Here we go. The Republicans are in the tank, midterm elections are coming up, and so they’ve got to fire up “the base.” No better way to do that than to start picking on the Gays!
We’ve talked about this before.
But I just want to reitirate something: there is no secular (ie: non-religious) argument for limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman (at least, not one that isn’t homophobic and discriminatory).
Marriage is essentially a religious construct (and monogamy is biologically dubious). Certainly, there are benefits in the government recognizing the fact the people live together and therefore share certain expenses and other things. And so, the government recognizes the idea of couplehood. But the rights attendent to that ought not be attached to a semantic construct called “marriage.” There is a lot of SC jurisprudence (it’s been a couple of years since Family Law) regarding what it a family is, but the idea that it requires Mommy, Daddy and 2.4 kids is antiquated. Once we are granting rights, to deny it to some is discriminating and has no place in America.
The government has no business regulating marriage at all. And any definition (and the rights being granted or denied based thereon) that flows from a religious explanation (you can’t argue that the opposition to gay marriage is secular…you just can’t) is suspect, and ideally should have no place in a discussion of American Constitutional ideas. To rely on a religious argument for amending the Constitution is un-American.
“I don’t care who you are. This is America, Jack.” (“Say another word about Lisa, and I’ll break my foot off in your royal ass.”)
I agree with most of what you said, except that either the “biologically dubious” argument works in all cases or it works in none. An argument could be made that you have to either recognize all consensual partnerships (including polygamy and maybe some others that you’d find morally repulsive), or not expand the definition at all. I hate it when either side uses legal, jurisprudential or (as in this case) social fictions to try to justify imposing laws (or granting rights) that really should never exist.
By: Adam on June 6, 2006
at 9:01 pm
A couple of points:
1. I said monogamy is biologically dubious not as part of an argument, but rather to strengthen the idea that Marriage is a fictional construct, one that isn’t dictated by the laws of nature. I didn’t mean to suggest that biology should have any impact on any part of this decision. Clearly, the US doesn’t regulate marriage for procreation (sterile couples can marry), so it’s just not part of the argument.
2. As for polygamy: first of all, I’m not sure I think polygamy is morally repulsive. Second, this isn’t about “consensual relationships.” It’s about wilfull discrimination. Let’s be clear, arguments about what one person can do (“Even though he’s gay, he’s free to marry any woman he wants”) are red herrings. A person doesn’t marry, couples marry. And we’re barring same-sex couples from marrying.
However, to extend that to polygamy isn’t necessarily discriminatory. For the government to say “you can marry whoever you want, gay, straight or otherwise, is fine, but you can do it once” doesn’t discriminate, it sets guidelines. Certainly, some groups might challenge. And if they can show that plural marriage benefits society in the same ways that single marriage does, and any distinction is arbitrary, then they should be afforded the same rights and privileges.
3. As for bestiality and incest, which I assume were the other parts of your parenthetical, let me take them one by one, because they are different. Bestiality: like I said, one person doesn’t marry, a couple marries. And remember, we aren’t talking about sex here. Across the board, the government should have no right to police the bedroom. If a man wants to have sex with his duck, whatever he wants. If he wants his relationship with the duck recognized as a marriage, then the state doesn’t have to recognize it. The duck isn’t a person, isn’t a citizen (and doesn’t have the potential to be one). The duck doesn’t need (and can’t be) a health care proxy; the duck doesn’t file taxes and therefore can’t file jointly with the man; the duck can’t be admitted after visiting hours in the hospital, regardless if she’s his wife. These are some of the attendant benefits of being married. Right now, they are denied to gay people. They are never possibly extended to ducks. Bestiality, in the context of marriage, is another red herring.
Now, incest. Two heretosexual humans. No problems with plurality, no problems with orientation. So what right have to we to deny marriage? Well, in this instance, (in fact, in only this instance) the government has a compelling interest to deny the rights. Incest is biologically impairing. It causes children with disabilities, disease and causes a drain on public resource. Yes, the presumption is that brother and sister should be able to marry. But it is the balancing of public policy against the possible outcomes that speaks against it.
By: Noyam on June 7, 2006
at 9:19 am
A few things:
1) Hehe – sex with a duck
2) Thank goodness the blog is back up again. I was dying here at work.
3) I commented on the monogamy thing without referencing your previous post on the subject, and I thought you were making a different point. So scratch that. Clearly it made very little sense, if any.
4) I think your incest argument is a very good one. But I did NOT mean to imply that a man should be able to marry his duck! Although Peter Griffin did try to marry a piece of pie once.
5) While sitting here waiting for the blog to come back online, I was thinking about whether monogomy is in fact biologically dubious. I’m not so sure, and here’s why:
While it’s true that from a strictly “Darwinist” approach, polygamy would somewhat help “naturally-select” out the weaker male genes, who is to say which genes would fall under the “weaker” category? Maybe some characteristics that do not necessarily attract the human female are important to the species in some other way. What would happen, say, if a disproportionate number of women flocked to marry jocks? As I think you’ve pointed out, without a one-woman-to-one-man ratio you could almost certainly weed out certain unwanted characteristics while enhancing others. But would you eliminate/enhance the right ones? We don’t know. What even ARE the right ones? We really don’t know that either.
Furthermore, you could argue that human beings, with our unique cognitive abilities and consciousness (not to mention emotions), are better suited biologically for monogamous relationships. Yes, historically there has been polygamy, but most of it also came at a time when it was acceptable to be a misogynist and men essentially owned their wives. Today, polygamists are usually deeply-religious engage in the relationship(s) because of their faith. But ask most women today if they would mind sharing their husbands with another woman (DISCLAIMER: Married men, do NOT try this at home), and I would predict a negative response that is probably both instinctual and emotional (both, imho, biological responses).
6) In any event, I agree with most of your original post, particularly the state of American politics. But I will point out again that both sides do it. Unfortunately, this is about politics (and winning), not about governance. So while I expect a Democratic voter to be outraged by what the Republicans are doing, if any Republican voters are out there reading this, just realize that they’re just doing what they have to do to get elected, and then once they are in office will be able to govern conservatively on the issues that really matter.
7) Finally, Noyam, I’m impressed with the amount of research you did on the rights of the duck-spouse. I’m a little curious as to why you know so much…
By: Adam on June 7, 2006
at 6:37 pm
I hear what you are saying, but what I meant by monogamy being biologically dubious is that it is man’s natural instinct, as the inseminator, to try and impregnate as many women as possible, and try to mate as often as possible. To restrict that to one woman within the confines of marriage is to cage the beast. Not from a natural selection perspective, and not even from a woman’s perspective. It is man’s goal to spread his genes as far and as wide as he can. To only do that with one person is biologically dubious (a term I clearly enjoy typing).
By: Noyam on June 7, 2006
at 7:55 pm
The “inseminator?” Nice.
By: Adam on June 7, 2006
at 8:27 pm
The “inseminator?”
Help me out here…wasn’t that the name of one of Rick Vaughn’s pitches in Major League?
By: Moishe on June 7, 2006
at 9:41 pm
I like to think “The Inseminator” is what Arnold Schwarzenegger called himself when he was having kids!
By: Noyam on June 8, 2006
at 10:17 am