I believe that freedom to choose our own path in life is one of the most fundamental rights there is. I support the right to choose even if I don't agree with the choice made.
Among the most contentious issues voters will adress this year is whether to recognize same-sex marriages. In principle, I support the right to marry someone of your own gender. I do not, however, support legislation which explicitly grants legal status to such a marriage, at least not as they are written today. This sounds contradictory, and it partially is. But laws allowing same-sex marriage have been used to justify taking away other rights, and for that reason I cannot support such laws. Ironically, I oppose laws protecting gay marriage for exactly the same reason I oppose restrictions on gay marriage - because the alternative is to unduly restrict personal freedoms.
How can granting rights to one group take rights away from another group? It happens by extending the interpretation of the law to not only allow the right to marry, but the right to interject a particular moral stance into early public education, and the right to restrict how religious organizations serve the community. In effect, the right to marry has been used as justification to limit what one is allowed to believe. On those grounds, I cannot support granting the right to same-sex marriage unless there is a legal guarantee to separate that right from the broader implications of such a policy.
In other discussions of this topic, someone invariably asserts that the right to same-sex marriage does not lead to the effects I've described above. Unfortunately, real-world examples do not support that assertion. I'm sure you've heard most of the following examples from Massachussetts:
- Many Massachussetts school districts include discussions of homosexuality as an integral part of their curriculum, starting in kindergarten. Examples include in-class readings of "King and King" to kindergarteners and first graders, and a man invited to speak to a third grade class about his upcoming sex change operation. Parents are not given notice of these discussions, nor are they allowed to opt-out their children from such discussions. Furthermore, discussions go beyond promoting awareness and tolerance by asserting the moral acceptability of homosexuality.
Courts have upheld school districts' policies and actions. The legal basis for the court's judgements has been the legal status of same-sex marriage.
I have no intention of burying my kids' heads in the sand, but I have the right to introduce moral issues to my children at the time and in the context of my choosing. When schools take sides on moral issues, especially when teaching them at such an early age, they are taking away those parental rights.
I am also strongly opposed to turning our schools into social engineering camps.
Some churches have been sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The churches had to choose between performing marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, or no longer perform marriages of any kind. Some of these churches have chosen to close their doors to weddings rather than compromise their religious principles. Members of these churches are no longer allowed to be married in their own church.
- Similarly, church-sponsored adoption agencies have faced lawsuits for not placing children with gay couples. Again, the choice was to place children in families that violate their religious principles, or close their doors. Catholic Family Services, which used to place about 10 children a week, no longer provides adoption services in Massachussetts.
But I do think same-sex marriage should be legal. Marriage has been a huge strength to my relationship with my wife. Knowing that I have made a commitment makes a difference in my behavior. Knowing that our family is something I deliberately chose, rather than something I fell into, is a boost to help me make appropriate choices when challenges come up. I am convinced that I am happier as a married man than I would be if we were living together as an unmarried couple with children. The act of making a visible commitment has been a very good thing. I see no reason to prevent same-sex couples from making a similar visible commitment and gaining similar benefits.
So what would it take for me to support a same-sex marriage law? The law would have to include guarantees that it would not be used as the basis for additional rights. It would have to be legally and explicitly irrelevant to what is taught in schools, irrelevant to what a religious institution can do and for whom, and irrelevant to what an individual can do, say, or believe. It would have to neither grant nor deny any rights other than the right to same-sex marriage. Give me a law that meets those criteria and I'll vote for it.
5 comments:
Very interesting points.
How does your solution differ from domestic partnerships?
jennifer b.
it differs in that it does not deny the religious faith of the gay couple, or the religion that offers them holy matrimony.
To the author, great post! Lots of luck controlling what and when your kids learn about sex----it's not just schools that can step on toes. We were waiting for our child to ask an opening question, and one day he came home and said, "Is sex when a man pulls down his pants and........." A purely mechanical description poured forth from our----gasp----first grader! His best friend had told him. We were so stunned. I would caution all parents to advise their kids to let their friends' parents disclose this information, but that would probably make it just as fun as telling the other kids about Santa.
You could clarify your position by altering your title to say CURRENT Same-Sex marriage legislation.
I find it hard to believe (although with our legal system I guess anything is possible) that a church would be on shaky legal ground requiring that services taking place on their premises would have to be approved of by their religion. Perhaps they would have to not rent their space out to anyone from a denomination that performs gay marriages, even if it were a straight couple's wedding in question.
Sorry for the long comments btw, but this is sooooo complicated.
In my mind, the main difference from domestic partnerships is the title. By using the same title for both opposite-sex and same-sex family unions, you avoid implying that one is more real or more valid than the other. I don't see the benefit of marginalizing a relationship and commitment that, according to the law and public opinion, two people are allowed to participate in.
There will always be differences between society's value system and my own personal beliefs. I don't want the law to penalize me for that. I can't expect such freedom for myself if I don't have the flexibility to accomodate ideas I don't agree with (within limits, of course). I know it is unrealistic to expect others to not take unfair advantage of our attempts to be flexible, but since we're not all idealogical clones of each other, it's the best I can do.
And yeah, there's no way for me to control what my kids learn, lol. My kids have gotten quite an eduction from the playground (and from their parents) already. But there's a big difference between the frequent but incidental exposure that happens day-to-day and a targetted indoctrination from someone with an agenda.
Post a Comment