United Liberty
The Trouble with the Government in our Bedrooms
Fri, 11/21/2008 - 2:28pm | posted by Paige Michael-Shetley
One of the most explosive topics in the post-election public discourse has been Proposition 8 on the California state ballot, which passed. The initiative amends the State Constitution of California to read:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
As in 2004, when a number of states passed initiatives to define marriage as between a man and a woman, Prop 8 has re-ignited the debate on gay marriage almost immediately after the Presidential election. Gay rights groups have organized protests around the country condemning Prop 8 and demanding marriage equality. Andrew Sullivan has been on top of the developments.
Meanwhile, social conservatives are using the issue as a rallying call to push forward their agenda. In an interview on the O’Reilly Factor last night, Newt Gingrich proclaimed “There is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us,” taking a few isolated incidents of protestor behavior crossing the line. In the epitome of spin, Gingrich and O’Reilly spin the issue as “gays” and “secularists” wishing to somehow take away freedom, when in fact the goal of gay rights activists is exactly the opposite.
Both sides completely miss the mark with their arguments. Social conservatives have been eager to pass government initiatives to “preserve traditional marriage.” Gay rights activists have been motivated, honorably, by the desire for equality before the law. But their framing of the issue is flawed, and the nature of each side’s efforts on the issue works against their respective interests.
Social conservatives who seek to define marriage through law want an expansion of government power that sets a dangerous precedent. If the government has the power to define private institutions, why can’t it acquire the power to increasingly regulate speech or even free exercise of religion? By putting so much emphasis on passing Constitutional amendments to define marriage, they’re pursuing a very short-sighted action that could ultimately compromise their interests and will lose them many friends they may need in the future when the state is coercing their rights.
At the same time, gay rights activists must change their approach to the matter. The fundamental issue itself isn’t the institution of marriage; it’s the enforcement of contracts. By aiming for marriage “equality” in the letter of the law, gay rights activists are effectively making the same attempt that social conservatives are making, which is to legally define marriage.
From a civil perspective, marriage is only relevant as a contractual association between two individuals promoting each side’s economic interests through pooled resources, distribution of inheritance, and (often) lowering of income tax burdens. The gay rights lobby should be pushing for equality before the law in enforcement of contractually-arranged same-sex domestic partnerships while acknowledging and respecting the fact that marriage is a private, and historically religious, institution. They will add many new supporters to their ranks, and they will accomplish the real substance of their goals.
The debate on gay marriage is a tremendous opportunity for a discussion on the proper role of governemnt and the value it creates for all members of society. A government established to enforce contracts and protect individual rights to life, liberty, and propery allows everyone to make their own choices as long as their choices do not coerce others’ freedom. Such a governemnt, in the current context, allows people to form contracts with whomever they wish while respecting the rights of private institutions to define their associations as they please. It is this mainstream acceptance of this realization that will move our country beyond this divisive clash and focus our attention to the pressing issues that affect all of us substantially.
Well done, Paige.
That is the most stupid, ridiculous comment I have ever read. Gay people just want to be like everyone else - what a bunch of absolute lunatics you all are. Grow up.
I’m not sure what your issue is with my post. I’m not arguing that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens; quite the contrary, in fact.
If you actually read and digest my article, I argue that gay people should be allowed to form contractual domestic associations, and that those contracts should be enforced by the state just as marriage contracts are.
The trouble rests not with the government in our bedrooms. Rather the trouble rests with government in our wallets.
Gays seek collectivist money absconded from the citizenry by the Collectivist Government.
This money takes the form of Social Security retirement cash as surviving spouses qualify to collect from the account of a deceased spouse.
Digging under the covers, you shall find that lesbian women, 50 and over, have the biggest want for the extra-privilege of same sex marriage and the surviving spouse status.
Homosexual males with their looser ways of living care far less having such status and privilege.
Thus, the extra-privilege of gay marriage comes down to money, not inherent rights.
Simply, if Americans pushed to repeal the 16th Amendment, which legalized Marxist income taxation, none of this would surface as an issue.
In such were true, government would lack the means to collectivize and dig into the pockets of the people, thus buying factional support through collectivist schemes like Social(ist) Security.
Actually, it IS an issue of inherent rights. All people have the right to form contractual associations with whomever they wish.
this has all boiled down to greed and envy and covetness of what others have, I see the point of defending contracts but the DOMA bill signed by clinton in 1996 defines the word Marriage as a union between one man and one woman, that is on the Federal level, now, as to the state level, it is left up to each state as how they manage this, but no state has to recognize ssm from any other state, there is where we have an issue, if a contract valid in one state is to be past into the other states it has to have a legal reference point, So now we have a binding legal contract wording issue for the ssm equality, not a Government or Religious issue but a lawyers and english language issue, what will the new contract for ss partners be called so that all are comfortable with voting on a national level to make it so, the heat comes on when traditional marriage is threatened… civil rights are after all based on a fundemental freedom, But that freedom shall not remove the right for one man and one woman to enjoy the Marriage as it shall remain, a union between one man and one woman, anything else is either common law or civil union contract between partners, protect Marriage countrywide and give civil unions the wording to make it legal from state to state so we can get on to important issues,
While Paige Michael-Shetley’s posting displays a great deal of thought on this issue there is one critical component that is missing in this arguement. Words chosen to define a concept matter.
The New Jersey State Supreme Court in their decision pertaining to a lawsuit by same-sex couples wishing to marry decided that the word “marriage” wasn’t important as long as the legal vehicle honoring the contractual agreement between same sex couples carried the same rights as that of marriage. Civil Unions were then instituted in New Jersey. Hospitals have denied visitation and decision-making authority to civil union partners, employers have denied insurance coverage to civl union partners and passports bearing common surnames were denied by the Federal government while same sex married couples from Massachuets have fared better in most (but not all) of these instances due to DOMA. Pension survivor benefits for civil union benefits are still not equal to those of married couples and an individual serving in the military who has a legal New Jersey civil union still cannot disclose this relationship without risking their military career. NJ state taxes must be filed as married and separate single Federal tax returns have to be filed increasing the cost for compliance with tax laws. Instead of improving life for same sex couples, civil unions have only added another layer of complexity to their lives.
The term “Marriage” is an established concept. Yes, it has been traditionally utilized for opposite sex couples but the rights and obligations associated with it are clear. The United State tried to deal with another matter of inequality in the past by establishing a policy of “Separate but Equal”. That didn’t work and ultimately resulted in years of continued discrimination and injustice. Why would civil unions (or whatever you call it other than marriage) be any different?
VK,
from the perspective of government, there should be absolutely no discrimination in the law or its enforcement.
However, it’s a violation of the property rights of businesses and private hospitals to force them to offer/grant certain terms in contracts. While businesses shouldn’t discriminate against same-sex partnerships, same-sex couples are not entitled to benefits from private firms and agents, and neither are opposite-sex couples. No one is entitled to have a job or health insurance. If you want to fight injustice in this form, fight it through public awareness.
I suggest that we limit the question to: “What are the appropriate roles ot local, state and federal governments in heterosexal marriage?” At this point let us leave out the issue of gay marriage. My answer to the question is “none”. It is a matter of fairness to the single people that are being forced to pay for the current marriage benefits.
I say benefits to married and single or benefits to neither.
Besides I can’t believe that financial incentives are a significant factor in couples’ decisions to get married.
Post new comment