John Adams asks whether he is, in fact, homophobic. He really assesses the topic much as I would, and concludes that maybe he is.
While I have pondered this question, and would like to believe that I am not, I have come to the realization that the answer, to some extent, is probably yes. I don’t hate homosexuals, and one of my best friends in the world is gay. I do not believe people should discriminate against homosexuals, although I see no need to elevate them to a consitutionally protected class.
I don’t quite agree. A phobia is an unreasonable fear. I personally don’t fear homosexuals. Like Adams, I’ve had several friends who were. And enjoyed their company as much as I did the company of others. But the term has been hijacked to describe anyone who does not completely concur with the lifestyle. In that light, I am homophobic as well.
So what? I believe in individuality. If they desire to live their lives in that fashion, who am I to complain that it doesn’t fit my own lifestyle?
Several years ago the big issue was gays in the military and “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” To me, that was really stupid. It had always been “don’t ask, don’t tell” during my time in the military. And there were several men, and women, I suspected of being homosexual. But it was irrelevant. What the military doesn’t need, on the other hand, is open sexuality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. Madonna would not be an asset, either.
As a final thought, Adams speaks of a charity request from the cast at the end of a Broadway show he’d seen:
Apparently, the group raises money to buy daily necessities for AIDS patients, such as food, medicine, and rent money. (Wouldn’t it be nice if the Susan Sarandons and Barbra Streisands of the entertainment industry would lend their star power to such worthy endeavors?)
Once again, how can you argue with that?
What effort has been made to elevate them to a constutionally protected class? The amendments we just saw pass in 11 states seem far more along the lines of specifically discriminating against them via state constitutions. You’ve stated yourself many times that government has no business being entangled with marriage whatsover, so why doesn’t it follow that you’d perceive these amendments as flagrantly unnecessary at best?
Comment by Bogey — November 8, 2004 @ 5:41 pm
Who says I don’t?
Nah, I owe you more than that. They are unnecessary. Of course, so are the actions of gays and supporters trying to force the issue. It is a societal issue. The government has become involved because of the desire a century ago to prevent mixed-race marriages and incestuous unions. Legal issues again, wherein government has intruded in our personal liberties in things like taxes and estates, are a loss of individual freedom. It is these things which the advocates of gay marriage are really all about. I’d just like to hear them be honest about it.
If a society or culture accepts gay marriage, that is all that is necessary. Poof! You’re married! A civil union is another thing. Again, that’s a government thing which, in my opinion, is out of bounds.
As to your first question, hate crime laws are one area where gays have become a Constitutionally protected group.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 5:57 pm
I don’t see it as the geys asking to be “contitiutionally protected”. All they want is the same protections the rest of us get, not an unreasonable request.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — November 8, 2004 @ 6:45 pm
And how do hate crimes fit into that?
And what Constitutional protections are you talking about? If you mean marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the federal government to establish any such thing. It is all done on the state level. And that is determined by the various state constitutions. If a state cares to declare for gay marriage, I see no problem with that, their constitution not withstanding.
On the other hand, I still see the concept of marriage as a cultural issue. Any couple can go to a societal leader willing to perform a ceremony and be married as has been the case for all of history. Why do they need a piece of paper which says “Marriage License”? The only reason is to reap benefits of government dictate.
Get the government out of the whole thing. A revised tax code could do wonders to make this whole issue moot.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 6:52 pm
While I think that there is a significant biological component to homosexuality, and that I think it is inhuman to deprive someone of a God-given right because of the way he or she was born, I do not think that marriage is a God-given right, but rather a societal privilege. I do think also that it is well within a society’s sovereign powers to prohibit homosexual unions. This is not meant to demean homosexuals.
Similarly, I think that there is a definite biological propensity towards alcoholism, and society is well within its powers to prohibit certain types of behaviors regarding alcohol consumption. This is not meant to demean alcoholics.
I also want to say that there is probably a biological component of feeling “icky” when thinking of homosexuals, which I on occasion do. Just get the big old heeby-jeebies and I can’t control the feeling.
It is societies that form governments, and governments that respond to the will of the societies. This raises two points. First, it is entirely appropriate for a society to determine the rules of behavior – call it establish morals – for that society. Secondly, those rules must be established by collective decision at the lowest possible level.
Since our society established a federal republic, the lowest practical level to establish societal norms is the city – for example with smoking regulations – or state, in regards to marriage in this case.
One thing that is exactly against our societal desires – our collective, consensual desires – is to have an unelected body impose something upon us and bless it as a God-given right. We have a right to vote; we don’t have a right to marry. Societies have determined for millenia the rules for marriage. And homosexuals have been around for millenia. They just didn’t jump up and grab you by the ass yesterday. There are no historical examples of successful civilizations that legitimized “marriage” between homosexuals. Tradition counts for something, you know.
So, the issue on the first part regarding these amendments: I think that it absolutely appropriate for the states do make those rules. I think also, however, that I hope a federal amendment is written that only takes the issue away from the courts for the states to decide. That may be too nuanced a point, but the broad brush of the citizenry is in favor of defining marriage – as had their historical antecedents – as the union of one man and one woman.
Stanley Kurts and Maggie Gallagher have written at great length on the role of society in ensuring a safe, productive place for rearing children, and they have pointed to the rapid rise of homosexual unions as a strong component in the decrease in the institution of marriage and the quality of parenting for all children as couples see traditional marriage erode. With the concommitant rise in the governmental programs to care for children. The kids in this brave new world become de facto wards of the state. One again, not the sole reason, but a strong contributing factor.
Back on topic:
I don’t think homophobe is the right word. John Derbyshire wrote a great essay about the topic in NR over the summer. What does one call himself who has a dislike for something? Not a hatred or fear, just a dislike?
I’ve known Mr. Adams for a number of years and I would call him a good egg, and a stout heart. An [insert noun here]-phobe I would not call him.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — November 8, 2004 @ 7:30 pm
Paulie, you’ve contributed greatly, and I thank you.
My issue, as you’ve mentioned, is that judges are making this call rather than the people. And it is an issue for states, and not within the realm of the Constitution. The federal government has no authority in this case.
As a societal issue it is, in fact, for the people of individual states to determine. As with abortion, there will be some who don’t agree with the majority in their state and go to the federales for imposition of their viewpoint.
In my mind, this is the major division in our country–those who feel individuality is more important, and those who want us all to be the same. And that line cuts differently than many people think.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 7:40 pm
Paulie’s first two paragraphs read like he’s carefully trying to tiptoe around saying outright that he subscribes to the perspective that homosexuality is a disease. If not, why compare it with an incredibly destructive disease like alcholism? Why not compare it with having blue eyes, male-pattern baldness, the inability to whistle, or some other “biological propensity”? The American Psychiatric Associaton hasn’t considered homosexuality a disease for over twenty years, after all.
Of course, the APA doesn’t make the rules for society (and for that we really should all breathe sigh of relief). Paulie’s right when he reminds us that the people make the rules. But that doesn’t mean they always make good rules.
On to a few other things I had trouble accepting from Paulie (who is a dynamite writer and thinker, without a doubt, so so take my objections with a grain of salt and no offense intended):
Are there historical examples of civilizations that failed specifically because they legitimized gay marriage? Show me.
And as for “tradition counts for something,” well, we abolished slavery in this country 140 years ago, which had also been a tradition for millenia. There are always some traditions which could stand changing that might change society for the better. All societies need to evolve; this might just be one of those areas in which ours could stand to do so.
Then there was this:
It sounds Paulie is saying there that if these two people — people who appear to be, from a cursory Googling, opinion columnists — point to X as having effect Y, then it’s a fact. Do they point to anything that’s actually provable? If so, by all means link it. It sounds like they’re making broad, wild claims that could never, ever be objectively proven.
And when you really think about it, does anyone actually believe that the gays trying to participate in more committed, more traditional relationship roles could really be a “component in the decrease in the institution of marriage”? It seems such an illogical position, not to mention the fact that gays are in a marked minority anyway so their actions are probably less likely to have much bearing on the majority. If we really need to identify elements of society on which we can place blame for delegitimizing marriage, there are much bigger and more suitable targets all around us.
Bunker, you say “get the government out of the whole thing,” which is a wonderful idea, really, but it’s based on your assertion that “a revised tax code could do wonders to make this whole issue moot,” which is unrealistic. The US federal code includes at least 1,049 laws in which marital status is a factor (480 kb PDF, compiled by the GAO), sorted into 13 categories of which taxation is only one, and the GAO makes it plain in their introductory notes that their list is not even all that complete. Do you really think our government can ever fully extract itself from that tangle?
Comment by Bogey — November 8, 2004 @ 11:36 pm
Bogey,
I was actually not quite tiptoeing, I thought. I was trying to deflect the argument from those who would say nature versus nurture.
I have thought and written at great length about this issue. If the evolutionists are right, then what has created within these individuals a desire away from procreation? A desire to not propagate the species? A desire for the species not to survive? That is a maddening dilemma.
Because I believe in God I also believe in Satan, and I have a much stronger leaning towards Nurture than nature in regards to homosexuality. It’s an unnatural urge, in not just my opinion. Human tradition has called it an unnatural urge. I think these unnatural urges are caused by Satan, and my opinion is informed by the writings of CS Lewis.
To answer one of your questions, and, really, this lies very near the heart of the matter, it is not incumbent upon the traditionalists to prove what homosexual unions are bad for society, it’s up to the proponents of homosexual unions to prove they are good.
Kurtz and Gallagher have neither claimed that homosexual unions were the proximate cause of the rise in illegitimacy and single parenthood. Kurtz’s work, however, should not be so casually discarded. Just as one could not point solely to Welfare as the cause for the breakdown in the urban black family, one could not so casually remove Welfare from the contributing factors. Society has a vested interest – perhaps it’s society’s only fuction – in protecting and nurturing the next generation. It’s one of the things that separates us from the beasts of the field.
Within our legal system, the fault has been twisted and it is traditionalists who are on the defensive. That is a grave error and has undermined much of what is good in our society, primarily in the protection of our children. Our times are not so revolutionary – nor were past times so oppressive – that these changes, which have occured within one generation, were so patently needed. In previous revolutionary times, our own for example, dramatic change was needed. In France, change was needed; in Russia, poor Russia, change was needed. In our times, is change so needed.
To compare homosexual marriage to slavery in any way is demeaning to the slaves. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by society. Unmarried people are free in all respects to enjoy the blessings of liberty; Slaves do not. Slavery is an abomination.
If we believe the revisionist historians, that DaVinci was gay, and Shakespeare was gay, and the entire cast of Guys and Dolls were gay, perhaps the gay gene is the creative gene that allows humankind to make the great leaps of imagination that have raised us up from lesser beasts?
Who am I to know. What I do know is this: it’s a community’s role to establish standards for behavior for that community. If single villages could declare themselves “gay zones,” we should let them. However, our governmental system does not allow that licensure to devolve to that level, because within our system local communities are not sovereign. Therefore the decision should be made by the states, which is the lowest level in which sovereignty is exercised.
The courts, which seem at times to be oligarchs who operate with shocking impunity in the face of both common sense and community standards, must not be allowed to make these decisions for all of us. We must make these decisions for ourselves.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — November 9, 2004 @ 5:41 am
I can’t think of any that have ever legitimized it.
Sex is a natural act between a male and female. Biologically, homosexuals are mutants. In the normal course of evolution, homosexuals would eliminate themselves from the gene pool because they would not reproduce. There would still be some, as mutants continue to occur. Homosexuality is not a disease.
So, if someone chooses to be a homosexual, or is driven to it by genes, I can’t say. Neither can anyone else, although there have been many folks doing research on the issue. But nature, which we are all admonished to get back to, dictates a family be created by a man and woman. And that is what Paulie is talking about.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry is the issue here, and I would say that is up to society. If they live in San Francisco or Portland, I would think a marriage ceremony would be quite welcome. And it would not be seen as something completely obtuse in most parts of the US. But that does not confer civil sanction. There are quite a few pastors in the US who perform marriage ceremonies without the license, and record the marriage in the couple’s family bible, which has been deigned legitimate by the courts. There is no contract with the government in the form of a license. Do I believe in civil unions for homosexuals to provide them the same benefits (not rights) as heterosexuals? I don’t think so. But I oppose it on the basis of my dislike of government intrusion, not out of a moral stance.
And yes, the tax code can be revised easily enough if something like the Fair Tax proposal comes to pass. As to the other laws, I think they should be repealed. And if the gay marriage activists put their energy on that issue rather than trying to change society through government, they would probably get significant support from–dare I say it–Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority!
Comment by Bunker — November 9, 2004 @ 6:00 am
I’m not in favor of civil unions, either, because I think marriage must be protected. I am in favor of allowing patients in hospitals in advance to set up visitors’ lists, and I am in favor of someone being able to pass his assets on to another, and things like that. Those are really contractual matters. Perhaps our pal Mr. Adams will drop in on the thread today and make a post.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — November 9, 2004 @ 6:33 am
Wow. And I thought I would have nothing to write about after the election.
The evolutionist angle is interesting, although it is a little harsh to refer to homosexuals as mutants. It is certainly true in species who lack the intelligence of humans to know that reproduction is essential to the existence of the species.
As for nature vs. nurture, I lean toward the theory that homosexuality is not inherited but learned. As the father of twins, however, I see first hand that there are many traits that are inherited. My twins could not have more different personalities. They have different strengths and weaknesses at school. However, they are both “good kids,” and I believe my nurturing had something to do with that. Like the President, I don’t know where sexuality fits in on the nature/nurture wheel.
I agree with Paulie that marriage is a privilege, not a right. The states have regulated that privilege since the founding of the country. States have proscribed polygamy, marriage between close relatives, and marriage between minors. I strongly disagree with the theory that there is a valid equal protection clause argument that can be made to support gay marriage. The states have laws that permit any one man, regardless of his sexual preference, to marry any one woman, regardless of her sexual preference. Each person is provided the opportunity to enjoy that privilege granted by the states. The problem is, that privilege is of no value to homosexuals. But they are not being deprived of a privilege based on their sexuality — they just choose not to exercise that privilege. The equal protection clause does not require the courts to create a new privilege just because one group does not utilize another privilege.
I do have some misgivings about amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, as I trust the state legislatures to deal with the issue. However, the intrusion by the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court forcing the Massachusetts legislature to allow gay marriage may impose gay marriage on other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I have proposed (but nobody is listening) an amendment that would solve that problem without imposing or prohibiting gay marriage at the national level:
http://www.paulieworld.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi?__mode=view&_type=entry&id=446&blog_id=1
No state shall be required, under any provision of the United States Constitution (read Full Faith and Credit Clause, 1th Amendment, or any penumbra you want), to recognize any marriage validly entered into in another state, or to confer any benefits arising from or incidental to said marriage entered into in another state, unless that marriage is between one man and one woman.
This amendment would let any state decide if they want gay marriage. It also would let any state decide that even if they don’t want to allow gay marriage in their state they can recognize a gay marriage entered into in another state. But it also gives each state, by its legislatures, to say no to gay marriage in their states and no to recognizing a gay marriage from another state. I have faith in society to deal with this issue at the state level.
Comment by John Adams at The Commons — November 9, 2004 @ 9:46 am
“Mutants” does seem harsh, but I knew of no other way to identify it. It is the same as albinos, or people with one green eye and one brown one. There is some genetic trait which is different than in the general populace. Not intended to be a slam.
Of course, that assumes homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than choice–nature versus nurture.
The only problem I see with your proposal, John, is the same as with abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. At the time, several states allowed abortion. Most others allowed it if the health of the mother was at risk. However, Jane Roe, who lived in Dallas, couldn’t get an abortion on demand as an unwed mother. Rather than travel to New York (or another state which allowed abortions) she filed suit. I’m not sure the same thing would not still be possible with any kind of government involvement.
The best thing would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether.
I couldn’t check your link to see how you addressed the issue. It took me to the MT login page.
Comment by Bunker — November 9, 2004 @ 11:26 am
Bunker, the government has to be in the marriage business because it’s in the divorce business. Even if a couple chooses not to marry, if they have kids they assume a financial obligation to support the kids under the law. You can’t just have people out there making babies and not taking care of them.
As for the link, I’m really not up to speed on that stuff so I apologize for the bad link. It’s at the paulieworld blog (in the July archives, I believe) if you want to take a look. Paulie and I have posted several times about gay marriage.
Comment by John Adams at The Commons — November 9, 2004 @ 2:11 pm
Here’s the link Adams meant to attach:
http://www.paulieworld.com/blog/archives/000446.html
We’ve been around this issue a lot at Paulie World.
Comment by Paulie at The Commons — November 9, 2004 @ 6:44 pm