The Hawaii state House of Representatives has passed a civil unions bill. Hopefully this will stimulate a similar situation to what was occurring between one and two years ago, when California and Connecticute legalized same-sex marriage in 2008, and Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire in 2009. Following the repeal of same-sex marriage in California and Maine the steam of this chain of events seemed to waver. The dominoes stopped falling. Hawaii, although not directly legalizing same-sex marriage, is establishing a legal equivalent (which sadly can be defined as separate but equal) that will reintegrate same-sex marriage into the public consciousness.
The most interesting facet of the story, however, comes from Hawaii Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona: "The state House's last-minute political maneuvering is unfortunate for the people of Hawaii who have voiced their support for traditional marriage. If the Legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide."
This seems, unfortunately, to be the usual, and convoluted, talking point clung to by opponents of same-sex marriage. Such positions are not only disingenuous, but also suggest a deep misunderstanding of the system of government in the United States. First is the phrase "last-minute political maneuvering," which was used by the Republicans ad nauseum during the health insurance reform debate. "Last-minute" ultimately translated into "I don't support this so any decision in favor of it will be too soon for me." Major debate over gay rights has existed steadily in the United States since at least the 1960's-70's. The only last-minute thing about it is that it's taken so long for it to actually happen. The label "last-minute" itself is a political maneuver, so this objection, which is disingenuous anyways, is patently deceptive. All of politics is political maneuvering. If politicians were doing ballet maneuvers I'd be worried.
Next is his statement that the "political maneuvering is unfortunate for the people of Hawaii who have voiced their support for traditional marriage." Yes, well, it's fortunate for people who see "traditional marriage" as a political sham. Stop political maneuvering, Lieutenant Governor! What exactly "traditional marriage" means is a debate for another day, but to suggest that we shouldn't pass something because people are against it is ridiculous. If that were the case, nothing would ever pass, because there would always be at least one person protesting. This is also a tactic that Republicans utilized during the health insurance debate, claiming that passing a law was irresponsible because "tax-paying citizens" were against it (and they often backed this up with random percentages that they grabbed from thin air). The problem with this argument is a simple one to understand. Tax-paying citizens are always for it; argument void, next objection please.
The next objection is where a fundamental misunderstanding emerges: "If the Legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide." It amazes me when any side argues that there is one particular issue that should be subject to direct democracy. The hypocrisy is astonishing, although I know that, at this point, it shouldn't be. When a politician says that the people should decide, it almost certainly means that they oppose something that has passed and won't to hide behind popular democracy in order to get it defeated. I'm sure Lt. Gov. Aiona has supported many bills that passed without a popular vote, and so is, by his own logic, complicit in political maneuvering that undermines his constituents. Direct democracy is used as a political tool to benefit personal agenda; it is sadly sometimes understood by some as a genuine expression of interest in popular opinion by politicians. The Lieutenant Governor does not have me fooled.
All of this, in one way or another, relates to an article that I read on the Chicago Tribune website today. The title, Gay marriage threatens family stability, directly presents another central same-sex marriage talking point. The article starts off by relating the plans of Illinois State Representative Deborah Mell to marry her partner in Iowa. From this the author, David E. Smith, leaps to the "public purpose of marriage."
Smith suggests that marriage (between a man and a woman) is so important because it "provides particular benefits to society." He fails to establish any of these benefits, except for procreation. This is an important tactic. First, by concealing these "benefits" he denigrates the role of same-sex couples. It is important to note, however, that these public "benefits" are not a function of marriage. There is no public benefit within marriage that cannot occur external from the institution, procreation included. There are plenty of unmarried heterosexual couples with children, single parents, etc. Because there are no public benefits unique to marriage, Smith's initial premise, that marriage is a public institution, is inherently false. Marriage is, ultimately, a public acknowledgment of a private union, and any "benefits" from marriage, rather than preceding from marriage to society, travel directly from society to the married couple.
That marriage merely functions to create and nurture the next generation degrades the institution of marriage by constructing it as a sexual mechanism and ignoring any emotional or personal component. It also degrades the roles of people external from the heteronormative nuclear family that are involved in nurturing children (foster parents, teachers, tutors, other relatives, etc.).
Smith's argument against marriage as an affirmation of love is the role of government in sanctioning the institution. He suggests that the government is creating a "healthy society" by condoning the type of union that is required for successful childbearing. When attempting to find evidence for this argument, however, it falls apart. Suddenly, all of the other "public" benefits of marriage have disappeared, and procreation stands as the central component. But now, not just procreation, but "healthy" (heteronormative) procreation. His argument has shifted, and the problem is that he is now, by default, arguing against "unhealthy" procreation, which, if the heteronormative nuclear family is healthy, would be a single parent household or a homosexual couple. However, because homosexuals cannot copulate, the healthy procreation argument for marriage doesn't apply. The lack of procreation will not raise an "unhealthy" generation, and therefore will not impede on the heteronormative parental system. If he wants to argue against childbearing and raising, he also need to argue against single parent families, foster families, and other "nontraditional" familial structures.
He claims that "the social science is clear and irrefutable: children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad," without actually citing any of this so-called "social science" (which, I admit, does exist, but is the minority when it comes to the understanding of child psychological development). At the end of the article he throws in the key words that clue the reader into his agenda: "government has a compelling interest to recognize, protect and promote the God-ordained institution of marriage." Rather than an institution to benefit the public, it is now a biblical institution, again without any citation of why he believes this or what it means. If it is "God-ordained" then the government does not permit heteronormative unions because of social benefit, but because of religion (something that the United States Constitution prohibits). His argument has changed at least three times during the article.
All I'm looking for is a little consistency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment