Many elected Iowa Republicans signed onto a bill that would end marriage rights but also end civil union, in essence would curtail gays and lesbians rights to visit partners in hospitals, end the right to civil union, etc. What do you think?
Government has no proper moral or constitutional power to decide this issue. It should not be a political issue any more than should one’s religious belief or any other belief be politicized. I believe the principle of government neutrality regarding people’s beliefs and practices should be applied to the issue of gay marriage or unions. And it it is to be neutral and just to all, government must be removed from the issue for any involvement by government necessarily means forcing some and harming others.
There are many proper bases for establishing a commitment to a long term relationship (and we find them in our own extended family): 1. A social basis because we identify with a group and we want to establish a relationship with another like-minded individual. 2. An economic basis because we want to maintain an arrangement of financial benefits and obligations. 3. A religious basis because we believe marriage is sacred and want God to sanctify our union. 4. A moral basis because we feel compelled to commit to a long term relationship to preserve the mutual reciprocity in spite of stress or one-sided needs. 5. A family basis because we feel our children need and deserve a secure, loving long term arrangement. 6. A traditional basis because marriage has evolved over time and expresses a deep and long-standing institution among people. 7. Sex because it just feels good. 8. Or by a government authorization by application for a marriage license.
None of the first 7 require government approval or change in law to establish a relationship. Only #8 has a basis in law, and only #8 is therefore politicized. People certainly justify their political position on #8 on the basis of 1 through 7 but the deeper problem is why government is giving preferential treatment to one group and discriminatory treatment to another. Why isn’t government neutral? The reason is that one belief or collection of beliefs 1-7 were used as the justification to enact a legal basis for discriminatory treatment, and there seems to have been no mechanism such as Constitutional prohibition to stop it.
The debate over gay marriage often seems tangled up in 1-7, which are about the content of the relationships. People debate whether government should sanction gay marriages, etc. But the debate exists only because it was created by having government involved in the first place. We made the decision, improperly, a political one. Te problem is that we have fundamentally different points of view, and if we try to use government to decide and enforce who is right, we necessarily establish and enforce discrimination against the losers and favored treatment for the winners.
The debate should really be about the more fundamental principle regarding the proper role of government and the principle of government neutrality regarding people’s beliefs. We simply shouldn’t be politicizing human relationships by governmentalizing their essentially private nature. Of course citizens have the right to free association and to equal treatment under the law, and so we should change the debate to asking why people have used government in a way to restrict their free associations and to submit them to unequal treatment. Why have we used government force to make others adopt a discriminatory point of view regarding gay marriage?
The fact that the power of government has been used to enforce discriminatory treatment should awaken us to just how important the underlying issue is and to question why we have politicized this debate in the first place. The debate is not about whether gays have equal rights. Of course they do. The debate is about laws that enforce government discrimination.
But discussion is difficult; we generally do not debate the proper role of government perhaps for several reasons. First, it is easier not to because the issue of the day is immediate, concrete, and seems to require a position, not a diversion to something more abstract. To get to the underlying problem of whether we should use government decision-making or whether it would be better to leave it up to the citizens involved seems awkward in a discussion and uncaring to others who want to set things right…immediately, not debate and delay. We don’t usually have time for lengthy discussions and usually it would not be wise for use to use our time in such a manner.
Second, because the principle of government neutrality, like all principles is abstract, it, unlike concrete issues, takes significant thought and reflection; it is not easily given to a thoughtful and immediate response; from the research into reflective abstraction in the sciences, reflective abstraction of principles demands certain advanced intellectual capabilities that many people simply haven’t yet achieved. Reaching a position based on principles takes will power in order to withhold judgment and to do some research, analysis, and reflection. Wisdom is not immediate, and impulsive and more thoughtless argument is much easier. Emotionalism and assertion simply feel better than the values and principled reasoning.
Third, it is very tempting to use government to force others to adopt our point of view because, of course, we strongly believe we are right and because we believe the other side is not only wrong but sometimes we even infer they are evil. The test of whether there is tolerance in such impulsive behavior is to find out whether the person can honestly and lovingly explain both points of view, or do they simply dismiss or distort the other point of view?
Fourth, the pull of our notion of democracy is toward thinking that democratic decisions are always best. It is easy to believe (at least thoughtlessly) that government is the proper means to solving societal problems, and perhaps we even think it essential and necessary if a problem is to be solved. But of course the use of government to try to solve societal problems is exactly how discriminatory treatment of certain groups has been instituted and enforced. And really, do we want majority opinion even if it is democratic, and not a republican form of decision-making, deciding the issue of gay rights? Is group think the basis of moral reasoning? I think not. We must remember that throughout history, the great causes were led by leaders who have been in the minority. Even the American Revolution lacked majority support. Public opinion lags; it does not lead, and it has not been majority opinion that fostered the great revolutions and emancipations.
Fifth, I suspect we don’t want to be tainted with any suggestion that we think the other point of view has any merit less we be accused of being in their camp. We can’t discuss the Tea Partiers’ issues since that would suggest to others that we might sympathize with them, heaven forbid. Interestingly, there is a widespread phenomenon documented by researchers that in surveys what people say doesn’t match what they believe if they think their beliefs are not popular.
The last reason why we don’t discuss the proper role of government is that the logical pull of a certain kind of thinking seems to preclude any alternatives; in this kind of thinking, what grips thought to the exclusion of alternatives is the belief that governance and oversight are absolutely necessary to solving problems and to social order. Without government it seems obvious that we would have rampant corruption, violence, disintegration, prejudice, exploitation, greed, vice. Hence, we cannot ask, for example, if we want health care for all; if we believe it should be a right—should government be involved or could it be achieved better for more people by some other means? Or we cannot ask if global warming is a problem—should we use government to stop carbon based activities or is there some far better means we should use? Or we cannot ask if the bottom wages for poor people are below that of a living wage—should we use government to set a minimum wage or could we help the poor far more effectively by some other means? No. In all cases, it seems compelling to believe that we must use government to force solutions on people and that no other means could possibly solve our problems much less solve them far better. It is unthinkable to consider that government involvement may actually be the cause of a problem.
Whether gay sex is wrong, whether children should be conceived out of wedlock, whether we should have sex for the fun of it, whether there is a moral or religious basis for only opposite sex unions, none of these should be the concern of political processes for deciding how use government to impose a solution on everyone. Government in the sphere of morality and religion can be of now benefit and has often been used for great harm. Government simply can’t force people to be moral, or to be straight, or to deal honestly with others, or to respect others, or to be tolerant of others’ with whom we disagree.
Government is involved in the issue of gay rights and civil unions, and it is non-neutral in its treatment. This government involvement is quite frankly, at least from my perspective, on its face immoral. Whenever we use force to make people do things or not do things against their will except when they themselves are using force against others, we are acting immorally; the improper use of government force is a priori immoral. Here in the issue of gay rights, we have a moral issue that inappropriately was made a political issue concerning how we should have government force or prohibit certain behaviors on people or dole out benefits to certain groups and not others. Government involves has turned the issue into the question of how to use government power to force everyone to adopt a particular moral position regardless of how badly it tramples on the dignity and rights of anyone, and that is the real issue that should be discussed.
So the question of whether government should allow gay marriages or not is not the proper question. If the problem concerns how to make government neutral regarding gay rights and unions, then the only way to do that is to get government out of the issue. Thus, the fundamental question is: what the hell are we doing having our government involved and deciding this issue and perpetuating the injustice?
