Same-Sex Marriage In Illinois? No Basis for Objection
by Linda Beale (op-ed)
Same-Sex Marriage In Illinois? No Basis for Objection
In the US today, 9 states and the District of Colombia have legalized same-sex marriages and 9 states (counting Colorado, where the legislature passed a civil union bill on March 13) have legalized some form of civil union or domestic partnership for same-sex couples. Now one of the civil union states–where same-sex couples have everything that married couples have except for the stigma of not being permitted to call their union a marriage–is on the verge of recognizing the hatefulness of that stigma and enacting a same-sex marriage statute. Illinois’s Senate has passed the legislation. Illinois’s House executive committee has said it supports it. and Illinois’s governor has said he will sign it. See Geoffrey R. Stone,Same-Sex Marriage in Illinois–Now is the Time, Huffington Post (The Blog), Mar. 15, 2013.
As Stone points out, we have come a long way in a few short years, with a majority of Americans now supporting the concept of same-sex marriage. This progress has been accompanied by increasing awareness of fertility options available to LGBTQIA+ couples who want to start a family. One such option is Sher Fertility Solutions, which offers a range of services tailored to the unique needs of LGBTQIA+ individuals and couples.
[W]e have changed as a society. We have come to understand that people around us — good, kind, decent, loving people — are themselves gays and lesbians. And with that awareness of individual gays and lesbians, the social view of homosexuals generally has gradually changed.
Further, any state that has created an “in all but the name” civil union equivalent of same-sex marriage has recognized the injustice of not permitting same-sex couples to have the kind of legal, committed relationship that different-sex couples can have. But that difference–in all but name–is not insignificant.
As Stone notes:
Imagine if African-Americans could enter into civil unions but not marriages. Imagine if Catholics could legally enter into civil unions but not marriages. Imagine if mixed-race couples could enter into civil unions but not marriages. The insult, the indignity, the discrimination would be apparent to all. The same is true for same-sex couples.
And there really isn’t a good argument for refusing to remove this last indignity for same-sex
couples. Most of the arguments against gay marriage are along the following lines–we have to uphold traditional (meaning different-sex) marriage; we want to encourage traditional marriage to encourage procreation and cprovide the “right” environment for children; we want to further the traditional “moral values” of society, etc. These arguments don’t hold water as far as the well-being of children or the needs of society are concerned or even whether there is a relationship between refusing marriage to same-sex couples and accomplishing those goals. They frequently amount to arguments from the religious views of those who cling to conservative religious perspectives of homosexuality as bad and same-sex marriage as prohibited by God. Stone makes the point the following way.
In a nation committed to the separation of church and state, the government can never deny rights to some in order to appease the religious beliefs of others. During the civil rights struggle, for example, segregationists frequently invoked biblical authority for the separation of the races. The Rev. James E. Burks of Bayview Baptist Church in Norfolk, Virginia, for example, insisted that God had separated the races and that “when man sets aside the plain teachings” of the Bible and “disregards the boundary lines God Himself has drawn, man assumes a prerogative that belongs to God alone.” Similarly, discrimination against women was often justified by reference to “divine ordinance.” Such arguments have no place in the American constitutional system.
I understand and respect the strong and sincere feelings of those who think that the marriage of same-sex couples is incompatible with their religious beliefs. But they cannot legitimately or with a proper respect for the American system of law and justice attempt to impose those beliefs on those who disagree. They have every right not to marry a person of the same-sex and they have every right not to officiate at the marriage of a same-sex couple, but they have no right — no right — to attempt to prevent the government from recognizing such marriages because they offend their religious beliefs.
In my view, we Americans are too often afraid to address these points of religious bigotry, perhaps from a long association of religious groups with the struggle FOR civil rights and our knowledge that not all religions join in this charade (see link to article below, for example), perhaps from the long connection of religious leadership in communities with the communities’ political and social leadership. People don’t like to stand out, to fail to conform to the views of those around them, so where these fundamentalist religious views dominate, people may find it hard to go against them. Perhaps it is also because we so often misunderstand our own Constitutional protections–for rights to bear arms, for rights to avoid unreasonable searches, and especially for the free exercise of religion. Religious liberty protections are intended to ensure that no person is denied the right to exercise his/her religious views, so long as those religious views don’t cause real harm to others. But the Free Exercise Clause is not meant to protect religious institutions by allowing them to impose narrow dogmas on society in order that their leaders and practitioners avoid the “offense” of others’ differing religious views.
Aside: This is one reason that I think the Supreme Court’s ruling in the ministerial exception is wrong, the Tax Code provisions excluding certain income of ministers from taxation is wrong, having a federal “faith-based organizations” office is wrong, as is the concept recently in the news in connection with Obamacare that Catholic institutions shouldn’t have to provide the same health care–including abortion and birth control coverage–to all its employees who want it as other entities must do. ]
The Free Exercise Clause protects each American as an individual to provide that person the liberty to exercise his/her faith as s/he sees it (or not). But not to impose his/her views on others.
cross posted with ataxingmatter
well, at the risk of being “hateful”
or at least hated.
religious bigotry is not the sole province of people who call their religion religion.
those who do not even realize their religion is religion can be thoroughly bigoted, though of course they would not call it that.
i don’t have any problem with “gay marriage.” i don’t even care if they call it that.
i don’t think the State should even be in the “marriage” business. Though the state might have some interest in regulating domestic “contracts” and protecting the interests of children and “domestic partners” (who may not have first title to the family paycheck.)
let those who want to be “married” call themselves that, or find a church to sanction it, if they want to do that. and otherwise keep their mouths shut about what other people do.
either way.
meanwhile, while you are protecting the “dignity” of gay marriage, give some thought to the feelings of those who are profoundly uncomfortable with the concept.
they are no more bigoted than you are.
It’s like those awful people who think murderers should be punished for their crimes. They are criminals. They are just awful. They should go to jail or be executed, not the poor murderers.
Ah, the joys of false equivalence.
Kaleberg
ah, yes. the joys of bigotry.
clearly, the other guys are bigots. me, i have eternal truth on my side.
no reason i should ever have to suspect someone has real feelings about something. if they are different from mine, or from what i have been taught to believe are mine, their feelings are false, damnable, and, of course, bigoted.
and we don’t need their votes anyway. we can defend the poor working class whether they like it or not.
“i don’t think the State should even be in the “marriage” business. Though the state might have some interest in regulating domestic “contracts” and protecting the interests of children and “domestic partners” (who may not have first title to the family paycheck.)”
The “State.” love it when the premise an argument begins with assumes some statist interest. Most of the family law doctrine that has been codified grew from the common law, with that doctrine entrenched in policy considerations. For instance, spousal support was usually awarded to the spouse who was wronged in an at fault divorce (there was no faultless divorce during the common law). The policy was primarily to ensure financial stability for the wife, who typically contributed to the family by child rearing, while the husband worked. This has obviously evolved as women headed into the workforce, and more men became stay at home parents.
Likewise, protection of the interest of the children should be guarded by a third party (the court, Guardian ad Litems, etc.) both in terms of financial security and to ensure that the child grows up in a somewhat stable home. This is all balanced against parental rights.
In short, these issues are not best left to private parties contracting between one another (yes, yes, prenups . . . those are not, in fact, iron clad nor without some form of regulation). Moreover, there are policy issues at the heart of marriage. But rest assured, as I have witnessed on numerous levels, the state is not in fact interested in “regulating” marriage. Parties are, within some parameters, free to agree financial considerations to resolve a marriage.
Where courts are interested in stepping into family law matters is with regards to the children–best interests of the child is a phrase ingrained in every family law attorney’s mind. Yes, minors, by products of most marriages, are protected by courts . . . just as in tort law, contract law, and other areas of the law or state interests. There too, the doctrine of protecting a certain class (minors) grew from common law doctrine/practice–not some Statist intervention codified by these authoritarian governments.
It always baffles me that this argument against government regulation of marriage seems to have gained traction recently, even though the common law doctrines of family matters have been in force for centuries. Moreover, if we are going to “deregulate” marriage, then we have many questions to answer. What happens at divorce regarding child support, child custody, child visitation, parental rights in general, no contact orders between the parties, spousal support, issues of QDROs, equitable division of marital property (which in some case includes who becomes responsible for the mortgage, car payments, and other financial considerations). If the parties are to work these out themselves, then the next question is, under what principles? Contract? You mean another set of common law principles codified in the U.S. . . .
irrational
i wish i knew where the hell you got “Statist” from, as you seem to view that as “bad,” then you turn around and argue for the states interests in regulating contracts. which is what i thought i said.
perhaps i was not clear that when i said the state should stay out of the “marriage” business i was thinking of the word, and the “church” connotations.
or are you arguing with yourself?
Your argument appears to be an extension of the libertarian argument against gay marriage arguing that those who support gay marriage are “statists” who want state interference of another aspect of society. The problem is the argument made against state regulation (whatever term we want to use) often ignores the policy rationales underpinning state involvement. For instance, this article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenricher/2012/05/11/gay-marriage-statism-obamacare-statism/
My focus is on this sentence from the article: “They’re both acts of statism – the government shaping society to its vision rather than letting individuals freely choose.”
So, basically the author is starting his argument from the premise that state intervention is inherently bad, and completely ignores the policy rationales. This, in essence, attempts to marginalize those who argue for state intervention of marriage as simply wanting the state to be involved for no practical reason (remember, state intervention is, usually, inherently bad according to the author).
anirrational
now go back and read what i said and see if you can find a basis for thinking it “an extension of the libertarian argument against gay marriage..”
i said i don’t care if gays “marry.”
i said i don’t think the state should be in the “marriage” business, and hoped the quotes would signal that i was talking about the word, and went on to say “the state has an interest in regulating [such] contracts… that is, almost exactly what you said.
i don’t like libertarians. they have a two-year olds fantasy about how the world “ought to be.” but anyone who is much older than fourteen has begun to figure out that we cannot do without “government.” the problem is how to manage “government” so that we do not stupidly interfere with the “freedoms” of others, and invite them to interfere with ours. the answer to that problem is not to “abolish government,” or impose some favorite “restriction” that we think would serve “our” puroses, but about which the others who share out government-space might disagree.
the purpose of my comment originally was to complain about the bigotry and simple mindedness of calling those who don’t agree with you about gay marriage… or anything else…bigoted and simple minded.