contrast, I don't agree with your opinion or your reasons behind it, but at least you can coherently explain your position and its basis. It's possible that a bill could be formed to address your concerns. It's impossible to engage him because no one has any idea the basis of his objection and he categorically rules out the possibility of ever changing his mind anyway.

I wouldn't and didn't characterize Aubertine's interview as hateful or vitriolic, in contrast to more than a few opponents of gay marriage. I worded my entry very carefully. However, the definition of bigotry I found was "an obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions."

He did not give an explicit reason his own belief (even you, who share his opposition to gay marriage, could only divine some implication between the lines), hence I maintain that he was unreasoning. He insisted that he wouldn't change his mind, hence I maintain that he's obstinate.

I'm sorry but if you're going to deny equal rights to a law-abiding class of people and you can't even give a coherent reason for doing so, then yes, I think you do deserve some criticism.

[Bob Conner]

TypePad

The gay marriage bill could be greatly improved by addressing serious concerns that have been raised regarding religious freedom issues, and coming up with a compromise that opponents could live with. As I have indicated previously, my brand of social conservatism is much more concerned with abortion and embryonic stem cell research than with gay issues. Still, while recognizing the serious case put forward by gay marriage proponents, I think the opposition can stand on the ground that it is unwise and imprudent to redefine marriage.

[bo14]

No specific church or religious group is required to recognize a marriage withing their church. The Catholic church did not recognize marriages between members of their church and members of other churchs for centuries. A civil marriage, weather it be by a JP or an Elvis impersonator is sanctioned by the state that issues the license. This is different than a marriage in a church but still legal as far as the state of NY is concerned. This is what opponents need to realize

[Bob Conner]

TypePad
Right, but there are other concerns, e.g. Catholic adoption agencies possibly having to place children with gay couples, conservative religious colleges having to provide dorm space to gay couples (which they currently deny to nonmarried straight couples), potential speech restrictions on religious/moral objections to homosexual sex, etc.

[bo14]

Private colleges do not have to do anything or admit anyone they don't want unless they take public money

[Bob Conner]

TypePad
I'm no expert, but I would think they could be sued for discrimination regardless. And of course most do take public money in some form.

[joe the moralist]

I don't know why people insist on accepting only a rational explanation for a position such as Senator Aubertine's on gay marriage. Most psychologists, (cf. "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Jonathan Haidt p 20-22) and most adults will agree that beliefs and moral judgements can't always be explained by reasons. You just feel the way you feel. If he is uncomfortable with gay marriage, and if as he says, there is no great pressure in his district to pass a gay marriage bill, then he's doing what he was elected to do. What is wrong with that? I applaud him for honestly speaking his mind.

[bo14]

Unfortunatly our legislators are not elected to impose their personal beliefs on society they are elected to protect the rights of all the people.
should we have applaued when George Wallace refused to allow Blacks to get an education? Should we have applauded when women were denied the right to vote? should we have applauded any religious or ethnic group are discriminated against? In a Democracy, it is the duty of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

[joe the moralist]

I repeat-"and if as he says, there is no great pressure in his district to pass a gay marriage bill, then he's doing what he was elected to do. What is wrong with that?" Is he supposed to vote against the wishes of his district residents? I didn't think so...It's odd that being against gay marriage is suddenly IMmoral, and being pro-abortion is suddenly IMmoral, and being against torture is suddenly IMmoral, even though our past leaders insisted we weren't torturing at all. I wonder if the gay divorce rate will equal the straight divorce rate. At least there won't be many shotgun weddings.

[Matt]

So, this guy wants to stick his weenie into another guy's butt. New York State thinks this act should be recognized by a law and force us to go along with it. Gay marriage supporters want to connect the weenie incident with someone's civil rights or equal rights. There is no connection. It's not discrimination to think that is not ok. In Iran, with zero Christian influence, they hang homosexuals. In my view, that's a little extreme so I guess that makes me open minded. This law will eventually pass of course, then our elected officials will be able to move on and start working on even more repulsive legislation.

[Jim]

Martin Luther King, the great civil rights leader, said "homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God." But he was just a Reverand, what's he know?

[jeter]

America....all men are created equal...this is a civil rights issue.

[bo14]

Just did a quick scan of MLK articles, it seems his daughter is a rampant homophobe but no where in his writtings or speechs does he comment on gay marriage. Remember it was the 60s and the world was different. As with all things it changes as people learn to accept things they used to think were improper. To paraphrase Dean Wormer, fat, drunk and stupid and bigoted is no way to go through life. Gay marriage will not hurt anyone

[the pointman]

An elected representative is expected to make decisions which are in the best interest of his constituents, whether or not a majority of them agree with his/her position. The assemblywomen who represent the same constituency have come to the correct decision in supporting equal rights for all. We are talking about legal recognition of the already accomplished fact that there are same sex couples who live committed lives, work in all fields of endeavor, raise famililes, attend churches, pay taxes and are essentially identical to their neighbors except in how they spend their private time in their own bedrooms. What they do with their weenies is irrelevant and frankly it is insulting to be categorized in such terms. My partner and I have lived together, sharing happiness and sadness, good days and bad, for over 8 years. We will be together for the rest of our lives and only want the same rights and societal benefits that other couples are provided so that we can raise our four children to be happy, healthy and productive members of that society.

[joe the moralist]

""An elected representative is expected to make decisions which are in the best interest of his constituents, whether or not a majority of them agree with his/her position.""
Pardon my thickheadedness, but isn't the majority position generally the prevailing one? Isn't that why we have elections,etc, so we can get the majority view? I believe the majority position in Jefferson and surrounding counties is the Missionary position, usually a male on top of a female. I won't fault Darrel for taking the convemntional stance. You do what you want with your sex life, but connecting non-reproductive sex with marriage just ain't my thing. Sorry 'bout that.

[Ted]

I am a devout Christian!!! That being said I also believe people have the right to live as they please as long as it does not impose on the safety, rights, or well being of others. Would anyone disagree with that? It is plainly evident that the governments around the world can't agree with that statement except at the receiving end of a gun or a bomb. My beliefs show me in Gods Word that He has set down a lifestyle for us to follow that is acceptable to Him. Any deviation from that constitutes sin that must be dealt with. We are imperfect human beings and thus have need for a Savior. In Gods eyes we are all accounted the same. We need God, we need Gods Word and we need a Savior. There is no point in castigating someone for their lifestyle when we ourselves are just as guilty of sin in other ways, such as thievery, abominable behavior, abusive actions against our families, taking innocent lives, etc. Just read the newspaper. It is full of evidence that the world needs God much more than He needs us. Politicians are in a fix because they have their personal belief systems that enter into their daily activities. And there are groups that want to use this dilema to "trap" them into showing just where they stand on certain social issues. If they aren't up to what the groups want then they will be called on the carpet and publically castigated for their beliefs. Both sides will incinerate them. This was the case for civil rights for blacks, women, work unions and just about every other pertinent social issue of the day. Every person should have the same rights and opportunities as another. Isn't that what the founding fathers fought for, as well as for freedom? Freedom from tyranny. We see a lot of tyranny taking place lately. From the top down and from the bottom up. My beliefs can't dictate to me that there are people who shouldn't have the same rights as others. My beliefs show me an acceptable lifestyle to live approved by God. If there are people who don't live up to that calling, then there is a problem that needs Gods' help to solve. I do not know of anyone alive or dead who had ever totally met Gods standards, except for one person, and He was murdered for doing it. Should everyone have the same rights and benefits as others?? Yes, they should. That includes the right to have faith in God and live as He has shown us to live so as to bring the best blessing to others trusted in our care. And that would be everyone we have contact with.

[Kelly]

I have not heard one good argument as to why gays can not marry, The only agreements I hear are discriminatory, and/or backed by religious values. I to am a Christian and was raised a Christian. Below are arguements that I have continuously heard from people who are opposed to gay marriage. You will also find statements that argue these points. Please take the time to read them as I think it will help you make an informed and educated decision on Gay Marriage Bill.

Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism, pure and simple.
Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry? I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms. Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the kinds of marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought, and why it really allows them - marriage is about love, sharing and commitment; procreation is, when it comes right down to it, in reality a purely secondary function. The proponents of the procreation and continuation-of-the-species argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out anytime soon through lack of reproductive success. If ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly, totally refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be significantly better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a really big favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into a world that is already critically overburdened ecologically by the sheer number of humans it must support. So what is the useful purpose to be served in mindlessly encouraging yet more human reproduction?

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reduction and absurd fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? Many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

[Brian]

The potential speech restrictions thing is a great big canard. There were no speech restrictions when interracial marriage was legalized, which is a pretty close analogy to the gay marriage debate. This is no different. Letting two men or two women marry has ZERO impact on freedom of speech. (The only remotely plausible argument I've heard against it is your point about adoption, which I think is weak but not irrelevant). If subsequent legislation were proposed specifically restricting homophobic speech, it would be a different question.

Though I do think it's telling that your essays about corrupt politicians and lack of ethics in politics generates almost zero outrage/comments from readers, but when it comes to allowing two people who love each other to get married, it's a huge deal. I guess love is more controversial than corruption.