June 20, 2006
-
The Marriage Amendment: Pro and Con
Should the Marriage Amendment be added to the United States Constitution?
That's one of this week's discussion topics at Socrates CafeWhile this particular constitutional amendment seems to be mostly a Republican political ploy designed to mollify their conservative base; it exemplifies a more serious underlying american dilemma, that of disliking prejudice while still wishing to keep traditional value interpretations alive.
Marriage is a very basic custom and important part of our value system. It is fundamentally the public recognition the pairing of a couple and their public statement of commitment to become a family. The rituals of the marriage ceremony are traditionally handled by the Religious institution while the Government is very much involved as part of its responsibility to maintain social order.
Even though our Constitution and our custom specifically prohibits the government from sponsoring any religion, it is a important basic part of our culture and there has always been an interlocking of basic religious social values and governmental rules. The concept of marriage has always been one of these, and civil law often shows a religious origin. The rules about who can be married, at what age, how many times, etc. all have a base in social custom that is part of our general religious heritage.
In modern times, many people have elected to make their marriage a completely civil and legal affair with no religious association apparent, but the basic assumptions and laws of the culture still control almost all "pair-bondings" even those called "Common Law Marriages" which assume the legal and social commitment after a length of time. Even the Hippies of thirty+ years ago, some of whom refused to get married because they wanted no government intrusion on their private lives, could not completely escape the legal responsibilities that come with this socio-sexual commitment.
The marriage amendment as it is written is pretty obviously an attempt to prevent legal pair-bonding of homosexual couples, a prohibition based on our religious background which has come under scrutiny and attack much as racial discrimination did forty years ago.
Comments (13)
When are values considered part of our religious heritage, and when are they considered rational ethics? Why should/shouldn't the particular values motivating the Marriage amendment be institutionalized?
I agree with your premise. Separation of church and state is fundamentally important; however it is important to keep our culture intact also. I feel that marriage should be protected; however how to do that is the question isn’t it.
You have pointed out the conflict of values that is occuring between non-predjudice and traditional value interpretations. It seems as though we can become more accepting and risk some of the traditional lifestyle, or we can keep the tradition and possibly risk opressing a minority group. Neither of those downsides look very attractive in terms of the "American value system," so to speak, which values both tradition and non-prejudice. When a conflict of values occurs, how can it be decided between them?
Does any group of the population have the right to force the entire population to live by its moral values? If the marriage amendment passes, what will the consequences be? What will happen if it does not pass? If gay marriage becomes a widely accepted practice, what other changes would logically follow?
You have indicated what the situation is, but you have carefully avoided setting out an answer to the question: should the marriage amendment be added to the constitution? and why or why not
Nance's question is a good one. The problem is that our entire population has been living by the moral values which some religious groups have appropriated as exclusivly their own and intrepreted to suit their particular dogma.
It is unlikely that anything resembling the marriage amendment will pass congress, much less 38 state legislatures. I think its main effect will be to partially polarize some groups of american voters and distract them from more substantial problems.
The only way a person can be a complete unbeliever is if they take a totally stoic attitude to everything. But then, believing that stoicism is the best way to handle things is a belief too, right? I think all people have beliefs. It'd be impossible not to. And from these they can draw hope. Some beliefs may not bring hope however. Are you familiar with Nietzche's writings? His philosophy is as hopless as they come.
I am agreeing with tyechat on this. Fundamentally marriage is an economic contract. This is about who gets what (life insurance, inheritance) and who gets a say in the big decisions (should we pull the plug? Can she stay with me so I can take care of her?). The move is a distraction. And again like the issue of gee, should I have an abortion or not, the issue is being attacked on the wrong end. The law should address the cause and not the end result.
Maybe the question should be: Why a Constitutional amendment instead of State and Federal laws regulating marriage. After all, we have many such laws now?
Answer: Because as the constitution now stands, such laws are probably unconstitutional under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment and these anti-gay activists are getting desperate.
Another question: How can this "split in our moral fabric" between those advocating tolerance of Gays and those who think their religious beliefs are being threatened be healed? How long will it take?
And another question - How does allowing gays to marry if they want to do that change anyone's religious beliefs? Should churches have the right to impose their views on civil institutions? If so, why can't public buildings display the 10 commandments?
I'm sorry, Dick. This is Nancy. Forgot I was signed in as Simone.
As I see it, those conservative (and somewhat prejudiced) church-goers who think their religion is in some danger from gay marriage use something like this kind of reasoning:
1. This is a Christian Nation, founded by believers who were so imbued with Christian values that they never thought these values would come under attack by godless humanistic rationalists.
2. This recognition of the evil gay lifestyle is undermining those Christian values of our forefathers and this will lead to moral decay (already has) and the collapse of our nation as we know it.
3. Humanism is already undermining most of the "mainstream" religions. Episcopalians have elected a gay bishop and a female presiding bishop; Presbyterians have given individual congregations the right to select a gay pastor; Methodists have female preachers - who knows how far these evils will spread?
All of the preceding statements can be found on numerous websites and are thundered from numerous pulpits every Sunday. This group really feels that it's under attack and is, in my mind, itself a real threat to American values.
Their beginning assumptions (see #1) are incorrect - as a matter of fact the United States was founded and directed by a group of Humanists, Deists, Masons, and Unitarians who insured our continued religious freedom by carefully separating Government and Religion. They apparently feared exactly what the fundamentalists are trying to do right now and did all they could to prevent it. After all, to insure the success of their "Right" agenda, they must amend the Constitution itself.
Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular article! It’s the little changes that make the greatest changes. Thanks for sharing!