.

Same-sex marriage: looking beyond "eat mor chikin"

The issue of same-sex marriage is a test of our commitment to the idea of a free society.

 

At its recent meeting in New Orleans, the Southern Baptist Convention made history by electing its first ever African-American president. However, it was business as usual when it overwhelmingly adopted a resolution saying, “We deny that the effort to legalize ‘same-sex marriage’ qualifies as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender.”

If the Baptists had said that their religious beliefs prohibit member congregations from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages, their position would be unassailable. But by venturing into the secular realm of civil rights, they open themselves to arguments from which their religious beliefs provide no sanctuary.

I’m not going to rehash the arguments that have been aired on this issue to the point of tedium. Having been married to the same woman for forty-four years, I don’t have a dog in this fight. What I want to do instead is suggest that understanding some defining elements of a free society gives us a way of moving beyond food fights featuring chicken sandwiches.

Three aspects of a free society are key here.

First, in a free society what the lawyers and political thinkers call “ordered liberty” is a basic value.

Second, while I believe the libertarians get some things wrong, one thing they get right is this: To say that ordered liberty is a basic value means at least that policy initiatives extending liberty are, so to speak, “innocent until proven guilty.” In other words, the burden of proof is always on those who’re opposed to expanding liberty, not on those who favor it.

Third, in order for opponents of some policy extending liberty to “convict” it as a “guilty” one, they have to make a compelling case that the policy will inflict some identifiable harm on people. When I say “identifiable” harm, I mean something more than vague, speculative harms. If ordered liberty is a basic good, then we shouldn’t go around denying it to people on the basis of nothing more than speculations and conjectures about terrible things that’ll happen if competent adults are left free to live as they think fit, consistent with the same liberty for others.

You may disagree, but I don’t think any of this is controversial. These principles just spell out the minimum standards that any society has to meet to qualify as free. To the degree that we flout them, we’re not really committed to the idea of a free society.

If that’s right, these principles tell us something important about how the issue of same-sex marriage should be addressed.

Since it’s a question of fact, not sentiment, whether some policy does anybody any identifiable harm, the ballot box isn’t the best place to evaluate a policy like same-sex marriage. A better forum is one in which advocates pro and con make their cases before an impartial referee enforcing recognized rules of evidence and other procedures ensuring an objective assessment of the key factual claims.

Courts come to mind as venues fitting this description. Whereas voters are free to act on their passions, hunches and anything else that moves them, the parties to a lawsuit aren’t.

States that have banned same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment recognize the difference between those two arenas and have taken this approach precisely to put the issue beyond the dispassionate analysis it would get in the courts.

A now famous example of what happens to the case against same-sex marriage when it’s subjected to this kind of analysis emerged in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. That was the case, tried in federal court for the Northern District of California, challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which asked California voters whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in the state. A majority said they shouldn’t.

The judge in the case went out of his way to afford both sides ample opportunity to present their evidence, even allowing the testimony of an “expert” witness opposing same-sex marriage who didn’t qualify as one. In federal court, you’re not an expert just because you say you are. You have to meet certain standards that this witness, one of only two experts testifying against same-sex marriage, didn’t.

But even with this boost from the court, the opponents of same-sex marriage pretty much fell on their faces. One telling exchange occurred during oral argument. When the judge suggested to the opponents’ attorney that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and asked how same-sex marriage damages that interest, at first the attorney tried to dodge the question. But when pressed, he could say only, “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” 

Though historically distinct, contrary to the Southern Baptist Convention’s resolution, Jim Crow laws and prohibitions against same-sex marriage both test our commitment to ordered liberty as the bedrock of a free society. Just as the burden was on the segregationists to show why the liberties they enjoyed shouldn’t be extended to African-Americans, the burden is on same-sex marriage opponents to show what actual, identifiable harm will be done if the freedom to marry is extended to same-sex couples. If, in a free society, the burden of proof is always on those opposed to extensions of liberty, “I don’t know” doesn’t come even remotely close to discharging that burden.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dave Ballard August 10, 2012 at 08:33 PM
The big question I'm getting from what you said is "what reason is good enough to NOT change?" I'm also understanding that religion might be a good enough reason. Am I getting those right? The only thing I would change in your three points would be on your third one. Harm is definitely a valid concern, but so is reality. What I mean to say is that calling a "chicken" a "frog" does not make it so, whether it hurts anyone or not. Historically (and I mean world-wide, long-term), a union where children may possibly be naturally conceived by the persons involved is about the only universal constant among the many different definitions of marriage that do and have existed. That doesn't mean Georgia can't decide differently, since there's nothing in the US Constitution about the federal government deciding what a marriage "is;" that's left up to the states, and thence to the people in them. (For the record, that also means that I think the DOMA is inherently unconstitutional.) In the end, even if the S.B.C. is too uncomfortable (or whatever) to publically fall back on its own religion in explanation of why they don't approve (that's their own, separate problem), I bet Georgians will decide the legal side of things, and with their religious views primarily.
Rebecca McCarthy (Editor) August 10, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Hey, Dave, what about people who conceive children through means such as Invitro Fertilization, or donated eggs and sperm, or through adoption? Are those "natural?" And does that change definitions, by changing your terms? Just wondering?
Dave Ballard August 10, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Valid questions, absolutely. For the most part, those are modern concerns, and haven't traditionally affected the usual 'mathematics:' (at least) one male + (at least) one female, depending on the society. Children by proxy has been done for ages (mostly by nobility or the wealthy), but again it hasn't traditionally affected the 'math'. There are always exceptions when it comes to people, but that was part of my point, too. It's up to Georgians to figure this out. If we were a monarchy, the ruler would do it for us. =D
John H August 10, 2012 at 09:44 PM
My question to my sister, who is a lesbian, was "what is it you really want, marriage or civil union with the legal benefits of marriage?" Without hesitation she answered the latter. So my question is why try to force a 2000 year old religious institution who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and in it states that homosexuality is wrong when it would be much easier to fight for civil union. Many people who do not agree with same-sex marriage don't have a problem with civil union. I am one of those. My problem with same-sex marriage is the willful forcing of such a thing on a religious group. These are people who in most cases would rather die than go against what they perceive as God's law (exceptions noted). The way I see it is that marriage is a rite, not a right. The U.S. gov't is not a religious organization but they are the writers of tax code and laws. I thought there was separation of church and state? So why is this fight for civil union not taken up with the gov't? Why are we fighting the church?
Dave Ballard August 10, 2012 at 09:46 PM
If I get a majority of the Senate (let alone a single judge) to call a pig a "horse," does that make it a horse from now on? Maybe it does. Almost nowhere else in history or region has a same-sex-only union been termed "marriage," whether such relationships were condemned, tolerated, or approved of. I think it will take succesfully re-defining the word in society's eyes in order to get people to honestly think about it as an "equality" issue, instead of a "reality" one. Thanks for your article. I think it's very well stated
Brian Crawford August 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM
I love a well reasoned argument, thanks Leon. I've been married in a church by a minister, and I've been married in a cabin by a judge (who happened to be my brother). The later of the two worked out much better for me. Of course this doesn't prove anything but I do however have a state issued Certificate of Marriage that has nothing to do with religious doctrine. In fact since this is both of our second marriages, according to the same Biblical law that folks use to condemn homosexuals my wife and I are considered adulterers and therefore not married "in the eyes of God". Yet I assume most folks who oppose marriage equality would have no problem recognizing our union. Can someone explain the difference to me?
Dave Ballard August 11, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Brian, amazingly, we agree on something. =D If marriage were solely or even primarily a religious institution, you wouldn't need a license (permission) from the state to do it. Also, depending on the religion in charge, a divorce would either be completely impossible or a whole lot easier than the current set-up, depending on circumstances. Religions have plenty to say _about_ marriage, for sure, but the institution itself is a civil/legal contract, with standards set by the state.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something