Convenient Adherence
The passage of Proposition 8 in California has resulted in much debate across the country. Recently, a Des Moines Register blogger named Shane Vander Hart published a blog piece entitled Faux Marriage, in which he made the case against gay marriage, primarily on biblical grounds, while making only a perfunctory attempt at a Constitutional argument, which I would argue lies at the very heart of the matter, when one considers we live in a Constitutional Republic. I would like to respond to Mr. Vander Hart’s piece.
The United States Constitution is quite explicit on the subject of civil rights. The 1st Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, the 14th amendment adds, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Here in lies the heart of the matter.
The 1st amendment, in part, makes it clear that we are not a theocracy and cannot be forced to adhere to the teachings of a particular religious doctrine, at the same time guaranteeing that we can choose, as individuals, to practice whatever religion we like, as long as in doing so we do not infringe upon the civil rights of others. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law. What does this mean? In the case of gay marriage, it simply means the gay marriage minority cannot be treated differently under the law than the anti-gay marriage majority. If one group has the right to marry, under the law, we cannot deny these rights to others.
Quite often, we hear those battling against gay marriage rights denounce the courts for “activism” when they rule against the “voice of the people,” having voted on legislation, such as proposition 8. How could a judge overrule a majority vote by the people within a democracy, they ask? This logic requires an utter lack of understanding of the Constitutional republic in which we live. The Judicial branch of government has equal powers under the Constitution, which allows it to serve a ‘check and balance’ to the other two branches of government. This isn’t “activism,” so much as merely adherence to their mandate within the Constitution. The subtext of the equal protection provision can be summed up quite neatly:
We are free to live our lives as we wish, so long as in doing so, we do not infringe upon the civil rights of others.
The confusion comes from those who believe we live in a society under the banner of “majority rule.” We don’t. And the brilliance of the founding fathers is in their understanding of the pitfalls of such a system. There was once a time in our nations history when the majority (including the majority of WOMEN, mind you) believed that women had no business taking part in the political process, with much of the arguments against the women’s suffrage movement relying on the same “historical definition” argument. Though the battle was long and hard, we saw that the brilliance of the Constitution prevailed, as it was ruled a “tyranny of the majority,” which violated the equal rights of our female citizens. Civil rights advances follow this exact same formula throughout our history. In this context, the argument that the majority should rule falls on its face. In order for those who want to ban gay marriage to prevail, they must prove that by the very act of marrying, gays are infringing upon the civil rights of others. This argument, as far as I can tell, hasn’t even been attempted, as it would no doubt be very difficult (impossible, in my opinion) to prove.
Instead, what we see, more often than not, is the lament that the gay community is “changing the definition of marriage.” Now, before tackling this concept, it must be pointed out that merely having a different definition of a word cannot be proven to constitute an infringement on another citizen’s civil rights. That case simply cannot be made. We are protected in this regard quite clearly. I am free to believe that black is white and up is down, if I so choose. My having these bizarre beliefs would not, by any rational argument, constitute “changing a definition” for the population at large. But getting back to the concept in general. Those making such an argument do so under a foundation that HIS OR HER definition is, in fact, THE definition and therefore anyone with a differing opinion is therefore changing THE definition. They point to many factors in backing up this assertion, such as how marriage has been defined throughout history and as in the case of Mr. Vander Hart, how it is defined in the bible. Here’s the problem with such arguments; if historical definition is the benchmark for how we live our lives, then we would have to reverse the numerous and widespread civil rights advances which we have already achieved. The word “politician” certainly didn’t include those of the fairer sex for much of human history. Marriage, historically speaking, has also had an ever-evolving definition, which is conveniently ignored by those making this argument. For thousands of years, marrying outside of your religion or class or nationality was forbidden and certainly not the “norm.” Why does that historical legacy suddenly disappear when this “historical” argument is made?
But arguing against the “changing the definition” mantra along these lines is pointless, as common sense dictates that human beings have different definitions of countless words. Since when do we live in a society that forces its citizens to think in lockstep? I am a straight male, and my definition of “marriage” is different than that of most others, including many proponents of gay marriage, in that I find no religious significance within the institution. Historically speaking, I am completely “wrong” in this regard, but that doesn’t stop me from sticking to my own definition. How does my having this opinion “change” the definition for Mr. Vander Hart and others, who all have their own version? It doesn’t. Simply put, one person’s opinion isn’t another person’s opinion. Mr. Vander Hart is free to base his definition on the writings of nomads who lived thousands of years ago, if he so chooses. More power to him in this regard. Does this change my opinion? Not in the slightest. Narrowly applying the “historical definition” standard constitutes a convenient adherence to historical definitions, in general. In the same way, Mr. Vander Hart must use convenient adherence to the words of the bible. As we all know, there are numerous “rules” laid out in the bible’s teachings, particularly in the Old Testament, which would never be permitted in our society, and with good reason. I’d hate to live in a society that stones people to death for working on a Sunday, for example. But again, this is beside the point, as noted above, because we do not live in a theocracy. We are protected by the Constitution against having to live under a specific religious doctrine. Mr. Vander Hart can list passage after passage from the bible until the cows come home, and it won’t make a difference. The bible, nor any other religious doctrine, is not the law of the land in the United States. The Constitution makes that quite clear.
Another constant refrain often heard is that gay marriage advocates are trying to “impose their views on others.” Mr. Vander Hart made this proclamation in his blog. I contend that he has it completely backwards. The gay community cannot “force” Mr. Vander Hart to change his opinion on the nature of marriage. They may attempt to convince him that his viewpoint is wrong, but these attempts are not by use of “force” as he contends. I attempt to change other people’s opinions on numerous topics virtually all day long, but none of my arguments constitute using “force” or “imposing” those arguments. On the other hand, when people like Mr. Vander Hart TAKE ACTION, which actively stops the gay community from living their lives under their own definitions, THEY are the ones guilty of “imposing their views on others.” Simply put, two men marrying on the steps of San Francisco City Hall doesn’t infringe upon Mr. Vander Hart’s civil rights in the slightest, but when Mr. Vander Hart actively pursues a policy that PREVENTS those people from doing so, he is certainly violating their civil rights by forcing them to adhere to HIS definition. Who is really IMPOSING their views on others? Honest assessment can only come up with one answer to this question. As is often the case, it helps to put on the sandals of those with whom you disagree and walk around a bit. One must imagine how it would feel if Mr. Vander Hart awoke one morning to find out that there was to be a vote to determine if his marriage was legal. What a preposterous idea! Yet this exact idea is being applied to a minority segment of the population.
Mr. Vander Hart takes it one step further, as he charges that gay marriage advocates aren’t merely concerned with civil rights, but also have the desire for “unconditional acceptance and legitimacy.” What a strange argument. Who doesn’t want acceptance and legitimacy? Nobody I know. But the actual flaw in his argument is in the use of the word “unconditional.” How, exactly, does one achieve “unconditional” acceptance? Will they use mind control to get Mr. Vander Hart to change his views by force and make him accept their lifestyle? It’s an absurd concept on its face. The subtext is clear, however. Mr. Vander Hart fears a world in which the gay community is seen no differently than any other segment of the community. He is free to have this fear, as is his right, but that doesn’t provide justification for actively pursuing steps that force others to live under this banner. The moment a minority is actively marginalized, they are being forcibly prevented from pursuing “acceptance and legitimacy.” In my opinion, organized religion is ultimately detrimental to the planet, but I will still fight tooth and nail against anyone attempting to infringe upon a citizens right to worship as they choose. Why? Because I respect the Constitution and the freedoms that it represents.
There are numerous other arguments being put forth by the anti-gay marriage crowd which fall apart even easier than those listed above. The procreation argument falls flat in that it would automatically preclude those incapable of having children from being allowed to marry. The “threat” that people will then want to be allowed to marry children is another red herring, as children, being minors, do not have the same rights as adults and are therefore protected by statute. The “civil union” argument, which fails to survive the arguments I have already put forth on numerous levels, is essentially a “separate-but-equal” concept, which has already been deemed unconstitutional in its previous forms. Have we not learned from the past?
Mr. Vander Hart, in his feeble attempt at arguing his point on a civil rights level, lazily points to the fact that the African American community voted overwhelmingly for the passage of prop 8, as though the black community is incapable of bigotry simply because they were victims of it themselves. As absurd as this argument is on its face, it shows a complete lack of awareness of the standing of gays and lesbians within the African American community in general, not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, and the numerous examples of victims, upon gaining rights formerly denied them, then turning around and victimizing others in much the same way. Simply put, the African American community is behind the curve in regards to gay rights across the board, which is unfortunately resulting in more people living secret lives which has led to an enormous increase in the acquisition of the AIDS virus. The African American community has a bigotry problem in regards to homosexuality, which needs to be addressed; but the existence of this bigotry problem, in and of itself hardly constitutes “proof” that gay marriage isn’t a civil rights issue.
This IS a civil rights issue. And as with any civil rights campaign, each day that passes without affording equal protection to a segment of the population, is another day where real people are being hurt in very real and fundamental ways. This is unacceptable in a nation built on such a brilliant foundation, as seen in the principles put forth in our most sacred documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The good news is, as hopeless as it seems for those who fight for gay rights, they can take solace in the fact that history has proven that the human race truly does evolve over time. One hundred years from now we will look back on these days much the same way we now look back on the racism of the passed centuries.
Mr. Vander Hart's blog ends with the following proclamation (which incidentally undermines his argument that the gay community is forcing him to live under their definition):
"So even if homosexuals do end up with the ability to marry in all 50 states, it will be a faux marriage. Instead of being a covenant witnessed by God it will be nothing more than a legal contract approved by the State."
I guess, Mr. Vander Hart, you can take consolation in the fact that you will be free to believe this statement for as long as you like, and that this belief of yours will be protected by the same Constitution which you are so blithely defying in your intolerant and active condemnation of the gay community.