Last week I wrote an article counter the common arguments against gay marriage (in a very tongue-in-cheek manner, I will admit), and ended with a call to arms over the issue of gay marriage, as it pertained to Question 1 on the upcoming Maine election. Needless to say, I’m sure by now most have heard that this referendum passed, and that same-sex marriage is now illegal again in the State of Maine. I for one, am disappointed and disgusted, but this loss raises a valid point which few seem to be willing to address on the national or state level. President Obama addressed it a little bit on the campaign trail, and this sentiment can often be heard in almost all political discussions between friends. How often do you hear people say something similar to “Ugh, how can they be so stupid? I don’t even understand where they’re coming from!”
Now, clearly the “the other side is so dumb” sentiment is dismissive, and unnecessary, but the second portion of this is what I wish to write about. This concept of “I don’t even understand how the other side could reach this conclusion” raises an important point. Part of the premise of our political system is that within a democratic system, the thought processes of the majority will be put into law, but that everyone’s voice will be heard and, at least ideally, considered. However, this seems to be quite the opposite of what is happening. The current political atmosphere seems much more centered around visceral emotional responses to an issue, and I think this is at best unfair and unreasonable.
The United States of America is, to steal a common phrase, a melting pot. That is to say, people from all sorts of ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds live in the United States. Allegedly, all of these people have an equal voice in the way political decisions are made. To paraphrase President Obama, the only way to make sure the law is just and fair to everyone is to be able to carry-on a rational, reasoned discussion about the topic. He was talking about this in the context of his personal religion, and how this would affect his decisions as president, but I feel that there’s a larger point to be taken away from this.
Consider the vote on Tuesday in Maine. It is fairly obvious to anyone who watched the campaigns unfold and the discourse leading up to the vote, fear of change seemed to win the day. Now, this is a rather superficial definition of the reason that the Yes on 1 campaign won, and there’s an argument to be made that the vote was religiously motivated, that fear about the societal affect of same-sex marriage, that it was fundamentally wrong for children to be taught that homosexual couples exist, that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, or even that homosexuality is too gross, a disease, or even a biblical abomination were the underlying reasons for why the Yes on 1 campaign won. All of these arguments may have some merit, but the consensus of analysts seems to be that superficially, voter turnout on the No on 1 side just wasn’t there, and this was probably because “protection of marriage rights” is much less of an emotional issue than “protecting the institution that has been in place for thousands of years”.
Note the word emotional in the last sentence. This is the crux of the issue. Politics within the United States has turned into a visceral emotional issue. President Obama arguably won on this very campaign, he inspired people by using very emotional mantras, “hope” and “change”.
This is directly the reason religion seems to have such a stronghold on the United States political atmosphere, religion is, for the majority of religious people, a very, very emotional issue. However, emotion is something that is very difficult to convey to others. Have you ever felt something, tried to explain it and given up because they “just wouldn’t understand”? Or consider a political topic that is very emotionally charged, like abortion. Much of the discourse over abortion centers around the “abortion is murder” argument. Now, whether you’re for or against abortion, I think you would have to look long and hard to find someone who has no opinion about abortion. Even those that one may encounter that say “I don’t know much about the issue” usually finish with “but I feel X way about it”. Again, not the use of the word “feel”.
As President Obama said (albeit not directly about political discourse in the United States), the only way to ensure that everyone feels like they are being represented is to make the discourse founded in intellectual, reasoned discussion. One is allowed to feel however one wants on a subject, but the argument presented ought to be as devoid of emotion as possible, or it’s hard to find a common ground.
To use the gay marriage referendum in Maine again, much of the discourse from the Yes on 1 campaign was very emotionally charged. The No on 1 campaign was accused of “redefining marriage” (arguably a fairly personal attack on those married couples in the State of Maine). While the No on 1 campaign presented a very well thought out, intellectual argument about how same-sex marriage wasn’t different from straight marriage, how these are just people that deserve equal rights, how the other states that have legalized gay marriage aren’t suffering from any societal degeneration, and even how same-sex marriage does not affect the economy (and in some cases boosts the economy) of the states that have legalized it. Obviously, these arguments failed against what seemed to be a very simple, consistent, emotional message.
It’s clear that many political issues are emotionally charged (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, insert-your-topic-of-choice-here), but choosing to react to emotions first, and try and justify your emotions second is the wrong way to go about having a debate that will sufficiently satisfy every party. Often times emotional issues cause people to zealously stake out a position, and subsequently not budge.
In order to move this country forward we, as a whole, must start forcing political discourse to be entirely grounded in an intellectually supported way. Once this expectation has been laid down, the “abortion is murder” argument will need to be supported by a working definition of murder, why abortion falls under this category, why a fetuses life is more important than that of the mother, and a plethora of other questions. The same-sex marriage debate will no longer be able to use “fundamental redefinition of marriage” as a mantra without providing a definition of marriage, and evidence to support that this definition really has never changed throughout the course of history. The healthcare reform debate will have to actually support that “death panels” will occur, providing proper citation directly from the bill.
Fearmongering, hatred, and prejudice will no longer be valid political arguments, and will instead be marginalized in preference of reasoned political debate. Emotion is clearly an important part of being human, and we need not remove it from who we are. However, emotion ought to take a secondary role in the national and state level political discussion.
Posts Tagged ‘gay_marriage’
emotion as a rational argument? No thanks
Monday, November 9th, 2009the time is now
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009Gay marriage is an issue pushing it’s way towards the forefront of the political playing field, and an issue that really shouldn’t be ignored. There are now six states that currently allow same-sex couples to be married, and a 7th that did at one point. However, this number is at risk of slipping on November 3rd.
On November 3rd, the state of Maine has a People’s Veto up for vote. This vote acts very much in the way that Proposition 8 did in California, a “yes” vote means “repeal the legalization of same-sex marriage” and a “no” vote means “do not repeal the legalization, keep it legal”. I’ve ranted and raved enough about this particular vote, but as someone who spend a large portion of his life in Maine, I have a connection there that native Minnesotans may not.
I don’t want to rant more about this specific vote, but I do want to discuss same-sex marriage as a concept. The opposing viewpoint, that marriage is between a man and a woman, puts forward a number of different arguments for why same-sex marriage should remain illegal, but it seems as though none of these hold much water, and this is what I want to talk about today.
Same-sex coupling/marriage is unnatural, animals in nature don’t do it. This decidedly not true. There are species of apes (Bonobos, to be more precise) that exhibit very homsexual behavior, entirely within their natural habitat.
The word “marriage” is strictly a religious word, and the government shouldn’t be deciding what my religious beliefs can be. Clearly it’s true that the government shouldn’t be imposing religious viewpoints on the general public. I wouldn’t like it anymore than someone who believed the opposite of what I do. Separation of church and state is an important part of the principles this country is founded on. However, the idea that the word “marriage” is only a religious word also is just patently false. The word marriage derives originally from the latin word maritus, which means lover or nuptial. The verb form of this word, maritare, means “to marry” or “to give in marriage”. The english language came by this word through french, but the origins are latin. While it’s possible that all of these were religious ideas (the Roman Catholic church possibly had a very large influence on latin), it’s important to note that none of these root words specify gender, or a religious context. Furthermore, the term “marriage” is used all the time in a secular context. If the religious people of this country want to claim “marriage” as a religious word, wonderful. However, all civil marriages need to be called “civil unions” and it seems as though religious organizations should hold separate ceremonies for their marriages.
Being gay is a choice, and we as a society shouldn’t have to cater to every single person’s lifestyle. Tell me, if you’re putting forward this argument, when did you choose to be straight? At what point in your life did you decide that you preferred the opposite gender to your own? What’s that? You didn’t? That’s right, you didn’t. Just as you don’t choose to be inherently introverted, or you don’t choose to like some foods. Clearly people can choose to act on their tendencies, or to not act on their tendencies. I regularly choose not to eat vast amounts of candy, despite the fact that I love candy. I also choose to be more out-going in a social setting, despite the fact that I’m a relatively introverted person. People can choose to act a certain way, either with or against the way they are naturally, but this doesn’t make homosexuality a choice or a whim.
The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. The bible also says that you’re not supposed to eat shell-fish, or wear clothing that mixes fibers, or eat fruit from a tree that is older than three years of age. These parts of the bible are ignored all the time, because they’re not relevant to our society anymore. If we’re allowed to ignore parts of what the bible says, doesn’t this sort of remove the authority that the bible has on what we can and can’t do?
If same-sex marriage is legalized, my children will be taught that it’s ok for men to marry men, or women to marry women in school. My children might become gay! I know I turned into a zebra when I first learned about them. In fact, I’m still a zebra. No, your children won’t turn gay because they’re being taught that it’s OK. Homosexuality isn’t something one becomes if exposed to it, one cannot catch homosexuality like one does with the flu. Furthermore, you children may already be gay or lesbian, they may already know that they prefer people of their own gender to people of the other gender. This is OK!
These seem to be some of the primary arguments opposing same-sex marriage laws. As one can see, there are responses to all of them (I know, I know, everything has a resopnse to it), but I hope my responses have caused people to think about the position they are putting forward.
Same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, and it’s a matter of love. No one is harmed when straight people get married, marriage between people of the same gender isn’t different. The sanctity of marriage won’t be affected by same-sex couples marrying, particularly given that the sanctity of marriage is already arguably under attack (consider the rate of divorce in the United States).
I know I promised I wouldn’t rant about Question 1 on the Maine ballot, but this feels important. If you’re from Maine, go vote No on Question 1. If you’re from Maine, but not there currently, request an absentee ballot. If you’re not from Maine, but you know someone who is, go urge them to vote, urge them to make their voice heard for equality and justice. If you’re not from Maine, and don’t know anyone there, but this issue is important to you, donate money to the No on Question 1 campaign. There are 6 days left before this is put to a vote, I’m sure the No on Question 1 campaign could use monetary support in the last sprint before voting day. UPDATE: Colin (@weikaolun ) on Twitter, directed me towards a way to help the No On 1 effort in Maine, even if you’re not in the state. Check it out
This issue isn’t about religion, it’s not about removing rights from other US citizens, it’s not about turning the children of this country into homosexuals, and it’s not an attack on the American Way of Life. It’s about people who love other people wanting to be able to commit themselves to the other person for life. It’s about people yearning to be able to have a way to show their love to the world in the same way that other people in this country can.
Those of you in Minnesota reading this? Let’s do what we can to get Minnesota up to speed with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and hopefully Maine.
tl;dr Gay marriage isn’t bad, and the reasons people give for why it is are wrong. Do what you can to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine.
liberty and justice for all
Saturday, October 10th, 2009I wrote this for the University Register, last week.As such, those of you in $small_town may have already read this.
Over the summer, the State of Maine legalized same-sex marriage, and became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage. After what was a pretty easy battle in the scheme of political fights in the state house and senate, the bill was put on Maine Governor Baldacci’s desk, and was signed into law.
In Maine, like in California, there is an option for a “People’s Veto”, wherein the citizens of the state have the option to petition to put the decision to referendum, and get voted on during the next general election. Like in California, citizens of the state of Maine collected the amount of signatures to get the decision put to referendum, and now (like in California) there will be a vote in November over the legalization of same-sex marriage in the State of Maine.
Clearly, in terms of process, there are quite a bit of similarities between the situation in Maine right now, and the situation in California before the 2008 election (as though you couldn’t tell from the previous paragraph). However, these are not the only similarities. In California, the Church of the Latter Day Saints poured a significant portion of money into pushing the political campaign “Yes on 8″ (remember that a “yes” vote meant same-sex marriage would be illegal, and “no meant that same-sex marriage would stay legal). Similarly, in Maine, we are seeing a big push by the Catholic Church and Catholic-based “for the family” organizations to similarly advocate for “yes” votes (illegalizing same-sex marriage).
This trend towards tax-exempt religious groups pushing very, very hard in one direction on political issues is, quite frankly, disturbing. Unfortunately, in our society, money can make or break a political campaign, and these religious groups did, and continue to, pour large amounts of money into these campaigns. Why do I find this disturbing? A pretty simple concept, and one made pretty clear in the First Amendment to our Counstitution.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is a political issue, plain and simple. There are arguments to be made that “marriage” is a religious term, but it’s not. Or, it is, but it’s also a very secular term, used very widely in our society. Therefore, these arguments will be ignored for the duration of this article. Religious groups are allowed to be tax-exempt, with the stipulation that they do not participate in political activity, this is what political action groups are for. The idea that religious groups are allowed to use their tax exempt status to help fund a very public, very political, and ultimately very unjust campaign goal seems wrong.
Yes, I understand religion is very crucial to many people in our country, and I understand that people’s religious view permeate their opinions on public policy. I’d like to consider a fairly harsh example, but I think there are a number of parallels. In the South, during the civil war era, there was a sentiment among many southern Christians that Africans were descendants of Ham (the son of Noah who was punished, and told he would forever serve his brothers), that slavery was therefore entirely justified from a biblical/religious perspective.
What seems to be at the crux of the anti-same-sex marriage sentiments is that in some form or another, the religion of the people pushing this idea dictates the way they feel about same-sex marriage. This is wrong, just as justifying slavery through religion is wrong, just as getting stoned (with rocks, not marijuana) for eating shellfish is wrong.
Religion, at a personal, self-centering level, doesn’t bother me terribly much. I respect that people get to their conclusions about their creator (or lack thereof) through their own way, and that is entirely valid. I don’t dispute people’s right to believe in god, just as I wouldn’t want my right disputed. I do however, take issue when religious groups, particularly very powerful religious organizations, start pushing their ideals into public policy. If religious groups are going to be turning themselves into, or setting up and funding, political action groups, then they don’t deserve tax-exempt status, and they should be subject to the laws and regulations surrounding political funding.
I don’t care about your religion, or your phobia, I care about equality for all
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009There is a bill going through the Maine legislature right now that will allow homosexual couples in Maine to be allowed to marry, and be given full marriage benefits. The bill passed through the Senate with a vote of 21-14, and then moved to the House. The Maine state House then voted to pass the bill, with an amendment, with a vote of 89-57. Because an amendment was added, the bill must go back to the Senate, and if passed there, then to Governor Baldacci’s desk.
Up until recently, Governor Baldacci was an opponent of gay marriage. However, after a hearing, both proponents and opponents of the bill left messages with Governor Baldacci’s office. Governor Baldacci the apparently took all of these notes, and called each one back, individually. According to one blogger who received such a call, the conclusion that seemed to be reached, without Governor Baldacci actually explicitly saying this, was that if the bill were to reach his desk, it would be signed into law. Today, the bill went back to the Maine state Senate, was put to a vote and passed with 21-13, with one person not present. Governor Baldacci has signed the bill into law, making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage!
There are a number of different arguments against gay marriage, ranging from: “The bible says it’s a sin, so it is therefore wrong” to “There’s no reason for homosexuality to be natural, as it doesn’t produce offspring” to “It’s just weird” to “Allowing gay marriage to occur will send the wrong message to our children about what marriage and love means”. I don’t want to refute all of these arguments, it’s been done before, and that’s not what I want to say.
Gay marriage is, at it’s core, a matter of equality. Equal rights, equal protection by the state, and even equal ability to profess one’s love to another in a socially accepted way. There are gay and lesbian couples all over this country who have professed their love to one another, and who have made the commitment to each other in a “non-official” way (I say non-official here to mean not state-recognized, not to diminish the reality of their commitment). With respect to each other, these couples are “married”, they just can’t become recognized, or get the same tax, visitation, and adoption benefits as straight couples.
I’m sure similar things were said about the women’s suffrage movement: “The bible says it’s the job of the man to care for his wife, why would a woman need to vote?” or “It’s weird seeing women trying to go against the societal norm”. In case you hadn’t noticed, women are now allowed to vote (it’s still true that women don’t make as much as men in equivalent jobs, and there are some other things that need to happen for “true” equality with respect to women’s rights).
We’re all humans on this planet, and everyone has an equally valuable life. People all do equally valuable things, and all have equally valuable opinions. Furthermore, everyone is deserving of equal rights, be it property rights, marriage rights, ability to work, ability to adopt children, or even ability to say what one wants to say. We don’t censor people’s speech because “it’s weird”, and shellfish are sold for food almost everywhere, despite the bible explicitly forbidding it.
Everyone deserves an equal shot at their unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. Everyone deserves an equal ability to purchase a home. Everyone deserves an equal ability to be with, commit to, and marry whoever it is they choose. I commend Maine on their very progressive stance on the issue, and I urge Minnesota to follow the lead of Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Equality isn’t about religion, isn’t about tradition, and isn’t about making people comfortable with everything that is happening around them. Equality is about making things fair, just, and, as redundant as this sounds, equal. As a nation we need to look towards a day when everyone, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, men, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, anarchists, socialists, and name-your group-that-I’ve-left-out-here get treated as human beings and with the same level of respect, dignity, and political status as every other group.
NOTE: I had written this post without the knowledge that Maine had passed the bill. I then saw that the bill had been signed into law, and modified the post. If there are inconsistencies, please let me know! Go Maine!
More progressive tech companies
Friday, October 24th, 2008This is the second high profile technology company that has come out against Proposition 8 in California. Apple Computer has also come out in opposition to the anti-gay rights proposal, designed to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the Californian Constitution.
Apple was the first technology company to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as they do with straight couples. Apple will also be donating $100,000 dollars to the No on 8 campaign in California. More information can be found on Apple’s blog
My previous post about Google doing something similar is here. I hope more and more tech companies start coming out in opposition to this bill, getting them boycotted by fundamental christians. Not because I wish ill upon the technology companies, but rather because computers/technology are such an integral part of everyone’s life. The fundies won’t know what to do with themselves if they end up having to boycott most/all of the technology businesses.
-JTS
Google: even better
Saturday, September 27th, 2008I don’t know much about California political issues, but I do tend to follow same-sex marriage laws. Apparently there’s a “Proposition 8″ being discussed in California, to illegalize same-sex marriage. The interesting part is that Google has taken a stance on this issue. This is apparently not normal for Google, particularly not on social issues, as compared to the technology issues (which they would seem to have some interest in 
).
We need to have more companies taking a stance on this issue. I wonder if the fundies will stop using Google too.
UPDATE: apparently there are some blogs advocating a boycott of Google. Gee, I wonder if Google cares. My guess is no.
-JTS
