Warning: boring political post to follow...read at your own risk!
So, many of you have probably heard about the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is an amendment to the state constitution of California which prevents gay marriage by defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The debate was heated (to say the least) and the measure eventually passed. And I'm still not sure what to think about it.
On one hand, this can be seen as a clear victory for the traditional family. It's no secret that a good family is a very important factor in child development, and while I'm sure gay couples can make good, loving parents, it's not clear what impact this arrangement would have on children. We read all the time about the struggles of children who grow up without a father to serve as a male role-model, and in a family with two mothers, it's not clear how this situation would be resolved. (Although, gay couples are allowed to adopt children, even if they are not married and there doesn't seem to be any way of preventing a lesbian couple from getting pregnant and then raising the child together). In any case, there is a strong case to make for the traditional family. For many people, there are also religious reasons for opposing gay marriages.
The flip side of this argument is a slightly heady question about the role of laws in our society, which, although it is slightly abstract, is nonetheless important. As far as I can determine, laws may be one of two types: 1) laws which exist to protect individual freedoms and property and 2) laws which exist to guarantee that citizens behave in a morally acceptable way. For example, laws against murder fall under the first category because these laws protect a basic right of the citizens of this country. Helmet laws, for instance, are an example of the second kind of law; if I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet it is a foolish decision, but my decision is not directly infringing on the rights of anyone else. If I were killed in an accident while riding without a helment, it would cause great distress and sadness for my family and friends and for the other driver. In light of this sadness, we can say that it is unethical for me to ride without a helmet. Even so, it does not violate anyone's rights; sadly, we do not have the right to avoid sorrow.
I think that in general, laws ought to be construed as means to protect individual liberties, and that actions which do not directly infringe upon the rights of other should be legal, no matter how foolish or morally repugnant we find them. By this line of reasoning, drunk driving should be illegal because it can violate the rights of others, but being drunk, while not exactly an honorable thing, should be legal, so long as the "drunkard" does not harm anyone.
My qualm about the passage of Proposition 8 is that it seems to be a law of the second category. It limits the freedoms of a certain minority group (in this case, homosexual couples) without protecting anyone else's rights. Or in other words, gay marriage, which does not, in any obvious way, infringe upon the rights of others, was made illegal because the majority of voters consider it wrong. Even if it is wrong, I'm not sure it should be illegal.
Let's consider a parallel example. Mormons are a religious minority in this country, so presumably, for most non-Mormons, a wedding performed in a Mormon temple (aka, a sealing) is really no big deal. For members of the LDS church, however, it is extremely important. What if the majority of voters in CA, for some reason, decided that they thought temple-weddings should be illegal and voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as "the union of a man and a women that is not performed in a Mormon temple"? Sound far fetched? It is. It is very far-fetched and there's no way it's going to happen, but it is a parallel example. The simple fact is that in the case of Proposition 8, we have an example of the majority dictating what is allowed and what is not allowed based on their beliefs. It may seem fine as long as you're in the majority who's calling the shots, but it's a raw deal if you're in the minority.
The US Constitution has typically been
amended to either address some procedural question or to grant more freedom and rights to the citizens of the country: 1-10 - the Bill of Rights, 13 - the abolition of slavery, 15 - sufferage not restricted by race, 19 - women's sufferage, 26 - lowers voting age to 18. The 18th amendment, which enforced the prohibition of alcohol, restricted freedom, but did so across the board, to all citizens of the country. Now, Proposition 8 was an amendment to the state constitution of CA, and not to the US Constitution, but nevertheless, I worry that it sets a bad precedent to use the constitution of the state to target and restrict the rights of a minority group. I hope that the minority groups (religious, political, etc.) to which I belong are never suppressed by the constitution of my state.
This post is a little out of keeping with the general tone of this e-blog, I know. But I have been thinking about this a lot. I think, in the end, the big question is not whether gay marriage is right or wrong. The big question we have to answer is whether or not it should be legal to do things that are wrong, provided they don't violate the rights of others. Should the majority have the right to decide how the minority should live? I'm not sure, but I worry that Proposition 8 may have set a dangerous precedent.
Think I'm way off base? Any thoughts to share? Leave your comments below.
Read more...
