Voting on Same Sex Marriage

Voting on Same Sex Marriage

            I don’t have to tell any reader about the attention surrounding the issue popularly known as gay marriage.  With the Supreme Court is currently hearing the California Prop 8 challenge, every media outlet and partisan hack has been commenting, one way or another, on gay marriage and its possible ramifications for American society.  Will it open the flood gates for all kinds of marriage or will it normalize the virtual relationships, identical to traditional marriages in all but name, that many Americans have long been involved?  Will we finally give homosexuals the basic civil rights that they have long been denied?  These are certainly important questions, but I can’t help but wonder if we are overlooking the most important question of all that seems to be lost in the whole California Prop 8 spectacle, should we even be voting a person’s civil rights?  Should we put a person’s civil rights up to a popular vote, as we have done in California with Prop 8?  Should a minority’s civil rights be at the mercy of popular opinion and the tyranny of the majority?  The answers to these questions lie in definitively defining freedom of sexuality, and by extension gay marriage, as a civil right, and in our own, American history with civil rights.  At this point, overwhelming consensus is that sexuality is a civil right. 

            In the United States we currently define; gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and age as civil rights and provide adequate protection against discrimination by our laws.  Sexuality, specifically homosexuality in this case, isn’t any different from gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or age.  First, if you think that a person is born with their sexuality, for simple example, that a person is born homosexual or heterosexual, then you would think they have no control over their sexuality.  A person is also born with their race, gender, and ethnicity and one has little control over one’s age, so sexuality is very similar in lack of choice.  On the other hand, if you happen to be of the persuasion that sexuality is a choice, for example, one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual, then sexuality has freedom of choice in common with religion.  Either way, one can view sexuality under the guise of existing civil rights. 

Let’s turn the table 180 degrees with an experiment.  Imagine a world which exists exactly as it does today, with the notable exception that traditional sexuality, homosexual and heterosexual, norms are reversed.  Homosexuals are in the majority and heterosexuals the minority.  Homosexual, same sex, marriage is legal and heterosexual marriage is not.  Most American opponents of same sex marriage would be outraged to live in such a world.  When “The Crooked Man” by Charles Beaumont, which depicted just such a scenario, was published in Playboy in 1955 it created a stir and outrage.  People were very upset and expressed their frustration in harsh language and terse words in letters to Playboy.  People were clearly outraged.  The lesson to be learned from this experiment is that if it was wrong to persecute heterosexuals in a homosexual majority world, it is wrong to persecute homosexuals in a heterosexual majority world.  These points taken in aggregate lead me to believe that we should define sexuality as a civil right. 

You may ask, how does sexuality as a civil right relate to marriage?  The United States government recognizes secular marriages regardless of common civil rights; race, religion, ethnicity, and age.  Sexuality should not be considered as well.  In a world in which the US government doesn’t define marriage by any religious definition, the government would not be bounded to defining marriage between different genders, as many religions do.  

Some would argue that a marriage is based on the union of two people for procreation, but many married heterosexual couples choose not to have children.  If we allow these childless couples to remain married, then marriage is based on the union of two people, not just for procreation.  If procreation is no longer considered, the sexuality of partners is no longer important, and thus there is no basis to discriminate on basis of sexuality in marriage in regards to procreation.  By this new definition of marriage, there is no reason why same sex partners should not enjoy the civil right of marriage.  To deny same sex partners marriage based on their sexuality, would be to deny them their civil rights.  Which leads back to the original question, should we be putting someone’s civil rights up to a popular vote?  The second part of the answer to that question lies in our past history with civil rights.

We did not put the civil rights of African-Americans in the South to a popular vote.  The federal government took action.  How much longer would it have taken African-Americans in Southern states to realize their civil rights if we had let voters in Southern states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi vote on African-American civil rights?  How much longer would it have taken us to dismantle segregation in the South if we had put it up to a popular vote in the South?  We didn’t put the civil rights of African-Americans to state wide popular votes in the Southern states because we didn’t want African-Americans to be subject to the tyranny of the white majority.  If this is the lesson we have learned from our history with African-American civil rights, then why are we not following it now?  If we knew it was wrong to put the civil rights of African-Americans to a popular vote, why are we putting the civil rights of homosexuals to a popular vote, to be at the whims of popular sentiment?  Why would we put the civil rights of homosexuals at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority?

“The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time,” Jackie Robinson.  Ultimately, it is a travesty that in 2013 the words of Jackie Robinson still ring true.  We have a group of fellow Americans that cannot realize their civil rights and who effectively have second class citizenship.  As worse, we are putting their civil rights to a popular vote, just like any other ballet initiative.  No one’s civil rights should be put at the mercy and whims of a popular opinion.  No one’s civil rights should be under the tyranny of the majority.  Good thing for Jackie Robinson that the decision to allow him to play baseball wasn’t put up to a popular vote.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will render this point moot and we can finally realize Jackie Robinson’s dream of an America where every citizen enjoys first-class citizenship.          

Addendum thought passage: Cause of Traditional Religious Communities to Same Sex Marriage

            I think the root of religious opposition, and most opposition for that matter, to same sex marriage has to do with power dynamics.  Religious communities are losing power in United States culture and same sex marriage is a graphic representation of the struggle they are losing.  As the power of religious communities continues to decrease in the United States, their opposition will only grow more vocal and severe.

              While not discussed often, there is tremendous power in the ability to define a society’s ethics and morals.  The general ethics and morals of a society provide the internal mental controls that govern much of the behavior of individuals.  They inform what kind of behavior and, more importantly, thoughts are deemed acceptable and actionable.  Throughout the majority of human history, religious thinking has carried enormous sway over every day human behavior, most often setting the laws of a nation state.  Only relatively recently have secular forces been able to define laws, but religious forces still hold great influence over society.  Very recently, in the western world, religious forces have been losing their influence and control over society as well.  Much has been made in the press about a post Christian Europe and increasingly an irrelevance of religion in the United States.  Any number of cultural battles in society have been won by secular forces.  Compared to 50 years ago, religious communities have much less influence and control over society today.  I think this loss of power to influence the ethics and morals of society is the main driving factor behind the intense opposition to same sex marriage in the United States. 

            Same sex marriage is seen as a defining representation of this power battle by religious communities in the United States.  Religious communities need to recognize that the power paradigm is shifting.  They have lost much influence among the young and this will cause them to have decreasing power as their older adherents die without younger cohorts to replace them.  They have already lost power on this issue.  Better to embrace gay marriage and shepherd it into their existing morals and to preserve what power they do have.  

When in history have those in power willingly let go of power?  There are very few examples throughout history, if any, when a particular group has ceded power without compensation.  I do not believe that current religious communities in the United States will cede their remaining cultural power easily.  We should expect opposition to continue.