A Series to Explore Gay Marriage – Part II

Part II

One of the main arguments for Proposition 8 is that the majority of the citizens should decide who gets to marry, and how marriage should be defined.

In 2000 61% of California voters passed a proposition that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This was recently overturned by the California Supreme Court as unconstitutional because the California state constitution proclaims equal rights to all citizens.

Many Californians are upset that judges could overturn a proposal that was passed by a majority of the citizens in California. This situation brings up a question of how our democracy works and how the constitutional rights of groups and individuals are protected. Who has the power to protect our rights, the majority of citizens or a few liberal or conservative judges?

When it comes to the protection of our rights, is a vote of the majority the best way? In a pure democracy the majority would rule on every issue. This is not how our government is set up to function though, and there are good reasons for that. Our constitution is designed to protect the rights of all individuals not just the majority. Many of the groundbreaking movements in our history such as the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and women's suffrage would not have happened when they did if it were left up to individual states to institute these changes through a majority vote of their citizens.

Our constitution is designed to give equal rights to everyone, including the smallest minorities. We depend on judges to interpret the constitution and to objectively protect the rights of all citizens, not just the majority's rights.

This brings up another question; is marriage considered a right?

In 1967 the US Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia overturned laws forbidding interracial marriage. The court wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The US Supreme Court has not applied this ruling to homosexual marriages at this time, however, the California State Supreme Court's ruling established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect.

Many of the same arguments that are being used to fight against gay marriage were used to fight against interracial marriage.

Part I discussed the nature of homosexuality. I believe that the relatively recent discussion and understanding of sexual orientation in our society has led to changes in the way that we think about this issue. Homosexuality is beginning to be protected from discrimination in legal cases the same way that any other inherent trait is protected. I believe that in the not-too-distant future the law will ban discrimination based on sexual orientation the same way that it protects disabled people or people of color.

Part III Preview:

How will school children be affected by equality for homosexuals? Will traditional marriage be harmed by gay marriage?

A Series to Explore Gay Marriage - Part 1

Part I

Within the last few months I’ve become aware of California Proposition 8, a proposal to amend the state constitution to place a ban gay marriage. This is not the first attempt of a state to ban gay marriage, and won’t be the last. Just today a similar judicial decision was handed down in Connecticut granting the right of homosexuals to marry, and there will undoubtedly be a backlash there too.

So why should I care? I don’t live in California or Connecticut. In the next few years this issue will affect all Americans no matter where we live. Gay rights and gay marriage are not going away.

For those of you that are LDS this issue is particularly relevant because of the LDS church’s active involvement in this political battle. You may know that in June the First Presidency of the Church issued a letter read to be read over the pulpit in all California congregations calling for members to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.” The Church is the single largest financial contributor to this proposal and has donated over 5 million dollars to the cause so far. This is causing a dilemma for many LDS people, and has spawned many movements by active LDS members that disagree with the Church’s involvement in a political matter, especially when they are specifically asking members to vote a certain way and to donate their means and time to the cause.

Many are unsure of their personal stance on this issue and many others are against gay marriage but they may not have clear reasons for their position.

The importance of this issue requires us all to become informed so that we can make knowledgeable decisions about it. That is why I’m writing about this. I hope you will take the time to read and respond with your thoughts and opinions. If we disagree and have a different point of view I welcome your comments, and I will be respectful of your view. I want to share what I’ve found in my search for understanding, and have a discussion with the people in my life to better understand their position.

I’ve divided this topic into a series of posts because it gets complicated, and there is much to discuss within the context of this issue. I will post one segment at a time, leave time for comments and discussion before posting the next part.

I think one of the most important aspects of this issue is to determine whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice made by some people, a product of a dysfunctional environment, or a biological condition that a small portion of our species is born with.

Nature vs. Nurture and Biology vs. Choice
Is homosexuality an inherently evil choice that deviant members of society are making, or are homosexuals born with an innate attraction to their own sex that is no more a conscious choice than the choice that heterosexuals make to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Since the LDS church is entangled in this issue let's see what the prominent scholars of the Church believe about whether homosexuality is a choice or not? According to BYU biology professor William Bradshaw it is no more a choice than whether you are right-handed or left-handed. You can read what his research shows here (it’s a quick read and really worthwhile): http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

This is nothing new. The scientific/medical/psychological community as a whole has understood this for many years. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that homosexuals are born straight and then suddenly decide to become gay. Most homosexuals report that they had homosexual feelings from a very young age. Environmental factors have also been mostly ruled out; this is a biological matter just like the color of our hair and eyes. Homosexuality appears in similar proportions throughout the animal kingdom as it does in humans. Are the animals making an evil choice to be gay? There is so much evidence from all perspectives that homosexuality is a trait that people are born with that it really challenges the idea that choice has any part of it.

I’ve heard some say that it may not be a choice to be gay, but that it is a choice to be sexually active if you are gay. I try to put myself in the position of a gay LDS member. Here is my conceptualization of what it would be like from the perspective of a heterosexual man. I’m given two choices:

1. Marry a man even though I’m only attracted to women.
2. Live the rest of my life in celibacy, alone, never sharing intimacy with another human being.

Not very attractive options.

If the same moral rules against fornication and adultery apply to homosexuals, should we give them the option to marry so they can live that higher law and commitment to their partner too?

Thoughts, reactions?

Coming up next: Part II – The Politics of Gay Marriage – looking at the arguments on both sides of Prop 8