June 20, 2006
-
Should the Marriage Amendment be added to the U.S. Constitution? A Socrates Cafe Post
On the surface, that looks like a pretty simple question. Do you favor adding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, or don’t you? It’s far from that simple though.
To me, this is a religious and moral question and not really an appropriate issue to be addressed with a Constitutional amendment. At some level, the question is bound to the issue of whether or not being gay is morally wrong. That, in turn, is bound to the question of whether or not gay people choose to be gay.
I do not believe that gay people choose to be gay. I believe that they are born gay and that they cannot do anything about it. I do not believe that being gay is wrong because I do not believe that it is a choice. I do not see how something that a person does not choose and cannot change can be considered morally wrong. Many people would disagree with that view, and that is their right.
I do not pretend to know what it is to be gay. I am not gay. I have been married for nearly 37 years to a member of the opposite sex. To me, that is what marriage is. However, gay people don’t see it that way. They are not interested in sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Many gay people have monogamous relationships that last much longer than most heterosexual relationships. Those gays are just as committed to those relationships as I am to my marriage. They would like to have the relationships recognized. There are many choices for recognizing those relationships, but gay people would like that recognition to come in the form of marriage.
The question that I have to ask myself is whether it affects me in any way if gay people are allowed to be married. The answer that I have to give myself is no. I am not gay. I do not intend to ever marry a person of my same sex. It does not, however, affect me if others choose to do that. I am still free to live my life the way that I think best.
So what is to be gained or lost by amending the Constitution to define marriage? Why is the movement to do that taking place? In my opinion, it is an issue similar to the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal. It is an effort to force the entire country to adopt the religious beliefs of a certain segment of the population. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so.
In the case of abortion, I believe that abortion is wrong. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and I accept my church’s stance on that issue. I would not, however, vote to make abortion illegal because the entire population of the country does not belong to a religious group that has similar beliefs to mine. The United States is based on the principle of religious freedom. We are all supposed to be free to believe as we choose. That right is guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. If I want the right to follow my own beliefs, I need to respect the right of others to do that, also.
To me, the marriage amendment issue is the same type of issue. Marriage can be defined as a civil union or a religious union. In many cases in the United States, it is both. That is not true in all countries. In many places, the civil and religious ceremonies are separate and may be widely separated in time. The fact remains that, even though religious and civil unions are often created at the same time and in the same ceremony in the US, we are still looking at 2 distinct kinds of unions. Are there valid reasons why gay couples should not have civil unions? I am really not sure that there are. People should be able to form whatever legal partnerships they choose. Are there valid reasons that gay people should not form religious unions? That depends on the religion. Some religions accept it and some don’t. It should be up to each religious denomination to determine whether or not gay unions should be sanctified within a specific faith. There is no reason why each church cannot set its own policies. More than anything, in the US it is important to preserve the right to individual freedoms and beliefs.
Comments (36)
No! I think it should an issue of the various religions. If a church decides that it is willing to marry same sex people, then the government should keep their noses out of it. And yes, if we are going to recognize church marriages as official in a legal/government sense, then those marriages should be just as binding under law as male/female marriages.
You and I think pretty much alike.
I don’t find anything wrong with gay people marrying either.
Dick’s linking you now
Nance, I think your viewpoint is that of most Americans. The problem lies deep in the religious background of our culture. Our major religion (Christianity) is derived fron Judiasm and both these religions have traditionally abhored homosexuality. In more modern times this rejection has sometimes taken the stance of “Hate the sin, love the sinner” and told Gays that they had to overcome their “unnatural” practices or they were damned. I believe that is still the official Catholic policy isn’t it?
Be that as it may, the point is that our government strictly controls marriage and is greatly influenced by this religious tradition. To change this and allow Gay marriage would mean a fundimental re-interpretation of this deeply held value set.
Basic values are always subject to re-interpretation and this one seems to be undergoing such right now, but don’t expect the forces of tradition to give up without a fight.
Do you think a compromise, such as some sort of “Civil Union” is possible here?
Dick, the idea of civil union is fine with me, but I don’t think it is fine with gay people and they are the ones affected. I think they really want marriage.
As for the Catholic policy, I am not sure that there really is an official one. Some priests speak against gays and some do not. Probably very few would officiate at a gay wedding, since the Church’s policy is that marriage is for procreation. The Church is a wee bit hypocritical on the subject of gays, though, since we have always had a lot of gay clergy. In the days when most gay people tried very hard to hide the fact that they were gay, the priesthood and sisterhood were an excellent place for them to be because of the celebacy requirement. Nobody questions why a 30 year old priest or nun is not married. It is sort of like grad school. Nobody questions why a broke grad student is not married either.
A very nice post. Our positions on this issue are essentially the same I think. I would ask, however, why you consider religion and civil unions to be two distinct kinds of unions when the effect of each is the same? Also, do you have any suggestions about how the Catholic Church and the Various Protestant denominations might be stimulated to move toward a more lenient position regarding gay unions?
Reluctantsinger, I consider religious and civil unions to be separate because they are in many countries. Often, they are separate ceremonies. Many times, the civil ceremony is required but the religious one is optional. In this country, it is possible to have a completely non-religious civil ceremony that produces a legal marriage. Just because many marriages take place in church, that does not mean that religious and civil ceremonies have to go together. I am not sure that I consider the effect of the two types of ceremonies to be the same. Civil ceremonies create a binding legal contract. Religious ceremonies do that, but they also create a contract in the eyes of God. I consider that to be different. To me, to be married, the religious ceremony has to take place, but not everyone feels that way.
I really do not know what needs to happen to move churches toward a more liberal attitude toward gay unions. Possibly, people need to accept the scientific evidence that gay people are born gay. It is hard to hold someone responsible for something that is present at birth.
I love your thoughtful way of putting this together. I do, however, believe there is more at stake than the sentiment that the civil union is a 2nd class sort of pairing. Money has a way of galvanizing an issue and putting it on the table when nothing else will. I believe that gay and lesbian unions will be recognized in the end simply because this is a very powerful voting bloc with good financial resources. I am sorry that religions are so slow to turn around and look at the proof science has to offer, that sexuality is a matter of degree in many cases, that it is a biological phenomenon and that they are making perfectly decent human beings feel like outcasts.
great post have a nice day.
I agree with you on both accounts. I think that gay couples should be able to have a civil union and then perhaps some churches may do blessings but I do not see the Catholic church doing that put I think the church should realise that there are gay people out there so such accept them.
Attitudes toward homosexuality is the bottom line here.
Think about this: Thirty years ago this question would not have even been imagined by most of us, much less discussed.
I think an interesting aspect of the developing tolerance of Gays is the scramble to find scientific physical reasons for a person being a homosexual. Personally, I think homosexuality is pretty much learned behavior and has little to do with your gene structure.
By learned behavior, I don’t mean Gays teach others to be gay, rather that as a human develops, he/she seeks security and gratification and some people, for fairly complicated psychological reasons, are much more comfortable with their own sex.
They may also have learned that “normal” sexual orientation leads to undesirable results – as the boy reared in a family with husband/wife conflict where the wife’s role and activities appear more satisfactory.
Culture plays a large part here also. Consider Hebrew Culture and Greco-Roman culture in classic times. Very little mention of homosexuality in Jewish society – it was condemned, but lots of homosexual activity in Greco-Roman where it was not only tolerated, it was encouraged.
I don’t see modern America becoming a new Rome complete with orgies, but as tolerance grows, we can expect the Gay population to grow also. This in my opinion, is neither a good nor a bad thing, it’s a fact of life.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on the cause of homosexuality, Dick. It is not genetically caused, but there is a growing body of evidence that it is caused by bichemical conditions during pregnancy. Very few people believe that it is environmental. Most people who study it do not believe that it is a psychological disorder and do believe that the orientation is present at birth. In that case, society seems to be discriminating against gay people for something that is beyond their control.
I am not sure that the gay population really grows. It may be that greater numbers are becoming comfortable disclosing the fact that they are gay.
I read this whole thing and was glad to hear all sides. I also think the person is born gay. There are people who are afraid of homosexuals and there are people who resent them and persecute them. These people have other issues that they cannot address without being critised so they choose an issue that offers safety to their cruelty. The gentleness I see in my gay friends and the loyalty they share with their mates is in deep contrast with a generation that has such a large percentage of divorces. It is a deeply personal thing for gays and an issue that we should not just tolerate but try to understand.
Thank you for this post, Nancy. We need to stir our conscience and have with your help!
Nance, I think you have got it just right. It is my belief that homosexuals are born that way, by whatever hormones are most prevelant during the pregnancy. A good book to read on the subject of sexual development is “Brain Sex;” I’m not sure of the author’s name, but it is fascinating what goes on during human gestation (and animal too, but that’s not at issue here).
I also think that the gay population is growing because more homosexuals are “coming out of the closet.” I imagine that there has always been approximately the same percentage of homosexuals in the human population, they have just stayed hidden. I hope we are entering a new era where people can be evaluated on their principles instead of on race, color, creed, or some extreme ideas of beauty.
Peace.
I have done a lot of research on this subject – had to write a paper on it for a class in researching and writing long term papers – and my research led me to believe that homosexuality is something you are born with, or without. Just as some people are born left handed and some are right handed, some folks are born gay and some straight.
And, yes, I believe that the only reason there seem to be more gay people is because more of them are out of the closet. If Rock Hudson had never contractred HIV, he might have come out of the closet, long before he was dragged out due to his illness. Since then, many well known people have come out of the closet. It is accepted a little more readily these days. They are here to stay, might as well accept them, love them and put our energies into working together to make a better world than using our energies to condemn one another just because we don’t understand each other.
So, yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you said regarding homosexuality and civil and religious unions. And, yes, the subject is very close to me because my son is gay. And a totally awesome person who is very involved in, loved and accepted, by his church.
)
I just dont know what to say. I believe it’s a sin .And that God teaches against it. I feel sad for the gays but i dont feel like they should be reconized for the same marriage rites that we do. I pray for them and love them i have a son that is gay . I pray for him daily to turn and repent .But as far as mistreat them i would not on purpose i try to show them love as i do anyone else.
I’d like to throw in a little connundrum. Like many of you, I feel that sexual orientation is present at birth. On the other hand, a same-sex marriage ceremony would also include bisexuals who want to have same-sex unions. Since these people do have a choice between hetero- or homosexual unions, does this become a moral issue? If so, does that change anything about the approach that should be taken to homosexual marriages?
BlackSockCerulean, that is a very interesting question. However, from a legal standpoint, which is what we are talking about with a Constitutional amendment, I do not know what difference it would make if the same-sex couple were gay or bisexual. Aren’t we all supposed to have the same rights under the Constitution? From the religious standpoint, religions that accept same sex gay marriage would accept same sex bisexual marriage. Religions that don’t accept same sex gay marriage would not accept same sex bisexual marriage.
I agree for the most part, but believe being gay is in the genetics, ie: xyx, an extra chromosome. How are you?
Hi, Nance. Great post, and I agree that the answer is no to any such Constitutional amendment. Whether a person is straight, or gay, or bi, it still seems clear that a marriage amendment amounts to one segment of society imposing its religious beliefs on another segment of society. And personally, I don’t see that the issue of whether gayness is genetic or by choice is even relevant to the discussion. (Not that it’s even an issue; I agree: genetic.)
You make some very valid points. I have always viewed the people I know who are gay as people — not gays. It is just so unfair when someone has invested decades of his/her life to a committed relationship with someone else — to be denied certain human rights just because they are the same sex.
Sometimes laws that look good in the beginning are twisted and become nightmares. In the 1800′s, compulsory education laws were instituted to give the right to all American children to have an education. A little over 100 years later, this same law was used as an excuse to take children away from families who chose alternate education. Thank God that society has changed it’s opinion of homeschooling in the last 20 years, but how many families had to suffer because the lawgivers execute the law without accounting for humanity itself?
One of the (many) problems I see with this whole argument is that one side is trying to make one certain group’s ethics the law, which is ridiculous. As you said, who are gay couples hurting by wanting to be recognized as married? Not I. The other side claims it’s a “human rights” issue and not a gay one and they’re right, to a point. The problem is, where does it end? NAMBLA is also saying that their cause is a human rights issue too. If the marriage proposal (no pun intended) becomes a law, it’s just wrong to force one group’s values on everyone else. But if homosexual marriage becomes a legal right, will that law open the way for child molesters and others to “do their thing” legally?
Does that seem strange? Consider the fact that a child (underaged dependent) can obtain birth control or have an abortion without consent or notification of the parent or legal guardian?
So what is the answer here? I just don’t know.
I hold that there is not one single legal arguement that would show that gay marriage should be outlawed or banned.
RYC I agree with everything you have said, the philosophies in and of themselves are not dangerous. It is when they are carried to the extreme that they become dangerous.
This is such a fascinating discussion. I have heard one doctor describe sexuality (physical orientation and characteristics) not as an either/or thing, but as a sliding scale, say, with, for example, ultra feminine (physical, mental and emotional characteristics) being one end of the scale and butch lesbian being on the other end of the scale and most of us somewhere in between. The amount of each hormone that is normal for our individual bodies varies from individual to individual. There was a person I knew whose parents had to decide whether to make their baby a boy or girl; they could have gone either way. What they decided was for this person to be female; she is tiny and small boned, has breasts and a regular menses, but has a lot of body and facial hair, a deep voice, and is a lesbian. I do not think she chose the body she was born into. To call her a sinner would just be wrong, from where I stand. I think people like her are G-d’s experiential challenge to us to realize that our physical bodies are so temporary that we need to look beyond the xx or xy to the person within.
Simone seems to have returned to Xanga. I thought you would want to know.
How might one become a part of the Socrates Cafe?
RYC: I think I found it, thank you!
Because she posted on her other site yesterday.
In this age of superficial relationships and the divorce rate climbing, I find it heartwarming that gay couples want that commitment. Why should we take offense.
I miss your blogs!!!!
I agree with you about this issue. I think had they used the word Commitment ceremony such a fuss would of been hard to make. It amazes me how so many sit in judgement of the homosexual lifestyle. How many of them have rejected family or freinds when they came out of the closet?
This sounds well balanced , Nancy . But finally you remain expectating . What would be happen if a majority of people was ” gay ” ? USA would become like the antic Greece ???
For me tis question is a bit underlined .
I hope you have great holidays .
Love
Michel
The UK recently passed a law permitting same-sex parners to enter into a “civil union”, which is effectively the same as a legal form of marriage. Basically it allows the partner to have the same inheritance rights, and the same authority of “next-of-kin” in medical matters, as a spouse would have. You may remember that Elton John was one of the first to take advantage of the new law.
I am not sure whether same-sex “marriages” are right in a moral sense, but I cannot see any argument against them in a legal sense.
Ah the medical field once again has a cause for something that ills man.Being the last one to throw stones still doesnt change my mind. I dont believe we need an amendment. Let the states handle it as they see it.Reading one post about changing values reminds me of what one book says about changing it.Thats a choice we have to make too.Hot Dogs were going to kill me, then the red in M&M’s , now its a chemical imbalance and your Gay. No, I have to disagree but thats what makes us America. The right to disagree, but still think your a wonderful person. You have a great weekend.
Where have you gone, miss you. Love to you.
I miss you!
Dear Internet Islander,
I’m trying something new this week, so please excuse the fact that I’m sending this same message to you and to all the Internet Islanders as a comment. I just wanted to announce that there is a NEW TOPIC POST at the Island. You can get there by clicking this link. Please drop by and see what kind of “imaginative” topic post I’ve created this week. I sure hope you participate! We seem to get stronger with each Topic Post.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
BlogRing Leader for the “Internet Island”