I'd like to confess.
I'm guilty as charged.
[Make the jump if you want to read the details of my confession.]
Yes, defending marriage involves discrimination.But those pushing to neuter marriage, or as they would put it, pushing for "marriage equality" – they discriminate as well in everything, including their position on marriage licensing.
The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.
So, yes, defending marriage is discrimination, but not illegal, unfair, immoral, or arbitrary discrimination.
What our laws can't Constitutionally - and shouldn't - do is discriminate against individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, sex (with some exceptions), or, in many places, sexual orientation. Bride+groom marriage licensing doesn't. Nor does neutered marriage licensing. But the burden of proof in most states and at the federal level, rests on those who are pushing to neuter marriage to show that bride+groom marriage licensing unconstitutionally discriminates, necessitating a change.
They have failed to do so. That an individual does not want to participate in something to which he or she has access does not mean the access isn't there.
Note that even neutered marriage licensing still discriminates – against groups of three or more, individuals who are already married to other people, couples consisting of close relatives, and so forth.
Setting some criteria for state licensing of anything is appropriate and constitutional. Marriage defenders usually have just one more criterion than the marriage neutering advocates – that both sexes are represented in this voluntary association that is seeking public sanction as marriage.
I love how definitions get twisted 180 degrees into some convoluted, unrecognizeable lump of rhetoric. Good call PW. Too often, words define the argument long before logic can even get there.
ReplyDeleteNo civilization could claim the term "civil," without a hefty dose of discrimination! No discrimination=total anarchy. Good post.
ReplyDeleteWow! Words have multiple meanings! Amazing! I guess MLK was confused as to what was going on.
ReplyDeleteGoing to jump in just for one comment
ReplyDeleteEve Tushnet from July 29th did a recent post on non-marriage kinships. If I was not married, I would probably be in a non-biological kinship with someone, even though I a heterosexual. I'm an only living sibling and my cousins are much older with their own branches in a family tree.
Back in 2007 when I contributed to Opine, it wasn't so much I disagree with points being made by those advocating gay marriage, the point was those heterosexual relationships have differing consequences then any other kind of relationship, because you can get pregnant and third parties are involved called kids.
I didn't understand why it brought out so much anger in those who disagreed with me?
We would probably be making better policy for the needs of such relationships, rather then simply applying the word marriage. If we could differentiate, we would probably see the faults in the our current public policy on marriage if stop seeing it simply about two people.
It's not about orientation, but behavior. It's not a hate crime to acknowledge what sexual organs are designed for reproductive purposes. I see the problem with Civil Unions, does it really describe the non-biological kinship? It's vauge, it has no non-legal meaning like biological kinships have or ever friendships. If through time homosexual couples defined their own relationships that would be utilized by their own friends and family, public policy regarding their needs and other forms of non-kinship.
While not every one has children, everyone has parents and 'family'. People still value biological kinships, just a recent story of two brothers who were apart for 70 years reunited made headlines.
Take care
Excellent spot Renee -- Kin Altruism is the foundation of athropology & the family unit. People can mangle a defintion of a word for political reasons but they cant change the truth of kinship....
ReplyDelete