As we are all aware, an amazing thing happened on November 4th. History was undoubtedly made and America’s took a step forward on its path to social progressivism by electing its first minority president. By November 5th, we had taken three steps back.
In perhaps the most heated social debate in the election season, with millions in spending on both sides, bans on marriage of homosexual couples were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. While I feel the passing of these measures were blatant and unjust impositions that effectively disenfranchised a recognized minority from their basic civil liberties, the dynamics of this election cycle have raised some interesting questions that strike the core of our democratic system. Are we essentially a morally conservative or theocratic democracy? Is it just for our legislation to forcibly shape the moral fiber of our society? And how far are individual liberties protected from the tyranny of the majority vote? When should the will of the people be overturned to protect our basic freedoms?
Although undoubtedly clouded by a biased view, I cannot understand the basis for Proposition 8 nor for its overwhelming support. If the controversy were merely an issue of religious conservatism, I would think that with our constitutional rights to freedom of religion would come protection from theocratic imposition. If the issue is centered about the notion of social structuring, as it seems to be, then, I ask, how is homosexuality disrupting the flow of our society? Surely, it’s not a problem of under-population, and the 50% divorce rate has already interrupted our traditional family unit (not to mention that marriage need not be defined by raising offspring). Again, I wonder, what gives? (Pardon the colloquialism.)
However, there is hope as California officials are urging the state Supreme Court to quickly see lawsuits looking to overturn the ban. With a bit of luck and public support, this sanction on civil liberties will be long forgotten.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/gay.marriage.court.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So I was going to post my blog entry about Proposition 8, and then I saw that Tom Rags already had it covered. So I just wanted to say that I agree whole heartedly and here is another (perhaps slightly angrier) take on it:
8 ÷ 2 = Un(4)tunate
November 4, 2008 marked a momentous day in our nation’s history. Unfortunately, a day of celebration for some was tainted by a loss of rights for others. In California, voters had the opportunity to vote for or against 12 state propositions while casting their ballot for president. The subjects of the propositions ran the gamut from alternative energy to criminal justice. Seven passed and five failed. I was discussing the results of two of particular propositions with a friend the other day, Proposition 2 which set higher standards for the humane confinement of farm animals (and passed) and Proposition 8 that proposed the elimination of the rights of same-sex couples to marry (and also passed!), and she said to me, “We gave more rights to animals, and took away rights from people.”
I was mad about the fact that Proposition 8 passed but when I began the research to write this entry, I became even angrier/amused. According the website of California’s Secretary of State, the official title and summary of Proposition 8 “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry”. Wow! Since when can we eliminate rights? Rawls would so not be down with that. And furthermore, where was the “liberal media elite” when we needed them? Why did they settle for referring to Proposition 8 instead of Elimination of Rights for 10% of the Population?
Why do we bother to treat animals humanely when we can’t even do the same for our fellow human beings? I think some people in California (and Florida and Arizona) need to read some Rawls pronto: focus on the first principle please.
This issue is definitely a divisive one that may not receive closure any time soon. And the reason why this issue will continue to be contentious, I believe, is that both sides are simplifying their argument. Most conservatives want to promote the traditional definition of marriage along with its sanctity, while most liberals want to prevent the elimination of the right for same-sex couples to marry.
When both sides refuse to admit that the issue could involve more complexity, nothing will get done. Conservatives should realize that their stance on this issue is mostly founded upon religion, but, as Tom Rags argued, it is possible that the state shouldn't impose, even indirectly, a religious view upon a minority.
Liberals, on the other hand, face the same problem. Maybe it's not so simple to represent gay marriage as an unquestionable "inequality" of rights between straight and gay people. Consider the following interesting argument: in states permitting civil unions but not same-sex marriages, gay people and straight people do have the same marriage rights. Each gay person has the right to a civil union with a member of the same sex and the right to a marriage with a member of the opposite sex. Each straight person has the right to a marriage with a member of the opposite sex and the right to a civil union with a member of the same sex.
Now, before I reap heaps of criticism accusing me of homophobia, hear me out: If the above argument holds truth, then supporters of same-sex marriage need to travel a different route to justify their claims. Instead of arguing that Proposition 8 has taken rights away from gays, one should argue that Proposition 8 has only maintained the status quo in terms of rights, and that this status quo is unacceptable.
If we want to legalize same-sex marriage, in other words, we need to expand the rights for all people - gay and straight - to obtain marriages with a member of either sex. Straight people will then, naturally, choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, whereas gay people will naturally choose to marry someone of the same sex. But then, and only then, will gay and straight people have the same rights.
One possible avenue to obtain the right for all people to marry someone of either sex is to argue that the current set of marriage rights constitutes gender discrimination. Anna has the right to marry Carl because Anna is a woman, but Bill does not have the right to marry Carl because Bill is a man. Gender discrimination? Seems so.
Lastly, I would like to caution those who complain about the nature of Proposition 8. The process by which Proposition 8 passed was in its nature democratic, far more democratic than the laws that are passed in Washington: a popular referendum represents pure democracy, not just a democratic republic. It may seem that those who protest the outcome of Proposition 8 are protesting against this democratic political process. If the nature of same-sex marriages involves rights, then Proposition 8 never should have been put up for a popular vote in the first place, because it is not in the abilities of the people to determine rights. Protesting should have started the moment legislators decided to put Proposition 8 on the ballot, and protesting should have continued all the way through November 4. Same-sex marriage is an issue of rights than cannot be solved quickly. And it will not be solved until we realize that the issue is not about giving some people a right that they have, but rather about giving all people a right that they do not have.
Castle, I enjoy your argument that "the issue is not about giving some people a right that they have, but rather about giving all people a right that they do not have." What an interesting way to conceptualize the issue; it's true that heterosexual people don't have the right to marry those of the same gender, even if they would choose not to utilize the right anyway, and that non-heterosexuals do have the right to marry those of the opposite gender. I still believe, however, that anyone who wants a same-sex marriage should be allowed to attain one.
I agree with Split_Decision that California voters "need to read some Rawls pronto." It's clear that with Prop 8, religious groups were highly influential in passing the ban; as Jesse McKinley and Kirk Johnson write in the NYT Online, "[T]he Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties." Social conservatism has a huge base of support with those who oppose issues like gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia based on their religious beliefs. But is it truly fair to allow your personal faith dictate how rights are to be distributed? Under Rawls' veil of ignorance, we would all probably support gay marriage. Such an inequality in rights is not to the benefit of the least advantaged, as Rawls would point out, and it certainly would clash with his first principle pertaining to an even distribution of rights. Furthermore, we would all be ignorant to our religious beliefs and wouldn't be able to make decisions based on them anyway. Since Rawls claims that justice is whatever would come out of his hypothetical veil, it is apparent that non-heterosexuals deserve equal rights, including those that pertain to marriage.
Post a Comment