As a philosopher and an educator, I find it extremely difficult to write a position paper. My accustomed mode of communication is dialogue.
But faced with the issues of arbitrary definitions and human rights, I cannot keep silent. I abhor the secular debate over gay and lesbian marriage.
One of the fundamental valuing processes I attempt to teach my students as American citizens is to make decisions in one’s life based on more than one’s personal needs and with an understanding that different people have different values. The foundation of a liberal democratic society rests on the consideration of all of its members, whether or not you approve of them.
The definition of marriage in a secular democratic society is completely arbitrary; moreover, in our society marriage serves legal and financial purposes.
Whether religious institutions should allow homosexual marriage is up to its members. In a secular society, the denial of access to the law is a denial of rights, which, in this case, are legal recognition and the financial benefits already enjoyed by any heterosexual couple that chooses to marry.
Who has the right to determine that any rights should be denied to people on the basis of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation?
Humiliation, contempt
In 1935, the Nazi German government issued its “Nuremberg Laws,” which prohibited Jews from marrying or having sexual relations with “persons of German or related blood.” The law had a two-fold purpose.
It was one of the many laws that excluded Jews from protection of the state and from participation as ordinary members of the society. It was also an act of humiliation.
The exclusion was based on “the law for the protection of German blood and honor,” which branded Jews as social pariahs. The idea that the Jew would defile the purity of the “Aryan people” was based on racial ideology.
Though we can’t make direct comparisons between present United States and Nazi Germany, there is much to learn from study of the Nuremberg Laws. They remind us that though there might be much we do not like about American laws, laws in a democracy are meant to protect individuals and not eliminate them from society.
To have laws that allow only certain persons their benefit is a failure in democracy and a humiliation of a designated group of citizens. A constitutional law that would ban same-sex marriage does both.
The person reading this may believe there is something wrong with homosexual people. That is his or her privilege. But a belief based on religion does not give an individual or group the right to institute discriminatory laws. If it did we would no longer be living in a democracy.
In the discussion of this issue I am easily reminded of the history of race relations in this country. Caucasians in power did not allow Negroes full rights under the law because, at best, the law was designed to “protect” Negroes as if they were children. (I shouldn’t need to refer to the “at worst” scenario.)
The same could be said of the denial until 1920 of women’s right to vote. Both instances remind us not only of a failure in the democratic process but one of humiliation, contempt and condescension.
‘Formal relationship’
If marriage is about commitment, legal and financial, then it is about a formal relationship. If the definition of marriage were based on the commitment between two individuals to share a life together, then why would their gender be significant? What is it about marriage in a secular society that only individuals of the opposite sex should be allowed to participate in it?
If marriage were about the sexual relations of two people who are married then the law would be a different law. It is a contradiction to suggest that, on the one hand, secular marriage is about commitment, and, on the other, secular marriage is about the sexual behaviors of the individuals within it. If the latter were the case, then there would be different criteria for who was allowed to marry.
Many people fear that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will undermine the institution of marriage. If the institution of marriage is about the form we use to express partnered commitment, the desire of gays and lesbians to marry is an expression of respect for the institution of marriage, an institution in which most gays and lesbians were raised and through which many of them would like to raise their own children. Their desire to marry is an expression of their belief in the principles of marriage — a value in itself.
It seems to me the real issue regarding the effort to ban marriage between gays and lesbians is an issue of how much Americans want to allow any one religious group to determine the laws of our democracy. Given the implications, I have to admit this aspect of the issue mystifies me. There are so many contradictions at work here I would need at least three Chronicle editions to explore it. So I end with this thought.
Recently I was talking with a friend, a Palestinian woman. I told her I was writing this piece. She said: “In the scheme of things — given what’s important and all the horrible things in the world today — isn’t it ironic that we are so focused on whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry?”
We already live in a world full of horrors where we struggle every day with the “breakdown of morality” — husbands who beat and kill their wives, parents who sexually and physically abuse their children, to name just a few.
Why do we want to spend our energy making it worse for people who are our parents, children, siblings, friends, cousins, teachers, nurses lawyers, doctors? Why wouldn’t we want to make it just a little easier for them to express their commitment to each other and find protection under laws that protect everyone else?
Amy H. Shapiro, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy at Alverno College and director of the Holocaust Education and Resource Center at the Coalition for Jewish Learning, the education program of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation.
Loading ...