Proposition 8
>> 06 November 2008
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.
7 comments:
I follow your reasoning, and I would agree with you, except for the Church's position on gay marriage. In the Church, we believe that marriage is sacred, that it is ordained of God, and that it is only between a man and a woman. While I don't have a problem with gay couples having all of the legal rights that come with marriage, I do have a problem with calling it marriage, because it violates the sacred nature of the covenant of marriage. I'm glad that the government of California has taken a stand to protect the sanctity of marriage. I appreciate the fact that our country is still willing to take a moral stand on certain issues.
Thanks Joel, good thoughtful reasoning. If I can, I'd like to add another element to this discussion, and that is the role of church vs. state.
It seems like somewhere in the last few centuries, marriage as a religious ceremony became a convenient way for law makers to define the relationship between husband and wife and thus the laws protecting their relationship and those affected by it. I guess one of the issues that I have with this amendment is that it is using the state and majority vote to pass what in effect is a religious definition. If we are going to start shaping religious beliefs with state law, then that seems like a dangerous precedent to me.
Also, let me add that is appears that the "rights" of the gay and lesbian community are intact through civil unions, which carry the same weight as a married couple, yet not the same status.
I do believe in protecting the sanctity of marriage, and I do think it is in the best interest of society to do so as well. Seems like a slippery slope though to start legislating religious perspectives.
Here is some very good reading.
March 1980 Ensign.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f8a4615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
I wish I could find another more recent article that I read that deals with the issues of laws that govern moral issues but I can't find it right now. I will come back and post it later if I come across it again.
Joel- your blog is funny.
Using the unknown of the affects of gay parenthood to argue against gay marriage is the fallacy of appealing to fear and/or tradition. We should never subject a minority group's rights to what we see as the good of society anyway, much less if there is no actual evidence.
Also, since no viable argument against gay marriage can be made that does not appeal to religious texts, legislating against it contradicts our own doctrine of allowing people to "worship how, where or what they may."
We do not own the concept of marriage. Our doctrine is that only temple marriages are valid in the eternities, so what difference does it make?
I watched the election results come in Tuesday night with some gay friends who are married and have a little girl. And it sucked. Civil unions write a second class of citizenship into the law.
It's important to realize that this wasn't an act of the state legislature. It was a ballot measure voted on by all California voters.
On another note, consider the backlash since Proposition 8 passed. Several religious and civic groups supported Prop 8, but we, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, were the most visible and probably the most involved. Now that Prop 8 has passed, we've become the target of the protests, the vandalism, and the threats. Other churches and other groups who were just as involved but in more quiet ways are now free to celebrate how they want. But consider the LA temple. Opponents of Prop 8 marched on the temple and continue picketing outside. Let them. But vandalizing the walls and the grounds? That's a little overboard if you ask me.
If this were a protest against Prop 8 opponents or against another religious group, it would be seen as a hate crime. But because the Mormons are "bigots," it's alright.
What I don't understand is how opponents of Prop 8 can call for tolerance of their own practices or beliefs, while they refuse to tolerate the beliefs of everyone else. Reminds me of Animal Farm--we're all equal, it's just that some are more equal than others. Once everyone truly respects and tolerates (even if they don't embrace) the practices of others, then we'll stop passing laws that seem overly restrictive.
I understand that it's a small group of Prop 8 opponents that is responsible for the protests and the vandalism. I'm grateful for the majority of Prop 8 opponents who peacefully and respectfully take steps to change what they see as an unfair law. They're the ones who make this country a better place, just as are those who peacefully and respectfully worked to support Prop 8.
Our bishop spoke to us today about an address given by President Maxwell in the late 70's.
Here is a link to the article
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6197
I still can't find the other article I was looking for.
Post a Comment