Blue Team, Rose-colored Glasses

V.P. Dick Cheney: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = horrible policy and enemy of the "good."

President Barak Obama: Gay marriage is a state issue that the federal government should not get involved in = hip hip hooray, the "first gay president" and this Newsweek cover.

Is this partly on Newsweek?  Sure.  Is there some leeway for other parts of what they probably believe (Cheney that homosexuals are probably bad people, though his daughter is a homosexual; Obama that it is perfectly acceptable), yes.  But the policies and the way they want the issue treated is essentially the same.

If anything, I think Obama is cast in a worse light, since he was for gay marriage before he was against it and then in favor of it and supports federal intervention into such issues, whereas Cheney, as far as I know, has been consistent in his position and is generally in favor of state resolution of such issues.  Obama essentially came over to Cheney's position and got praised for it, while Cheney was demonized.  People love to talk about making politics more congenial, but its not only the demonizing that adds fuel to the fire.  This type of deification for taking a non-position that is already the position of the opposition doesn't help.

So... its not so much that Obama is great and Cheney is the devil as it is that Obama is a Democrat and Cheney is a Republican.  Got it.

Anti-Gay Marriage As Sex Discrimination

It started with this fascinating and challenging post about how denying same-sex couples the right to marry could be sex discrimination, since you are barring a woman from having the same rights as a man (namely, to marry a woman).

This makes much more sense to me than the due process argument, since to me the due process argument focuses more on whether all males or all females are treated the same (which, in my mind they are, since all men can marry woman, and vice versa. Furthermore, all gay men can marry woman, and none are given special consideration. So while you may have a constitutional problem nationwide if some states allow it while others do not, it could swing either for or against, and I'm not sure that is the argument you want to take to the court.).

I think, however, that this response is a pretty good take down of the sex discrimination argument. I especially liked the bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah comparison. Woman and men in Isreal - and Judiasm, I assume - get different ceremonies with different levels of respect, even. But both get ceremonies. I realize a "civil union" is distasteful for some, and probably rightfully so for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure it has to be, or even should be. People aren't ashamed of honory doctoretes.

This is especially insightful, or at least especially close to my viewpoint:

It strikes me that both sides have a point, and most likely the best thing for
courts to do under such circumstances, where they’d basically just have to take
sides in a culture war pitting feminists against religious and cultural
traditionalists, is to stay out of it–so long as analogous rights and
obligations are available to the plaintiff through an analogous ceremony, in
this hypo the bat mitzvah.

That said, there are two easy answers: remove government from what is essentially religious ceremony/determination (in fact, proponents of Prop 8 frequently point to the original, religious meaning as their lynchpin) and make all such unions contractual, or pass gay marriage laws state-by-state.

Time for a divorce, indeed

Sometimes, doing what is fair or decent or even nice isn't what is right or proper. Sometimes, to do what is right, you have to look beyond your own prejudices and beliefs and micro-systems and look at the system from a macro level. bub

It's a testament to your ability to reason that you take a position antithetical (Position A) to your own actual position (Position B) because you believe that while Position B is the nice and fair outcome, you realize that Position A is proper under the circumstances.

Sometimes, many times even, Position A and Position B are the same position. Women and African Americans should have the right to vote. Legislation ensuring those rights fulfilled both the "fair" outcome that you root for (Position B) as well as the "proper" one (Position A).

On to the point of the post: I've often been at odds with myself because I strongly believe that the fair, nice and decent thing to do is to allow gay marriage. If its going to have to be a legislative action, then to that extent I strongly support legislation raising gay marriage to the level of hetero marriage.

On the other hand, I can't wrap my mind around how its a constitutional issue (though the courts don't seem to agree with me). As I see it, the constitution doesn't guarantee marriage at all. I don't see that anywhere in there. Nobody else does either, apparently, because its not argued as a point. I don't see the "victories" in the court cases as all that good a thing, because while Position A B wins, I fear Position B A loses. In the long run, Position B A is much more important. Every time Position A B irrationally wins over Position B A, the system becomes that much more contorted. Anyway, back to the issue at hand.

Rather than argue that gay marriage is constitutional in and of itself, people argue that the "equal protection" clause requires that a gay individual be allowed to marry another gay individual. But that "gay" man/woman already has the right to marry another woman/man, just like a heterosexual does. To me, extending it like that necassarily leads to all kinds of problems. Like, where do you stop the progression? What about bestiality? What about incest? What about pedophilia? What about polygomy.

While we are on the topic, what about polygomy? Because, under the above formulation (equal protection), I'm not sure how you argue against it. All the evidence (i.e. - divorce rate, broken marriages, cheating spouses) suggests that monogomy doesn't work that well. Its rare in nature (and apparently humans), as well. I'm actually OK with that outcome, but its still not an argument I'd make to reach that outcome (there is the Position A/B thing, see, it does all come around). And I used the easy example, because the arguments against polygomy are pretty weak. The harder core situations I mentioned above become very iffy using the equal protection logic. There is a group called NMBLA (or some such) that supports and promotes man-boy love. Its a lifestyle choice and natural, they argue. Aren't they entitled to equal protection?

That leads me to the point of my post: All this could be avoided if we divorced the state from the marriage business. As the article points out, if we didn't have "state sponsored" marriage, two individuals (or more) could sign a contract with whatever (probably mostly standardized) terms they agreed too, call it whatever they wanted, and be on their marry way. Call it marriage, call its a union, hell, call it a balzag (well, don't call it that).

Instead, we have small/minority two groups trying to push what they think the outcome should be onto the rest of us. One wants marriage limited, the other wants it to extend to gays (but, apparently not to polygomists, based on the legislation and court arguments). That's just two groups that currently have power trying to enforce their will.

There is a better way: remove the ability to "enforce" the will of anyone. Get the government out of the marriage business.

UPDATE: Think of the Position A/Position B thing like a tower. Sure, you can probably build a really tall tower quickly, but you want to make sure its on solid foundation and well built, otherwise it all comes tumbling down at the smallest shift in the ground. I'd rather forgo the really tall tower, and slowly build a well-built tower. It might take me years to get where you'll be in a couple months, but 10 years from now, my tower will be around; will yours?