Thursday, February 12, 2004
Gay Marriage
From a social standpoint, I'm fairly liberal (and from an economic standpoint, I am, too, if you use the traditional defintion of the term "liberal" and not the bipolar definition derived from America's partisan politics). My knee-jerk response to the issue of gay marriage was: fine. Let two adults figure out the best way to make themselves a happy life, even if it's a choice not taken by the vast majority of people on earth. Frankly, that doesn't matter, as it is THEIR life. Their homosexuality doesn't affect me in the least.
I also think it is valid for two people to make a commitment to one another that says they will always be there financially for the other, or that the other will be responsible for making critical decisions when one of them is incapacitated. A gay man or woman is likely to be closest to a member of the same gender, so it makes sense for them to have the right to specify that that person has the right to make those decisions.
One might then think that I support gay marriage (I certainly support civil unions). My true opinion on the matter, however, is: I'm not sure. There is a valid case to be made that marriage is something special in that it is designed to encourage families that have members of BOTH genders because that is better, in the long run, for children. Gay men and women aren't any less capable of raising children, but that doesn't mean that it isn't BETTER to have parents of different genders raising children.
In other words, if marriage is viewed as a way to encourage the best possible environment in which kids can be raised, then it seems valid to restrict it to heterosexual couples. Civil unions SHOULD be legal, and I would even go so far as to say that they SHOULD be allowed to adopt (though I might argue that preference be given to heterosexual couples, and NOT because I think gay couples are "dangerous" to kids). But if I'm right, then marriage should be kept heterosexual.
Like I said, I've not reached a conclusion on the subject. I have concluded, however, that it's a bad idea for us to have another "right" created by judicial fiat.
I don't think abortion should be illegal. Granted, lots of people who are very close to me think I'm wrong in this, but I have trouble granting the same rights to a 2-month old fetus that is granted to an adult woman (though I DO have more trouble with abortion after the first trimester, as I explain later).
Abortion, however, is a HUGELY controversial issue to such an extent that it is, for all intents and purposes, not available in most of America simply because few doctors are willing to put up with the hassle. That is because America legalized abortion by judicial fiat, and that judicial fiat leaves no room for compromise on the legalization of abortion during the full nine months of pregnancy.
Europe has legalized abortion, too, but in most cases it is far more restricted than is the case in America. They have waiting periods, or only allow it within the first trimester. These compromises were the result of debates that took place in European legislatures, resulting in a compromise that is acceptable to MOST people. Pro-life movements exist, but they aren't the angry and contentious things that exist in America.
This puts the American debate into a different setting. Pro-choice advocates can't compromise on the full nine months, since to do so could result in abortion being made completely illegal. There is no general consensus upon which abortion is based given that the right to it was "discovered" through a new interpretation of the constitution. To undermine that interpretation could cause the whole shaky edifice to crash to the ground.
Similarly, pro-lifers are fighting against an extremely expansive definition of the right to abortion. This puts a lot more people into the pro-life camp who might not be there if the right was more circumscribed and limited.
The manner in which abortion was legalized puts the abortion debate into an either-or situation, not a debate over a rational middle ground that might satisfy the majority.
That's why I don't think it's a good idea to make yet ANOTHER judicial fiat that legalizes marriage. As Massachussetts recent rejection of a compromise bill that would legalize civil unions while banning gay marriage shows, the issue is already hugely politicized because people don't like having something imposed upon them that they didn't agree to. For most of the history of Massachussetts, the constitution has been interpreted as disallowing gay marriage. Suddenly, an activist court has created a new interpretation, and the people of Massachusetts aren't allowed to do much of anything about it.
It would be FAR better to continue with the compromise that American states had already started to work upon. Vermont legalized civil unions, and did so WITHOUT state supreme court justices "discovering" some new right to gay marriage. Such a compromise is vastly preferable to an outcome that will just create a new situation as politicized and angry as the question of the right to abortion.
If the state supreme court didn't have the full legalization of gay marriage hanging over the legislature's head, they MIGHT have passed a law that legalized civil unions. Instead, the issue is turning into a fight to the death, and what we may end up with is an extreme outcome that leads to conflict for decades to come.
From a social standpoint, I'm fairly liberal (and from an economic standpoint, I am, too, if you use the traditional defintion of the term "liberal" and not the bipolar definition derived from America's partisan politics). My knee-jerk response to the issue of gay marriage was: fine. Let two adults figure out the best way to make themselves a happy life, even if it's a choice not taken by the vast majority of people on earth. Frankly, that doesn't matter, as it is THEIR life. Their homosexuality doesn't affect me in the least.
I also think it is valid for two people to make a commitment to one another that says they will always be there financially for the other, or that the other will be responsible for making critical decisions when one of them is incapacitated. A gay man or woman is likely to be closest to a member of the same gender, so it makes sense for them to have the right to specify that that person has the right to make those decisions.
One might then think that I support gay marriage (I certainly support civil unions). My true opinion on the matter, however, is: I'm not sure. There is a valid case to be made that marriage is something special in that it is designed to encourage families that have members of BOTH genders because that is better, in the long run, for children. Gay men and women aren't any less capable of raising children, but that doesn't mean that it isn't BETTER to have parents of different genders raising children.
In other words, if marriage is viewed as a way to encourage the best possible environment in which kids can be raised, then it seems valid to restrict it to heterosexual couples. Civil unions SHOULD be legal, and I would even go so far as to say that they SHOULD be allowed to adopt (though I might argue that preference be given to heterosexual couples, and NOT because I think gay couples are "dangerous" to kids). But if I'm right, then marriage should be kept heterosexual.
Like I said, I've not reached a conclusion on the subject. I have concluded, however, that it's a bad idea for us to have another "right" created by judicial fiat.
I don't think abortion should be illegal. Granted, lots of people who are very close to me think I'm wrong in this, but I have trouble granting the same rights to a 2-month old fetus that is granted to an adult woman (though I DO have more trouble with abortion after the first trimester, as I explain later).
Abortion, however, is a HUGELY controversial issue to such an extent that it is, for all intents and purposes, not available in most of America simply because few doctors are willing to put up with the hassle. That is because America legalized abortion by judicial fiat, and that judicial fiat leaves no room for compromise on the legalization of abortion during the full nine months of pregnancy.
Europe has legalized abortion, too, but in most cases it is far more restricted than is the case in America. They have waiting periods, or only allow it within the first trimester. These compromises were the result of debates that took place in European legislatures, resulting in a compromise that is acceptable to MOST people. Pro-life movements exist, but they aren't the angry and contentious things that exist in America.
This puts the American debate into a different setting. Pro-choice advocates can't compromise on the full nine months, since to do so could result in abortion being made completely illegal. There is no general consensus upon which abortion is based given that the right to it was "discovered" through a new interpretation of the constitution. To undermine that interpretation could cause the whole shaky edifice to crash to the ground.
Similarly, pro-lifers are fighting against an extremely expansive definition of the right to abortion. This puts a lot more people into the pro-life camp who might not be there if the right was more circumscribed and limited.
The manner in which abortion was legalized puts the abortion debate into an either-or situation, not a debate over a rational middle ground that might satisfy the majority.
That's why I don't think it's a good idea to make yet ANOTHER judicial fiat that legalizes marriage. As Massachussetts recent rejection of a compromise bill that would legalize civil unions while banning gay marriage shows, the issue is already hugely politicized because people don't like having something imposed upon them that they didn't agree to. For most of the history of Massachussetts, the constitution has been interpreted as disallowing gay marriage. Suddenly, an activist court has created a new interpretation, and the people of Massachusetts aren't allowed to do much of anything about it.
It would be FAR better to continue with the compromise that American states had already started to work upon. Vermont legalized civil unions, and did so WITHOUT state supreme court justices "discovering" some new right to gay marriage. Such a compromise is vastly preferable to an outcome that will just create a new situation as politicized and angry as the question of the right to abortion.
If the state supreme court didn't have the full legalization of gay marriage hanging over the legislature's head, they MIGHT have passed a law that legalized civil unions. Instead, the issue is turning into a fight to the death, and what we may end up with is an extreme outcome that leads to conflict for decades to come.
