|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
The Dolhenty Report A Commentary on the Human Condition by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty March 1, 2004
One of the hottest topics at the moment in the public arena is the subject of of gay marriage. Should same-sex unions be declared to be marriages recognized by civil authority? If homosexuals are not permitted to "marry," is this a violation of their equal rights? Should a constitutional amendment be the route to guarantee that marriages will be only between and a man and a woman? These are the three questions I would like to briefly touch on in this essay. I am sure no one will be completely in agreement with what I have to say, simply because on this issue both sides, the pro and the cons, are far apart and are considering only their positions on the matter without looking for a reasonable compromise. I am not in agreement with either extreme position. Question 1: Should same-sex unions be declared to be marriages recognized by civil authority? My answer is no. The term "marriage" has for millennia applied to the union of members of the opposite sex. It has both civil and religious meaning. It is also generally considered to be broader than merely a contract between the parties. It encompasses the idea of reproduction and the raising of children in what has to be recognized as the ideal environment. While I have no personal objection to gay couples adopting and rearing children, this is not the ideal situation, regardless of all the rhetoric one hears from the gay activists. While I have seen no evidence that raising children in a gay or a single household is detrimental to children, it seems to me difficult to argue that it is as ideal an environment as that of the traditional family. I do think 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. This should do away with any talk of "discrimination," a word that is so overused and wrongly applied in our society that it may have lost its genuine meaning. If there is absolutely no difference between a marriage, a civil union, and a domestic partnership, then what is everyone arguing over? It seems it's merely about the term "marriage." Or am I missing something here? If not, then fundamentally the whole issue boils down to the use of a single word. Regarding the travesty of San Francisco's mayor deliberately violating the law by issuing marriage licenses and allowing gay couples to marry, he should have been promptly arrested by state authorities; he broke the law and violated his oath of office. It does not matter one whit what he thinks the California Constitution says, the proper way to go about it is to debate the issue and challenge the document's interpretation in the places that our society has set up to do such -- the courts, the legislature, and the public arena. I mean, what would the mayor say about one of his citizens deciding that paying his California taxes was, in his opinion, unconstitutional? Or that he had a right to drive on the side of the highway that he wanted to? Or, in general, break any law he thought was wrong? This, of course, leads to civil anarchy and a disrespect for the idea of the rule of law. Some of the perpetrators of this gay-marriage fiasco claim it was a matter of "civil disobedience." Fine. But civil disobedience includes the notion of going to jail for your disobedience, no matter how justified your cause may be in theory or in the abstract. Comparing this current situation to the civil disobedience practiced in the 1960s to get civil rights for the Blacks is ludicrous, not to mention insulting to that movement. They were willing to be arrested and jailed and they knew they would be; that is the consequence of civil disobedience. Question 2: If homosexuals are not permitted to "marry," is this a violation of their equal rights? Let's consider the concept of "equal rights," which is the notion that always seems to come into play in the debate over this issue. The gay activists are saying that the gay-marriage issue is one of equal rights. Those, by the way, who say it's a matter of "civil" rights are dead wrong. A "civil right" doesn't come into play until a right is legitimized by some proper political authority. The gay-marriage issue is not, strictly speaking, a matter of civil rights -- at least not yet. But what about the equal-rights argument? It my opinion, the equal-rights argument used by the gay activists is a phony one. Under our system of law, we all have equal rights. What seems not to be noticed here is the fact that, while we all have equal rights, this does not mean equal rights to "equal things." For example, the President of the United States and citizens John and Jane Doe have equal rights under our legal system. The Bill of Rights, for instance, applies to everyone. Everyone has a right to due process. If the President is arrested, he will receive a reading of his Miranda rights just as citizens Doe will receive a reading. However, the President has a right to Secret Service protection; John and Jane Doe do not. The President has the right to live in the White House. What would happen if the Does decide to take up residence there? What I am saying here is that the concept of "equal rights" does not mean the right to equal things. If same-sex couples want a civil union and this contract includes everything that ordinary married couples enjoy, then all that is left is a battle over the use of the term "marriage." And, then, the question becomes: Are same-sex unions entitled, because of the concept of equal rights, to be declared "marriages"? I think not. The individuals involved in a same-sex union have not been denied any equal rights at all. It's just that their contract is not to be called a "marriage" contract. These same-sex unions have not been denied a thing at all except the use of a legal or religious term, a word that historically has been limited to a contract between a man and a woman. There is no question, I think, that gay individuals and same-sex couples have equal rights under the law. If someone disagrees with me on this, please point out to me an example, because I can't think of one. The gays have not been discriminated against in any legal sense, anymore than males are legally or socially discriminated against because they aren't supposed to use the women's restroom. Question 3: Should a constitutional amendment be the route to guarantee that marriages will be only between and a man and a woman? No. I oppose using this method of trying to resolve the issue. I don't like us messing around with the Constitution. We have used this procedure before and have on a few occasions really bungled the matter (think Prohibition!). I am in good company on this. Former congressman Bob Barr, who helped author and pass the Defense of Marriage Act (which was signed by then-President Clinton) is also opposed to initiating a constitutional amendment on the marriage issue. In my opinion, this issue should be debated widely in the public arena. Any decisions about it should be at the state level and be left to the people (by referendum or initiative) or the legislature. The courts should now stay out of the matter. If we really believe in democracy (as the gay-activists constantly remind us we should do), then let's use the democratic process. Of course, just how seriously the gay-activists take the democratic process may be challenged. If the surveys are right, around 65 to 75% of the population is opposed to gay-marriage. So, let the people decide. I don't see any constitutional or equal rights issue involved in this matter (of course, a "creative" judge or lawyer may invent one). And, if I am right and the whole issue is really over the application of a single word, it hardly seems an issue of tremendous significance considering all the other very important issues in our country waiting to be addressed. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
||||
|
Main Page & 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.