Monday, April 03, 2006
Same-sex marriage: Who's really being wicked here?
April 4 will probably witness the first real debate of equals of the ACLU-Indiana's "First Tuesday" noon series. The first pitted David Stocum (a real scientist) against a "young earth" creationist (a group pretending to imitate the scientific methods of "intelligent design" advocates, who in turn pretend to imitate what they mistakenly believe to be the methods of real scientists) ... no real contest there. The second in the series, on the limits of spying on US citizens, would have been excellent if it had come off as planned. It would have set Marian Colege professor Pierre Atlas against a very bright FBI lawyer. Unfortunately a family emergency sent Pierre out of Indy, leaving me to fill in at the last minute (leaving me, moreover, to absorb the rhetorical pummeling I had intended for Pierre when I helped recruit the FBI agent).
April 4's debate will set two near-equals against each other on a genuinely difficult issue: Should Same-sex Marriage be Legal? The two debaters are well-educated grown-ups. Walter Botich is co-chair for legislative action for Indiana Equality, "a coalition of organizations from around the state that focus on ensuring basic human rights for Indiana’s LGBT citizens." (If you don't already know that LGBT = "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered," Indiana Equality would surely recommend some background readings.)
Curt Smith (an erstwhile overlord at Hudson Institute) is head of the Indiana Family Institute, one of the cluster of very influential "family policy councils" across the country inspired by James Dobson. IFI's mission is pretty clear: "Preserve pro-family policy already within State Government an
d push for additional policies that will strengthen Indiana families." And unlike the proponents of "intelligent design," Curt's group is relatively straightforward in its "statement of faith": they are trying to impose a very specific religious dogma on public policy. ID supporters disingenuously pretend to be objective scientists, so there's no such statement of faith on the Discovery Institute's website.
That doesn't keep Curt and his crew from playing at being social scientists. (Don't get me started on the selective and systematic distortion of social science by partisan think tanks!) As IFI's mission statement says:
Curt echoes this is a distressing article he wrote for the Indianapolis Star last year:
Well, since there are so few examples of societies that have embraced same-sex marriage over an extended period of time, it's hard to imagine what "hard science" Curt could be citing. But let's imagine it is true, that marriage does confer longer, happier, and more prosperous lives on straights ... but not on gays who sneak into the married camp. Curt surely isn't afraid that it will cheapen or debase the quality of his marriage if Bruce and Andrew next door wear wedding bands, and I hope he isn't worried that his lifespan and income will be diminished. More disturbing, however, would be if entering into a stable, permanent, and state-approved relation with a person of the same sex really would bestow the magic benefits Curt and others attribute to marriage. Fighting to deny gays marriage would be the same as fighting to deny them (for instance) organ transplants or education that would allow them to earn more money. It would be similar to fighting to have them live poorer and die younger. I have to admit, that position sounds more wicked than anything gay people might do behind closed doors.
But I am sure Curt Smith is not wicked, so he must have something else in mind. Attend the "First Tuesday" debate and let me know what it is.
My own view on this issue is that it isn't that gay marriage is the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. It is part of a conflict we see around the world as religion and the state redefine their relations to one another. Eventually, I expect that we will clarify the fact that getting married has two parts, is approved by two overarching institutions: it has a civil component when it is sanctioned by the state, and a religious component when it is sanctioned by a church. Gays will eventually be entitled to the first, but not necessarily the second. Some churches will continue to discriminate against gays, and it would be wrong for homosexuals to try to use the courts to force churches to perform ceremonies. But right now many religious people fear that this will be the strategy, that obtaining a right to civil unions is a tactical first step to assaulting churches and their dogmas and rules.
As with the anxieties that express themselves over teaching evolution in public schools, there are real fears at work here, not only political opportunism (although of course there is some of that as well). (Understanding and addressing these anxieties will require people like me to be more sympathetic than I was in my treatment of the views of IFI's head above.)
Want to learn more about this controversy? Google and Yahoo have collections of current news articles. For a balanced presentation of all sides of the controversy, check out religioustolerance.org.
If this issue excites you, the three organizations featured in this event give you plenty of options for engagement. Get a hold of the Indiana Family Institute if the idea of Bruce and Steve exchanging marriage vows gives you the willies. Get in touch with Indiana Equality if you think LGBT persons should be treated like, well, like persons. And contact ACLU-Indiana if you think LGBT persons ought to be treated like persons even though they give you the willies. ¶ 7:40 PM
April 4 will probably witness the first real debate of equals of the ACLU-Indiana's "First Tuesday" noon series. The first pitted David Stocum (a real scientist) against a "young earth" creationist (a group pretending to imitate the scientific methods of "intelligent design" advocates, who in turn pretend to imitate what they mistakenly believe to be the methods of real scientists) ... no real contest there. The second in the series, on the limits of spying on US citizens, would have been excellent if it had come off as planned. It would have set Marian Colege professor Pierre Atlas against a very bright FBI lawyer. Unfortunately a family emergency sent Pierre out of Indy, leaving me to fill in at the last minute (leaving me, moreover, to absorb the rhetorical pummeling I had intended for Pierre when I helped recruit the FBI agent). April 4's debate will set two near-equals against each other on a genuinely difficult issue: Should Same-sex Marriage be Legal? The two debaters are well-educated grown-ups. Walter Botich is co-chair for legislative action for Indiana Equality, "a coalition of organizations from around the state that focus on ensuring basic human rights for Indiana’s LGBT citizens." (If you don't already know that LGBT = "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered," Indiana Equality would surely recommend some background readings.)
Curt Smith (an erstwhile overlord at Hudson Institute) is head of the Indiana Family Institute, one of the cluster of very influential "family policy councils" across the country inspired by James Dobson. IFI's mission is pretty clear: "Preserve pro-family policy already within State Government an
d push for additional policies that will strengthen Indiana families." And unlike the proponents of "intelligent design," Curt's group is relatively straightforward in its "statement of faith": they are trying to impose a very specific religious dogma on public policy. ID supporters disingenuously pretend to be objective scientists, so there's no such statement of faith on the Discovery Institute's website.That doesn't keep Curt and his crew from playing at being social scientists. (Don't get me started on the selective and systematic distortion of social science by partisan think tanks!) As IFI's mission statement says:
We believe firmly that the family is the key institution of society, and that the overall health of any city, state, region or nation is largely determined by the health of this bedrock institution. An already large and growing body of published, peer-reviewed social science research confirms this age-old wisdom that traces its history back to Socrates, the Hebrew Scriptures and beyond.
Curt echoes this is a distressing article he wrote for the Indianapolis Star last year:
For 5,000 years -- the span of recorded human history -- marriage has enjoyed a special status in law that reflects its special benefits to society. Researchers report:
- Married individuals live longer.
- Children do better when raised by their two biological parents.
- Married couples earn more money.
- Married individuals report greater satisfaction and have a reduced need for mental health and psychological services.
These benefits do not flow from other living arrangements, even if sexual intimacy is an element. This includes polygamy (one man, multiple women), polyandry (one woman, multiple men), opposite-sex cohabitation or monogamous homosexual unions.
Though marital benefits are well documented (see "Why Marriage Matters: 21 Findings from the Social Sciences" at www.americanvalues.org), many argue fairness and equality require society to confer similar status to alternative arrangements. Others believe doing this also removes social stigmas and thereby increases relationship commitment.
Leaving aside the powerful values, morals and religious arguments, worldwide health and wellness research shows other living arrangements -- even if equated in law to traditional heterosexual marriage -- do not provide similar benefits to society or the individuals involved.
For example, neither civil unions nor domestic partnerships prompt gay couples to change high-risk sexual practices, showing that actions at the heart of the AIDS epidemic and other health issues of significance in the gay community are more behavioral than sexual. This is the hard science, not some "homophobic screed."
Well, since there are so few examples of societies that have embraced same-sex marriage over an extended period of time, it's hard to imagine what "hard science" Curt could be citing. But let's imagine it is true, that marriage does confer longer, happier, and more prosperous lives on straights ... but not on gays who sneak into the married camp. Curt surely isn't afraid that it will cheapen or debase the quality of his marriage if Bruce and Andrew next door wear wedding bands, and I hope he isn't worried that his lifespan and income will be diminished. More disturbing, however, would be if entering into a stable, permanent, and state-approved relation with a person of the same sex really would bestow the magic benefits Curt and others attribute to marriage. Fighting to deny gays marriage would be the same as fighting to deny them (for instance) organ transplants or education that would allow them to earn more money. It would be similar to fighting to have them live poorer and die younger. I have to admit, that position sounds more wicked than anything gay people might do behind closed doors.
But I am sure Curt Smith is not wicked, so he must have something else in mind. Attend the "First Tuesday" debate and let me know what it is.
My own view on this issue is that it isn't that gay marriage is the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. It is part of a conflict we see around the world as religion and the state redefine their relations to one another. Eventually, I expect that we will clarify the fact that getting married has two parts, is approved by two overarching institutions: it has a civil component when it is sanctioned by the state, and a religious component when it is sanctioned by a church. Gays will eventually be entitled to the first, but not necessarily the second. Some churches will continue to discriminate against gays, and it would be wrong for homosexuals to try to use the courts to force churches to perform ceremonies. But right now many religious people fear that this will be the strategy, that obtaining a right to civil unions is a tactical first step to assaulting churches and their dogmas and rules.
As with the anxieties that express themselves over teaching evolution in public schools, there are real fears at work here, not only political opportunism (although of course there is some of that as well). (Understanding and addressing these anxieties will require people like me to be more sympathetic than I was in my treatment of the views of IFI's head above.)
Want to learn more about this controversy? Google and Yahoo have collections of current news articles. For a balanced presentation of all sides of the controversy, check out religioustolerance.org.
If this issue excites you, the three organizations featured in this event give you plenty of options for engagement. Get a hold of the Indiana Family Institute if the idea of Bruce and Steve exchanging marriage vows gives you the willies. Get in touch with Indiana Equality if you think LGBT persons should be treated like, well, like persons. And contact ACLU-Indiana if you think LGBT persons ought to be treated like persons even though they give you the willies. ¶ 7:40 PM
