On the way back from visiting my grandparents today, I listened to a discussion on NPR's "Fresh Air" concerning Massachusett's judiciary ruling that forbidding homosexual marriage is unconstitutional in that state.
I find this troubling in several ways (and not just in a "court legislating" concept).
First of all is our understanding of what "discrimination" is. I've been telling my students that discrimination occurs when one group of people forcibly or legally prevents another group of people from being able to do something that is within the second group's natural ability. While much of the argument around this ruling seems to be about discrimination, I wonder if that is an accurate accusation or description. Historically, traditionally, whatever, marriage has been, at minimum, a contractual agreement of commitment between a husband and wife, the husband being male and the wife female. (Despite jokes about who wears the pants in a family, to my knowledge, no man has yet legally argued to be considered the wife, nor vice versa.) The argument for homosexual marriage appears to claim that recognizing such a union with "special rights" or privileges amounts to discrimination against homosexual couples.
But is it truly discrimination when the two individuals who wish to enter into a contract do not meet the definition of the parties involved in such a contract? There are certain things that I may not legally do, due to my status as a single, childless male. I may not file my taxes as married, nor may I claim any dependants as extra exemptions. Should I be allowed to claim as many exemptions as I feel that I need in order to make my tax payment or return something more to my liking? Additionally, since I am not yet 35, I may not run for President of the United States, even though I am a natural-born citizen. Am I being discriminated against by the government of either my nation or my state? Why set the minimum age limit for President at 35? I can vote in and die for my country? Why cannot I lead? Yet it is absurd to think that I am being denied any kind of right in these situations: I do not fit the description of those who may apply rightfully. The same is true for a homosexual union. In a homosexual relationship, there cannot be a husband and wife in the accepted meanings of the words: a man cannot be a wife; a woman cannot be a husband. (So really, in creating homosexual marriage we would have to be redefining a minimum of three words, rendering much of the writings of history indistinguishable and inexplicible to future generations in the process.) A wife alone is not a marriage. A husband alone is not a marriage. One gender cannot comprise "marriage."
Several years ago in Vermont, the state supreme court demanded what resulted in civil unions by viewing the issue as being about benefits rights. I do not know what the laws of Vermont are, but can cohabiting heterosexual couples receive the same benefits as married (or civil union) couples? Following in the thought and tradition of the new unions, would that not be a form of discrimination against cohabitors? Many cohabiting couples are surely as "committed" to one another many of those who marry, perhaps more so, considering the divorce rate in our nation.
If marriage (or civil unions or whatever) are truly about benefits, what is to prevent two friends without any sexual intentions whatsoever from simply engaging in a legally recognized union for the sake of tax, health or any other kind of benefits? Wouldn't that technically be acceptable? But that would seem to cause marriage to become a strictly financial concept. Yet "marriage" would seem to indicate much more than a mutually beneficial financial agreement. Otherwise cohabiting heterosexual couples would more readily get a license and embrace the title for the sake of money.
By redefining marriage, could we not be the ones discriminating against those who are already married? Would we not be taking their term, reserved thus far in all of recorded history to describe their particular unity, and altering its meaning for the sake of a few who wish to be recognized for a non-traditional sexual activity? This is not acting on the part of the "greater good" of society. This is selfishness, imposing the desires of a few on society as a whole.
But apart from that and no matter your opinion on the topic, there is something more troubling to me. Despite the assertions on "Fresh Air" that rulings on homosexual marriage will continue to be a state-by-state decision, the Massachusetts supreme court has actually dictated policy for the nation. States recognize marriages performed in other states. If I'm married in Wisconsin, I'm still married if I move to South Carolina, Washington, Hawaii, or any other state. However, if a homosexual couple marries in Massachusetts and then moves to any other state that bans homosexual marriage, that couple will be able to sue for recognition of their marriage. If that suit occurs in a state where the ban is part of the state constitution, the suit will almost certainly and automatically be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and its decision will be binding across the Union. Massachusetts has, unfortunately, thrown down a gauntlet to the rest of the nation.
Despite all that, I have to say that I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a national constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is not something that ought to be that big. It ought to be common sense. Apparently it is not, so many feel that further definition on a nationally-binding scale is necessary. Yet an ammendment sounds to me like something that could result in a situation similar to Prohibition, where we strictly outlaw something nationwide only to cause it to prosper illegally and eventually force a repeal.
I hate politics and hate having to think about these things. :-( "Why did the ring ever come to me?"
Posted by at February 5, 2004 6:09 PM