A Very Civil Union: F.A. Hayek and Marriage Equality

Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning philosopher and economist, argued that many traditions and institutions of modern civilization “which are clearly the results of human action” are often erroneously assumed to be “consciously designed by a human mind.”  Such institutions, he said, should not easily be tampered with by political powers as they were not designed, but rather evolved to fill certain functions. We often have very limited understanding of what those functions may be. On the surface, Hayek’s warnings should bolster the conservative case against marriage equality, as they appear to be a presumption in favor of the status quo—a sort of precautionary principle for conservatives. ¹

Yet, Hayek himself said he was “not averse to evolution and change” and that when “spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it [classical liberalism] wants a great deal of it.”² Hayek’s liberalism was in conflict with the “conservative attitude” which was “fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such.”³ Hayek said his view “is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead,” all of which sounds contrary to Hayek’s precautionary principle.

Hayek was not a fearful conservative. A Hayekian social order is one that evolves without coercion forcing change, or preventing it. Conservatives, Hayek said, believe order to be “the result of the continuous attention to authority.” They only feel safe when “assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change ‘orderly.’” ⁴

Hayek argued that the social order could change, and often should change. He said that for these changes to “become legitimized…[they] have to obtain the approval of society at large—not by a formal vote, but by gradually spreading acceptance.” He thought such changes were especially critical if there is “conflict between a given rule and the rest of our moral beliefs.” Under those circumstances, we “can justify our rejection of an established rule.”⁵

Hayek wrote that “successive changes in morals were therefore not a moral decline, even though they often offended inherited sentiments, but a necessary condition to the rise of the open society of free men.”⁶ He said that it was “the evolution of tradition which made civilization possible.”⁷ In particular, Hayek noted that these changes came against the wishes of what we today would call the Religious Right:

Religious prophets and ethical philosophers have of course at all times been mostly reactionaries, defending the old against the new principles. Indeed, in most parts of the world the development of an open market economy has long been prevented by those very morals preached by prophets and philosophers, even before government measures did the same. We must admit that modern civilization has become largely possible by the disregard of the injunctions of those indignant moralists.”⁸ [Emphasis in the original.]

 A brief inquiry into the history of marriage shows it to be a constantly evolving institution. At different times it served different purposes. The “traditional” family conservatives laud is a relatively modern invention. Often, marriage was not particularly concerned with raising children and it rarely dealt with the issue of love. Stephanie Coontz noted, “For many centuries the notion of family referred to authority relations rather than love ones.”⁹

Historically speaking, the primary purpose of marriage was often political, or related to the distribution and ownership of property. At times, a marriage had to be approved by the village in order to make sure that property arrangements were not disrupted in too chaotic a manner. As this notion of marriage waned, it was often replaced with the idea that marriage was about the division of labor—certain tasks were reserved to men, others to women.¹⁰ So, when Native American cultures allowed same-sex marriage, they did so with the proviso that one of the partners had to perform the tasks of the opposite gender.¹¹

Until the rise of the Christian state, marriage evolved according to Hayekian principles. Endowed with state power, Christianity, however, attempted to take control of marriage and forced it to change in ways beneficial to the church’s ever expanding political power. Much of the Vatican’s interest in regulating marriage had to do with giving it power over members of the aristocracy seeking to marry or divorce. The Church could manipulate such relationships to its benefit, denying marriages deemed detrimental to Vatican power, or allowing them as the case may be. Similarly, the Church could permit annulments when beneficial to do so, or deny them when not.

Only in the 4^th century did the Christian emperor Theodosius, as part of what historian John Boswell called a campaign of “greater and greater totalitarian control,” decree that only Christianity would be allowed to exist as a religion. He also banned same-sex marriages “which had hitherto been legal (at least de facto) and well known” in 342.¹² Boswell argued that the Roman state went from tolerance of same sex relationships to intolerance “almost wholly” as a “consequence of the rise of corporate states and institutions with the power and desire to regulate increasingly personal aspects of human life.”¹³

The Church got involved in marriage only after state intervention on its behalf. Christian law professor Daniel Crane wrote that, "as the power of the church grew, it gradually sought to establish control over marriage directly."¹⁴ It was only in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church declared that a marriage was only valid if performed by a priest, with two witnesses. This attempt to force marriage into the church was not an immediate success. It opposed centuries of tradition, where marriage was seen as a private contract and not a matter of religion at all.

Mary Ann Glendon, in The Transformation of Family Law, wrote:
“The greatest obstacle to the direct enforcement by the Church of the new Christian ideas about sex and marriage was that marriage was regarded everywhere in Europe in the first half of the Middle Ages as a personal and purely secular matter.”¹⁵

The church’s marriage coup was Fabian in nature. “At first, the Church barely tried to exercise jurisdiction in its own name, keeping its intervention in family affairs to primarily within the confines of the relationship between priest and penitent. Its involvement in the formation of marriage, for example, developed only slowly, with the priestly blessing of marriages which began as a custom and centuries later became a requirement.” It was only with the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the church mandated that a priest, with two witnesses, conduct a “marriage” for it to be valid. Prior to this, even private vows taken without the church were accepted to establish a marriage.¹⁶

One of the driving forces for more control over marriage was the issue of property. As Glendon notes, marriages often produced “shifts of wealth and power” which were unsettling to the aristocracy and the church. Until now Christians took little note of marriage other than as a private relationship, sometimes blessed by the church, but legitimized only by the consent of the couple themselves, not by church officials or the state. But the Church found the wealthy elites demanding some sort of control because of the property issues involved. “The advocates of change claimed that informal marriages threatened property rights, and endangered social peace and private morality.”¹⁷

This led to the Decree Tametsi requiring a marriage ceremony with a priest and two others as witnesses. “The Decree also mandated the publication of banns or marriage and the keeping of official records of marriage.”¹⁸ Publishing banns allowed family, and others interested in the distribution of property, to be warned of impending nuptials and gave them time to intervene to prevent marriages that would disrupt the distribution of property and power in unwanted ways.

Protestants rejected a religious monopoly over marriage. Crane wrote that Reformationists saw the state, not the church, as the prime custodian "of matrimony as a civil institution." The authoritarian John Calvin passed the "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva," requiring a state permit to marry.¹⁹

The other leading Protestant of the day, Martin Luther, wrote: "Since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of the New Law and of the church alone."²⁰ However, Luther feared clandestine marriages “for enabling strangers to marry into wealthy families and to obtain a share of estates.”²¹ Protestant jurisdictions started mandating the presence of a minister and requiring parental consent to protect property.

Within a few decades, most of Christian Europe had laws regulating marriage as a state institution. Contrary to the claims of the religious right, the State did not take marriage away from the Church. Protestant Reformers demanded that monopoly claims over marriage, recently asserted by Catholicism, be repudiated. Yet, the desire to protect property remained which meant “the newly emerging states acquired jurisdiction more or less by default.” Secular authorities “simply took over much of the ready-made set of rules of canon law” effectively meaning that Church law was being imposed by the State.²²

This cozy relationship between church and state remained undisturbed until the rise of classical liberalism, with its libertarian sentiments about individual rights. Evangelical author John Witte argues this began with John Locke's Two Treatises on Government (1698) where Locke "suggested that a natural and contractual perspective could be defended without necessary reference to spiritual or social perspectives on marriage. He had hypothesized that a law of marriage based on contract could be valid even if God were not viewed as the founder of the marriage contract, nor His Church engaged as an agent in its governance."²³

Classical liberalism became a major influence in Western culture, leading to the abolition of slavery, the rise in the status of women, de-monopolizing of agriculture from landed elites, free trade, and to the emergence of capitalism itself. It also brought “new” ideas about marriage into the legal system. Prof. Witte argues that the liberal reforms embedded two conflicting views of marriage into law, "one rooted in Christianity, a second in the Enlightenment. Each of these traditions has contributed a variety of familiar legal ideas and institutions—some overlapping, some conflicting."²⁴

Catholics saw marriage as a church sacrament. Protestants said it was a relationship between a couple and the wider community, and thus more a political concern than a religious one. Witte wrote, "Enlightenment exponents emphasize[d] the contractual (or private) perspective."²⁵ Marriage laws, according to Witte, changed drastically because of this:

Exponents of the Enlightenment advocated the abolition of much that was considered sound and sacred in the Western legal tradition of marriage. They urged the abolition of the requirements of parental consent, church consecration, and formal witnesses for marriage. They questioned the exalted status of heterosexual monogamy, suggesting that such matters be left to private negotiation. They called for the absolute equality of husband and wife to receive, hold, and alienate property, to enter into contracts and commerce, to participate on equal terms in the workplace and public square. They castigated the state for leaving annulment practice to the church, and urged that the laws of annulment and divorce be both merged and expanded under exclusive state jurisdiction.²⁶

 The rise of classical liberalism, with its companion, capitalism, meant that income was no longer a function of the family as whole. Sociologist Barry Adam, in Christopher Street, observed: "Capitalism laid the groundwork for voluntary relationships based on personal preference, the precondition for 'romantic love.' Capitalism did not cause romantic love, it allowed it to flourish."²⁷ Historians John D'Emilio and Estelle Freedman wrote that these changes meant that marriages could be chosen "with less attention to property and family considerations" and that "some young people even disregarded parental opinion altogether. Operating within a political climate that decried tyranny and exulted the rights of the individual some children married over parental objections while others failed to inform their parents at all."²⁸

Of course, these shifts in the economic structure, and the emergence of a culture of individual rights, had a dramatic impact on gay and lesbian people. Prof. Steve Horwitz wrote, "This created both the "singles culture" of the 20th century but also enabled homosexuals to adopt the full identity of being gay or lesbian, as opposed to just engaging in homosexual acts. It's no surprise that gay/lesbian culture thrived early on in urbanized environments (industrial jobs and anonymity were the keys). Having made modern gay identity possible and having caused marriage and family to be focused on love and consumption, rather than child-making and child-raising complementarities, is it any surprise that gays and lesbians would want 'in' to the institution of marriage?"²⁹

Marriage itself continually evolved, often as a result of the changing economic system brought about by capitalism. With the demise of home-based production, the gender-based division of labor began to decline. The principles of classical liberalism about equality of rights also started to be applied to women as well, and eventually even to homosexuals. The basis for marriage became romantic, not economic. Marriage was seen as a civil contract between two individuals that, by its nature, made the larger social structure more stable and prosperous—couples were more economically stable and less likely to impose on others, for instance.

The evolution of heterosexual marriage created the demand for same-sex marriage. Individuals became free to choose their own spouse. Previously such decisions were often left to families or sometimes the larger community, and were done for reasons of property or politics. Leaving individuals free to choose their spouse meant gay individuals might choose spouses of the same gender.

In addition, gender-based roles in marriage began to fall away. The work place became less male-centered and labor saving devices reduced the amount of time devoted to housework. The tasks of men and women, both in the labor market and at home, became more equal, with gender roles becoming less and less important. In addition the home became less and less about production of goods and services, with the division of labor, and more about shared consumption and the nurturing of family members. Love became the central focus of marriage.  

At the same time heterosexual marriage was evolving, the nature of the gay community was undergoing change as well. The Stonewall generation had aged and settled down. Many were in long-term relationships, often establishing families with children. Gays were discovering precisely how regulations banning same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts were detrimental to their well being.³⁰

They found they were taxed at higher rates by being denied marriage deductions. Cross-national couples found one partner being deported because, unlike their straight counterparts, the American partner could not sponsor the foreign partner for residency. They found that even with wills in place, the law gave family priority over “strangers,” as their spouses were legally defined, making it easier to challenge the will. While the law had undone harm inflicted on children deemed “bastards,” it created a new class of children with lesser protections and lesser rights: children in gay families.

When on their deathbed, some gay people were denied the right to be with their partner because hospitals restricted such visits to “family only.” In cases where a gay person was incapacitated, due to a stroke, courts recognized anti-gay relatives over loving spouses of many years—something not allowed to happen to married couples. Gay couples that attempted to achieve legal protections offered by a legal marriage contract often spent between $5000 and $10,000 on various legal documents only to find that they could often be ignored because state law trumped them, or found that there were simply situations that could not be anticipated. Often, there were simply issues that no private agreement could resolve—such as changing immigration laws, tax laws, child custody laws, etc.³¹

There are thousands of laws and hundreds of legal rights and benefits directly tied to one’s marital status. There is no groundswell to change this situation, not even from individuals who fight same-sex marriage on the grounds that all marriage should be privatized. Nor should it be ignored that many of these advocates of “private” marriage are themselves legally married. So, whether or not privatized marriage is desirable, it is not likely to be implemented anytime soon and there is no real effort to make that change. In the meantime, millions of same-sex couples are left in legal limbo, to the detriment of their rights.

Even if privatizing marriage is the optimal solution, the immediate harm being done to gay couples implies that the “second-best option,” marriage equality, be implemented. And it, unlike the “ideal” is politically feasible today.

Given that marriage has been evolving, and given that acceptance of same-sex couples has been evolving for some three decades, changing marriage laws to recognize same-sex relationships now satisfies Hayek’s concerns. Private acceptance of marriage has evolved quickly. Major corporations give benefits to their employees in such relationships and even national polls show that a slim majority of Americans favor same-sex marriage, while a substantial majority favors granting gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. In addition, this reform fits the major moral principles of libertarianism, the principles on which this country was founded. It respects the equality of rights of all individuals, and it limits the state’s power to deny gay couples access to the marital contract, while reducing the power the state has over these couples to thwart their choices.³²

1.     F.A. Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 4.

2.     F. A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 399.

3.     Ibid, p. 400.

4.     Ibid.

5.     F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Political Order of a Free People, Vol. 3, The University of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 167.

6.     Ibid.

7.     Ibid, p. 168.

8.     Ibid, pp. 165-166.

9.     Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, Basic Books, 2000, p. 44.

10. See Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, Viking, 2005 for an extended discussion regarding the various functions that marriage has served over the centuries from culture to culture.

11. William N. Eskridge, Jr., “A History of Same-Sex Marriage,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 7, Oct., 1993), pp. 1419-1513.

12. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, The University of Chicago Press, 1980, p 123.

13. Ibid. p 37. Boswell wrote “gay people were actually safer under the Republic, before the state had the authority or means to control aspects of the citizenry’s personal lives. Any government with the power, desire, and means to control such individual matters as religious belief may also regulate sexuality, and since gay people appear to be always a minority, the chance that their interests will carry great weight is relatively slight.” For a discussion of the relative tolerance of Roman society regarding homosexual relationships see Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 1999.

14. Daniel A. Crane, “A ‘Judeo-Christian’ Argument for Privatizing Marriage”, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 27:3, p. 1232.

15.  Mary Ann Glendon, The Transformation of Family Law: State, Law, and Family in the United States and Western Europe, The University of Chicago Press, 1989, p. 24.

16.  Ibid. Glendon wrote, “Until the Council of Trent, private and informal marriages were as valid as public, formal ones.” Informal marriages, however, remained common and were recognized as marriages until 1892. The Church of England recognized them until 1753, see page 30.

17.  Ibid. pp. 28-29.

18.  Ibid. p. 29.

19.  Crane, p. 1234. For information on Calvin’s positions on marriage see John Witte’s Sex, Marriage and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva, William Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.

20.  Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol 35. Ed., Abdel R. Wentz and Helmut T. Lehman, Fortress Press, 1959, p. 92.

21.  Glendon, p. 29.

22.  Ibid, p. 31.

23.  John Witte Jr., From Sacrament to Contract, Westminster John Knox Press, 1997, p. 196.

24.  John Witte Jr., An Apt and Cheerful Conversation on Marriage, Centre for Theology and Public Issues, 1999, p. 10.

25.  Witte, From Sacrament to Contract, p. 245.

26.  Ibid. pp 10-11.

27.  Barry Adams, Christopher Street, 64:50-53.

28.  John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, The University of Chicago Press, 1988, p. 43. They noted, as well, that with the rise of classical liberalism, following the American Revolution, there was “an overall decline in state regulation of morality and a shift in concerns from private to public moral transgressions.” [p. 42]

29.  Steven Horwitz, “Lots of Thoughts on ‘The Future of Marriage,’ Cato Unbound, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/01/23/the-editors/best-of-the-blogs-steven-horwitz-on-economic-forces-and-the-family/

30.  See George Chauncey, Why Marriage?, Basic Books, 2004, for a general discussion on why marriage became an issue within the gay community.

31.  Stephanie Coontz wrote that that a marriage license today “still determines what obligations a couple can keep—who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits.” The New York Times, “Taking Marriage Private,” November 25, 2007. Also see The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Seniors, Gary Gates and Lisa Bennett, Human Rights Campaign, January 29, 2004; Benefits Denied, Ben Furnas and Josh Rosenthal, Center for American Progress, March 2009; Sandra Block, USA Today, “Gay couples enter golden years with more risk”, May 16, 2004; and Evan Wolfson, For Richer, For Poorer: Same-Sex Couples and the Freedom to Marry as a Civil Right, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy at www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=5518.

32.  For a discussion on how the marriage contract limits the ability of the state to intervene in a relationship see Jason Kuznicki’s, Marriage Against the State: Towards a New View of Civil Marriage, Policy Analysis, No. 672, January 12, 2011, The Cato Institute.

This essay was written as an original submission to the libertarian/feminist anthology edited, The Free Woman, by Sharon Presley and Ross Kenyon, to be forthcoming.

Welcome to Matrimony Airlines

Click to Enlarge

Proposition 8 Invalid Says Appellate Court: A Synopsis

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision to overturn Proposition 8, which stripped gay couples of their right to marry.  The Court said, “We consider whether that amendment (Prop 8) violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.”

The Justice noted that Prop 8 had only one intention: “It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childbearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples raise children on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.”

In essence, they found that Proposition 8 was intended to harm one class of people. They said it served no purposes except “to less the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow ‘for laws of this sort.’”

Fundamentalist Church Defends Marriage: Bans Interracial Couple

Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Johns Creek, Kentucky recently faced something they just never considered before. Stella Harville, 24, a member of the church brought her fiance to church and he was black! Not even a good ol' American black, but a genuine negro from darkest Africa. The fiance, Ticha Chikuni is from Zimbabwe. The couple came to the church and sang—once.

The pastor of the church, Melvin Thompson, then banned them from further performances. But Thompson resigned due to health and a new pastor said they could perform. But then Thompson proposed that the church pass a resolution condemning interracial marriage. It said "parties of such marriages will not be received as members, or will they be used in worship services" or other church activities, unless it is a funeral. A meeting was held and by a 9 to 6 vote the proposal was passed. The proposal claimed to be a measure to enhance unity.

Of course, Rev. Thompson insists he's not racist. He said he is "not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race. That's what this being portrayed as, but it is not." Stella's father, Dean Harville, asked: "If he's not racist, what is this?"

Where have we heard this before?

"Family Values" and the Crisis of the Welfare State

In 1995 I wrote a small book, Exploding Population Myths, the purpose of which was to debunk the very popular theory that the world was grossly overpopulated and headed toward disaster. I believe the evidence was compelling then, and now, 16 years later, the case is actually stronger than ever. If the book had a flaw, it was that I, considered an optimist, was too pessimistic.

The book debunked claims of catastrophists of the day, all predicting doom and gloom with spiraling birth rates, resource depletion, and population growing with no end in sight. I showed that the reality was that the world was not overpopulated in any meaningful sense of the word; that population concentrations are not the same thing as overpopulated; that birth rates were actually plummeting at great rates, and that it was only a matter of decades before world population would begin declining. The main force for growing populations, as I noted, wasn’t the birth rate, so much as the much applauded decline in death rates.

The political Left hated the book and the Right loved it. Now, oddly, I find some extremists on the Religious Right trying to whip up fear and doom over the very pattern I had shown: declining birth rates.

 Janice Crouse is a spokesman—I use the term intentionally as I’m sure she is offended by feminist values—for the Concerned Women of America, a fundamentalist political group. She lists a lot of political material about herself, but, while she touts herself as “Dr. Crouse,” leaves out exactly how she got a doctorate and in what field. The only credentials she mentions are her conservative credentials and writing for Right-wing organizations. Even her own website biography neglects to offer this information. She did work at a Christian college as a debate coach, but that doesn’t say very much. All I can find is she graduated from a Wesleyian-Holiness college in 1961, and then went on to another fundamentalist university.

What drew my attention to Crouse, was a recent piece she wrote in which she seemed to insinuate that population declines in Europe were do to the result of the much exaggerated “death of the family.” Crouse lamented:

Anti-Marriage Right Bets the Farm and They Can Lose It All

The hateful Prop 8 campaign has placed an all-or-nothing bet on their initiative. If they win, they win nothing more than what they already have. But they also have the potential of losing absolutely everything.

Prop 8 was challenged in the courts. During the trial the Prop 8 campaign had tried to defend their bigoted initiative but failed miserably. They had a couple of problems. One was that the rules of evidence exclude 99% of the claims they were making in public. They couldn’t come into court and make the same claims without having to prove them.

Given that the campaign was engaged in one “big lie” after another, this removed most of their claims. In court, they could be cross-examined if they made the same dishonest assertions.  Their campaign lies wouldn’t stand up to cross-examination. What the court saw, instead of the confident assertions made in TV commercials, was a lot of bumbling replies. When openly asked what harms would come from marriage equality their legal counsel couldn’t answer the question. He didn’t know.  Neither did the Prop 8 proponents, which is why they resorted to lying.

Prop 8 lost that round and the ruling went into great detail as to why they were wrong and why Prop 8 was a discriminatory piece of legislation. At this point the state of California said it did not want to pursue defense of Prop 8. Since it was a state law, under California’s ill-conceived initiative process, it would be their job to defend 8. But they did not want to do so. Neither the governor nor attorney general wanted to be associated with that law. The bigots behind the law demanded the right to step in, in place of the state, to defend their law. Today the California Supreme Court said they have the right to try to defend their legislation in the courts.

Catholicism and the "Intolerance" Hoax

The Washington Post says that Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput “painted a bleak picture of a nation increasingly intolerant of Christianity.” Chaput, who achieved an ecclesiastical position superior to Christ himself, says, “The America emerging in the next several decades is likely to be much less friendly to Christian faith than anything in our country’s past.”

Please note the bait-and-switch here. One may be unfriendly to a dogma without being intolerant. Merriam-Webster defines intolerant, in the religious sense, as “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters.”

This sort of “intolerance” is not actually an issue. What the Archbishop whines about is not any attempt to prevent representatives of the Vatican from expressing a viewpoint, or even from practicing their faith, within their churches, as they see fit. This simply is not happening. What the Catholic Church complains about something is quite different. The areas where they are most upset have to do with granting equality of rights to gay people. The Church is quite intolerant of men who have romantic/sexual relationships with other adult men, for instance. They desire that the law reflect their religious views.

That is an entirely different issue; they are the ones being intolerant. Tolerance implies the granting of equal freedom to others. It does not require that one be “friendly” to ideas that one finds distasteful, whatever the reason for the sour taste. Disliking gay marriage is not "friendly," wanting to ban it is intolerant.

The Catholic Bishops, are “feeling under siege: from a broader culture moving toward accepting gay marriage.” This is correct, but when they say that is “chipping away at religious liberty” they have engaged in semantics of Orwellian proportions. They have completely reversed the facts. The Church, when gay couples are given equal rights, can still practice its faith. No religious group has ever been forced to perform a marriage to which it is religiously opposed. The Church can also set its own policies for who may, or may not, hold ecclesiastical office—and one would think the Bishops would be looking at the choices they have made for the priesthood before worrying about the marriage contracts of others.

The Libertarian Case for Marriage Equality

Robert Levy, president of the Cato Institute, discusses the libertarian case for marriage equality for gay couples. About 11 minutes.

Why Can't They Tell the Truth?

One of the most disheartening aspects about the debate regarding marriage equality, other than the fact that there is a debate, is the dishonesty of opponents. In particular, the Christian Right simply seems unable or unwilling to tell the public the facts. They always seem to twist or distort facts in order to try to panic people into supporting their agenda. 

 

Recently, Baptist Press published a series of falsehoods by Dale Schowengerdt, who works for the far right Alliance Defense Fund. The article is entitled Religious liberty & the case against gay ‘marriage.’” Even in headlines,, they can’t resist the urge to put “scare” quotes around marriage when it refers to gay couples. I guess it is like the Klan saying, “Blacks want their ‘human’ rights.”

Marriage Equality in New Zealand?

Research New Zealand did a poll of Kiwis asking them about their support of same-sex marriage there. Currently Civil Unions are allowed but marriage is restricted and regulated to opposite sex couples only. The most recent poll found that 60% of Kiwis said they were accepting of same-sex marriage, only 34% said they opposed the idea. Two percent felt there was no difference between marriage and civil unions and 4% were not sure what they thought.

The numbers showed that women, more than men, supported marriage equality, with 66% of all females supporting it where 54% of men supported marriage equality.

As all polls in the United States indicate as well, there is a clear and strong difference in support according to age. Kiwis between the ages of 18 and 34 support marriage equality 79% to 19%. Even among those between the ages of 35 and 54 support exceeds opposition by 61% to 32%. Only older Kiwis, over the age of 55 oppose marriage equality and even there they are close to being evenly split: 44% to 49%.

Reason TV at the Stonewall

Falsifying reality to prove their point: NOM and gay marriage.

The Right-wing Christian Post claims that a new poll shows that "57 percent of New York voters oppose gay marriage." This new poll was released to convince Republicans to continue stalling the vote on marriage equality.

In paragraph three we read that 57% want only heterosexual marriage, while 32% support equality, and 11% don't know what they believe. It takes another couple paragraphs before they tell you that the "poll was commissioned by National Organization for (sic) Marriage." This is the secretive, highly funded anti-gay group run by Maggie Gallagher. The group is enmeshed with numerous state agencies around the country as they are the only political campaign in the country that illegally hides the donors from public scrutiny.

But, earlier this year the New York Daily News reported a Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of voters supported marriage equality. Earlier this month the same poll was conducted again and found support had edged up slightly to 58%. This is slightly higher than the national average. Gallup, in May, found that 53% of all Americans support marriage equality. CNN, in April, found 51% support it. An ABC/Washington Post poll March also found 53% support.

So, why is it when respected, professional polling outfits ask about marriage equality they get a much higher ratio of support, than when NOM commissions a right-wing, Republican outfit to do it for them?

A Republican of a different kind.

While Republicans like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, et. al. all jostle for the position of being the most bigoted Republican there are a some rare and wonder exceptions. Gov. Gary Johnson, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, but who is being blackballed by CNN, is one of them Another is State Senator Roy McDonald of New York.

New York is ready for marriage equality, which remains the great civil rights battle of this decade. The Republican Party is adamant in support of all sorts of bigotry, but especially against the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Marriage equality was voted down narrowly last year and McDonald did what the party leadership demands. This year he announced he would support marriage equality. And he put his thoughts in some plain, easy-to-understand words that I think will resonate with people.

We've been through this before.

A 4 minute news report from 1967.

The Constitutional Case for Marriage Equality

A seven minute video from our friends at the Cato Institute on the case for marriage equality.

A Tale of Two Polls

In recent weeks Gallup has done two polls on the state of equality of rights for gay and lesbian people—which remains the major civil rights battle of the day. Looking at each poll alone is fascinating but considering them together is very enlightening.

The most recent poll on support marriage equality showed that a majority of Americans now view gay marriage as an acceptable option. Now this question is only for full-on marriage rights. The marriage-lite option, civil unions, is not included here. Numerous polls show that when that is offered into the mix then support rises to about 66% with one third firmly opposed to any legal rights for gay relationships.

At least he's honest about it.

Here is an interesting exchange on the floor of the Minnesota state senate between Senator Patricia Torres Ray and Senantor Warren Limmer. Limmer is a Republican who has sponsored legislation to "protect marriage," by which he means to continue to deny marriage rights to gay couples. Throughout this debate on equal rights before the law for gay couples I have heard anti-gay opponents pretending that they are really just "protecting marriage." They are vague and imprecise about what harm will be done and what is being protected. They want to continue to use state power to deny equality of rights to one class of people, they want to use big government to enforce a moral agenda.

They say it must be done to protect marriage. So, Senator Ray asks Limmer how his legislation will protect her marriage. His admission is enlightening.



If these pieces of legislation do NOT protect marriage in any tangible way, then what is the purpose? May I suggest the obvious answer, one that comes to mind ever time one of these people insist that they do not hate gay people. May I suggest that they do in fact hate gay people and this is how they express their hatred.

No Marriage Rights: Kill Them Instead

Religious opponents of equality of rights for gay people held a rally in New York to oppose measures that would give gay couples the same recognition that heterosexual couples currently have. The National Organization for (sic) Marriage was one of the sponsors.

One speaker invited to address the several hundred sized crowd was Rev. Ariel Torres Ortega, who preached in Spanish, with an interpreter translating into English. The two-minute video below is of that incident.



The Reverend launches into a list of all the awful sins that will follow if you allow gay men to exist, the Bible says nothing about lesbians, an oversight I'm sure. The disjointed nature of the "sermon," being translated phrase by phrase makes it a bit difficult to follow. But  it goes something like this:

Committing sexual acts between man and man. And receiving the retribution of the things that they have done....(long list of other sins)...those who practice such things are worthy to death, not only do they that do it, but those who also practice it.

So, apparently at this NOM Rally one of their prime speakers, instead allowing gay men to marry, wants to have them executed.

This isn't the first time this sentiment has been expressed at a NOM rally, though I believe it is the first time they turned the microphone over to someone who wants gay men killed. (Please note the verse in the Bible only mentions men, and that the Bible no where even acknowledges that lesbians exist.) At a rally in Indianapolis the following sign was held by one minister. It is titled: "The Solution to Gay Marriage" and shows two nooses. It then quotes Leviticus saying that gay men "shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." It then references  Cross Bearer Ministry and gives their contact details.

I fear most Americans do not understand the absolute depth of hatred that these fundamentalists have for gay people.

Below is a second video, this time from a rally for gay rights in Australia. The peaceful rally when disrupted when a group of fundamentalists literally stormed into the rally shouting at the people assembled that God hates them. I had read accounts of this but hadn't seen any video until now. It appears these fundamentalists were quite intent on disrupting the event. Who is aggressing against whom here? No doubt, the Religious Right will portray these fundamentalists as victims of hate, but the video shows the opposite.

NRA inserts itself in DOMA controversy.

One would expect the National Rifle Association to defend the rights of gun owners and not really concern itself with the rights of others. They are supposed to be a one-issue lobbying group. So, I don’t get worried when they refuse to defend the First Amendment and instead concentrate on the Second Amendment. I’m the sort of guy who likes all of the Bill of Rights, not just selective parts of it. If anything the Bill of Rights didn’t go far enough for me.

But I would not expect the NRA to actively insert itself in campaigns to deny other people their rights. But that is precisely what the NRA has done. That, in my opinions, moves them into a whole different category.

First, some background regarding the situation with the law firm King & Spalding. Unfortunately a lot of conservatives have actively been lying about the facts to twist the case into something far different than what it really is.

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives recently hired King & Spalding. They wanted the firm to defend the odious Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that created a federal definition of marriage for the first time in history. Previously marriage was regulated as the state level. Republicans, in the name of states’ rights, moved the definition to the federal level so that it trumps state definitions on all federal matters.

Do the motives really matter?

The civil rights battle of today, in the United States, bar none, is that of equality of rights for gay and lesbian citizens. It is absolutely impossible for the issue to be avoided as two cultures and concepts about rights clash with one another. In one corner you have the classical liberal/libertarian concept of limited government and individual rights and in the other corner you have a conservative/authoritarian view that individual rights must be sacrificed to some perceived collective good and tradition.

In the conservative/authoritarian corner are a huge number of fundamentalists who seem quite literally obsessed with hatred for gay people. One need only read the material that these people put out to see precisely how viciously cruel and hateful these people are. The lies they resort to, in order to demonize gay people in general, are often so extreme that they betray the bigotry behind those campaigns. These are people who want to deny gay people equality of rights precisely because they wish to inflict pain and suffering upon a class of people that they hate.