Most of you might think that I would be a “yes” on prop 8 due to my Christian beliefs, but actually I am neither for nor against. As I see it, extending the *legal* definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex is very much a cultural issue that depends very much on how people view marriage. And as far as I see, on this issue, people do not vote based on pure reason, but based on their desires for equality of rights, for recognition, for protecting their children, free speech, whatever. Here’s how I see the so-called “justifications” for and against prop 8.
1) Yes on prop 8: This can include a wide range of people, from conservative parents to various religious groups. I will use Christianity as I am most familiar with what the bible says about marriage.
Many claim that gay marriage should not be tolerated because it goes against God’s institution for marriage, which should be between one man and one woman. This might be true for “Christian marriages,” but aside from the argument of separation of church and state (which I actually find a weak argument for various reasons, more on that later maybe), there is another reason why I find this argument weak. If one argues that biblically, God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, then he must also be willing to accept all other laws regarding marriage that God has ordained. For example, divorce should be outlawed except in the case of (reported) abuse or extramarital affair. Jesus himself said that a divorce is a sin unless the spouse has cheated or abandoned you. But people get divorces just because they “don’t love each other” anymore, or they don’t think it’s “working out”. The question then is, if you are fighting so hard to make gay marriage unconstitutional in order to “protect” marriage, why aren’t you working half as hard to change other marriage and divorce laws?
2) No on prop 8: (Marriage is a right, not a “right thing to do”.) Most arguments stem from the fact that marriage in America seems to mean nothing more than a lifetime commitment between two individuals. In this case, gay marriage is a simple extension of straight marriage, by allowing a minority the same rights as the majority. It is no different from interracial marriage extending from same race marriage. But according to this logic, it also means that incest between a brother and sister is an extension of straight marriage, and hence should be tolerated. And taking it a step further, you have to consider polygamous cultures, such as Muslims and Mormons. Why can’t a wedding involve 3 or 4 people? Is there anything wrong with that? Arguably no, granted that the meaning of this word “marriage” can be amended to include lifetime commitment between a *group* of individuals.
3) Why I am neutral: This has nothing to do with being indifferent, but rather the fact that I see marriage as a purely cultural ideal. I don’t believe laws are made based on logic so much as they are based on a mix of beliefs, power to enact these beliefs, comfort with these beliefs, and personal desires. In America, where we are inspired by a mix of Christian monogamy, separation of church-and-state, and Disney romances, we believe in marriage primarily as a binding commitment of love between two (and not more) individuals, traditionally between man and woman, though less so today. In Muslim countries, as in many ancient cultures, men are accustomed to have multiple wives. In remote regions of China, some women have multiple husbands.
Given different meanings attached to the word marriage, which may stem from numerous religious, philosophical, or cultural ideals around the world, America will eventually choose its meaning. (It will probably coincide with that of the ancient Romans.) Regardless of what is chosen in legislature, there is no difference in the great calling for Christians to live holy lives within, or in pursuit of, God’s definition of matrimony. The question is how far should we go to change restrictive laws regarding marriage, divorce, abstinence vs protection, restricting pornography, etc. Or how far should we go to grant everyone equal opportunity to pursue their desires for “marriage”, whatever it means. I have no real answer for that, so I will just leave it up to you to ponder the slippery slopes of conservatism and liberalism. In the end, however, I speculate that most of us voted based on our own desires more than based on pure logic. It’s human nature.
The moderate independent,
Foo
November 24, 2008 at 8:23 am |
Hey Foo,
Just wanted to comment that desiring equality, free speech, recognition are all perfectly valid reasons for deciding which way to vote. However, it seems most people only throw those arguments up as smoke screens to hide their own intolerance of the other side.
But, by and large, the thing that worries me most is not that fact that marriage would be redefined to recognize same-gender unions, but by the way it’s happening. What I’ve heard others say, and what you say in your last paragraph, is that the people should be able to choose what marriage means if marriage is at all something that is definable by the people. While I don’t agree with this, the gay advocates agree only if the definition swings in their favor. For example, CA has already put it to vote twice what it should be defined as, and both times, they try to repeal it. If marriage could be changed, why couldn’t it become more restrictive? Indeed, while state recognition has changed over decades, it did become more restrictive at one point, when we changed the age limit to 18 years. The fact that they’re being given such high consideration by the courts is what worries me most.