As several states have approved same sex marriages in the last year and same sex marriage is undeniably making its way to be one of the largest social debates in our country, it seemed only right that I should discuss the issue. As a recently engaged man, I have experienced, first-hand, people's reactions to and rationalizations of same-sex marriage - and I must say I have been a bit surprised. While the overwhelming majority of those I have informed have been happy for my fiance and I, a good portion of that majority also voiced some reservations. Well, the same reservation, I should say. The idea that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" acted as the recurring snag. Of course, realistically, some reservations were expected but upon processing the phrase I continued to hear, I began to wonder where this definition of "marriage" actually comes from.
In my curiosity about this definition's origins, I decided to look to the United States Constitution. It is so often said that the U.S.A. needs to get back to its "family values" and that marriage is a fundamental institution upon which this country has been built, so of course there has to be some documentation about it in the document upon which this country was built. Funny thing, but there is actually no mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution whatsoever. None. Which begs the question, how can something be unconstitutional if it's not in the Constitution? There is mention of all men being created equal, but, I digress. I then decided to continue my search in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps Great Britain was secretly full of fairies and there would be mention of such vile behavior in the list of grievances. Yet again, I struck out.
Well if it wasn't in any of our historical documents, where else might there be a largely followed text with language against homosexuality? Oo Oo, I got it! The Bible! So I decided to check there and I hit the jackpot. There is indeed mention of homosexuality as a "sin" not just once but several times! Well, I thought, if the Bible says that a man lying with a man is detestable, I guess I should stop doing it but I thought I'd continue reading a bit more just for good measure. While flipping through Leviticus, where the Bible first mentions homosexuality as "detestable", I stumbled across several other admonitions in addition to the ones against homosexuality.
For starters, if you have a skin disease or infection that causes white spots or lightened pigment, you are to be put in isolation for seven days. If you have any clothing or material made of linen, wool or leather and it is, or may be, contaminated with mildew, it should also be taken to a priest for a seven day isolation. Men should also not have sex with a woman while she's menstruating because she's unclean and then the man would also become unclean, and then they both have to be "cut off from their people" which, I guess, means put in isolation? If you farm, you should not pick up the fallen fruits or vegetables but rather leave them for the poor. Also, you are not to plant your field with two kinds of seed, I think a lot of farmers may be in violation of the law of God here. It is also forbidden to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material, eat any meat with blood still in it (goodbye rare meat), cut your hair at the sides of your head, clip off the edges of your beard or get tattoos. Crap, that kinda sounds like a lot of stuff we all do, yeah? Oh and I did I mention that if you do any of these things, knowingly or unknowingly, you will be put to death by beheading, burning or stoning unless you sacrifice a ram or goat in order to be forgiven? I don't think PETA would be too happy about that.
Isn't this book just full of fun facts?
So here's my question, since our historical documents say nothing about marriage and we still justify being able to vote on it, should we perhaps vote on more things not found in our Constitution? Perhaps we should vote on which one crop farmers are allowed to grow. Maybe we can vote on whether or not people can get tattoos or how beards are allowed to be shaven. Perhaps we should vote on whether or not people are allowed to wear clothing made of two or more fabrics, or if women should be able to have sexual relations while menstruating - they are, after all, unclean during that period. According to the Bible, where people get the idea that my fiance and I shouldn't be married, we should be put to death for our behavior and the rest of you should be wearing 100% one fabric clothing, not getting tattoos and putting people with skin diseases in isolation. Don't worry though, these wouldn't have to be federal laws, we could just let the states decide.
But alas, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. A place where there is a separation of church and state and we vote based upon legal documents, not a book written by "Anonymous". (We don't even pick up the phone for anonymous callers.) But wait, if we vote based upon a book that dictates our religious beliefs, that makes us more of a theocracy, and if that's the case, we should be putting far more of the aforementioned regulations on the table for a vote. If you can wear a cotton blend, what the hell gives you the right to tell me I can't marry my fiance? Pick one U.S., either we are a theocracy with seven day isolations or a democracy that upholds that all men (and women) deserve the same "unalienable rights".
If you are against gay marriage, shut up and don't get one but don't tell me I can't marry who I want based upon a book that tells you that you can't even wear a polyblend.
Amazing, Justin! Well said, and nice job of bringing up many points and facts that most people don't even know of, yet they have reservations because of. That was a retarded and confusing sentence, whatever.
ReplyDeleteWho do you know who has cited the United States Constitution as the origin of marriage? I have never heard this before.
ReplyDeleteI've also never heard any arguments suggesting that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, unless it is in reference to a specific state that has amended its own constitution to prohibit such unions. Same-sex marriage IS prohibited under federal LAW (i.e. DOMA enacted in the 90s), but it is NOT defined in any way in the text of the Constitution. It boggles my mind that this misconception of the marriage of origin even exists - the "marriage debate" has always at least tangentially involved religion, so it would seem far more natural to seek out the seminal works that make up those religions --> i.e. The Bible, which you did reference in detail. With that in mind, I definitely think your criticisms of the inconsistency of Biblical application are on point, and you echo what many pro-same-sex marriage advocates have been saying for the last few years. You did leave out my personal favorite, though, which is my right to sell my daughter into slavery. In all seriousness, though, I think it is important to note that all of those admonitions appear in the Old Testament of the Bible and, in terms of Christianity, they should hold no bearing after the first coming of the prophet/savior Jesus Christ. This narrowing down, while seemingly helpful, provides counterintuitive results, though, because there are many more people of the Jewish faith who are accepting of homosexuality than there are in Christianity and Islam. But I digress lol.
Anyway, voting on the issue of marriage in the United States is justified by democratic rule. In democracies, the majority "wins." The beauty in this is that there is not one person sitting in a room 234235 miles away deciding what others can and cannot do. Rather, the people have control of their own governance. This is seldom fair to those not in the majority, though, which is why there are protections against tyranny of the majority. Those protections include the Bill of Rights, which states specific rights granted to all people, and the establishment of an independent judiciary to interpret laws and determine the constitutionality of those laws.
In my opinion, a perfect scenario would involve the courts issuing opinions that marriages, inherently religious institutions, cannot be legislated at all. The issue of legal or civil unions would most likely persist in such a scenario, however. In that ideal scenario, the courts would also determine that prohibition of unions for couples of one sex or gender configuration and the allowance of unions for couples of another sex or gender configuration would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment on the state and federal levels.
... (Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteConcerning voting on "legal" documents versus voting on "religious" documents, people are entitled to vote for whatever they want - that's part of what democracy is. The "separation of church and state" is technically no more than the extrapolation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment ("the state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), which essentially means there can be no state-run, state-funded, or state-mandated religion. The clause has since been interpreted to have wider implications and restrictions on the influence and presence of religion in the public sphere. PEOPLE, however, can vote however they please. If people have a certain set of values, they are entitled to vote in a manner consistent with their views. It does not necessarily mean that there is some insidious man in a hooded black cape sitting in the background commanding legions of religious automotons to do his bidding. In fact, pastors and priests are legally forbidden from discussing a whole host of political issues (i.e. no "Don't vote for this person" or "Vote for this person"). If however, there is overlap between the fundamental institutions of a religion and the legal institutions of the state, it is inevitable that some of those teachings would infuence a voter's choices on the ballot. But, again, that is his/her/hir decision. It is unfortunate that such decisions are often made to the detriment of those in the minority, and it is also unforunate that such decisions are deemed permissable in the very institutions designed to protect against tyranny of the majority.
I completely agree with your frustrations over this issue (and I acknowledge your personal experiences concerning this topic as it relates to your recent engagement), but the social conservativism over marriage is something I think we just need to let die out. It sucks, yes. Absolutely. It is a grave injustice, a reprehensible prohibition. But it is still a prohibition. No amount of screaming queens will quell the fading roar of old, white, social conservative folks getting angry about fags and dykes getting married and having "relations." They're set in their ways and aren't going to acquiess to us just because we cried fowl. It'd be nice, but it just wont ever work that way. We just have to let them die out, basically. When they do, we will have our fabulously decorated wedding cakes, and eat them, too.
Yet, what is left out of the framing of this issue, by yourself and commentor nicholas pfost, is the very conservative nature of the marriage debate. Like so many involved in the debate - the issue is one where "you are either with us or against us"...You are either a "progressive" minded liberal who sees the justice issue with denying marriage to "gays" OR you are a old white socially conservative individual who is bigotted. Yet, there are other positions - perhaps more radical or perhaps "queerer" and perhaps inevitably, less viable because, well, people are lazy.
ReplyDeleteIf one looks at the radical critiques of marriage brought forth in the 70's by feminists and continued today by their predecessors, along with queer critiques of marriage, one realizes that we have been duped to wanting to "be like them" - arguing to be citizens as "citizen" is already defined - rather than arguing for different forms of citizenship, different conceptualizations of "rights". We want marriage because it is easy and allows us to engage in the same conversations, conventions, and traditions as others have engaged in, maintaining the same traditions - just gayer and arguably probably more fantastical...but inevitably the "same". One might ask then...by giving "gays" the right to marry, do we rather than challenge your theocratic nation actually maintain it by extending how that theocracy (one that privileges this concept of marriage) maintains its ability to determine "family values" and "morals"?
The question then is...why do we argue for a right that still excludes and allows the government to legitimate (and therefore deletigmate) types of relationships? Why do we not imagine a different form of engagement where the government disperses economic privileges to all or through a means that is not based on saying "I do".
1. I'm all for abolishing marriage altogether. It nullifies the religious debate. Marriage is a religious insitution. Great. No one can have it from the govt then. Any two consenting adults can be civilly united. Want a marriage? Find a church, synagogue, etc. But I also believe in the largest seperation possible between state and religion.
ReplyDelete2. That said, I often snicker to myself about all the people who oppose same-sex marriage but enjoy cheeseburger, cotton-poly blends, and engage in a myriad of "abominations."
3. I'm a real nerd for religious stuff and am fascinated by the way in which the bible is interpreted...the passage in Leviticus may or may not even say what we all seem to think it does.
4. Finally, YOU ARE ENGAGED? hello...i did not know this.