The Journal Star’s editorial board either hasn’t been paying attention to recent events or simply can’t put two and two together.
In their editorial today, “Same-sex marriage referendum a divisive distraction,” they observe, “Illinois already has a law that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, so this is redundant.” But the newspaper of record surely knows that in an age of judicial activism, passing laws is not enough. Massachusetts had a law defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, too, but the courts overturned it. So the only way to safeguard this law from judicial activism is to make it part of the constitution itself.
The editorial does mention that a constitutional amendment is the ultimate goal: “The November referendum is only advisory, intended to pressure Illinois lawmakers to put another referendum on another ballot to change the state constitution.” This is what happens when judges start legislating from the bench. The only recourse citizens have is to start writing laws directly into the constitution. And because this is such a long process, traditional marriage advocates don’t want to wait until the laws have been overturned to get started, like they did in Massachusetts.
The editorial goes on to say, “It’s a shame that petition organizers didn’t put their substantial grass-roots skills toward other family-friendly issues…,” as if the the definition of marriage is merely one issue in a litany of equivalent causes. Actually, marriage is the foundation upon which our definition of family is built, so “family-friendly issues” are dependent on our society’s view of marriage, not equal to it.
The editorial concludes with this admonition: “What Illinois is ready for is a focus on issues that make a real difference in people’s lives, not unnecessary and divisive distractions.” It’s actually quite practical to firmly establish the definition of marriage in Illinois. The very issues the Journal Star thinks are more important — health insurance, pensions — would be seriously impacted if same-sex marriage were legalized through some sort of court action, and Illinois would be ill-prepared for it. Laws would need to be rewritten, financial projections would have to be completely refigured, and all within a short period of time. Settling the issue of marriage by putting the definition in the constitution will provide stability both for families and the government.
Stupid idea…. I don’t need the government telling me what my marriage is and is not. Nor does anyone else need that. Who cares if two men or two women want to exchange vows. When hetero divorce rate is hovering around 50%, the wingnuts have no grounds to be critical of others. If you can find someone to stick it out with you till your dying days, you should consider yourself lucky.
Impacting Health Insurance and Pensions? bullshit. They plan for people being married irregardless of gender.
You are right on, CJ. The Journal Star supports same sex marriage and is afraid to say so just yet. They also fear that the proposal will bring “conservative” voters to the polls, and said voters will vote against the left-wing candidates the Journal Star supports whenever and whereever it can. BTW, Mahko confuses “marriage,” an important social and legal institution, with his apparent desire to do as he pleases, without regard for “morality”. He can have his morality, or lack thereof, but marriage is another issue entirely. It impacts much more than health insurance and pensions (although it does impact those). Look at all kinds of insurance, taxes, inheritance, real estate law, education, the list goes on and on.
Mahkno, it’s true that divorce rates are deplorable, but there’s no evidence that suggests those rates would improve if homosexuals were allowed to marry. It’s a pretty good bet the rates would stay the same. So, redefining marriage isn’t going to solve that problem, and really isn’t an argument against a marriage amendment.
Nor is it an argument for the ammendment.
The ammendment certainly goes a ways toward imposing one groups religious worldview upon others. That is wrong. I am not speaking so much from my personal outlook… there are quite a few christian faiths that are perfectly comfortable with and support gay marriage.
Mouse… allowing gays to wed would have zero impact on any of the things you list. In most cases the law doesn’t ask what the gender is. It just simply says spouse. The law doesn’t care. You die, the estate goes to your spouse. Taxes? My spouse is a deduction. Insurance? Spouse is covered… tho I should note there is a trend toward not covering spouses… or rather encouraging them to get their own insurance.
And changing the law (through the legislature or the courts) would go a ways toward imposing another group’s religious worldview upon others. As you say, there are quite a few Christian (and, I might add, non-Christian) faiths that support gay marriage.
Also, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Clinton), specifically defines “spouse” for legal purposes as a person of the opposite sex.
The difference CJ… if there were gay marriage.. it would have no effect on you aside from offending your sensibilities. Allowing gay marriage does not force you to marry a man. It has zero effect on your personal practice of your faith. Outlawing it certainly prohibits others from exercising their personal beliefs. There is a difference between personal practice and insisting others abide by your personal practice.
Surely you’re glossing over the broader social implications of such a policy.
Currently, the government doesn’t define marriage per se, but merely recognizes it as it has been traditionally arranged (the amendment would simply protect this recognition from judicial activism). Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will have many social consequences, not all of them economic.
In Canada, where gay marriage has been legalized, the parliament passed a subsequent law criminalizing speech/writing that criticizes homosexuality. For those religions who teach that homosexuality is sin, action like this would be an infringement on religious liberty.
Public schools would have to portray gay marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage, thus teaching children values that may contradict their parents’ teaching.
It would have ramifications for faith-based organizations such as churches and charities, forcing them to hire and provide benefits for same-sex couples.
Besides that, once marriage is open for redefinition, it can’t stop with gay marriage. It’s a logical certainty, based on arguments for gay marriage (equal treatment under the law), that the definition of marriage will be widened further to include other currently-illegal forms, such as polygamy. Besides rending the social fabric of our culture, this would have huge economic effects — imagine the strain on Social Security or health insurance if one could have multiple wives/husbands as dependents.
So, while it won’t force me personally into a gay marriage, as you say, it most certainly can affect me in various direct and indirect ways, including the practice of my faith, because of the social ramifications.
CJ, why don’t we just say there can’t be same sex marriage because it offends us? Works for almost everybody else.
BTW, you forgot the free speech issues raised by laws like those you referred to in Canada.
golly, maybe we should have separate drinking fountains. Hummm maybe I just won’t gonna give up my seat on the bus to that straight married guy. no matter how packaged and argued, discrimination rears its ugly head. It’s only a big deal when made a big deal. Marry or not, let the couples chose no matter what gender. If everyone was so concerned about morals perhaps curbing the single mother from popping out a dozen children with just as many baby daddies should be brought up. food for thought
PDW, you are equating this to a civil rights issue, but that is a false analogy. Segregation was based on race, something that is biological. Homosexuality is based on sexual preference and has never been proved to be biological in origin.
No one here is defending the single mother “popping out ten” illegitimate children, especially at taxpayer expense. But CJ is right on target when he says this is the foot in the door to polygamy, and a whole lot of other bad ideas. Don’t kid yourself for a minute. I propose those that want to marry the same sex are welcome to go to Canada, and Canadians who oppose it come here. Let’s see which society is still viable in 50 years. Would make for a fascinating experiment.
CJ,
Let’s assume for arguments sake that in 5 or 10 years there were scientific studies that demonstrated conclusively that homosexuality was a matter of biology rather than choice; that the brain of homosexuals was somehow “wired” in this way. Would this change your view in any way of what the law should be?
CJ,
Well, if that is your argument (its a choice, not biology), then why couldn’t we pass a law saying Christians, or Jews, or atheists couldn’t marry? Just using your logic.
Tumbleweed: Suppose in 5 or 10 years scientific studies concluded that some people have a genetic predisposition to cheat — their brains are just wired that way. Would you advocate legal protection for their conduct?
Dude: Because that would violate the first amendment.
CJ,
I was really hoping for a thoughtful answer to my question.
As for your question I guess it depends on the circumstances under which “cheating” occurs. Are we talking about “cheating” at golf, “cheating” on income taxes, “cheating” on a spouse, “cheating” on a school exam… In some cases reasonable people in a civil society would and have imposed sanctions on the behavior and in other cases the behavior is considered trivial or at the most annoying.
So is this your way of trying to tell me that by it’s very nature homosexual activity is and should be criminal? Where are we going with this?
Tumbleweed: I’m saying the answer to your original question is “no,” for the same reason we wouldn’t legally protect cheaters even if they were found to have a biological bent toward cheating. Where are you going with this?
I thought Tumbleweed’s point was pretty clear: Above you say PDW has a false analogy because:
“Segregation was based on race, something that is biological. Homosexuality is based on sexual preference and has never been proved to be biological in origin.”
So if homosexuality WAS biological in origin, then gay rights WOULD be analogous to racial civil rights?
Not that I necessarily agree; just that I think Tumbleweed’s point is pretty clear and he’s highlighted a bit of sophistry in your argument, which seems to me to come down to the fact that you have a religiously-based moral objection to homosexuality. Which is absolutely fine with me (as I’m not a relativist, really more fine than sociological arguments; I’d rather people just say “it’s just wrong” than have statistics battles on moral issues. That’s just lame. Morals can’t be proved by science or statistics.), but these attempted scientific justifications really muddy the issue and lead to bits of sophistry like the one I think Tumbleweed highlighted. I would also be interested in hearing a thoughtful defense of your point here.
Eyebrows, I work at a church. A conservative Presbyterian church. I guess I sort of assumed it was obvious upon what I base my morality. But if you start there, then there are those who throw all your arguments out the window by simply rejecting your religion. I’ve been deliberately trying to look at this issue from a completely naturalistic, public policy viewpoint to see if it could work apart from the moral objections to it. I don’t think it can.
“But if you start there, then there are those who throw all your arguments out the window by simply rejecting your religion.”
I just kick those people in the balls. Metaphorically, of course. 🙂
“I’ve been deliberately trying to look at this issue from a completely naturalistic, public policy viewpoint to see if it could work apart from the moral objections to it. I don’t think it can.”
I’m not sure this is an issue that can be separated from morality. Moreover, I’m not sure we SHOULD try to do that (not just on this issue, but on any issue). Our ideas of law, justice, public good, etc., are formed in our collective moralities. I think a lot of the time it just confuses the issue to pretend we CAN separate the two. We could probably get to the heart of various issues a lot fast if we just admit it’s about whose morality we’re going to let rule the issue. We might not come to any solutions that way, but at least we’d get to the point faster. 🙂
So let me ask a slightly different, more theological question, just because I’m curious (I’m not looking to smack you down or trap you with it; I just find it an interesting question):
If it is proven unequivocally that homosexuality is biological, inborn, and not a choice, do you think that means God makes mistakes? Or is it an expression of a fallen world? Or would that mean homosexuality is part of God’s design and therefore not immoral? Or something else entirely?
I’ve been listening to ministers, seminarians, and theologians debating (in a Christian context) what it would meant if homosexuality was inborn for 10 years now and I find it an interesting question. 🙂
Oh, and incidentally? Apart from the question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn’t be legal, I don’t think such an amendment belongs in either the state or federal constitution. Not in the federal because family law is a state issue and I HATE it when the feds try to legislate state questions. Not in the state because I don’t think it rises to the level of constitutional question. (But then, there’s all kinds of crap in the Illinois Constitution that probably shouldn’t rise to the level of constitutional question.)
Eyebrows, it shouldn’t be separated from morality, but in the public square, it often is.
As for your question (which is similar to Tumbleweed’s original question), I’m going to assume you’re defining “homosexuality” as “sexual attraction to a person of the same sex.” If this were proven to be inborn, I don’t believe it changes anything. We all have attractions — sexual or otherwise — that we don’t act on.
For instance, if science were to “prove” that sexual attraction to someone besides one’s spouse is inborn, does it logically follow that one should act on that predisposition? Should it be defended on the grounds that infidelity is biological and the person having the affair didn’t have a choice? Of course not. We expect a married person to be faithful to his/her spouse, and to suppress sexual urges for other women/men. Similarly, we expect adults who are sexually attracted to children (say, 12- to 16-year-olds) not to act on that attraction.
So, even if certain people are attracted to members of the same sex, it begs the question, should they act on it? It all comes down to the “should.” What should we do? Biology/science can’t answer that. You have to look to another source. If one rejects any kind of religious moral standards as that source (as many argue, based on the separation of church and state), the only thing left is utilitarian standards. And in that case, we have to look at what works or doesn’t work as social policy.
So, to answer your theological question, no, it wouldn’t mean God makes mistakes. It would be an expression of a fallen world.
CJ,
Thank you for taking the time to explain where you are coming from on this issue. Eyebrows – thank you for facilitating this!
For what it is worth, I won’t be voting for a constitutional amendment to define marriage. I think there is some middle ground in the idea of civil unions.
Thanks again for some interesting discussion.
You’re welcome. Thanks for discussing. I wasn’t trying to be coy in my earlier remarks. Just didn’t know where you were coming from.
Also, in principle I don’t think we should have to have a constitutional amendment either. It’s overkill, and the law should be enough. However, as I said in my original post, because of activist judges who legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people, I think a lot of people feel they have no choice but to put their legislation directly into the constitution in order to guard against such judicial abuses.
The problem here is that the only “valid” arguments are moral ones. Now, law is based on morality all the time — murder, rape, theft. Those “biggies” however, involve victims and unwanted acts. Other laws are really just about morality without direct victims: drugs, prostitution (lots would argue there are victims, and I would too, but it is not as clear cut as murder). However, there are plenty of things that lots of people find immoral that are not illegal, and, in fact, are given the sanctity of law: gambling, gluttony (all you can eat, baby), alcohol, dancing, abortion.
We cannot base our laws on what a certain segment deems immoral. We need to look at consequences of actions. One can make a pretty cogent argument that drugs should be illegal because of the larger effect on society. But I can think of no practical, non-moral argument against same sex marriage. The slippery-slope polygamy argument is a ruse: there are plenty of public policy problems with polygamy. All the arguments are moral ones. That isn’t to say that people aren’t wrong to hold their beliefs, but let us not fool ourselves into to thinking it is anything but. Remember, there was a time not too long ago where people found moral and religious justification for other forms of discrimination.
And discrimination this is. I find it ironic that CJ earlier pointed to the constitutional protection that prohibits discrimination against religion (Jews forbidden to marry Christians). Many would make, and should make, an argument that says that denying homosexuals the civic right of marriage is denying them the equal protection of laws afforded by the Constitution.
Finally, let me offer this humble suggestion (not an original): Let’s have government get out of the marriage business altoghether. Leave that to the churches to say who is married and who isn’t. Instead, let’s have civil unions for all pairs, regardless of makeup, that wish to tie that civic knot. There are plenty of good reasons, sound, policy related ones, for doing so. Then let your Church and your God determine who is married to whom.
This doesn’t work, Cap’n. If the right to marry whomever you want is protected by the equal protection clause of the Constitution, then it doesn’t matter what “public policy problems” there may be, it has to extend to everyone, even polygamists.
thanks for your thoughtful answers, CJ!