My Final Project for the Philosophy of Human Rights.
My final project was to pick something I believed should be considered a human right and give the arguments for it and disect the arguments against it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gillis
Philosophy of Human Rights
Final Project Paper
Clausen
The Right to Marriage Equality for Same Sex Couples
The debate over same sex marriage is probably one of the most hotly contested in the United States today. The objections for legally recognizing same sex unions range from the oddly pragmatic - loss of tax revenue from the extra couples receiving tax breaks -- to the plain bizarre - statements about the eventual result of legalized bestiality and polygamy and according to Dr. James Dobson in an anti-gay fundraising letter he sent out in 2004, “the fall of Western civilization itself.”
What I hope to accomplish in the paper is to not only to make an effective case for why marriage equality is and should be considered a human right, but to debunk its opponents’ objections for legalizing it and their questionable epistemic justifications.
First and foremost in this debate is the emotional charged and hyperbolic language that opponents of marriage equality have chosen to sprinkle their objections with. From Reverend Jerry Falwell two days after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, blaming those very attacks on “the feminists, and the gays and lesbians” among others, proclaiming ridiculously that, 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen’ to the absolutely absurd remarks from hyperbole all-star Senator Rick Santorum, who said of the Federal Marriage Amendment put to Congress in 2004: "The future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security-standing up and defending marriage?"
They’re right, of course. Why is why the state the Massachusetts - the lone state to recognize marriage for same sex couples -- has the highest divorce rate, is plagued with the most violent crime, has the highest rate teen pregnancy and the very foundations of civil society begin to collapse.
Oh wait. It hasn’t. In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, while many of the states that have the great opposition to same sex marriage, predominantly in the South, are among the highest.
It must disappoint Dr. Dobson and his ilk that the earth hasn’t yet opened up swallowed Massachusetts. The problem with his sort of Cassandra-like warnings about same sex marriage is that, if legalized in just one place and the sky fails to fall, he runs the risk of his apocalyptic vision looking just a little silly.
So why exactly are the arguments so loud and overblown? Largely because they need to be. Well, if one were to take these charges out of a mindset that requires a direct line to infallible moral truth and into the arena of civil discussion, they really ring quite devoid of sound reasoning. To compensate, they simply turned up the volume. As French philosopher Michel de Montaigne put it, "He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”
That’s where religious language comes in. Many of the arguments made against same sex marriage, just like those against interracial marriage, women’s rights, religious freedom and even democracy itself, were overtly religious in the language of their objections and in their warnings of dire consequences, like this prophetic gem from Dr. Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” website:
“…the younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!”
And this continues the unfathomable self-martyrdom of the conservative fundamentalists. “They’re coming to get you” is a concise way to sum up their dire warnings of the consequences of legalized unions being extended to gays and lesbians. Dr. Dobson wrote on his website:
“Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since.
Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.”
Now ignoring for a minute that Dr. Dobson’s program is “homophobic”, there is a misunderstanding of the Separation of Church and State in this country. This would mean that while no same sex couple could be denied the right to marry, no church could be forced to admit such people as members or be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for them. But that would require logic on Dr. Dobson’s part and he’s already leaping the rational mountain that allows him to play the martyr card when the President of the United States is a member of his helpless and “persecuted” religion and the very politicians he fundraises for have control of all three branches of the United States government.
So much for reason.
Of course, this would get in the way of him doing what many in the conservative religious right do. Fantasizing that they’re Indiana Jones, tied to the stake and trying to keep their eyes glued shut as all of the horrible liberals, feminists and gays are opening the Ark and letting all manner of evil, destructive things out.
And that is forgetting that we are indeed in a nation that was founded on principles that include a Separation of Church and State. It is well justified to hold a belief or principle based on religious belief, but to take that belief out of the realm of religious faith and put it into secular civil law, requires something just a little more tangible and less entrenched in a “proof paradigm” centered moral philosophy. Reverend Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it well when he said, “…laws made by legislators must be rooted in constitutional values and reasoned analysis, not someone’s personal take on scripture. Put bluntly, if your representative in Congress can’t explain a vote…without ‘proof-texting’ it to the Bible, he or she has failed to do the work of a legislator in America.”
And then many will take the position that the re-election of President George W. Bush, a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment - the first addition to the Constitution since Prohibition to limit the rights of Americans - and the passage of many statewide bans of same sex marriage at the polls is proof that the American people stand against same sex marriage. But what they fail to say that had racial desegregation or the abolition of slavery been put to a vote in their day, they would have failed just as dismally. And you’d be hard pressed, even in conservative circles, to find anyone who supports or can morally justify either of those practices anymore.
Some even, argue that gay marriage being legalized would give lesbians and gays “special rights” that don’t apply to anyone. This of course is a fabrication. Were same sex marriage legalized, then hetereosexuals would have the same right to enter into a sexless, loveless marriage with a person of the same gender to whom they are not attracted, love romantically or have any desire for, just as many closeted gays and lesbians have done in marriages with people of different genders for decades. Now, that’s equality.
And finally, there is the argument that same sex couples and those who support their right to marriage want to “redefine marriage”. In his May 17th, 2004 article on ConservativeTruth.org, John Schmidt proclaimed, “The fact is that no one has the authority to redefine marriage. What is important is for someone in authority to stand up and proclaim, ‘There is no right to redefine Marriage by anybody, anywhere, any time.’”. Which relies again on misinformation and emotionally charged language. The unspoken lie is that marriage has been redefined throughout the ages. Once a means of solidifying and condensing power, land and military might between families and confirming the continuity of a bloodline for inheritance. These marriages were arranged for political purposes by the parents and sealed by the one undisputed authority in those days. The Church.
The concept of marriage being a romantic union based on love is a relatively new one, only dating back a few hundred years. So the idea that marriage has meant one thing since the dawn of time and is only now being expanded and refined, is a ridiculous one.
So, why in the face of all this anger and vitriol and spitting and screaming would same sex couples still want to wed? A number of reasons. They want to marry because they love one another, want to share in financial, moral and legal decisions and responsibilities to one another. Because many have already spent years and even decades caring for each other and want to make it legally binding.
They marry because they’ve adopted or want to adopt children and share custody as parents. Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them listed on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group:
Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits - resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
These are rights that many people - gay and straight alike - are fighting to have recognized for all people equally, because it is unfair to deny them to any family because they do not fit the narrow, traditional molds prescribed by Senator Santorum and Dr. Dobson. That the harm they claim these unions inflict on society or children can not be proven in any sort of scientific, irrefutable way. Nor can they explain that even their traditional molds have produced many of the Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs of the world. The problems of domestic violence and emotional harm can not be so easily explained or pawned off on those they choose to exclude from their ministries or from what makes the most conservative among us comfortable.
But in the end, those outside of the narrow definitions of what these opponents deem acceptable are not looking for acceptance, though that would be nice. They’re merely looking for tolerance and equality in the eyes of the law.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”
And is that really too much to ask for?
SOURCES:
The Log Cabin Republicans website: “Talking Points: What the Radical Right Says About Us”: http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/talking_points_radical_right_quotes.html
Church & State Magazine, Vol. 58. No. 3: “Politics and Proof Tests: Why I Disagree With Jim Dobson and Jim Wallis” by Revered Barry W. Lynn.
Human Rights Campaign website: “HRC Marriage Center”: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=17353
Focus on the Family website: Eleven Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage: http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
50 State Comparisons: 2004 Edition, Published by the Taxpayers Network.
Conservative Truth.Org website, “There Is No Right To Redefine Marriage” by John F. Schmidt, May 17th, 2004: http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2269
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gillis
Philosophy of Human Rights
Final Project Paper
Clausen
The Right to Marriage Equality for Same Sex Couples
The debate over same sex marriage is probably one of the most hotly contested in the United States today. The objections for legally recognizing same sex unions range from the oddly pragmatic - loss of tax revenue from the extra couples receiving tax breaks -- to the plain bizarre - statements about the eventual result of legalized bestiality and polygamy and according to Dr. James Dobson in an anti-gay fundraising letter he sent out in 2004, “the fall of Western civilization itself.”
What I hope to accomplish in the paper is to not only to make an effective case for why marriage equality is and should be considered a human right, but to debunk its opponents’ objections for legalizing it and their questionable epistemic justifications.
First and foremost in this debate is the emotional charged and hyperbolic language that opponents of marriage equality have chosen to sprinkle their objections with. From Reverend Jerry Falwell two days after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, blaming those very attacks on “the feminists, and the gays and lesbians” among others, proclaiming ridiculously that, 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen’ to the absolutely absurd remarks from hyperbole all-star Senator Rick Santorum, who said of the Federal Marriage Amendment put to Congress in 2004: "The future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security-standing up and defending marriage?"
They’re right, of course. Why is why the state the Massachusetts - the lone state to recognize marriage for same sex couples -- has the highest divorce rate, is plagued with the most violent crime, has the highest rate teen pregnancy and the very foundations of civil society begin to collapse.
Oh wait. It hasn’t. In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, while many of the states that have the great opposition to same sex marriage, predominantly in the South, are among the highest.
It must disappoint Dr. Dobson and his ilk that the earth hasn’t yet opened up swallowed Massachusetts. The problem with his sort of Cassandra-like warnings about same sex marriage is that, if legalized in just one place and the sky fails to fall, he runs the risk of his apocalyptic vision looking just a little silly.
So why exactly are the arguments so loud and overblown? Largely because they need to be. Well, if one were to take these charges out of a mindset that requires a direct line to infallible moral truth and into the arena of civil discussion, they really ring quite devoid of sound reasoning. To compensate, they simply turned up the volume. As French philosopher Michel de Montaigne put it, "He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”
That’s where religious language comes in. Many of the arguments made against same sex marriage, just like those against interracial marriage, women’s rights, religious freedom and even democracy itself, were overtly religious in the language of their objections and in their warnings of dire consequences, like this prophetic gem from Dr. Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” website:
“…the younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!”
And this continues the unfathomable self-martyrdom of the conservative fundamentalists. “They’re coming to get you” is a concise way to sum up their dire warnings of the consequences of legalized unions being extended to gays and lesbians. Dr. Dobson wrote on his website:
“Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since.
Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.”
Now ignoring for a minute that Dr. Dobson’s program is “homophobic”, there is a misunderstanding of the Separation of Church and State in this country. This would mean that while no same sex couple could be denied the right to marry, no church could be forced to admit such people as members or be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for them. But that would require logic on Dr. Dobson’s part and he’s already leaping the rational mountain that allows him to play the martyr card when the President of the United States is a member of his helpless and “persecuted” religion and the very politicians he fundraises for have control of all three branches of the United States government.
So much for reason.
Of course, this would get in the way of him doing what many in the conservative religious right do. Fantasizing that they’re Indiana Jones, tied to the stake and trying to keep their eyes glued shut as all of the horrible liberals, feminists and gays are opening the Ark and letting all manner of evil, destructive things out.
And that is forgetting that we are indeed in a nation that was founded on principles that include a Separation of Church and State. It is well justified to hold a belief or principle based on religious belief, but to take that belief out of the realm of religious faith and put it into secular civil law, requires something just a little more tangible and less entrenched in a “proof paradigm” centered moral philosophy. Reverend Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it well when he said, “…laws made by legislators must be rooted in constitutional values and reasoned analysis, not someone’s personal take on scripture. Put bluntly, if your representative in Congress can’t explain a vote…without ‘proof-texting’ it to the Bible, he or she has failed to do the work of a legislator in America.”
And then many will take the position that the re-election of President George W. Bush, a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment - the first addition to the Constitution since Prohibition to limit the rights of Americans - and the passage of many statewide bans of same sex marriage at the polls is proof that the American people stand against same sex marriage. But what they fail to say that had racial desegregation or the abolition of slavery been put to a vote in their day, they would have failed just as dismally. And you’d be hard pressed, even in conservative circles, to find anyone who supports or can morally justify either of those practices anymore.
Some even, argue that gay marriage being legalized would give lesbians and gays “special rights” that don’t apply to anyone. This of course is a fabrication. Were same sex marriage legalized, then hetereosexuals would have the same right to enter into a sexless, loveless marriage with a person of the same gender to whom they are not attracted, love romantically or have any desire for, just as many closeted gays and lesbians have done in marriages with people of different genders for decades. Now, that’s equality.
And finally, there is the argument that same sex couples and those who support their right to marriage want to “redefine marriage”. In his May 17th, 2004 article on ConservativeTruth.org, John Schmidt proclaimed, “The fact is that no one has the authority to redefine marriage. What is important is for someone in authority to stand up and proclaim, ‘There is no right to redefine Marriage by anybody, anywhere, any time.’”. Which relies again on misinformation and emotionally charged language. The unspoken lie is that marriage has been redefined throughout the ages. Once a means of solidifying and condensing power, land and military might between families and confirming the continuity of a bloodline for inheritance. These marriages were arranged for political purposes by the parents and sealed by the one undisputed authority in those days. The Church.
The concept of marriage being a romantic union based on love is a relatively new one, only dating back a few hundred years. So the idea that marriage has meant one thing since the dawn of time and is only now being expanded and refined, is a ridiculous one.
So, why in the face of all this anger and vitriol and spitting and screaming would same sex couples still want to wed? A number of reasons. They want to marry because they love one another, want to share in financial, moral and legal decisions and responsibilities to one another. Because many have already spent years and even decades caring for each other and want to make it legally binding.
They marry because they’ve adopted or want to adopt children and share custody as parents. Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them listed on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group:
Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits - resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
These are rights that many people - gay and straight alike - are fighting to have recognized for all people equally, because it is unfair to deny them to any family because they do not fit the narrow, traditional molds prescribed by Senator Santorum and Dr. Dobson. That the harm they claim these unions inflict on society or children can not be proven in any sort of scientific, irrefutable way. Nor can they explain that even their traditional molds have produced many of the Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs of the world. The problems of domestic violence and emotional harm can not be so easily explained or pawned off on those they choose to exclude from their ministries or from what makes the most conservative among us comfortable.
But in the end, those outside of the narrow definitions of what these opponents deem acceptable are not looking for acceptance, though that would be nice. They’re merely looking for tolerance and equality in the eyes of the law.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”
And is that really too much to ask for?
SOURCES:
The Log Cabin Republicans website: “Talking Points: What the Radical Right Says About Us”: http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/talking_points_radical_right_quotes.html
Church & State Magazine, Vol. 58. No. 3: “Politics and Proof Tests: Why I Disagree With Jim Dobson and Jim Wallis” by Revered Barry W. Lynn.
Human Rights Campaign website: “HRC Marriage Center”: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=17353
Focus on the Family website: Eleven Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage: http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
50 State Comparisons: 2004 Edition, Published by the Taxpayers Network.
Conservative Truth.Org website, “There Is No Right To Redefine Marriage” by John F. Schmidt, May 17th, 2004: http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2269
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what do you think?