Marriage Equality Compromise

Debating is awesome. I love it almost too much to be a part of a coherent society. Some could say that my study of logical fallacies, winning tactics, applications of philosophy and the opposing views of a lot of different issues has probably consumed an inordinate amount of my time, but I could argue that it hasn't. See? I'm debating already and I haven't even written more than four sentences. All I'm basically saying is that debating is awesome. Why? Because it is. It's hard to quantify or describe fully, because not everyone likes it and not everyone who likes it is good at it. In fact, some people are really bad, and that's what this post is all about. Let's proceed, shall we?

Issue de jour: MARRIAGE EQUALITY

FYI, keep in mind that if I alternate between "marriage equality" and "gay marriage", it's only because the main thrust of the marriage equality movement is rights for homosexuals, as anti-miscegenation laws are thankfully a thing of the past. As American readers should recall, Propositions 8 and 102 passed, though not without controversy. While the existence of controversy is understandable, the extremes of the debate were not. I mean, check out this commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

For those of you not willing to go the extra mile and click the link, it's the National Organization For Marriage's "Gathering Storm" commercial. You know, the one where the "rainbow coalition" of "average people" are standing in front of a green screen making vague references to storms and clouds and stuff. Well, they also make some passing mentions that legalizing gay marriage will take away the rights of said "average people" and generally lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and/or Judgment Day, but you can just ignore a statement that unverifiable, right? Um, no. Normally, a responsible citizen/viewer of a commercial such as this would request some data that would prove beyond all doubt that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the above. I'm sure plenty of people actually did this, so if you did, let me know how that turned out. Anyway, if you haven't done so yet, let me tell you what'll happen- nothing. NOM won't give you this data because none exists. Their debate is an entirely moral argument based mostly on speculation and- it could be argued for some, though certainly not all- bigotry. That's right, I said it, bigotry. OOGITY BOOGITY. Not the B-word! Yes, the B-word.

Now let's talk about the B-word. It exists. I don't discount that, and anyone who does is deluding themselves. However, it shouldn't be the go-to rebuttal every time an opponent presents a contradictory argument. Otherwise, we spend too much time looking at maybe-bigots when we could be worrying about actual-bigots. Just like it doesn't help the debate for opponents to say "You're taking away my rights!" (they aren't), it doesn't help the debate for proponents to say "You don't want gay marriage because you hate me and all I love!" (they don't). Both sides are making what they believe to be moral arguments, which is pretty much the only argument you can make about this kind of thing. Yes, opponents, the proponents have morals. They may not be a carbon-copy of yours, but calling them "amoral" or "godless" won't get you anywhere. They probably aren't, because only Alex Delarge from "A Clockwork Orange" is amoral and calling an atheist "godless" would be counterproductive to your argument in that you're implying that some have a god and others don't.

Since both arguments are based in what is considered morality and both sides believe that there really is no argument because they are, in fact, right, you'd think reconciliation would be impossible or at least improbable. That's what both sides tell me, so it must be true, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA no. That's where I come in.

The problem is that homosexuals would like to marry each other, claiming marriage as a Constitutionally-recognized civil right, and most evangelicals would have us believe that gay people caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and say "no". The matter is complicated by the fact that civil unions and gay marriage aren't recognized everywhere, civil unions are kind of a cop-out, and both sides know "with every fiber of their being" that they're right.

Constitutionally, the proponents are correct; ever since the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law and Perez v. Sharp in California ruled bans on mixed-race marriages unconstitutional, marriage has been a recognized civil right. This is great for me; anyone who's read my earlier posts knows that I'm so white I reflect and my girlfriend is a paragon of Filipina beauty. This is important because the same California law that prevented Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis from marrying  (the unfortunately-named "Section 69") also prevented marriages between a white and a "Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race", meaning my girlfriend and I would be out of luck in CA. This situation is known in legal terms as no bueno. That case and further developments in the early 1960's led to the repeal of a similar law in my home state of Arizona which specifically banned marriages between whites and Filipinos (among others).

Based on this assessment, the only recourse is to move for marriage equality on a national scale. But this is a compromise, remember? There has to be a caveat in a compromise, so here it is: gay marriage would be legal, but no church would be forced to perform a gay marriage against the will of their leadership. But wait! That defeats the point, right? NO, for three reasons:

1. There are churches that push for marriage equality.
2. In case a given religious leader isn't willing to cooperate, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and Elvis impersonators nationwide will still be able to perform legally binding marriages for homosexuals.
3. The separation of church and state would dictate the government not force any church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to perform as long as those rights to marriage equality are available elsewhere. 

Yeah, I said "separation of church and state"; what about it? Doesn't feel too awesome when it's used against you, does it, secular humanists? Take that! Ahem... Back on topic.

"Separation of church and state" works both ways: churches don't try and enact undue influence on the government, and the government doesn't tell churches what to do unless what they want to do infringes upon the rights of others. Therefore, any religious organization that objects to gay marriage doesn't have to perform them, since the marriage could just be performed elsewhere and be just as legal. I'm also sure that someone out there will bring up the recent scandal involving a predominantly white church in Mississippi refusing to marry a black couple because the congregation disapproved. Does that case have bearing on what I've discussed here? Yes, but in some ways no.

Yes, because this is a case of a local church refusing to perform a marriage that conflicts with their standards, however warped those standards are. This case, however, lacks certain similarities with Perez v. Sharp. For one thing, Perez and Davis were an interracial couple, whereas Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson are both black. That, and the fact that their marriage was opposed by a vocal minority of a local congregation of a few hundred as opposed to the entire church membership or a state government, makes the circumstances different enough that- if brought to court- I would imagine the verdict relying more on the merits of the individual incident and less on the Perez v. Sharp decision. Of course, I'm not a legal scholar in any way and while I hope the Wilsons can reach a conclusion without having to sue, I'd be interested to see the results.

Additionally, if we assume that gay marriage were legalized nationwide and a given church (let's use the Catholic Church as an example) were to abstain from performing gay marriages, we would be presented with at least two problems. First, the legal battle to change Catholic policy, and doctrine by extension, would be a logistical nightmare that neither side would enjoy. First off, there are nearly 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, and while individual diocese and so on can make decisions regarding their own jurisdiction, they aren't allowed to contradict established teachings. That would take an Ecumenical Council from the Vatican to change their policies on homosexuality and marriage, which in terms of likelihood is about the same statistically as you spontaneously combusting while getting hit by a chunk of space debris and ball lightening at the same time while standing at the end of a rainbow with an actual pot of gold in a patch of four-leaf clovers, all while watching a total solar eclipse and a supernova. It's not gonna happen.

Not to say that the fight for civil rights and marriage equality can just be given up because the odds are steep; on the contrary, its importance merits national legalization to extend these rights as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, we need to bear in mind that a 1700-year-old, multinational organization with over a billion followers doesn't stop on a dime, nor will it cave to a US Supreme Court ruling. Legally, we need to think about this like General MacArthur thought of the Pacific Theater: why take every Catholic diocese in the country to court- thus incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and years of litigation- when a nationwide policy of legalization would effectively do away with the problems of spotty legal protection for gay couples?

Finally, the argument can and will be made by Catholic officials that a homosexual Catholic who wants to marry another homosexual is a bad Catholic. This is a point on which the Vatican will not capitulate, so don't get all worked up about it if you can't do anything about it. The issue here is legal protection for gay couples, which is something that only the government can guarantee by virtue of their authority in the Constitution. If the Catholics or any other church doesn't want to recognize a gay couple's marriage on a doctrinal level, that's fine. Yes, it's fine. After all, why do we argue for separation of church and state in the first place, if not to emphasize that ours is a nation that protects government from religion and religion from government? Once marriage equality is protected constitutionally and gay marriage is nationally available, would the Catholic Church really be taking away the rights of homosexual couples?

Think of it like a capitalist. If you want jeans, you could go to the Levi store and buy a brand-new pair off the rack: there's at least $50 right there. However, you could hit up a thrift store or outlet mall and get the same jeans for $5. Either way, you've got the same pair of jeans on with less hassle and less cost. The Levi store is the Catholic Church; it's been around forever, and there's a lot more pomp and circumstance involved with getting married there than with a marriage elsewhere, but in the end you're still married. Remember the Elvis impersonators from a couple paragraphs ago? Yeah, that's the Ross of marriage. You're still married, but was the shame of the proceedings really worth it?

Anyway, that's my Opinion. I think it's rad, but I'm biased in its favor, so what do you expect? Feel free to express your Opinions below so I may tell you how wrong they are.