|
We Asked; You Said
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 55
We asked:
What is a communitarian position on gay marriage? Marriage is not merely a two-person affair; it
involves a couple coming before a community to make a commitment in terms of the
community’s values. Gay couples could do the same. But is there a way to extend to gay couples
the same rights as heterosexual married couples while respecting the values of the millions of
people who oppose gay marriage? Could a community ask gays to accept 97% of the benefits
entailed by marriage–to have same rights of inheritance, visitation, Social Security benefits,
etc.–but call that institutionalized relationship a “civil union” rather than “marriage?” For a
beginning discussion of this issue see http://www.amitai-notes.com/blog/.
Here are the responses we received.
***********************************************************
It is hard for me to understand why the prejudice against gays is respectable, but the prejudice
against racial minorities and women is not. I am a strong believer in marriage, indeed in principle
in the indissolubility of marriage. Making gay marriage legal would strengthen the institution of
marriage, not weaken it, as promiscuity, gay or straight, certainly does. There was a time when it
was socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks and withhold the right to vote from
women. That time is past. It is also past time to withhold equal rights from gay people.
Robert N. Bellah
Berkeley, California
Is marriage necessarily defined first and foremost by sexual intimacy of some sort? There appear
to be thousands if not millions of sexless marriages involving men and women. And doubtless
thousands if not millions of heterosexual marriages in which traditional coitus plays
only a small part of what their intimacy includes. Certainly homosexual couples who want to
marry should enjoy the rights that go with any civil union in this society. Beyond that, I expect
religious denominations to have to struggle with this question for any number of years, as they try to understand what it is the community is saying when it supports marriage. Most major religions
have such defective theologies of human sexuality that it is no wonder they cannot even
contemplate a dialogue on the question.
William V. D'Antonio
Visiting Research Professor
Catholic University of America
"Marriage is not merely a two-person affair; it involves a couple coming before a community to
make a commitment in terms of the community's values." This statement begs the question:
Which community? If the community means the entire population of the United States, couples
marrying today are aware that the values of this community lack the stability and uniformity
necessary to support a long-term commitment. The marriage is likely to outlast today's
community values.
It seems to me that we all want to be able to enter into family relationships with a certain degree
of stability and predictable expectations. It also seems apparent that over the last 40 years or so
the rules have changed rapidly and repeatedly, so that expectations of marriages are much less
predictable than they were earlier in the last century. What we differ on is the best way to restore
a sense of predictability. At one end of the spectrum are those who wish to establish a single
standard that would return us to the past. At the other end are those who wish to make marriage
simply a matter of private contract, providing a legal system that will enforce these as mere
contracts, without any government-sponsored privileges connected with particular types of
relational contracts. All are dissatisfied with the current patchwork of rapidly-changing laws
independently legislated in 50 states.
From a practical standpoint, more legislation (more change) cannot achieve greater stability.
India's different marriage laws for different religions provides much more stability, but is not
adaptable to American society. The route of privatization holds more promise. Does this
necessarily mean that each family relationship will be an individually negotiated and self-defined
contract? I think that privatization would lead very quickly to the formation of communities and
affinity groups supporting different forms of marriage contract. Rather than going it alone,
couples could opt into one of these forms, based on their preferences, and be assured at least as
great a degree of stability and predictability as our current family laws afford.
Many of those who wish to have their marriages governed more conservatively oppose the only
practically available means to do this because it would also mean that different expressions, such
as gay marriage, would also be permitted and equally recognized. Like freedom of religion,
different expressions of marriage must be tolerated by those who wish to have their own
expressions supported.
Susan Cameron
La Mirada, CA
Of course a community could ask gays to accept [97% of the benefits of marriage] but call that
institutionalized relationship a "civil union" rather than "marriage", but it would definitely hurt
the feelings of gay people. It would show that their values are still not respected, that they are not
respected, that gay people are not considered to be equal, that the community thinks they are
worth less than other couples. It would be a not-so-good compromise, and, if it works, this is a
sign that shows that gay people do not even expect any more to ever be fully accepted by society.
It is necessary to see why millions of people oppose gay marriage, and in my personal opinion
these reasons do not have to be protected as they are nothing else but prejudice and
discrimination. It is more important to do something against that, to explain and talk, and it is
less necessary to protect prejudice and discrimination. I doubt if you could call that "values". A
compromise could only have one good: people who oppose gay marriage could grow accustomed
to it and take their time to accept it.
Britta Rentrop
Dipl. Wirtsch.-Ing.
Dortmund, Germany
I am in a heterosexual marriage of 18 years and am not sure I understand how this union is in any
way threatened if other marriages look different than mine. The state sanctioned (not religious,
but state) aspect of marriage - that part where you fill out a form and pay a fee - is essentially a
contract between two people where you notify the state that this is the person who is your "next
of kin" the inheritor of your social security benefits, a dependent on you health insurance, a
guardian to children produced during the union. This not only protects you and your spouse - it
also helps the state maintain stability in these relationships as this is the person the state will
recognize as your "spouse" for legal purposes until you go through another state sanctioned rite
of passage (another form, another fee) to end the union, called a divorce.
The fact that many people augment this legal arrangement with a religious ceremony in no way
affects the state. Just as some religions may choose not to recognize a "religious" divorce, some
may choose not to recognize a "religious" marriage between members of the same sex. The state,
however, needs to recognize both of these legal arrangements.
Deborah M. Brock Ph.D.
Public Policy and Administration
Fredericksburg, Virginia
This is a difficult issue. The very definition of marriage has to be changed if gay persons are to be
married and as yet there has not, to my knowledge, been created a new and broader definition. It
may be that "marriage" and "gay couples" simply cannot be joined. I think we have to ask about
the purpose of marriage and in our society. This will necessarily have a Judeo-Christian perspective. From that perspective, marriage is for the creation of life and the mutual fulfillment
of the desire of persons for community (intimacy). While homosexual couples can experience the
second of these purposes, they cannot experience the first. Thus, I do not know how we can
speak of gay "marriage" in the traditional sense that marriage has been considered.
And yet, there has to be sensitivity to the need of gay people for community (intimacy) with
another person. In some way, this should be recognized, ritualized, and affirmed by society.
I am a United Methodist clergyman. I genuinely struggle with this issue from a pastoral
perspective and the desire that all of God's children be offered redemptive love. Yet I do not
know how we can bridge the gap between the traditional definition of marriage and gay unions.
Is it possible to create another social institution that is designed for the unique circumstance of
gay people? I do not know and fear we yet as a society have quite a bit of struggle to engage
before this issue is resolved.
Chris Andrews
Senior minister of First United Methodist Church
Baton Rouge, LA
I'm not a communitarian; I am a constitutionalist. Regardless of what the states choose to do on
this matter, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence was wrong. It relied heavily on a
brief submitted by historians that made a number of astonishing, and easily refuted claims. The
fact is that the same reasoning used to strike down Texas' sodomy law was used in the Lochner
decision in 1905 to strike down all state regulation of working conditions. Since then, the Court
has taken a different view of the matter. A consistent application of this notion would destroy big
chunks of the regulatory state that liberals love so much--so I think we can be pretty sure that all
their high sounding rhetoric in Lawrence is just a cover for striking down a law that they don't
like.
Clayton E. Cramer
Boise, ID
Regarding Marriage: The states’ involvement and control over marriage should begin and end
with the definition of property rights and responsibilities, much as is the case with business
partnerships. Past that, the officiating agencies should have no more and no less prescription and
proscription than is the case for special business agents (for instance real estate salesmen). These
people so empowered to conduct marriage already exist in many places. The extent of council to
those wishing to marry should relate to the scope of legalities resulting. Above all, unless the
partners wish to be married in a church, the term "Holy Matrimony" should in no way attach to
law. "Lawful Matrimony" would suffice. As should be evident, the gender of the partnership
should not be a question other than to the parties themselves. By the way, I am heterosexual, but I
think it criminal that people of other attractions should be denied their own choices.
The two other constraints which I would and do support, are that there should be an age below
which people may not be married, and no one should force anyone into marriage. If the
proscriptions of age and coercion can be managed, I also would have no problem with polygamy.
Jim Lyle
Lakeport, CA
Gay persons should be treated as fairly as we treat any other persons. Their only difference is a
preference for same sex activities. We must respect all persons as responsible persons with rights
and duties to self and to community. There is no evidence that what they do harms thecommunity
or each other or any children they may bring into their relationship. If they have such a strong
commitment to each other that they want to formalize it and make it legal, why should we not
accept that? These are not frivolous decisions, but lifelong ones that can only benefit
thecommunity. The community should then grant them all the civil rights that belong to any other
marriage. I am not sure that giving it a different name, "civil," is fair, since it immediately may
stigmatize them in the eyes of those who might be prejudiced.
Leo Rain M.D.
Granada Hills, California
Your premise mentions the "millions of people who oppose gay marriage" as if it is legitimate for
me to say to two consenting adults that they cannot get married because I am morally opposed to
that marriage. It is not a legitimate position to hold. I agree with Communitarians that we cannot
only focus on rights but also responsibilities. However, with something as basic as two
consenting adults deciding that they want to share the rest of their lives in the bonds of
matrimony, who am I to stop them? Fifty years ago many people felt that it was a legitimate
position to prevent the intermarriage of blacks and whites. It took the Supreme Court (Loving v.
Virginia) to get rid of that notion. I view the opposition to gay marriage as a similar bigotry that
needs to be swept away if we truly want "justice for all".
Jules J. Mermelstein
Upper Dublin Township Commissioner
Managing Attorney, Levin & Associates
I do not believe that should be a communitarian position on gay marriage.
Tom Cashman
Fox Island, WA
|
