I normally try to stay away from most volatile political issues on this blog. The Men in Black said it best, "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'." But I just have to bring this one up.
Last night, I was a speaker on a panel at ye old nearby university. The topic was estate and tax planning for registered domestic partners...which to you non-Californians, mostly equates to the formalized union of same sex couples. This panel was interesting, because it came on the heels of the California Supreme Court's decision that the state's ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional...a ban that was approved on a ballot measure, oh I don't know, 3 or 4 years ago.
A segment of the community is up in arms over this Supreme Court decision, and of course there is a stay on the whole thing while the two sides fight it out. What I think most people don’t realize, that the only difference is terminology at this point.
You see, the “registered domestic partner” designation was a kind of consolation prize set up by the state that transferred most of the same rights to registered domestic partners that were "enjoyed" by married couples. It just couldn’t be called a marriage under state law. Registered domestic partners (which will be called RDPs from here on out…please don’t make me type that long phrasing again!) cannot be called spouses, but they are considered the next of kin in California for health care directives, inheritance, etc. Public companies must insure RDPs as they would spouses. Their income is treated as community property in California, and they must even file tax returns as married taxpayers...which isn't a benefit in most cases (the taxing authorities don’t call it the “marriage penalty” for nothing). An RDP relationship must be legally terminated, just as a marriage would, with similar parameters for property settlements and alimony. Basically the same...in the state of California.
The federal government does not recognize the RDP designation at all. The term does not exist in federal law. This won’t even change if the California Supreme Court decision holds, and RDPs become married spouses. The federal government will still refuse to acknowledge this as fact, and once these folks cross the state line, they are legal strangers…no matter what California says they are.
And while state law imposes more of the burdens of marriage (i.e., community property issues, spousal support, etc.), it is the federal government that bestows most of the benefits (survivors benefits under social security and the laws governing pensions, gift and estate taxes). So what is truly happening here, is that RDPs or same-sex spouses, call them what you will, are getting all of the burdens of marriage from the state, and none of the benefits from the feds.
It was truly disheartening to see these individuals, who honestly believed they had just achieved a victory, find out that wasn’t quite true. Indivduals in this circumstance have such an uphill battle in everything. They must get tired of fighting, to only find they haven't really won anything, except the right to wage another battle.
Of course, most of us don't get married for the governmentally allocated benefits. Do young couples in love usually sit down and plan their finances, and crunch all of numbers on the benefits and the burdens of marriage before buying that engagement ring? Isn’t marriage always more about emotional health than anything else?
So why is it unreasonable to expect a same-sex couple to want that emotional health? Why is it unreasonable for them to want that public recognition of their bond, and the implied security and sense of permanence that comes with that? Don't many of these individuals suffer enough for their differences? Why do we deny them any emotional respite at all?
I am a libertarian, which, as I understand it, means I am more of a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. I can buy that. And this is one of the issues I fall to the left on, I will admit, because I haven’t understood the conservative argument very well.
When the ban of same sex marriage was on the ballot, one of the women at my firm said to the group at large in the break room, “I don’t know what kind of idiot would vote ‘no’ on this!” I raised my hand and admitted to being that “kind of idiot.” When I asked her why she felt the way she did, her argument became a useless series of gibberish equating to “because I said so.” Hmmm. Convincing.
My husband is firmly against the idea of same sex marriage as well, but he only gets angry at me when we try to discuss it, he doesn’t like to be reminded of my liberal side, and his argument devolves into homophobia…which he has in abundance.
So I am asking my conservative friends out there to explain it to me. I am not trying to be flippant or argumentative. I’m honestly not. Nor am I accusing everyone who is opposed to same sex marriage of being a homophobe…except CO, who really is. Seriously.
I really do want to get your point of view on this. I really want to understand why this is such a big hairy deal. I am truly open to hearing the other side of this argument. So please…comment. Explain.
But only if you can do it respectfully, without saying “because I said so,” or calling me an idiot. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I can't explain the "other" side of the issue because I totally agree with you. The argument against gay marriage that irritates me the most is when people act like it will detract from the "sanctity" of marriage between a man an woman. Uh... I really don't think that gay people could screw it up any more than a ton of straight people out there are already doing!
I think the main difference is a moral/theological one. My values are based on my Christian upbringing and my current pseudo-Christian belief system. I really don't think it's right because it's a sacred union between a man and a woman. That's how I was raised. That's how I choose to believe. And to answer Lori's aside -- "I really don't think that gay people could screw it up any more than a ton of straight people out there are already doing!" I agree whole heartedly. Marriage isn't something that people should enter into lightly, but that too many people do.
That is not to say that I think homosexuality is immoral, per se; I accept that people have different values than I. I also accept that there will come a time when a majority of people's values will differ from mine and that laws will change. That's what happens.
I guess I can't really offer you anything new, but perhaps a less vehement explanation.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot of the government "protections" and the like stripped from the union of marriage all together. A person should be able to name any individual their beneficiary. I'd rather see little to no government (or religious, to be quite honest) involvement in who a person can choose to make decisions on their behalf or be their beneficiary.
I suppose you could call me a homophobe (I confess to an Ewww factor), but I really don't care objectively what homosexual couples call themselves or not.
The biggest issue I have with the gay marriage thing is the burden it places on religious rights. If a gay couple has the right to call themselves married, I should have the right to be grossed out if I so choose. And more importantly, my church should be free to refuse to recognize the marriage as a valid one.
I understand that not everybody shares my religious tenets regarding sexuality, but I shouldn't be required to change them, either. Tolerance, yes; approval, no. And that's what I foresee as this slippery slope progresses, is mandatory approval. How long before a church is sued for refusing to recognize a gay couple as married?
The position that always seemed the most sensible to me is that marriages are not merely civil affairs. The union of man and woman existed long before any government or even any church, and its Inventor called it "very good." (Or "wicked awesome, brah," depending on your translation. ;) )
Religions grew up identifying this natural sacrament as a holy thing, to the point of using sex in temple rituals and such, and solemnizing the occasion publicly. Eventually the ancient fertility rites wound up losing out to the more structured Judeo/Christian POV, but the idea of a natural sacrament remains. Even today in my church it is the man and woman who marry each other; the priest is only there as a witness and celebrant. He doesn't "marry" the couple no matter what the expression is.
Sorry about the background stuff. The upshot is, the government can't really define marriage in any way. They do not have authority in this matter; they can choose to recognize (and protect) the married couple's natural rights to inherit and such; they can also seek a legal means to offer those benefits to gay couples (or other domestic partnerships), as a matter of contract. They can't ever suddenly decide that marriage is for any two singles regardless of sex, any more than they can repeal gravity.
To my mind, the first and tenth amendments are fairly explicit on the matter, at least as far as the US is concerned. It's none of Congress's business, and anything that isn't their business is reserved to the states or the people.
That's the political side of it, anyway, and I agree with you - it isn't much good for answering the question. Politics is medicine, not food, as CS Lewis once wrote - and that's why it's so unsatisfactory to live on. The meat of it is up to us in general society - and the question remains, "Why is it unreasonable to expect a same-sex couple to want that emotional health? Why is it unreasonable for them to want that public recognition of their bond, and the implied security and sense of permanence that comes with that? Don't many of these individuals suffer enough for their differences? Why do we deny them any emotional respite at all?"
It isn't unreasonable, but it may be that they are trying to gain that emotional health where it isn't really to be found. Society can be as welcoming and compassionate as we could hope, and leave the individual to seek happiness as best as can be done - and whether or not that person is happy depends on their choices. When it comes to sex, people are extraordinarily touchy - along the lines of "how dare anyone else dictate terms to me?"
That brings us back to the Inventor of sex, and of us. He wishes for us to be in a proper relation to Him and everyone else. We all fail in some fashion, and all thus lose some part of the happiness that is meant for us.
I do not know much about genetics beyond elementary Punnett squares, so I won't go much into whether there's a "gay gene" or a willful decision or whatever. I can guess with some confidence that there's elements of both, and each individual has a different ratio of those elements - just as I am predisposed to enjoy certain things that I can then indulge or abstain. Some are innocent, and some are definitely matters of morality - such as the desire to smack idiots. I may well enjoy it, but it's bad for me, so though I would dearly love to smack idiots, I must NOT. (I'd wind up smacking myself most often, anyway.) That natural inclination submits to the will as all of the rest. I can even choose to go without food or sleep or even hold my breath (for a little while) if I have need. It may be genetic but that doesn't let us off thinking morally about the subject of sex; and of course straights have their own lengthy set of ways to transgress in this area, under no less strong an instinct than that which motivates a gay couple.
To me, it's a matter of more compassion, not less, to think that in some people there may be no natural instinct to satisfy the natural sacrament in a lawful matter. But that is not the same as approval, either civic or societal. It's no personal harm to me if two men seek happiness with each other, and it's none of my business either; but if I think them on the wrong path to true union with God and each other, it would be silly to pretend otherwise. Nor is it hateful to say so. Lord knows I'm on enough wrong paths myself; but even if nobody says boo to me when I smack every idiot in a city block, there should still be the ideal in play in general society that an idiot ought not to be smacked, or that I shouldn't take other people's stuff, or any other sinful act.
I may be compelled through bad genes or bad upbringing to do things that aren't wrong but are still harmful, such as eating dirt or scratching my own skin until it bleeds. I may resent anyone who offers me help or tells me of a different way to live, but nobody can rationally accuse them of hating me. Neither do I think that it should be a "hate crime" to say that sexual health is better served in monogamous marriages; nor to say that a society is better off with as many healthy individuals as it can get. But to get back to the original idea - no, this isn't a thing a government can do, so they shouldn't try.
I don't think I can add much new to the discussion in terms of my religious/political reasons for disagreeing--although I'd change Joel's "ew" to more of a "sense of biological complementarity" for myself. I did want to comment on the "idiot" statement the person made--that's just disrespectful, and basically shuts the door on any kind of hope for seeing each other's viewpoint and trying to find common ground. I mean, if I wanted to talk to someone about my faith, I wouldn't open with, "You're gonna go to Hell if you don't believe this!" Civil dialogue, not to mention discretion, just seems to be all but gone nowadays.
Thanks everyone for your feedback! I really appreciate it!
Lori, "I really don't think that gay people could screw it up any more than a ton of straight people out there are already doing!" Amen, Sister!
Cullen, Joel and Nightfly, thanks for the thoughtful insight into the other point of view. THAT'S what I was looking for...something beyond "Just because I said so." That didn't work too well when I was 5, and I love it even less at 38.
And to everyone's points on the religious aspect of things, I did learn in the panel discussion last week, even if legalized in California, churches cannot be forced to perform or recognize the marriages. A judge must perform them as part of his sworn duties to uphold the law, but religion is still free to do as it will.
I do agree with this. To me the point of legalizing gay marriage is allowing everyone to live in freedom...including the freedom of religions to refuse to perform these marriages. As Joel said, "I understand that not everybody shares my religious tenets regarding sexuality, but I shouldn't be required to change them, either." Indeed, you should NOT.
Cullen and Nightfly both touched on the governing something that cannot and should not be governed aspect. I had never really thought of it that way, but I get what you are saying.
And Kate P...thanks for the "disrespectful" comment. I thought it was too. Everyone has their own opionion, but to lead a sentence with "what kind of idiot" is just setting out to be rude, judgmental and unkind. No good healthy discussion can come from that.
I'm very late to this discussion, but here are my two cents anyway.
I disagree with the CA Supreme Court decision because I see it as an act of judicial fiat. The people of CA voted on this in 2000, 61 to 39% to maintain the definition of marriage as man/woman, not to ban gay marriage. Maybe that's just semantics, but I do see a difference. I hate judicial activism -- I don't care what the issue is. That's not what the courts are there for. And what they give, they can take away, right? People celebrating now may not be celebrating the day the courts decide something they don't like.
Because of the coffeehouse, I know a ton of gay people. And I know gay people who had commitment ceremonies before the decision and considered themselves married. I also know a surprising number of gay people who are not in favor of this decision -- who are not in favor of gay marriage in general. Here's why: Many gay people really cherish their outsider status; they're not "like us"; they don't want to be mainstreamed, and they have actually told me they think gay marriage is an affront to traditional marriage.
This is straight from the mouths of gay people I know.
Let me say here that I support domestic partner benefits wholeheartedly. I don't support changing the definition of marriage. It's a slippery slope to me.
From a spiritual perspective, I believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. Man and woman become one flesh. It's a mystery and a miracle because of the otherness of each. Man is not like woman. Woman is not like man. They complement each other -- or are meant to, anyway. Obviously, the man-woman connection is the only building block of society. That's the only way I know of that babies are made. (Just because it didn't work for me doesn't make that less true -- and not that that's the only reason for marriage. No.)
Because beyond that, I believe God meant marriage as a kind of reconciliation between the sexes. I mean, in general, women understand other women better; men understand other men better; there's a sameness, a recognition that, hey, your XX-ness is the same as my XX-ness. There is comfort in that sameness. But the mystery and challenge of the man-woman union is the transcendence and reconciliation of "others" to each other. Does that make any sense? I'm totally rambling, I'm afraid.
Man/man or woman/woman offers no call to transcend "differentness" -- other than personality differences, I suppose. At the core, it is same marrying same. It doesn't create a reconciliation between the sexes. What's to reconcile if same marries same? I realize this is all very spiritual and other people will not value this. That's fine.
I truly believe God intended there to be a profound mystery to be explored in the union of different with different.
Thanks for asking the question, MM.
I wanted to add that I respectfully disagree with lori. From a spiritual perspective -- I believe -- marriage between a man and a woman is sacred regardless of how well straight people do at it. Yes, there's divorce. Too much divorce. But the sanctity is meant to be intrinsic to the union, based on the reasons I mentioned before. Because straight people divorce isn't an argument to change the definition of marriage. Gay people will now divorce, too. Quite honestly -- based on all the gay men I know who go through man after man -- I imagine the gay divorce rate will eventually equal the straight divorce rate. Divorce rate shouldn't be the issue here.
I'm bothered, I guess, that as a society we are deciding that we suddenly know best -- right here, right now, in the 21st century -- than all the spiritual/religious/wisdom traditions that came in the thousands of years before us. Nowhere in history has same sex marriage been sanctioned by any of these traditions. Not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Judaism, not Islam, not any of them. People the world over say they value these traditions, and yet it feels we are slowly dismantling the years of wisdom that came before us. Wisdom many people say they value. There's a kind of arrogance there -- a post-modern arrogance -- that makes me nervous: No matter what the issue, we, here and now, know best.
I suppose this makes me old-fashioned. Very non-po-mo. But I believe in compassion and I believe in standards. And I believe that compassion should come as an outgrowth of standards, an outgrowth of a foundation.
I just feel that society in general is tipping the scales in favor of compassion all the time. Compassion without standards or foundation: Whatever one feels is okay to do.
I will climb off my soapbox now and exit stage right, MM! Thanks for allowing the ramble.
Post a Comment