I admit, I am disturbed by the many protests and acts of intimidation and even violence against supporters of the recent Proposition 8 in California. In some cases, people have even lost their employment over support of the measure. While I respect the opinions of people who support gay marriage, I find the nature of some responses troubling and ironic. The LDS church and the State of Utah have been particularly targeted, the latter for boycotts, strange since (1) the measure passed by a larger margin than the number of LDS voters in California, and (2) the State of California, where the measure was passed, has not been targeted for any boycotts, while Utah has been targeted and even labeled a "hate state" by some.
In my opinion, the issue of gay marriage is not about constitutional or fundamental rights or the ability to express sexual love. It is about state recognition of a social arrangement society has deemed beneficial and therefore worthy of promotion. Studies have shown that children do best as measured by objective outcomes (education, income, crime) when raised in an environment where a mother and father are present and involved in a supportive relationship.
To promote this beneficial social contract, historically marriages were often arranged by, and for the benefit of, the extended family, community or nation (in cases of royal families), with little regard for the wishes of the couple to be married. In our culture people are free to chose their own mates, but the societal goal of marriage remains the same. The state has an interest in providing an environment in which members of the opposite sex can form stable lifelong relationships and raise children who will be good citizens.
I heard an analogy where marriage was compared to the military. Joining the military is not a natural right; only those who meet the physical and other requirements are allowed to wear the uniform, with its concomitant obligations and responsibilities. Similarly, the prerequisites to marriage are being of a certain age and finding someone of the opposite sex of a certain age who accepts joint responsibility to create a family. I believe it within the scope of public policy to decide which parties should be eligible to be recognized by the state as taking upon themselves those responsibilities. Just as society is best served by not allowing children to marry, society benefits when marriage is limited to one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, many enter into marriage without taking the marriage contract or covenant seriously, just as many take upon themselves the obligation of parenting without being married. But these failures should not detract from the ideal or policies that strengthen families and promote the fulfillment of the responsibilities taken by married couples and unintended parents. Changing the definition of marriage to mean a social arrangement of any two (or more) people who happen to be in love undermines the family, and by extension, the basis of our civilization. Such a definition erroneously focuses on the benefits received to the exclusion of the responsibilities involved.
I do not believe society should mandate whether or how consenting adults may express intimate feelings for one another, regardless of sexual orientation. This should be protected by the constitutional freedoms of assembly and association. Neither do I condone hate or intolerance based on sexual orientation. However, I do not believe that marriage should be recognized by society simply because two individuals wish to call their relationship by that name. In my opinion, turning a blind eye to the differences between such unions and traditional marriage is neither fair nor expressive of tolerance.
I would ask anyone who comments on this post to refrain from hateful or bigoted remarks directed towards the LDS Church, gays or lesbians, or any other group, as well as profanity or crude language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I haven't been able to get worked up about this issue one way or another, to be honest. I'm not sure why the state is in business of deciding who is married or not and I don't think that two men calling themselves married is going to do anyone any harm or good. And I can't figure out why both sides have determined that California is where they're going to make their last stand. Gay marriage passed in Massachusetts, for example, or Canada, and nobody seems to have noticed or cared.
Having said that, the anti-LDS reaction doesn't surprise me. A big chunk of the money used to support Prop 8 came from Utah and Mormons in general and no other equivalent group (so far as I know) made a point to organize its members to pass the proposition.
I followed the link and the guy didn't get fired from his position. His donation was made public and this caused a big outcry. This is not particularly surprising, given that he works in musical theater, which has a well-deserved reputation for having a large number of gays involved in writing, producing, etc. This was nicely parodied in The Producers. So, when there was an outcry, this guy decided to step down for the good of the theater organization. It is kind of sad, I guess, but he's not being fired or forced down.
As for counter protests against Utah and the church, this is the flip side of church members using their voices and dollars to support proposition 8. Being so visible and outspoken, they are the most obvious target of those people who were angered that the proposition passed. Right or wrong, a lot of people feel that the legislation curtailed their rights and they are angry about that.
Violence, vandalism, or any other intimidating tactics should never be condoned or allowed, but there's not much you can do about people calling you bigoted, especially not when you teach that their entire lifestyle is an abomination.
I'm not trying to make a moral judgement here about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, just explain why I think some people are so angry with the LDS church and its members.
Yes, I do understand that the LDS Church contributed a lot to the effort, but there was a fairly broad-based coalition. And, why now? As you said, CA is just one of many fronts on which this war is being fought. Above all, if you are preaching tolerance and equality, it's hypocritical if your protests, etc. step over the line and become vandalism, recrimination, or intimidation. I just hope cooler heads will prevail on both sides to keep the dialogue civil and peaceful.
As for the theater guy, I think his position had become pretty untenable. The theater company couldn't legally fire him for his stand, but practically speaking, it could have crippled them. People would call it bigotry if it were a gay person facing an analogous situation, but when it is a Mormon guy at a musical theater, it's called justice.
He didn't lose his position because he was a Mormon, he lost his position because he donated $1,000 to pass a motion that would forbid gays from getting married. Gays are a major part of the musical theater business.
I agree that protests should not include violence or intimidation. A boycott is a perfectly acceptable method of protest, however. If you found out that the residents of a certain state had donated the lion's share of money and time to passing a law forbidding LDS marriage, you would be perfectly within your rights to organize a boycott. If you found out that the director of a theater group had donated money to preserve the law of this hypothetical state, you would be within your rights to state that you would be taking your patronage elsewhere.
Ironically, I think the closest real-world analogy is polygamy. Mormons were hounded from Illinois and forced into the Mexican wilderness in no small part because society at large refused to accept their reinterpretation of the act of marriage. You know the rest of the history.
As I mentioned before, I think the state should get out of the business of defining marriage. If two people share living arrangements, whether that be a same-sex couple, a marriage, or a woman and her elderly mother, and maybe the state would give some tax advantages to that. It wouldn't declare this or that couple married, however. Religions and individuals could call whatever they wanted marriage (so long as it was between consenting adults, the FLDS child-bride thing notwithstanding).
Post a Comment