Thoughts on discrimination

I've been thinking about the cases recently in which, in order to comply with anti-discrimination legislation, business owners are compelled to provide services which violate their conscience. (e.g. the florist who didn't want to service a gay wedding because she felt that homosexuality is a sin.)

My first thought: arguably, homosexuality is an involuntary condition, such as race or gender, not a specific behavior. Someone is homosexual if they are attracted to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they ever consummate a physical union with a member of the same sex. In the same way, a person can be attracted to members of another race without marrying a person of another race. I think the homosexual marriage/interracial marriage analogy is appropriate, because both have/had a great deal of social stigma attached to them, and both involve the natural culmination of an inherent and natural disposition/personhood, as opposed to any conscious and active perversion. To be clear- I see no justification, morally, scripturally, or in any other way, for prohibiting interracial marriage, though there are those who do. The very idea of prohibiting, or looking askance at, interracial marriage is ludicrous and offensive to me in the extreme, because it presupposes fundamental differences between races that I hold to be entirely false. In the case of homosexual marriage, many more people still believe that it is sin, though many people do not. (I support the right of any two unmarried, consenting adults to obtain a civil marriage at their whim, by the way.) So- to be consistent, I think we must apply the same rules to gender, race, and sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination. If it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another race, then it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another sexual orientation. (I am assuming that any pedophelic behavior is not an orientation, but a predatory, criminal perversion of the most obscene and horrific sort)

That said..... to what degree are the dictates of our conscience subject to civil law? Ought we to be enforcing an enlightened perspective where it does not exist? And another important question- does a business owner, complete with personal conscience, differ as an entity from the owned business? To that, I would say no, unless the business was in some way publically owned and traded, publicly funded, contracted to the government, etc.

Here is where I'd draw the lines of anti-discrimination legislation, if they were mine to draw:

1. No discrimination against customers is allowable based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in the following places:

• Any government entity of any level or function, or business which contracts with the government at any level or function.

• Any business which is publicly owned, traded, maintained, or funded

• Any business which performs lifesaving services or services the lack of which may leave a customer dead, injured, maimed, deformed, or unable to care for themselves or their dependents. (Examples include hospitals, emergency clinics, homeless shelters, food pantries, grocery stores, utility companies, home health agencies, elder care facilities, etc For things like clothing and auto/mechanics/parts houses and restaurants, I would say that if it's the only one in town, it provides an essential service and may not discriminate. If it is one of several in close proximity, it may discriminate as the owner wishes for all presumably-about-a-day of its commercial life.)

The business situations above are situations in which the private business is not synonymous with its owner.... indeed, I rather like that as a litmus test. :)

So, most businesses would be under anti-discrimination law. Those that would not would be privately owned entities dispensing non-essential goods and services like flowers, candy, event rental facilities, shoes, accessories, etc. Honestly, I think the number of people discriminating against other races, genders, or sexual orientations would hopefully be small at this point, and their businesses easily boycotted.

I think we should recognize that a sole proprietorship business type, particularly, assuming no outside control or civil involvement, should be synonymous with the owner/operator. A business is not an autonomous machine- it is the sum of the people who operate it- just as the government is a group of elected or appointed people, not a faceless entity. (At least it should be!) I am not different as the owner/operator of my Piano Studio- I am the same Mary in both cases. I behave the same, and the law should treat me the same. I would apply this to corporate taxation as well, by the way- there is no such thing as a business tax. There is only a tax on the owners, operators, employees, and customers of that business.

If I were the sort of racist $%$^&%  who wanted to refuse to service people of color in my hypothetical florist shop, I could do that. If I wanted to refuse to sell auto parts to a woman, assuming I wasn't the only one in town, I could do that. I could also deal with the lack of business from the husbands of women and the friends of people of color and deal with my inevitable financial losses. On the other hand, if I were an OB I could not refuse to treat the surrogate carrying the child of a homosexual couple and I could not refuse to sell groceries to that nice interracial couple. I think we can, and should, find a balance between respecting the freedom of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit and respecting the safety and dignity of those whose life path or person garners the disapproval of some. There are some people who would call me a heretic theologically, or a Jezebel, (thanks, feminism and egalitarianism!) or a homewrecker because I bring in an independent income. As revolting as those sentiments are, the policing of thought required to forcibly eliminate them is more revolting still. 

Nature and Essence, Applied To Marriage

To build on the last post- what is the nature and essence of marriage? It's a big question, and I'm not promising a complete answer in this little blog post, but I do have some ideas based on the ” universal/unique” qualifiers from the previous post.


First, to define nature- in this context, I'm not defining it as anything that comes naturally, anything that happens organically, intuitively, or with ease, or as a common characteristic. I'm using it synonymously with ”essence”- the defining characteristic of something, unique/universal predispositions- that sort of thing. Also by way of definition- I realize that marriage has not always been a single, uniform institution. When I reference marriage here, I am speaking of what would fall into legal/socially acceptable practice in America in the present day.


A brief re-cap- my perception of nature/essence is that, for an attribute to be a defining characteristic of an entity, that attribute must be both unique to that entity and universal in all like entities.


For example- a furry mane is part of the essence and nature of adult male lions, because a mane is both unique to adult male lions and universal among all adult male lions. In the same way, abstract thought is part of the essence of humanity, as it is unique, so far as  I know, to our species, and is universal among healthy, mature humans.

So- what things fall into to the "nature/essence of marriage" category?
1. Sex
I'd give this one a no, because sex is neither unique to marriage nor is it universal or requisite for marriage. Sex is a usual, common characteristic, but it does not meet my standards for essence. One could make the argument that sex would be a part of any healthy marriage of normal, healthy people, but even then, since sex is by no means limited to marriage, it fails the test.

2. Procreation/Co-parenting
No. Procreation, too, fails on both counts- it is not unique to marriage nor is it universal in all marriages.

3. Romantic Love
While it should be a characteristic of marriage, and I would hope would be universal within healthy marriages, it is not unique to marriage. It, too, fails.

4. Mutual Commitment based on an Ideal of Affection
While personal commitment can exist outside of marriage, long term legally and socially ratified commitment is both universal to marriages and unique to marriage. So, I would say that long term legal and social commitment is part of the essence of marriage.

5. Legal benefits/Tax status/next of kin rights/etc
Unique/universal? Yes. No other relationship or institution offers the same legal benefits in this country as does marriage.

6. Religious/Social benefits
Many religions offer benefits/considerations to married couples that they do not offer to the unmarried. Those benefits are universal to all married couples (such as allowing more public affection, endorsing sex and cohabitation, etc) and are uniquely offered to married couples. Here, again, I'd say yes, depending on the religious tradition. (Some treat married and unmarried people alike, but I think that that is not the norm) Likewise with various social groups.

7. Financial benefits (excluding taxes, which fall into number 5)
This would be a no, because cohabitation offers all of the same benefits as does marriage, outside of tax/legal benefits, for a reduction of expenses and the convenience of shared finances. (Unmarried people can share a home, bank accounts, etc)

8. Support of an equal partner/Independence mingled with deep community
While this should certainly be a part of any marriage, it is not unique to marriage

9. Friendship/Companionship
Universal, yes, unique, no.

10. Limited in number- only two people
Universal, yes, unique, no.


So..... it seems, outside of matrimony based on biblical dictates, that the defining characteristics of marriage are legal, socially recognized commitment, presumably springing from affection for the other party, various legal benefits, and various social/religious benefits. Additional characteristics which should be part of marriage but are not central to its definition include sex, financial benefits, friendship/companionship, romantic love, and the option of procreation/co-parenting. Thus, in our society, marriage is a legal, social, and if applicable religious contract/commitment, based on assumed romantic affection between two parties. This is what sets marriage apart from cohabitation or platonic friendship, and this is what we should focus on when we talk about what is or is not ok in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage, for example. With the definition above, gender and sexual orientation does not even play a role, outside of the religious aspect of the contract.

Resources on Homosexuality

For all those considering the issues of homosexuality and christianity, here are some great resources. The video is a lecture by Dr. John Corvino- I just discovered it today, and it's the reason for this post. He makes some excellent points.

You can find his website here......

The next set of links leads to essays written by two gay men, Justin and Ron, on the Gay Christian Network.

One of the men believes that homosexual sex can never be endorsed by God, and thus that all people of a homosexual orientation should remain celibate, and the other man believes that monogamous, married homosexual sex is just as God-honoring as heterosexual sex in the same context. You can find their essays here.

Lastly, here is a link to a recent post on combatting homophobia in the church, and I think the post is helpful whether you support same sex marriage or not, and whether you believe homosexuality is sinful or not.

A Libertarian Conversation On Same Sex Marriage, Part 6: Determining Legality and Expediency

Since I've established that I don't think making Same Sex Marriage illegal is a logical or appropriate consequence of its being held as immoral or unbiblical by many Christians, I'd like to demonstrate how I would go about determining if it's something that we should legalize.

For me, this is about two things- a definition of marriage, and legal equality.
This probably isn't news to anyone, but people in our society define marriage in a number of different ways. Some define it as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, or between a man and several different women. Some define it as a means for two people who are in love to get tax benefits. Some define it as a partnership and a means to co-parenting.  I fundamentally view marriage as a partnership toward a common goal and a means to stability, physical, emotional, and spiritual support and companionship, fiscal security, safe sex, and co-parenting. Yes,  for me, marriage is also a holy covenant. It is not, however, one that is unbreakable for any reason, (though I would absolutely acknowledge the role of commitment and fidelity in a decent marriage) and I do not think that a marriage must be a religious covenant to meet most of the goals above. To meet my definition of marriage, gender is irrelevant except for the whole co-parenting bit. To naturally conceive a child requires two genders. However, raising a child does not, and fertility does not define a marriage anyway. While having two parents together to parent children puts those children at an advantage, having children in the first place is by no means required for a good marriage. If marriage is not currently defined as I believe it should be, then yes, I would support its redefinition.



Personally, I would like to see civil marriage replaced by civil unions between any two people and separated from religious marriage. I see no reason why two siblings who have determined to spend their golden years together in lieu of attempting to marry/remarry should not have the same legal benefits as a married couple, for example.



Our legal foundation is based on the principle of liberty as long as it does not infringe on someone else's, so I think we'd need to have hard evidence to restrict the personal rights/privileges of LGBT individuals. I would think, too, that being able to marry another consenting adult who one loves is fairly basic to the pursuit of happiness. On the policy side, Same Sex Marriage benefits society by making it easier for LGBT spouses to care for one another when they age, make medical decisions, be co-custodians of their children, et c.

Here are the questions I would like to see asked and answered:

Does it provide benefits, or harms, to society in general and to specific people outside the marriage?
Does it promote healthy, stable relationships and communities, or does it intrinsically damage communities?

Unless the answers to the above questions can be proven to be "yes, it harms" and "yes, it intrinsically damages" I see no reason to restrict the abilities of homosexual couples to establish stable families. My beliefs in equality mean that I advocate for fair play, justice, and liberty, and this both for those who share my beliefs/orientation and those that do not. I believe that we should be operating from the assumption that we all have the same marriage rights until we can show that harm results from certain scenarios- I would say that polygamy generally qualifies here, as would incest, underage marriage, patriarchy, matriarchy, forced marriage, et c. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, I am not aware of any way in which allowing it would harm anyone outside the marriage.

If I were a legislator, I would look at all relevant data, perhaps commission another study or two, and try to determine what, if any, quantifiable and causal negative results spring from allowing homosexual people to get married. If I did not find any that justified continuing the prohibition, I'd support allowing it.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality

There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and  without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:




 1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.


While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly,  which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.




2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.

To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.




3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people

.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.


That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it. 


 All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.


The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.



There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.

(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)


If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.


Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.


Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues.   Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.


Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 4: Giving Prejudice to Precedent

One argument against Same Sex Marriage that I've heard a lot is the idea that we should give prejudice to precedent, and that precedent favors heterosexual marriage; in other words, the idea that the burden of proof is on the innovator, and the assumption that marriage as one man and one woman in a loving, faithful, mutually beneficial contract has been the historical norm. To believe that, you have to forget polygamous society, biblical societies, and every society where marriage was primarily for the legitimizing of heirs and which considered women as property and required no faithful monogamy from their husbands. Yes, marriage, throughout most of history, was strictly opposite-gender. But in most other respects, it looked very different from the sort of modern western monogamous marriages we think of today. Marriage provided heirs to property, economic stability, and social and political alliances. Men were, with a few exceptions, not required to be monogamous; women were. Marriages could certainly contain the companionship, mutually delightful sex, respect, and cooperative parenting that we associate with marriage today, but those things were more pleasant bi-products than the primary purpose of the institution and were not required for marriage. In many cultures, female consent has not even been a requirement for a legally binding marriage. The elevation of romantic love and personal feeling and companionship in marriage has waxed and waned; even in societies where "romance" and "courtly love" were revered these things were not universal, and varied greatly by economic class. Victorian romanticism and medieval chivalry have both been incredibly whitewashed in modern, conservative christian circles; chivalry was not as purely noble, or as universally applied, as some would have us believe. In Victorian society, child labor and prostitution were rampant and wives were both on a moral pedestal and considered mentally inferior to their husbands; there were also double standards of behavior for husbands and wives when it came to sex and marriage, and yes, that's an understatement. :) I really can't think of many civilised societies where men and women held equal power and responsibility for monogamy in their marriages. The technologically advanced society we have today allows for the valuation of non-manual labor, dna testing, and allows solitary females to support themselves with ease in a variety of professions. This, among other things, makes egalitarian, monogamous marriages more socially favored.


The assumption that the sort of marriage we American christians recognize has been the historical norm assumes that, at a basic level, mutual, monogamous marriage between two members of the opposite sex is more like polygamous and/or unilaterally powered marriages between members of the opposite sex than it is like mutual, monogamous marriage between two members of the same sex. It puts paramount importance on the gender of those involved in the marriage, and less importance on the nature of the marriage- monogamous/polygamous, mutual/wife as property, et c. It is for that reason that I find this view of marriage and its precedents deeply troubling. What is more significant about the creation of Adam, Eve and Marriage- that they were different genders or that they were made to populate and rule the earth together in a beautiful partnership of equals? I realize many christians disagree with my convictions on mutuality in marriage, but assuming an egalitarian framework, the behavior of the individual marriage partner and the structure of the marriage and its benefits for couples and families is more important than the unchangeable characteristics, such as gender, of the people involved.

A majority opinion does not, in my opinion, equal a correct one. Precedent is a good starting point, but precedent should also be subject to scrutiny and not held above principle, scripture, or reason.  There is nothing wrong with starting from precedent, but to give precedent credence when it contradicts other considerations like ethics, reason, and scripture is tantamount to judging an argument not by its merits, but by its origin.

Historically I think that marriage was as much an economic institution as a religious one, and even in its religious nature it was not necessarily congruent with scripture. In our Christian faith, marriage is considered a sacred, religious covenant, and I would not try to change that, but I would not force a religious view of marriage on those who do not share my faith.  (I would prosecute abuse, but that's a little different; illegal or abusive behavior should not be tolerated, but I have no right to dictate the beliefs of those who perpetrate it) I know some very, very healthy, loving, atheist marriages, and marriage as a means to companionship and co-parenting is by no means limited to the religious among us. I fundamentally view marriage as a partnership toward a common goal and a means to stability, physical, emotional, and spiritual support and companionship, safe sex, and co-parenting, not a mandate to live out a certain symbology or the fulfillment of a responsibility to procreate as much as possible or the arbitrary requirement of a deity or religion. 

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 3: Gender Essentialism

One issue that I see as central to the question of harm or infringement of rights by same sex marriage is the issue of gender, specifically gender essentialism. I would define gender essentialism as: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences, specifically uniquely masculine and feminine social and behavioral traits, not referring to basic physical differences, which exist independently of cultural/social conditioning.


In my opinion, it is possible to reject gender essentialism and still believe that there are differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is more about behavior and psychological hard-wiring than it is about basic physical, biological, or neurological differences. For my purposes here I will assume that men and women have basic physical and psychological differences, but that those differences are averages, not absolutes (e.g. men are usually stronger and taller than women, but some women are stronger and taller than some men).

I would represent both social and physical traits, reproduction excepted, on a linear scale- meaning that for each trait there is a line, say aggression/compliance for example. On this line, the average female position and the average male position may fall weighted towards one end or the other, but individual positions for either gender could be anywhere on the line. I do not believe that men and women are opposites. I do believe that there are clear and significant statistical differences in physical areas such as upper body strength, though again they are not absolute- uncommon though it may be, some women are stronger than some men. (Also, training and conditioning have a huge effect on situational outcomes- for example, while assuming the same training and fitness level, men seriously have a significant advantage over women in the physical strength department, a woman with superior skill and training can absolutely be more than a match for a man who does not have that training.) In the case of social traits/behaviors, however, I believe that there is as much difference within genders as there is between them; that is to say, there is as much difference, or more perhaps, between two random women as there is between your average man and average woman. I do not think that all men are/should be dominant in certain traits, or that all women are/should be dominant in others. I see anecdotal evidence in my own life which supports my belief that I have more in common with males who share my personality type than with females who do not.

Also, if gender based social behavior was a biological, undeniable constant of the human experience then, except for the tendency towards male rule and oppression of the weaker by the stronger which I believe was the result of the fall, I would expect to see this gender based behavior as a constant across cultures and times, and socio-economic status. I do not see this- in fact, quite the opposite. The cultural norms for acceptable gender behavior may well be consistent in modern, western society, but that is not at all the same thing. For example- consider the view of women's sexual nature at the time of the reformation contrasted with the Victorian era. I would posit that gender norms in history as a whole are actually quite varied and fluid, but that is another post entirely. Also worthy of another post is the influence on our cultural perceptions of gender- not of fundamentally christian teaching, but of greek thought and philosophy.


The reason this issue is at the center of the debate over same sex marriage is, first, that it is reasonable to suppose that both a stable heterosexual couple and a stable homosexual couple could hypothetically bring the same backgrounds, education, experience, moral code, religious knowledge, et c. to their marriage and their parenting- really, the only difference is the gender of one of the parties. Are the genders so unique that a family or couple will lose a vital part of its essence if one gender is missing? No, I really don't think so. May they be different? Yes; but will they "miss out" on something to such a degree that we must refuse to legislate in favor of their marriage in order to protect society and any children they may have from this horrible loss? I really don't think so. This is, of course, merely my opinion; I am aware of no comprehensive studies of children/families/marriages which specifically compare same and cross gender couples, with other major variables being equal, to determine which families, spouses, and children are healthier.

Secondly, while gender differences/gender essentialism and gender roles are not the same thing, they are related- rejecting gender essentialism leads to the questioning of rigid gender roles and societal systems that require them in order to continue functioning. Unless gender-based prescriptive behavior is purely theological or ritual, with no basis in practical good or expediency/efficiency, believing that there are actually not rigid, biological, hard-wired social/behavioral ideals makes implementing rigid gender roles which are based purely on gender without regard to competency seems rather silly. In other words, why make mommies staying home/daddies working a moral/civil prescription if daddies can be just as nurturing as mommies and mommies really have no trouble navigating the wide, scary world of outside careers? Also, if men and women share social traits and differ more from opposite personalities than from opposite genders then the male rule, headship and female submission doctrines become at best a theological ritual with no basis in practicality. I honestly think that some of the more vitriolic rhetoric I've heard condemning same sex marriage comes from a place of fear- a fear that the systems that have supposedly kept society intact will slip away, or that a privileged position will be lost, or that the tidy boxes that we as christians are supposed to fit ourselves into in order to be "Godly" will go away. I honestly think that that would be a good thing, when it comes to gender roles.  We'd be left with freedom, relationships, and personal responsibility, and we wouldn't have to throw out godliness, christlikeness, or holiness to do it.

But.....roles and tidy boxes are easier. Really. They may not fit everyone, and they may chafe unbearably for some, but you're good to go if you can fit into them! It's certainly easier to have litmus tests and checklists for godly masculinity and femininity than it is to have to figure out how to hear the Holy Spirit, follow the guidelines Christ gives all Christians, and find and walk in the purposes, giftings and callings that are a part of each of our unique makeup as people and as followers of Christ. I am not saying, of course, to throw out all rules or commandments- but I think it would behoove us to resist making doctrines and prescriptive procedures of things that are not compatible with the teachings of Christ, the overall message of the gospel, and that don't work.

So- why is it, really, such an issue for gender to take less of a front seat in marriage and family issues? I have yet to see evidence that even reasonably assumes, let alone conclusively proves, that gender is the thing that makes such a difference to family and society that we must legislate it, even for those who believe differently than we do, as a moral and civil harm.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 2: False Dichotomies

There are two things which are pet peeves of mine at the moment- "Straw men" and false dichotomies. I groan inwardly when I see them, and think something like "Really? Are you so incapable of factually proving your assertions that you have to surreptitiously foist illogical, unproven assumptions on this conversation?" If the dichotomy presented is proven/documented/logical, if the two entities really are fundamentally antithetical and mutually exclusive, well and good; otherwise, dichotomies, while dramatic, are annoying. 

 Straw Man/False Dichotomy

"Straw Man" refers to an outlining of an opposing position that is formulated to discredit that position by setting up a caricature of that position that looks obviously faulty or unappealing. A false dichotomy is basically either 1. grouping an issue/position into only two groups, with most of the negative aspects of a position lumped firmly with the stance the arguer is opposing, when there are actually many more possible options, or 2. Asserting that for a particular issue there are only two possible choices, when in fact there are more. For example, saying that by staying home with my kids I am fighting the cultural trend towards the abandonment in daycare by selfish moms who put personal fulfillment above their families would be a straw man- I just labelled moms who put their kids in daycare as selfish and neglectful, and who wants to be associated with that? Never mind that there are actually many reasons that childcare is needed, and that not all moms who work use daycare, and that not all those who do use it out of selfishness, and that not all daycare experiences are the same..... but I digress. A good example of a false dichotomy would be the way I've heard feminists characterized, as I'll lay out here:

•  Feminists (box A)

Pro-choice, selfish, believing in legal and social equality of the sexes, not gender essentialist, never willing to sacrifice their desires for their family, work outside the home wen they do not have to, career focused, neglectful of their children, Pro-gay-marriage, socialist, politically liberal, socially liberal, man-hating, matriarchy-desiring, believe that there are no differences between sexes and/or "anything you can do I can do better," controlling, bitchy, aggressive, unfeminine, not believing in absolute truth, desiring equality in the church and rejecting male rule, and the list goes on

• Good Traditional Women (box B)

Pro-life, politically, socially, and fiscally conservative, believe in complementarianism/female submission in some form, little personal career ambition, believe in distinct gender roles, loving, attentive mothers, unselfish wives,  respect and honor husbands, homemakers, homeschoolers when possible, rejecters of daycare, must want children, family and ministry focused, deeply religious, not desiring any control or official position in the church, tend to not be aggressive, do not desire authority over men, considered "feminine", et c. 

Of course this is a false dichotomy, because a woman can be a complex and individual mix of qualities from both boxes. For example, we could have box C, which looks like this:

• Real Woman X (box C)

Pro-life, fiscally conservative, Pro-gay-marriage, socially liberal, politically libertarian or an eclectic mix of things, believing in legal and social equality of the sexes, not gender essentialist, loving, attentive mothers, unselfish wives,  respect and honor husbands, deeply religious, family and career and ministry focused, desiring equality in the church and rejecting male rule, believing in egalitarian marriage in which control is shared, desiring neither patriarchy nor matriarchy, not man-hating, but affirming men as brothers and equals, homeschoolers, rejecters of daycare,  authors of creative work/home balance so that the priorities of home, family, and a fulfilling career are weighed and attended to, homemakers, working outside the home when they do not have to, aggressive, only sporadically/somewhat feminine,  et c. 

Very seldom, I think, is it possible to accurately reduce any issue/position to two opposing stances/views/results. People and situations are complex and varied, and there's always a third option.

 In fact, I dare say that if you want to present a choice/position as only two different and opposing options you must be able to prove your assertion. To present two positions, stances, or categories as antithetical and mutually exclusive you must be able to accurately assert that every aspect of them is so. Otherwise, you must allow for a more nuanced and specific continuum rather than two tidy, but oversimplified, boxes.

Another example of a false dichotomy comes from a brief on same sex marriage. * This book basically hinges on the idea that there are only two kinds of marriage: (that alone raises giant, red over-simplification flags for me) traditional and revisionist. They assume that traditional marriages are committed attachments composed of a comprehensive union (physical and spiritual) which should include the possibility of procreation and which has been the prop of civilization for millennia and which is not primarily based upon emotional attachment, though it is a good thing to be included. The only alternative the authors present to "traditional" marriage is "revisionist" marriage, which they present as being unfettered by commitment and solely based on romantic feeling and present emotional attachment. Thus they tie a committed, one-flesh relationship irrevocably to procreative, heterosexual unions. This is patently false- I myself exhibit in my marriage aspects of both of their ideas of marriage, and fit neatly into neither. They neither give data to prove that all marriages can be classified in one of their two categories, nor do they show any evidence which supports their assertions that comprehensive union is limited to heterosexual unions or that procreation is or should be a primary consideration in sacred or civil marriage policy. I would like to explore this particular book further, but any additional analysis deserves its own post. :) Suffice it to say that I have yet to see an argument in the marriage debate which accurately/verifiably separates homosexual and heterosexual marriages based on anything other than the physical sex/gender of the marriage partners. (need I point out, too, that it might be construed as a little offensive to assume that homosexual couples are any less committed or stable than their heterosexual counterparts based solely on the fact that they are attracted to someone who shares their gender?)

Another tactic I see is the black-and-white categorizing/ oversimplifying of a person or stance into a complex group based on one action, attribute or opinion. Some things are black and white to that degree, at least according to my paradigm, but most are not. For example, I can unequivocally say that anyone who molests a child is wrong, bad, evil, and deserving of the severest punishment, no matter what the circumstances are, no matter who they are, and no matter what other good they've done. I'm perfectly ok with categorizing anyone who molests a child as pathologically evil and faulty. However, most issues are not so simple or so easy. Many actions could be right or wrong, or more or less appropriate and tasteful, depending on motive and circumstance. People choose their positions, their beliefs, and their actions based on very complex and nuanced data, circumstances, and personalities. I believe it logically follows that if an action is not in itself a sin regardless of circumstances then to generalize it as such is inaccurate. It should also be obvious that  because an action or position is sometimes done/held by those behaving badly does not imply that everyone who holds that position/does that is also behaving badly.  For example, to say that divorce is an indication of weakness, selfishness or lack of commitment or that divorced people are hard, brittle, relationally damaged/inept or selfish would be inaccurate. While it might be true, it might also be completely false- did the person get a divorce because they fell in love with a coworker or were they simply getting out of an abusive or chronically neglectful situation? This logic is seen when anyone who is not categorically opposed to same sex marriage is assumed to also throw out ideas of absolute truth, committed marriages, political conservatism, christian authenticity, et c.

The same logic applies to shading all homosexuals as perverts or anti-religious-freedom activists who will "take a mile if we give an inch." Are there some? To be sure, but there are also plenty of heterosexual perverts and anti-freedom activists, and we don't associate their behavior with their sexual orientation. What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Simply this- I think that, to have a helpful conversation about same sex marriage, we must be clear about the assumptions we are bringing to the table, and be honest and open about how our opinions of what marriage is, and who and what homosexuals are, (and how allowing same sex marriage would affect our paradigm) affect what we view as acceptable legal policy. 

In my opinion, the more we can avoid theoretical and unproven generalizations and tend towards specific, verifiable data, the more accurate our conclusions will be. 



*What is Marriage? Man and woman: a defense", Girgis/Anderson/George

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 1: Framing the discussion

I am often frustrated by some of the more illogical arguments that I see employed in the debate over same sex marriage. Frankly, I find them a little embarrassing, coming as they do from Evangelical Christianity, which is where I place myself as well. Sometimes I want to ask- How do people who believe same sex marriage is evil think they'll ever win their point when their arguments go down in a logical fireball at the slightest test? Why choose shoddy arguments to prove a point that can be addressed with much more reasonable hypotheses, perhaps with similar results? I'd like to propose a few arguments that I think should really never be used in such a policy discussion:

1. It's always been this way

By this logic, the world is flat and women do not contribute DNA to their children. Also, science is evil and germs are not a thing.

2. It was this way in the bible

 (as opposed to endorsed specifically by scripture-the normative/prescriptive
 distinction is important here)

By that logic, marriage does not require consent, monogamy, or female agency. Scary.



3. The Greek Philosophers were for/against this

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are fun to read. They have a great many very smart things to say, particularly about law and government. Are they, however, infallible, or even universally reliable? Not a chance, as per their draconian views on gender, women, and the origins of the human race. Are they worthy of citation and consideration and thought? Yes! Does their opinion prove anything? No! It is their opinion, nothing more. The most intelligent and forward-thinking opinion, without substantiation, is still just an opinion. And some of their warped views of gender issues (yes, I'm going to get into that in more detail later) have shaped society, even christian society, and its views of the subject from their day to this one. That is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

4. Things we like will magically disappear if this happens

If we were legislating homosexual marriage instead of heterosexual marriage, this would be true. I do not think, however, that anyone wants to do that. All of the heterosexual people that would have gotten married will still, you know, get married. And allowing gay marriage does not automatically remove the commitment aspect of christian marriage, nor does it affect in any way the manner in which I or any other heterosexual christian lives out our marriages. This point is debated sometimes, in that some people say that allowing same sex marriage must completely redefine the institution in a way that damages and cheapens all marriages. I disagree; more on that later.

There are variations of these arguments which I will explore in more detail as time goes on, but the four above are the basis for those arguments which, in my opinion, it would behoove us to dismiss entirely.
So- what questions do I think we should be asking? What arguments should we be making

Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that American judicial, legislative, an political policy is and should be based upon protecting its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not cause harm or infringe upon others' said rights:

Does same sex marriage infringe on the rights of others?

Does same sex marriage harm any one outside that marriage, specifically those who cannot advocate for themselves? (and yes, this includes hypothetical children raised in such a household)

Does same sex marriage remove/replace other, more expedient institutions?

What would same sex marriage cost, in resources, the state or community?

Does same sex marriage cause quantifiable harm to any person or institution which is not themselves causing harm?

Does same sex marriage carry any benefits to the state, community, or individuals?

Does the fact that many people believe something to be a moral sin mean that it should be legislated as such, purely for that reason?

Three things I think it's important to remember in discussions like these, particularly as we attempt to define harm and wrestle with what same sex marriage is and what are its implications for society-

 Correlation does not equal causation, 

 Genetic does not equal hereditary, and 

 Statistically likely does not equal universal, superior, or prescriptive.

In framing the discussion about possible harms from same sex marriage, too, I think that it is important to distinguish between data that may indicate a connection between harm (familial instability, for instance) and same sex marriage, and data that demonstrates in a reputable, scientific way a causality between harm of some sort and some aspect of same sex marriage: for example the gender of one's parents. To demonstrate this alleged harm, it would be important that the control parents be equitable in everything but gender. E.G. it would be illogical to cite two bisexual romantic partners who do not cohabit as a same sex couple for the purposes of comparison and statistics. We should try to approach data collecting and interpretation here with the same objectivity that we would any other question, in my opinion.

It should be noted that I have no intention of arguing whether or not homosexuality and same sex marriage are sin or inappropriate for christian practice. Nor do I feel that this series of posts is the appropriate venue to delve into my own opinions on that topic and my interpretations of the scriptures pertaining to it. Most christians believe that the bible clearly vilifies homosexual behavior, so for my purposes here I will equate that with the majority christian view. 

This series of posts is simply about legislating for or against same sex marriage- should we allow it, shouldn't we, or how do we decide?