National Call In: The Future of Same-Sex Marriage
The National LGBT Bar Association held a conference call today to discuss the many court and legislative battles the gay and lesbian community has won recently, and also to look at the future of the same-sex marriage movement. Executive Director D'Arcy Kemnitz (pictured left) moderated the call and was joined by Jennifer Pizer, Senior Counsel and Director of the National Marriage Project at Lambda Legal, and Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
Among the topics discussed were California's Proposition 8, the recent victories in Vermont, Maine, and Iowa, Washington D.C., the status of efforts in New Hampshire and New York, and GLAD's current federal court Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) challenge.
UPDATE: A copy of the recording is now available at the National LGBT Bar Association website. You may scroll to the bottom of this post for a link to the approximately 1-hour long audio, or read some highlights of the issues that were discussed: Read More
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Moral Absolutism and why Sexual Behavior is Irrelevant to Marriage - A Rebuttal
I came across an editorial posted by a blogger at a site called Conservative Colloquialism entitled "Flawed Premises of the Homosexual Agenda" that I feel the need to respond to. The basis of his argument is that because gay and lesbian individuals choose their sexual behaviors, discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is justifiable:
It is crucial to establish that people freely choose to engage in sexual relations, that human beings are not mere animals that cannot control themselves. In this way, one makes a fundamental distinction between a person’s freely chosen behavior and a person’s urges, feelings, desires, and attractions. Surely, a woman would not say that human beings are unable to control their sexual desires. To say such a thing is to give license to the rapist, the supreme violator of sexual morality. If the homosexual cannot control his or her own sexual urges, neither can the rapist or the pedophile. So if all sexual acts are freely chosen, then all homosexual behavior is freely chosen.
I guess the left would argue, more or less explicitly, that anal and oral sex with someone of the same sex are necessary for “individual self-fulfillment,” for reasons of “authenticity.” But this kind of talk merely turns the individual ego into the arbiter of morality, thus destroying any notion of morality. For what is morality if not independent of individual egos and wills?
This excerpt is edited. Full article here.
I believe that there is some confusion here about why marriage equality is important. It is not about equating “urges, feelings, desires, and attractions” with some universal tenant of morality, but recognizing the basic right of an individual to choose his or her own destiny. This is the fundamental basis of liberty, the ideal upon which our Constitution is founded.
Like Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage, the struggle for marriage equality focuses less on individual same-sex relationships and more on a general provision of liberty: one's freedom to join in a loving union with the person of their choosing.
It is not about being “unable to control your sexual urges,” but rather the fact that there is no valid reason to expect that people should have to. Rapists, as this person cited, are not prosecuted for their sexual urges or 'immorality', but for their acts of violence. Pedophiles are shunned not for their desire, but for the tangible harm inflicted on children. Morality is simply not a relevant issue. Even more bizarre, neither rapists nor pedophiles are restricted from marriage on the basis of their 'urges', yet this person justifies denying the institution to same-sex couples for theirs.
Simply, marriage is not rooted merely in sexual acts, but in a loving partnership between two people. Sex is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for marriage. Though an individual may temper his or her sexual desires, they cannot control feelings of love toward another human being. To expect that of a same-sex couple is as cruel as it was when it was expected of an interracial couple. That someone disagrees with their choice of partner is not a valid justification to deny them their right to choose.
The feud here is not in differing definitions of morality, but in the fallacious belief that a relationship must be 'moral' to earn state civil recognition. Such an argument is a distracting red herring. If this author wishes to deny the benefits of a civil, legal marriage to same-sex couples, there must be a civil, legal reason to do so. Arguments about sexual morality are irrelevant to the discussion.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.How We Got Here: A Brief Analysis of “Gay” Marriage
Following the Stonewall Riots in 1969, homosexuals began aggressively seeking additional legal recognition of their relationships. Shortly thereafter in 1970, a couple in Minnesota applied for a marriage license. Richard Baker and Michael McConell applied for a marriage license from the Hennepic County clerk who subsequently denied their request. The two men claimed that they met statutory requirements for marriage and sought injunctive relief. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against the couple, citing marriage as being a predefined "institution" referencing its existence in the book of Genesis. According to the Court, marriage is defined as a union of man and woman, centered on procreation and childrearing, which same-sex couples were incapable of accomplishing.
Read more about the history of same-sex marriage here.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.