The Table of malContents Weblog

Well... discussion maybe. (and yes, I've had such arguments on the site before, but they degenerated into regreattable blather (on both sides) and I think this one went well enough to post anyway)

After I sent a (rather confrontational) mail out to a few friends urging them to call their senators to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, TV's Mike Funicelli was kind enough to pass it on out to his friends. This then prompted a civil and enjoyable back and forth between a few people, and one of his friends replied with a few points with his opinion. My reply to him, which quotes his email in full, is, with his permission, reprinted below. Not posting it as "Look, I housed him!" cause, no, I don't think I did. But I did okay, and said things a bit clearer than I have in the past, so I'm posting it (slightly polished) here.

--+--+--+--+--+--

Well, here is my reply. It may be a bit jumpy. This is blind-carboned to the same people yours was carboned to. My apologies to anyone who really doesn't want this mail. I'll try to be much more civilized than I was in my original mail. Where my less confrontational views below conflict with the original mail, the below is more thought out.

"I'm not quite sure I agree with some of your points. Personally, I am neutral an the gay marriage issue. Really, I couldn't care less. But then again, I'm not married nor do I have children, so my perspective would be less complicated than those who are and do. But your characterization of this effort as a "Hate Amendment" is a bit curiuos to me. Are you saying that if I'm against homosexuality, particularily homosexual marriage, that I am guilty of hate? If that's the case I suggest it is you who are engaged in intolerance. You're basically saying that if I do not agree with you, I'm automatically guilty of hate and intolerance. I take issue with that."

What I'm saying that if you're against homosexuality in general, yes, you are guilty of bigotry. Am I being intolerant, in the sense of "unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs," of what I see as bigotry? Well, yes. And no.

Lots of people can and have disapproved of and had a problem with homosexuality. Or desegregation. Or the end of slavery. Or they dislike Jews. Or the Irish. Or Catholics. That's the way people are, and to a point, I don't care all that much. One LONGtime friend of the family says 'colored' and hates interracial marriage (which is a good analogy in many ways, and will be mentioned again a lot in this mail.) But you know what? He's not really hurting anyone, and he's old, and he's a product of his upbringing, and frankly, he can think what he wants. He has every right to believe what he believes. And many, many people are just uncomfortable about gays and gay marriage. It's unfortunate, but I accept that. So in that sense, I have tolerance.

Where my tolerance does, I freely admit, stop, is when people act on their beliefs to deny the rights of others. I do not have tolerance for that. Would you have me be tolerant of the opinions of George Wallace standing in the doorway of the University of Mississippi stopping black students? Or of Bull Connor spraying black schoolchildren with a firehose for wanting to share a lunch counter? I say thee nay. And I see gay marriage as no different, or no less a civil rights issue. (I know you disagree on that, which I address later.)

So, to sum up the above, "You're basically saying that if I do not agree with you, I'm automatically guilty of hate and intolerance", no, everyone can believe what they want, but don't use your power to oppress people based on your own hangups.

"You state: 'Even if gay marriage makes you uncomfortable, the government should not be enshrining into our constitution rules about what genetic makeups get which civil rights, and making it so that future generations cannot extend those rights if they decided to do so in the future.' That's quite a mouthful. Not only that, but you are stating conclusions that are very much open for both debate and interpretation."

It was indeed a mouthful. It was walking a line. I would love it to be nationally legal right now, but that will not, and perhaps politically should not, happen right away. Like reforms like this before, (cough*interracial marriage*cough) leave it to the states for now. The states that do make it okay will, amazingly, not collapse into anarchy, and the rest of the country will see that. Eventually the Supreme Court would rule that, yes, under the constitution as it is written today, it really should be allowed, and by then, many of the moderates that are the majority of the country may have forgotten why they ever cared. That mouthful was trying to appeal to people like Senator McCain, who, yes, opposes gay marriage, but still does not believe it is appropriate to enshrine rules against it into the constitution.

Take a look at some of the quotes against interracial marriage here: http://www.buddybuddy.com/quiz-1.html (the 'quiz' being a trick, as they are all about interracial marriages. ALL. of them.)

They'll look very familiar. Very. Very very very. And there were many attempts to make a constitutional ban on this around the turn of the century. Could you imagine if these amendments had passed, how it would look nowadays?

"First of all, we're talking about an institution that has pretty much existed from the dawn of time, predating any concept of 'civil rights' by millennia. Understand this, it is not those who believe in a traditional concept of marriage who are forcing this issue. No-one would be talking about a Constitutional Amendment if it were not homosexual groups attempting to codify gay marriage via the courts."

Traditional marriage that goes back from the dawn of time means kidnapping the wife. Or buying her from the father. Or meeting your wife on your wedding day a la Tevye and Golde. Love was far from the primary purpose. Miscegeny was untraditional. Divorce was once non-existent, which can be good or bad depending on who you ask. The definition changes, and has changed, and claims that the definition is ancient are simply incorrect on many levels. And yes, it is the oppressed who are fighting back against their oppressors. One can hardly expect things to change otherwise.

"So what exactly is it that you find so repellent - the fact that those who don't agree with you are seeking redress via the Constitution, or those you do agree with doing the same? And why are you so quick to state that the people who don't agree with are motivated by hate? Hmmmmmm, an overwhelming number of people believe (rightly or wrongly, again, an item still open to debate) that marriage is between a man and a woman. A much smller group of people wish to turn that basic assumption on it's head, and you characterize their reaction as being motivated by hate? I really wonder which side is more guilty of intolerance......"

Hardly overwhelming. In fact, most polls range from a 50-50 split to a 60-40 split nationwide. (always with more against, of course). Among the 30 and under though, it's closer to 70-30 in favor. Canadians are in favor of it overall. Views are shifting. Pick any single movement towards equality (women voting, desegregation, etc.) and you'll find the majority opposed it at one time.

Besides, our government is specifically designed not to be beholden to what Mill called "The tyranny of the majority"

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own." - John Stuart Mill - "On Liberty"

"But perhaps some common ground.........to state that marriage is a civil right is not something I would agree with (how's that for starting off on common ground?)."

The Supreme Court strongly says otherwise. I quote from Loving v. Virginia (1967) which legalized (wait for it) the 'non-traditional' interracial marriage:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. 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 discriminations. 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." - (italics mine)

"But I do think we might agree that marriage in general should not be politicized."

agreed.

"But guess what - it already is."

agreed.

"Putting aside the way our society treats and provides allowances/benefits for marriage and the respect it places upon it (at least residually), the government does the same. The government recognizes marriage (in its current form) and provides benefits for it. If this were not so then why all the fuss? But these same benefits (survivor notivfication, survivor benefits, etc.)can be achieved outside the government via wills, testaments, etc. So again I have to ask, why all the fuss?"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm says there are approx. 1400 rights automatically granted to married people in the United States. Seems a bit unfair to make people jump through 1400 hoops.

Besides, even if it were the same, need I remind you that the meaning behind marriage (least for the last few hundred years,) is for two people, who love each other very much, to affirm before each other, before the state, before their neighbors, and before their God, that they choose to spend the rest of their lives with each other. There is a connotation to the word marriage that a civil union simply cannot grant.

If I may quote the Court again: Separate is Not Equal.

"The problem, or the main point of contention (in my opinion) is not really about what benefits the government showers upon marriage and gay couples want their place at the government sugar tit. I contend that the issue is that homosexuals want society to accept their lifestyle (as opposed to them as individuals) as equal and on par with heterosexuals. And what better way to achieve this than by legally codifying homosexual marriage? As clearly as I can see and understand their (homosexuals') motivation, I can see and understand the other side as well. And it's not as insidious as you make it out to be."

I agree it's in part a PR play. The unequal want equality, and this is an important step towards it. What I can't understand is how active opposition to that cannot be anything but insidious.