-asdfAny self-identified progressive must have had mixed feelings about the ballot returns on November 4. While the new left-of-center governing majority achieved an unprecedented landmark in racial equity, another majority rejected progressives’ attempts to achieve marriage equality for homosexual couples. It is thought that this other majority was decisively composed of religious Obama supporters. This very fact exposes an interesting tension in the new "Obama coalition."
A lot of people find this disconcerting but I don’t see it that way. I think this is a chance to redefine the progressive outlook on the issue of civil marriage and gay rights. I’ll state my position quite clearly: I don’t think civil marriage ought to be extended to homosexual couples; rather, it should be dissolved completely.
I am not nor do I pretend to be an expert on California Family Code or other relevant statutes, so this is an argument based on principle. As I understand it, California domestic partnerships allow all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual civil marriage and are treated as equivalent to same-sex civil unions by Vermont, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, to name a few. Domestic partners in California are able to take one another's last name, file a joint tax form, and adopt a baby. As far as I can tell, the controversy over gay marriage (in California) is less about "gay" and more about "marriage." Opponents of gay marriage find it outrageous that the government would tyrannically redefine "marriage," a word whose definition their religions invented, of whose use they want to be sole guardians.
I don't see why anyone objects to religion retaining the unique right to define marriage. Regardless of whether it should be, this is a religious concept before it is a civic one. If churches wish to allow same-sex marriages, good for them. If you are a religious gay couple and wish to be married by a church that refuses, that is between you and your superstitions. The point is this: Marriage as a religious pact in contradistinction to partnership as a legal structure ought to be kept as separate as possible. Regardless of the issue of same-sex marriage, there is something uncomfortably close about the relationship between civil and legal code in the domain of marriage. That the marriage certificate is a legal document made valid by the signature of a priest is, to me, inconsistent with the principles that guide so many other aspects of our government.
The argument about the separation of church and state cuts both ways: If government can’t tell religion what marriage is (as the argument for Prop 8 goes), then religion can’t be the basis for a legal definition of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who grant the latter often cite research on societal benefits of the nuclear family to support their definition of marriage. However, this research falls quite short of the burden of proof if one weighs the claims of its proponents against the questionable effects and problematic validity that those studies show. Furthermore, government cannot use empirical research, valid or not, without applying it consistently. For example, no one has sought to prohibit alcoholics from getting married and having children, despite research that might suggest it would be better for society if they didn’t.
The last right not afforded by California domestic partnership is the right to have the same legal appellation as civil marriage. Symbolic as it is, I think this lack is a far cry from the rights lacked by racial minorities before and since the Civil Rights Act. Nevertheless, I do believe this problem should be solved.
There are two solutions: Expand the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples; or expand the definition of domestic partnership to include all heterosexual couples and do away with civil marriage. Each option requires a compromise. Either opponents of gay marriage give up their definition of marriage, or gays give up their aspirations to have their unions called marriage. With the latter option, the sacrifice is shared -- everyone gives up the notion of civil marriage -- but the right of religious sovereignty over the definition of marriage is not infringed and the legal rights of homosexual couples are indistinguishable from those of heterosexuals.
-- Jacob Levine
RSS Feed