Sunday, February 07, 2010

A few recent thoughts

Since my blog has devolved into nothing more than an occasional rant whenever something inflames my sensibilities to the point of needing verbal expression, I figure I’ll economize and get a few topics out of the way at once.

The recent attention to “don’t ask don’t tell” is long overdue. The policy never particularly concerned me because I don’t see it as a horrible imposition to keep your personal life private when so many other accommodations and personal sacrifices are also required of our military. However, the policy was much broader than that and was outrageous because of it. That a person can’t discuss their sexuality with their physician out of fear is just reprehensible. Add to that the fact that physicians must ask direct sexual questions to appropriately care for patients, and it’s easy to see the injustice of requiring a soldier to either answer a direct important question honestly and risk losing his/her livelihood and dreams, or lie and receive inadequate or frankly inappropriate medical care. It’s just wrong and it’s long past due for correction.

Meanwhile hypocrisy is alive and well as self-righteous defenders of gay and lesbian interests go far past what is reasonable and try to one-up the hatred they believe is generalized among those with whom they disagree by out-hating and out-hurting with re-doubled efforts. I read an example recently:
Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.
Let me set up for you, Mr Rich, a series of ideas, and then you explain to me how you can be so categorical in maligning those with whom you disagree.
  • Marriage as a religious institution is irrelevant to marriage as a secular institution.
  • Therefore, marriage as a secular institution is necessarily what society determines it to be.
  • The United States of America has specifically defined marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.
  • Civil rights are those rights which expressly enumerated by the U.S. Constitution and are considered to be unquestionable; deserved by all people under all circumstances, especially without regard to race, creed, color, gender, and disabilities. (wiktionary)
  • Marriage, as a civil right, is still regulated and withheld in particular circumstances; that is, it is not available to anyone at any time and in any form merely because it is considered to be a civil right. This is not questioned in many cases (as in minors, for example).
  • Marriage, as defined by federal law, is currently available without regard to sexual orientation. My own situation as a gay man married to a woman exemplifies this fact. I have exercised my civil right to marry, and believing the federal definition of marriage to be accurate and appropriate in no way takes civil rights away from anyone.
  • Therefore, one referring to changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions as extending a “special right” is a logical and consistent position. Lobbing insults at people in place of addressing their argument makes the disingenuousness seem a lot closer to the source.
  • Society treats people unequally in many respects and this is often a good thing.
  • People pay different taxes depending on their income. It would be considered ridiculous for the wealthy to refuse to pay taxes by appealing to equality under their civil rights; marriage as a social institution is much more concerned with money and legalities than it is with love and companionship, and may be comparable with tax rebates given to only a subset of citizens based on arbitrary criteria.
  • People are treated differently because of their race and background in the academic and business world. This is often to deliberately favor non-white people, but this inequality is appropriate and well-considered.
  • Those who oppose affirmative action often have legitimate points. They are not automatically racist.
  • Therefore, defining marriage as society has defined it, including excluding certain couples from marrying, is neither violating civil rights nor necessarily inappropriate.
  • What is fair and good is debatable. Unfortunately, an increasing number who come to the discussion refuse to discuss the issues occupying themselves instead with dogmatic assertions that echo the close-minded inflexibility they so criticize in their religious counterparts.

Now, Mr. Rich, you may disagree with many of the issues I’ve presented here, but can you really so confidently dismiss them as “preposterous and disingenuous”? Can you really continue to generalize that all those opposing same-sex marriage are merely masking their bigotry when they discuss these issues? Can you possibly fail to see the bigotry and hatred in yourself, then?

A while back my wife and I invited some friends over for a little book club. We discussed The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. One of my friends is an evolutionary biologist and another is a psychologist. Both vehemently support gay marriage while perfectly active members of the church. During our discussion of The God Delusion the conversation steered, almost unavoidably it seems, to gay marriage as a possible example of where religion harms people. I defended the religious view as internally consistent and not necessarily motivated by hatred or discrimination. The ensuing question was: if not hatred or discrimination, then what possible secular reason could a person site for opposing gay marriage when it has been shown to improve the quality of life of the gay couple and their children, decrease health disparities, etc. etc.?

My answer was that marriage can be seen as necessarily tied to heterosexual coupling because of the necessary tie of procreation to heterosexual coupling. This, not surprisingly, was unsatisfactory. We don’t need heterosexual coupling for procreation anymore. We’re way past that. And all the science shows that children of homosexual parent households have no psychological deficiencies.

I pointed out that there is a world of difference between showing that those children have no psychological deficiencies and failing to show that they do. Science can’t measure everything. The measures I often see in the literature that have been “validated” are laughably crude. Have I no right to watch my wife breastfeed our children and conclude that a mother is necessary for the best family situation? Is that such an unscientific assertion based on non-psychological criteria then? Does the mountain of medical literature that supports breast-feeding as best for babies have nothing to do with the discussion of gay marriage? Why ever not? The rules seem to be made up as we go along.

At this point in the conversation my friends were nearly apoplectic, bewildered that I could hold out by playing such a non-scientific card. It was a lively discussion, to be sure. Ultimately, they never did directly concede that a person could hold a non-bigoted, non-discriminatory, non-hateful position of secular opposition to gay marriage. I suspect this was because it is human nature to require some explanation as to why someone would disagree with one’s views when it seemingly couldn’t possibly be a misunderstanding on the part of one’s self.

I’ve settled into a pro-gay marriage stance over the last several months. I feel that I stayed agnostic for a period that was wholly appropriate as I continued to ponder the topic, despite that I’ve been called out more than once for doing so. I hasten to add that my opinion is subject to revision as it suits me. I believe, ultimately, that the question of whether or not society should recognize gay marriage has no right answer, and I’ve come down on the side of favoring it. The question of how the church views marriage does have a right answer, and I subscribe fully to it as well. There are lots of folks within the church who equivocate between secular and God-recognized marriage, and I think knowing that fact goes a long way to reaching peace on the topic.

Yep, that’s right, I’ve come down on the side of gay marriage, where I’ve pretty much been hovering for years. I do not believe that gay marriage is appropriate because it’s a civil right. I do not believe that society is obligated to recognize such marriages out of fairness any more than it is obligated to a flat tax. It may be a good idea, it may be fair, and it may really help a lot of people live happier and better lives. However, that doesn’t mean that those who oppose it are irrational, deserve to be vilified, or are any less entitled to an alternate opinion as well as vocal advocacy in the political process.

6 comments:

playasinmar said...

Is the wet nurse a new concept or has it many centuries?

What is awkward for some is seen fondly by others.

Ron Schow said...

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. This post provides interesting food for thought.

I am strongly opposed to any government regulation that would prevent a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, even if they admit to being 6 on the HH Scale. It seems to me everyone should have the right to choose to marry in a case like that, when both parties to the marriage agree.

But it occurs to me that if a person would need to explain their sexual orientation to get proper medical care, this could put a person in the position of fearing to divulge their orientation to a physician, in, for example, a pre-nupital physical. As you note, being unable to discuss your sexuality with your physician out of fear is reprehensible.

If, in fact, it is not denying a "civil or unalienable right" nor inappropriate to deny certain couples the "liberty" to marry (based on sexual orientation) nor is it denying them the "pursuit of happiness," it seems we could reach a point in the government where a gay person admitting their gayness to a physician could be denied the right to marry an opposite sex person. What is the difference between denying you your right to marry a straight woman based on your sexual orientation, and denying two gays the right to marry each other based on their orientation?

Yes, the U S government currently has definitions that favor you based on majority rule. But, the same majority rule allows gay marriage in Canada. And the majority can and probably will change over time.

It is sobering to me to think that majority rule could take away your right to have the marriage you currently have. Of course, the majority could easily argue that the public good would be served by denying you that right and probably on grounds that are at least as compelling as the advantages of "breast feeding." (Apparently even straight marriages do not provide that quite often---- about 1/3 of all babies in the US are not breastfed in the first 7 days and 2/3 are not so fed for as long as 6 months).

Protecting a minority in the matter of not using sexual orientation to allow or not allow marriage might then look different.

Would you still feel that those who oppose YOUR MARRIAGE are NOT irrational, NOR deserve to be vilified, NOR are any less entitled to an alternate opinion as well as vocal advocacy in the political process?

Such discrimination against your marriage would rather upset me.

santorio said...

Whoa, I didn't see that coming, Next thing, you'll be repudiating Mitt Romney, who I understand is still waiting for an invitation to the Prom. No one wants really wants to go with him but he has a neat convertible.

-L- said...

Ron: The don't ask don't tell tirade was a separate thought from the gay marriage thought. I don't think anyone should get anything but absolute confidentiality when they discuss their health issues with their physician.

As for marriage, my commentary is not on what's fair but on the fallacious arguments that are being made about civil rights. If I were denied marriage to a woman because I'm gay, that would be a clear violation of civil rights even if people could demonstrate that I'm a horrible parent because of it, or whatever. That's in no way the same as denying gay marriage which is not marriage at all as defined by the federal government--the secular legal definition is the only one that has significance in this debate.

You wonder whether I would view things differently in the scenario you suggest, but I wouldn't. I would still weigh the evidence, the legalities, and the nuances of fairness without regard to my personal situation as I do now and which so many other people seem completely incapable of doing. And I would try to withhold judgment of the character and motivations of those who have legitimate points that may seem threatening. Too bad most people find that impossible.

Santorio: I'm still a Romney fan. Don't worry, the sky isn't falling quite yet. :-)

Ron Schow said...

L, you said...

As for marriage, my commentary is not on what's fair but on the fallacious arguments that are being made about civil rights. If I were denied marriage to a woman because I'm gay, that would be a clear violation of civil rights even if people could demonstrate that I'm a horrible parent because of it, or whatever.
*****

I think you miss my argument--which is asking you to weigh the evidence, legality and fairness of what is essentially a majority vote on whether sexual orientation can be used to deny a person this choice i.e., prevent marriage to the person they choose. I believe you are saying the federal government can deny a gay person the right to marry the same sex based on the majority view of what is best, but not dany you the right to marry the opposite sex, even if there is evidence of risk there based on your orientation and the majority oppose it.

...you say...
That's in no way the same as denying gay marriage which is not marriage at all as defined by the federal government--the secular legal definition is the only one that has significance in this debate.
*****************

Yes, the secular legal definition is the focus here. I am suggesting that definition is different in Canada and some US states--THERE IT IS MARRIAGE. Why would it not be feasible to deny you that civil right if, in fact, they are now using sexual orientation as the basis for denial? We have seen in CA they can take away a right once given if the majority approve.

I think you seem to be suggesting it is a clear civil right for you because the government says so. But it could be taken away, if as your argument implies someone makes a case against it so that then ---a majority vote is all that is needed for you to lose that right. Why is it a civil right for you but not for them? Why can't the government take away your right just as it did with them?

I say again, I strongly support your right but I don't see how your situation is different if majority rule is how we make these decisions. I think some would say the rights of minorities should be protected.

Ryan said...

This is why I have such a hard time trying to hold a meaningful conversation with the gay rights lobby, at least as it is represented by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.

In Sully's world, there are no rational objections to same-sex marriage. If you oppose it, you're a bigot, end of story. Ignore the fact that I, as a straight man, have a distinguished tolerance resume, thanks to an above-average/unhealthy involvement in music performance (I couldn't tell you the number of gays I've worked around and befriended over the years).

What do they make, I wonder, of the Ty Mansfields of the world? That they're self-hating queers?