|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
March 5, 2004 - Original Posting of Roger C. & Dr. Dolhenty's Remarks March 9, 2004 - Roger C. Replies to Dr. Dolhenty's Remarks
We received this letter via e-mail from Roger C. in response to the Academy's coverage of the gay-marriage issue. I believe that Roger has some important comments to make and should be heard. I will be responding to his comments. I do not claim to have the final answer, or the absolute "truth" regarding this matter. I reserve the right to change my mind, modify my opinions, and otherwise rethink the whole issue and come to different conclusions. The remarks I make in the following discussion are my own considered opinion. The Radical Academy and the Center for Applied Philosophy have no official policy regarding the gay-marrige issue. For your convenience, Roger's original comments are in BLACK type and my original responses are in RED type. Roger C.'s recent replies to my responses are in BLUE type. Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty
|
||||||||
|
Roger C.: Dear Dr. Dolhenty, I would like to thank you for providing such a great resource as I think the Radical Academy website is. I am a follower and student of classical realism expounded by Aristotle and Mortimer J. Adler and glean much from your comprehensive website. I read with interest your two essays this month (Some Thoughts on Homosexuality and Dolhenty Report #10: The Gay-Marriage Issue and a Constitutional Amendment) regarding homosexuality. I agreed with most of what you said, but I have a couple of questions. Dr. Dolhenty: Happy to hear someone reads my stuff. Pleased to hear you like our website. And I'm really glad to hear you're a classical realist. Fire away, Roger! Roger C.: If, as you say, "homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as other citizens and should have all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other members of the society", then, it seems to me, allowing same-sex couples to marry would fulfill this. But you go on to state, "same-sex couples should be able to contract civil unions or domestic partnerships with all the rights and privileges which are shared by traditional married couples, including medical, financial, and other benefits", giving them equal status as married opposite-sex couples. The terms "civil union" and "domestic partnership" connote a lesser status than full marriage. We seem to be saying, "we'll give you all the benefits and privileges of full marriage, but it's not a real or full marriage." This goes to the heart of what gay people have been fighting for all along - equality. These separate classifications are examples of 'separate but equal'. But in this instance as in others, separate is not equal. By calling them by a different name other than marriage we seem to be saying that there is some difference in a gay relationship as opposed to a straight relationship, when all evidence points that their relationships are just as meaningful, loving and important as opposite-sex relationships. Gay people want and need their relationships legitimized and seen in the same light as straight relationships. They are not when they are given second-class status. If we want to give same-sex couples all of the benefits of marriage, then why not just give them marriage? Dr. Dolhenty: If a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership" has exactly the same legal rights, benefits, and privileges as a civil marriage, I fail to see how that constitutes a "lesser status." The only difference here is the term applied to the contract. Men and women are all members of the human species, each gender has equal rights, and, other things being equal, have the same basic legal rights, benefits, and privileges. Yet the fact that one category is labeled "male" and the other "female" does not confer a lesser status on one category as opposed to the other. The words here are simply used to distinguish the two categories, as is the case, it seems to be, with the words "civil union" and "marriage." A civil union or domestic partnership is between two members of the same sex and a marriage is between two members of the opposite sex. Roger C.: The "lesser status" I refer to is not of a legal sense, but regarding society's perception of the relationship. A civil union seems to say, "now that you've decided to shack up, here are all your benefits you asked for, are you happy now?" A marriage seems to say, "here are two people in a committed, loving, supportive relationship that they vow to keep, 'till death do them part'". I must quote Andrew Sullivan here, as he can speak more articulate than I. "Marriage", he says, "is not merely an accumulation of benefits. It is a fundamental mark of citizenship." Marriage confers a status that a civil union does not. The term marriage speaks to a deep and profound bond, a joining of two people into one. A civil union speaks merely of a simple legal bond joining two individuals, with no indication of anything more than a banal contract. It may be true that the words, "marriage" and "civil union/domestic partner" are not different in fact, and the difference could possibly be a purely subjective determination, a self-imposed limitation on my part. But I argue that by calling the same thing in fact by two different terms, they are perceived as different, and that perception manifests itself in a real and significant difference in the minds of the general public. The difference being that a civil union is seen as something less than a marriage. After all, if there were no perceptible difference whatsoever, we would call them by the same name and dispense with the double classification. A simple way to avoid this perceived difference is to call by the single term marriage any two people, no matter the gender, who are in a committed relationship and wish to formalize their bond. Just as you said, as I earlier wrongly applied the adjectives "real" and "full" to marriage &endash; "a marriage is a marriage is a marriage." There is no need to add "civil union" or "domestic partner" to the mix. I can understand and accept that an educated man such as you can see a gay couple who have entered into a civil union and a straight couple who have entered into marriage as being equal in every way. But I believe that perspective is held by a very select few and the vast majority of the population doesn't see it that way. Dr. Dolhenty: In other words, I fail to see how one can say that a civil union is legally any different from a marriage except in the terms applied to the union. The adjectives "real" and "full" in regard to marriage seem to me to be misapplied. What is a "real" marriage? What is an "unreal" marriage? It seems to me a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It is either a legal marriage (even in the case of so-called common-law marriages) or it is not a legal marriage, which means it is not a marriage at all, at least in the eyes of civil authority. It is really impossible, it seems to me, to speak, for instance, of an "illegal" marriage. And I think it is a misunderstanding to speak in terms of a "full" or "real" marriage. It may be a "bad" marriage or a "good" marriage, but at least it's a marriage (legally). Certainly, gay couples should have their unions legitimized if that's what they want. And that is exactly what civil unions or domestic partnerships do - they legitimate or legalize a same-sex union. Where is the second-class status? The only difference is the application of a single word. Otherwise, there is no difference in fact. If a word is considered to give a relationship second-class status, I submit that that is a purely subjective determination, a self-imposed limitation. I see no reason for civil unions to be considered second-rate while marriage is considered to be first-rate, if all the rights, benefits, and privileges apply equally to each. Finally, I will reiterate what I said in my two essays about this general subject. Everyone has "equal rights" but not necessarily to "equal things." In the present case, I think, that while civil unions and marriages have (or ought to have) the same rights, benefits, and privileges, this does not mean both have the right to the term "marriage" (or equal "thing"). At least I cannot think of where such a right, that is, right to an "equal thing," would come from or on what sort of ground it would be based. Roger C.: The grounds for this right to an "equal thing" are based on what I said above. By calling a same-sex relationship by any other name than marriage, when in fact it has all the components of marriage, we are unjustly disenfranchising a portion of the population from a "fundamental mark of citizenship." Roger C.: You give a couple of reasons not to grant full marriage. One reason you say is that "the term 'marriage' has for millennia applied to the union of members of the opposite sex." Tradition is no basis for an argument. Just because slavery was a tradition for years in the South does not make slavery right. Another reason you say is that "it encompasses the idea of reproduction and the raising of children." It would follow that a man and a woman entering marriage past their child bearing years can only have a civil union and not a marriage. Is this what you would advocate? Dr. Dolhenty: Sorry, I don't recall saying anything about granting or not granting "full marriage." A marriage is either a marriage or it is not. The term "full" used as an adjective here makes no sense. My discussion was in regard to the use of the term "marriage" in categorizing a specific sort of relationship. And in regard to tradition, I have to respectfully disagree. Tradition can certainly be a basis for an argument, as well as a source of knowledge. Whether it is, in any specific case, a good foundation, or a true foundation, or the best foundation for any particular argument is, well, argumentable. Whether it is, in any specific case, an appropriate source of knowledge, depends on the matter under discussion. But I think it is a mistake to take tradition lightly. It is true that slavery was a tradition not only in the American South but in many other places as well, and has seemed to be a constant somewhere throughout human history. Of course, owning another human being is morally wrong and is illegal in the United States. But I fail to see how any tradition of slavery imposes on the issue of the tradition of marriage. Marriage is not morally wrong and is perfectly legal in the United States. The two issues of slavery and gay-marriage are totally unrelated, and the situation is not analogous at all. Furthermore, it is possible that our society will change and allow the term "marriage" to be used for same-sex unions. It would, of course, be breaking with tradition in one sense, or it could be said that all society has done is bring a new expanded notion within a continuing tradition. Something was added to the tradition, but nothing was taken away. I am only proposing that as one possible course of events. Regarding the question of reproduction and child-rearing: This has always been at least one of the major purposes for traditional marriage. The reason is simple. Thousands of years of experience have shown that the best place to raise children seems to be within some sort of family group related in some way to one another. This is based on a very simple idea: Human beings appear to take better care of something when they have a personal, abiding interest in it, or in the case of material property, ownership of it. One might say that this is nature's way of protecting the future generation. Societies which have attempted to raise children in "common" have not fared well. I suspect this is related to the idea called "the tragedy of the commons," that we don't take care of things we don't possess or own as much as we do those things we do possess and own. It seems to be an inborn human trait (which I think explains why communist and utopian societies have generally failed). Now this is not to say that gay couples should not have nor rear children. I know of situations where gay couples are raising kids and doing as good a job as married couples, if not better is many cases. But, for the moment, that can be done as a family within a civil union or domestic partnership. And, yes, just to make another point, I support single-parent adoptions, even though I don't think that in most ordinary circumstances that may be the best scenerio. (And I was a single father, so I know something about this.) The ideal is still a mother and a father as I believe nature intended. But the ideal is not always possible. It does not mean that anything less than the ideal is wrong, or unacceptable, or flawed, or less significant. Older couples get married, of course, who cannot have children. And it is a marriage exactly like younger couples who can have and raise children. Reproduction and child-rearing are only one of the purposes of marriage. Love and companionship is another purpose. So, of course, I don't advocate that people who can't reproduce can't get married or must have something less than a marriage. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. It's just that at least now a marriage is between two parties of the opposite sex. Keep that latter point in mind because at the end of this discussion I would like to briefly explore what it really may mean. Roger C.: Although I am a gay man and have a vested interest in this issue, I am not simply arguing my point because I want it to be true. I am wholeheartedly, with as much objectivism as I can muster, seeking the truth in the matter. Dr. Dolhenty: I am sure you are. It is refreshing to find someone who is wrestling with an issue and being honest about it. But I do want to point out that, in my opinion, there is no question of "truth" involved here. One thing is not true and the opposite false. Matters of social policy are not descriptive when they seek to answer the questions: "What ought we to do?" or "What kind of social policy should we implement here?" These are normative questions or prescriptive questions, related more to the virtue of prudence than to the truth of a proposition. I dare say, I would be careful about using the terms "right" and "wrong" here as well. Roger C.: The intent of this e-mail is not to be argumentative for argument sake. I have read many or your articles and have much respect for you. I am merely trying to come to a clearer idea of what I believe by putting down my thoughts in response to your ideas on same-sex marriage and in the process hopefully get a tighter hold on the truth. Dr. Dolhenty: I accept that this is an important issue for you. And I know you are not being argumentative for argument's sake. After all, if we don't argue (that is, discuss or dialogue in a rational sense) we don't learn from one another. I am pleased that you felt free enough to express your thoughts on this matter through this letter. Again, though, I caution you about your phrase "hold on the truth." This is not a matter of truth. There are no propositions here of which it can be said: "This is true" and "This is false." We can discuss whether one social policy is better than another, or more effective, or more desireable, or wrong, or whatever. But we cannot say that one social policy is "true" and another "false." And, in the case of social policies, we as a society can learn pretty fast which policies work and which do not. For example, the social policy called "Prohibition," which numerous people thought would solve the problem of alcoholism and drunkenness, was a terrible disaster. We even threw it into the U.S. Constitution as an amendment. After a decade or so of very bad experiences (not to mention Prohibition's creation of modern organized crime), the people had to again amend the Constitution to get rid of the prior amendment. This is one reason I oppose President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Such an issue should not be concretized in our fundamental document. Sincerely, Dr. Dolhenty: I want to thank you again, Roger, for your letter. You are, of course, invited to respond to my comments. My best to you and your partner. P.S. -- I mentioned above I wanted to briefly make a point at the end of this discussion. You may recall I said above: "It's just that at least now a marriage is between two parties of the opposite sex." I'd like to make a brief comment about this notion. Maybe you know, maybe you don't, but the fact is that the State or civil authority, or a church or organized religion, do not "marry" two persons of the opposite sex. This is a common misunderstanding because of the way we phrase this situation in our language. The fact is that the two persons involved (traditionally, male and female) "marry" each other. The judge, the minister, the priest, etc., are merely witnesses to the ceremony, same as the best man and the bride's maid and whatever audience attends. This is based in Common Law and is why there are common-law marriages. Be aware, however, that some states do not recognize common-law marriages. But "recognition of a marriage" and a "marriage in fact" are two different things. The civil authority may require a marriage certificate so it can "recognize" (and collect a fee and register you on the books, etc.) a union, but if you and someone else declared vows to each other with the deliberative intent of a marriage relationship, you would be married whether the civil authority or a church knew about it or not. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not recognize a marriage between Catholics when it is "performed" in front of a Protestant minister or a Jewish Rabbi. As far as the Church is concerned, there is no marriage. The Catholics would be free to marry again in the Church with a priest in attendance. They would, of course, have to get a civil divorce (not recognized by the Church at all because there is no divorce in the Church), in order to satisfy the civil officials. As one can see, this can get complicated, since there may be three entities involved -- the couple, the civil authority, and the church -- and the specific policies of the latter mentioned two entities may not be completely consistent with each other. But the fact remains that it is the couple who "marry" each other; the couple is not, strictly speaking, "married" by some other person or entity (although these other entities would claim to have a say in the whole affair). I mention this matter briefly in this postscript, wondering what possibilities might occur to someone with a sharp eye, a shrewd mind, and a little wit. Roger C.: Your postscript explicated a feeling I have always had. My husband and I were married on the day we exchanged rings and vows eight years ago. I have always thought of myself as in a marriage that the state chooses not to recognize. The day we married each other we had only one witness &endash; God. Just last summer we had the opportunity, while vacationing in British Columbia, to add to the witness list. We renewed our vows in front of two friends and a BC marriage commissioner on the top of Whistler Mountain. God was present that day as well.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.