A conservative case for gay marriage...
My friend Eric makes a strong case for gay marriage.
The argument about caregiving is also a very conservative one. As Rauch points out, "from society’s point of view, an unattached person is an accident waiting to happen. The burdens of contingency are likely to fall, immediately and sometimes crushingly, on people - relatives, friends, neighbours - who have enough problems of their own, and then on charities and welfare agencies. We all suffer periods of illness, sadness, distress, fury. What happens to us, and what happens to the people around us, when we desperately need a hand but find none to hold? If marriage has any meaning at all, it is that when you collapse from a stroke, there will be another person whose ‘job’ it is to drop everything and come to your aid. Or that when you come home after being fired, there will be someone to talk you out of committing a massacre or killing yourself. To be married is to know there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line". Denying this option to gay couples places this burden of care on the state - how is this good conservative policy?Please read the whole thing. Eric's a new friend and I am very happy to see him blogging. Please take some time and check out his blog.
posted by GayandRight @ 12:21 PM
8 Comments:
I agree that same-sex couples should and must have the same spousal rights that hetersexual couples have.
I don't think that the government needed to change the definition of marriage to do it. I believe that marriage is something that has been defined from within religion and the government has no right to redefine as it wants to.
The government only had to recognized civil unions as having the same spousal rights as married couple, to do it. This would also work to people who are not religious as well.
If and when religious institutions decide to marry gay couples, the government can also recognize it then.
Eric did a great job.
I could live with just taking away the word "marriage" for everyone. Let's just rename the whole civil institution. No restrictions regarding sexual orientation.
I respect you and read your blog regularly.
Nevertheless, while this argument is a very emotional one, it is not the one proponents of SSM marriage made in court. The argument that has been made in court and in our own House of Commons is that marriage is in fact NOT about, love, compassion, children or family, but merely only about property rights and tax laws between two co-habitating adults.
This is why secular France rejected it and New York also. Should children not have the right to this love and compassion? The legal argument was that children are not a part of marriage.
Again, I respect your passion about this (and hey...you won while I'll have to watch my mouth from here on in lest my ability to feed my family is affected), but the arguments you present are just not the ones that were presented in court.
They were the emotional but false arguments presented in the media blitz.
Best
Que Sera Sera. Remember we are talking about the "legal" and not the "religious" definition of marriage here. It is proper for a secular government to support minorities without being constrained by religious principles. It is said that humankind would be 800 years further ahead technologically if it wasn't for religious interference.
It is said by whom? People of fiath? Likely not...
Meanwhile, I'm happy to hear that Gay people can find a way, through marriage, of not going postal....
Love your blog, Fred.
Back to KPK (sorry Fred, he didn't leave a link).
I need to respond to his comment: "It is said that humankind would be 800 years further ahead technologically if it wasn't for religious interference."
I was flippant in my previous response.
Faith is one thing, religion is another. Religion brings with it doctrine. The doctrine that brought together family units. Provided rules of order (in our Judeo Christian sect the 10 commandments and the gleanings of the sermon on the mount). It raised the value of a family at the expense of rogue males.
Let me ask, gentle secularist... Where would the western world be without the doctrines that were brought to society by followers of Moses and Christ? Do you honestly think we'd be better off? Do you think that we would be more civilized if over the last 2000 years there had been no threat of eternal damnation put upon we with testicles?
Or would we still be savages.
Religion was never tolerant of anything that challenged doctrine. The earth is flat, the universe revolves around the earth etc. Remember the persecution of Galileo? Physics' M-theory with 11 dimensions is closer to finding the physicality of "god" then religion ever was or will be. As you say..it's all about faith. We have the right to believe in what we want.
The legal situation in the US is a bit complicated, but its not favourable to creating any relationship which is legally equivilent to marriage.
States can try, but it doesn't work well. If they set up a 'civil union' relationship, then it may be equivilent to marriage under state law... but not federal. Which results in seriously complicated tax problems (Paying some taxes as if marries, others as if single), problems with federally-run programs, inter-state travel (Particually if one partner is hospitalised, as the other may have no visitation right), and when doing business with organisations based in other states.
It is a similar situation to that of some medicinal marijuana growers who have a state licence, but still have to work in secret to avoid prosicution by the FBI. Just because a state makes something legal doesn't mean the federal government must treat it as such.
Legally, is is far tidier to just make one very small change: Remove the one-of-each gender restriction on marriage. Problem solved.
Politically, thats next to impossible at this time. For historic reasons, the religious ritual of marriage, the social status of marriage and the legal relationship of marriage are all closely related. Its impossible to alter the last of those without also upsetting a lot of churches and their members. And social change will *always* produce a backlash.
The backlash comes with a number of justifcations - some honest, some being used as covers for less respectible motivations. The main ones seem to be the basic 'gays are icky' homophobia, and a more complicated 'Gays? What are they?' situation where people dont want to legally acknowledge even the existance of homosexuals.
From my careful consideration of the published material of many anti-gay-marriage organisations, I have concluded that almost all of the public reasons given when opposing it are no more than excuses used to cover an underlying personal or religious reason.
Here in the UK, we have civil unions which are, legally, in almost all ways identical to marriage. There are some slight differences related to anullment, but thats it - everywhere else, just the same. But I already explained why that would be difficult in the US.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home