|
 |
 |
 Sunday, July 13, 2008
David Benkof's last post
It is with great sadness that I must report that I feel I can no longer openly support the cause of man-woman marriage in the United States. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and praise Maggie Gallagher and the Institute for Marraige and Public Policy for supporting and promoting my participation in this ongoing debate. Your spirit of open inquiry and pursuit of the truth is to be admired and should be emulated by people of all political positions on all issues. You have my deepest gratitude. Sincerely, David Benkof Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 7:57 PM | link 
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Either they're experts or they're not
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com A June 10 report in the Health section of the New York Times headlined "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage" has led proponents of same-sex marriage to trumpet the news that same-sex marriage may actually be good for marriage as a whole. Comments about the article at the Web sites and print editions of the Human Rights Campaign blog, Marriage Equality News, the Washington Blade, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Huffington Post, Seattle's The Stranger, and the comments section of my own blog, GaysDefendMarriage.com, have treated the article as the smoking gun that proves gay marriage is good for America after all. It's clear that the alleged differences pointed to in the article, that same-sex couples are "far more egalitarian" and "have more relationship satisfaction" are intended to show that admitting gay couples to the institution of marriage will help marriage altogether. Other very real differences that while perhaps beneficial, would clearly have no influence on straight couples, like the fact that lesbian couples often find their menstrual cycles in sync, or that gay couples frequently share an entire wardrobe of clothes, were not mentioned. Now, if the experts cited in the New York Times article are reliable on ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look good, surely they are reliable on the ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look, well, less good. All three of the experts directly quoted in the article, Dr. Sondra Solomon, Dr. Esther Rothblum, and Dr. Robert W. Levenson have written other studies that the "marriage equality" movement would surely prefer nobody find out about. For example, Solomon and Rothblum did a 2005 study together examining the attitudes toward sexual fidelity of couples that entered civil unions in Vermont - a status that provides all state benefits of marriage. More than 50 percent of the male-male relationships reported having arrangements with their partner that allowed for sexual activity outside the relationship. Do "marriage equality" advocates believe that Solomon and Rothblum's findings about egalitarianism will spill over to the entire society but that their findings about sexual infidelity will not? In addition, Levenson participated in a 2003 study that stated that compared to married male-female couples, both gay and lesbian couples reported more autonomy and more frequent relationship dissolution. I guess it's possible that California same-sex relationhips have become more stable and interdependent now that the exact same rights and benefits the state grants are called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnership," but I doubt it. Now, it's possible that some people want marriage to be more egalitarian as well as less monogamous and less stable. Personally, I want none of those things. As an Orthodox Jew, I expect any marriage I enter into to have a fairly traditional division of roles. But surely the expectation of the "marriage equality" activists in publicizing the article citing these experts is that undecided voters who want marriage to become more egalitarian should support same-sex marriage. My response is that their expectation is fine, as long as those voters also want marriage to be more sexually open and more likely to dissolve. The other options are for gay-marriage activists to withdraw their argument based on the Times article, or to come up with some explanation why these academics are trustworthy in some of their research, but fraudulent in other parts of their research. I'd like to close by citing Rothblum one more time. She said two years ago that these days the difference when a state grants marriage or a marriage-like status to same-sex couples is "largely symbolic," which supports my question why the gay movement is spending millions of dollars on a symbolic issue in California when there are many, many actual and painful problems facing LGBT people, especially in states much less friendly than California, that we could be addressing. I have yet to hear a good answer to that question. Labels: civil unions, Marriage posted by David Benkof at 11:54 PM | link
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Marriage and gay history
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com contains a few new items that apply gay and lesbian history to the marriage debate. The first is a 3,000-word essay (http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/phantom-past/) showing the falsehood of the widespread assumption behind the gay-marriage debate that being gay means being part of a naturally occuring minority that appears in every society. I cite a half-dozen leading gay and lesbian historians and anthropologists to show how those with the best expertise and the most evidence all acknowledge that being gay is a phenomenon limited to the last 150 years. Then there's my short essay, reprinted below, about how understanding a particular rhythm in American gay and lesbian history can help explain the current "marriage equality" obsession by gay and lesbian leaders. Gay marriage in historical perspective The debate on same-sex marriage needs to be understood in the context of the role of both freedom and equality in the American gay and lesbian past. Since sexual minorities began to organize in the United States the 1950s, gays and lesbians have experienced alternating periods - some emphasizing freedom, and some emphasizing equality. For example, during the McCarthy era, gays emphasized equality - not losing security clearances because of your sexuality, and not having the government stigmatize and even arrest you because of the way you have sex. In the 1970s, however, freedom was more important. After all, the most visible gay organization right after the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion was the Gay Liberation Front. Liberation, of course, means freedom. And the lesbian separatist movement that promoted books like Jill Johnston's Lesbian Nation and events like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (founded in 1976), by definition didn't want to integrate into American society, but to have the freedom to build self-contained lesbian-feminist communities. Today's same-sex marriage movement has all the hallmarks of a return to equality. Most "marriage equality" activists are so focused on the current emphasis of the gay community that they fail to remember that the pioneers who started the gay liberation movement believed in freedom for everyone. Thus, many gay and lesbian activists I have spoken with say that once gay marriage passes, they want the government to force traditionally religious people to use the gay definition of marriage in their jobs and businesses or face punishment. And in both Massachusetts where adoption agencies cannot give even a slight tiebreaker preference to families with both a mother and a father, and in California where the Supreme Court appears set to force religious fertility doctors to violate their consciences and inseminate lesbians, few if any voices in the gay community have stood up and asked, "Wait, isn't our movement about freedom?" It's time for everyone to accept that sometimes, gay people just aren't equal. That's not an insult, it's a fact. Other groups seem to understand this. Women know they're not equally qualified to be major league baseball players. Asian-American actors know they're not equally qualified to play Othello or Lena Younger. Similarly, while lesbians may be terrifically qualified to be mothers, they are not equally qualified to be fathers. Who knows how long the current gay emphasis on equality over freedom will last? If history is any guide, it won't last forever - but then it will be back. In the meantime, is it really a good idea to make a radical social change that expands gay equality but limits everyone else's freedom just because that matches the present priorities of the gay and lesbian community? Labels: homosexuality, Marriage posted by David Benkof at 12:17 AM | link
Saturday, June 28, 2008
On marriage and "marriage"
By David Benkof GaysDefendMarriage.com DavidBenkof@aol.com One of my favorite same-sex marriage advocates (and an occasional commenter at GaysDefendMarriage.com) is Fannie, of the fine blog Fannie's Room. A little over a week ago, she complained on her blog about the excessive use of quotation marks by marriage defenders (her term, not mine - thanks Fannie). Fannie describes the practice as "excessive unnecessary quotations marks to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. Like stubborn segregationists blocking access to white schools, they fail to concede a loss when they have, in fact, lost. Scare quotes, or more accurately 'sneer quotes,' are non-direct quotations used to indicate scorn, sarcasm, and/or disagreement with another person's usage of a word." As someone who uses such quotes around gay marriage some but not all of the time, I thought it might be useful for me to delineate three reasons why I do so, and give same-sex marriage advocates a chance to respond. We may not change each other's minds, but at least we'll understand each other better. 1. Liberals do it too. I have frequently seen quotation marks around terms conservatives use that liberals don't like. For example, many pro-choice people will say someone is anti-choice, but sometimes they'll call that person "pro-life." In other words, he calls himself pro-life, but in actuality his policies are anything but. He favors the death penalty, and he cares about the fetuses of poor women only until they're born, but then he cuts every program that might help the child have a successful life. Another example is referring to right-wing religious people as "Christian." They'll say the president of the California Values Alliance is a "Christian" who forgets the call of Jesus to help people in need. I wonder if Fannie and others like her object to the examples I gave above when used by liberals? 2. I have to do it. I know and understand and respect that Fannie thinks that Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin are married. I also know that the state of California considers them married. But in my opinion, they are not now and never can be married, for marriage is a union of a man and a woman. In fact, that's precisely what we're arguing about. Why should I give in when the debate has only begun? An analogy: Most opponents of the reparative therapy movement, including myself, refer to people who credit their therapy for a transition from gay to straight as "ex-gay." That's because I don't believe, and most LGBT people don't believe, that therapy can make a gay person straight. If I stopped using the quotation marks, I'd be surrendering on the debate before it even began. For the same reason, I refer to Messianic "Judaism" because no serious Jew of any movement considers it to be Judaism. 3. I think it's more respectful. Yeah, respectful. If I stopped referring to same-sex "marriage," which I'm open to doing if people on the other side tell me it's important to them, I'm not going to start using the term marriage to refer to things I do not believe are marriages. Instead, I'm going to look for creative ways to refer to same-sex marriages, husbands and wives. So: "Del and Phil had a same-sex legal ceremony of commitment at City Hall" and "Ellen DeGeneres and the woman in her life had a California lesbian union in front of several hundred friends." (Not Ellen and her wife got married.) I find it more respectful to use the word my opponents want to be used, but to put it in quotes to indicate I do not agree with it, but that's the term they prefer. Do you think a Muslim would rather I said that Islam is a "religion of peace" - or that Islam is a hate-filled faith of genocidal murderers? I think the former. If anyone has a suggestion for how I can be more respectful of the other side of this debate without violating my conscience, I'm interested in hearing it. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 11:31 PM | link
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Voting on "civil rights"
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com A Web user responding to one of my arguments in favor of the California Marriage Protection Act wrote, "Allowing a majority of the people to decide the civil rights of a minority through a popular vote is simply bad policy. Should we have allowed the majority to vote on whether segregation should be ended or not?" Actually, yes. But allow me to explain: the reason defenders of man-woman marriage are pushing a vote on same-sex marriage is that is the only way a constitutional decision by the California Supreme Court can be overturned. A unanimous vote by the 120 members of the legislature, along with the governor's vigorous approval, would change nothing without a vote of the people. Supporters of "marriage equality" can hardly complain that the system is unfair given that none of them objected to the process before the Supreme Court decision, and many of them voted for liberal California constitutional amendments in recent years on environmental, anti-smoking, education, and other issues. I certainly feel that defenders of segregation in 1954 should have been allowed to introduce a Constitutional amendment overturning Brown v. Board of Education. That decision, which was one of the moral high points of the 20th century, had no special status that made it permanent. I definitely would have fought them, but if segregationists had convinced two-thirds of Congress and the Senate - and the state legislatures in 38 states - to pass a Segregation Amendment to the Constitution, what should have stood in their way? A Super-Decider who gets to overrule constitutional amendments that aren't consistent with his values would be the mark of a dictatorship, not a democracy. The fact that California has a popular vote to amend its Constitution whereas the U.S. has a more complicated process is an accident of history, not a plot against gays. The people crying foul that someone is trying to amend "their rights" should think about the Dred Scott case. That 1856 decision ruled that a white man had a property right to "own" an African-American. Do today's complainers about the California amendment think Dr. John Emerson could have legitimately complained about people trying to amend his rights through the 1865 votes on the Thirteenth Amendment? Because contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't the Civil War or even the Emancipation Proclamation that abolished slavery in the United States. It was the Thirteenth Amendment. There has to be a process under which the people and/or their elected legislators can overrule constitutional decisions they don't agree with. The process does carry the risk that good decisions may be overturned, yes, but that means bad decisions can be, too. I don't want to live in a state where four justices (or a country where five justices) can have the absolute last word about important issues relating to the way we live. Finally, while "marriage equality" advocates have the right to claim there is a civil right to same-sex marriage, very few experts agree with them. The Supreme Court has never recognized a federal right to "marry" a member of the same sex, and gay and lesbian groups have actively fought lawsuits seeking such a right, because they know they would likely lose. Massachusetts has a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and there will be one for about 4.5 months in California, at which point the people will decide whether that right should cease. The other 48 states provide no state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. And what is the opinion of the civil rights phenomenon of the century? "I don't think marriage is a civil right," said U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when running for the Senate four years ago. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 11:19 PM | link
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Gay marriage across state lines
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com Northwestern law Prof. Dr. Andrew Koppelman is one of the brightest minds supporting same-sex marriage. I wish more legal advocates defending man-woman marriage had his talent. He and I have exchanged thoughtful E-mails relating to gay rights, one of his academic specialties. Unlike most advocates of gay marriage, Dr. Koppelman agrees with me that the gay community's rush to sue over marriage has serious drawbacks that endanger same-sex couples. He has called the California lawsuit known as In Re Marriage Cases "insane" and "ill-advised," and compared its promoters to fools. And in a new piece in the Chicago Tribune, Dr. Koppelman thankfully raises an underdiscussed topic forced upon everyone by the recent California decision: the portability of California and Massachusetts same-sex unions to states that have democratically decided to recognize only man-woman marriages as legitimate and valid. His argument is that the 44 states that bar recognition of same-sex marriage ought to attenuate their stances and in some cases presumably amend their constitutions - even if they think the traditional definition of marriage is proper and necessary. Why? Because of the "state of chaos" that could arise from having different marriage laws in different states. For example: "Can Illinois residents get married on a weekend trip to California and then expect Illinois to recognize the marriage? Can someone married in Los Angeles safely run away to Chicago with the family's assets? And what happens when someone from California is unexpectedly hospitalized here, and the hospital needs to know who is legally authorized to make the patient's medical decisions? It is essential to know where one state's laws end and another's begin." Dr. Koppelman asserts that "the consequences of blanket non-recognition" are "pretty nasty." His conclusion? "The only way for states to avoid these weird and unjust results is to admit that they have to recognize same-sex relationships sometimes, for some purposes." Well, no. What's weird and unjust is the idea that eight opinionated robe-wearers in two states could force a radical change in public policy based on constitutions that are completely null and void outside Massachusetts and California on millions of voters and hundreds of legislators in 44 states whose constitutions contain no right to same-sex marriage. Instead, to respond to the problem Dr. Koppelman has articulated so well, it would be much more just and much less weird for both sides to agree that no state will implement same-sex marriage until it is passed at the federal level, or until states representing at least 50 percent of the population (instead of the present 14 percent) decide to implement same-sex marriage, at which point all states will recognize same-sex marriage. If Dr. Koppelman's argument is valid, what does that mean for the other 49 states if the Supreme Court of Wyoming rules that the Wyoming Constitution requires allowing a brother and a sister to marry each other (sorry, Wyoming)? It sounds like he is saying that brother-sister marriages must then be recognized not only in territory covering one-sixth of one percent of nation's population, but for at least some purposes in the other 99.9 percent of the country too. I think racial analogies in the gay-marriage debate are rarely helpful and sometimes needlessly insulting to African-Americans. But since Dr. Koppelman uses a racial analogy in his essay, I'll use one, too. Before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, some states were slave and some states were free. The U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether an enslaved person's liberation upon visiting a free state (incidentally Dr. Koppelman's Illinois) was portable back to his home slave state. The Court ruled that it was not. Any other decision, it said, "would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." So I'd like to ask Dr. Koppelman - do you agree with the Dred Scott decision or not? If not, do you have a reason for your apparent inconsistency other than "slavery was bad and gay marriage is good"? Dr. Koppelman writes that "consensus on this emotional and divisive issue is a long way off. In the meantime, we need a way to live together." Absolutely. But the way to live together is not to expect the overwhelming majority of the country to adopt public policies it thinks are wrong, even "for some purposes." The way to live together is for those advocating a radical redefinition of marriage to find some (gasp) humility and focus on creating change in places where it's wanted, rather than constantly trying to shove something the rest of us reject down our throats. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 11:15 PM | link
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Protecting the most vulnerable LGBT people
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com Many American communities - such as the Catholic community, the Jewish community, and the African-American community - put a lot of resources behind helping the worst-off people with those identities. There are mentoring programs, food assistance programs, even direct aid. A large percentage of the resources raised from wealthy Catholics, Jews, and blacks is spent on the needs and problems faced by Catholics, Jews, and blacks who are the most vulnerable. It doesn't work that way in the LGBT community. In fact, the gay community tends to prioritize the issues that are most important to the wealthy white donors to LGBT organizations, and it shows little interest in the problems facing people in pain who aren't like them. The most blatant example is the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which was one of the top 2-3 issues to the gay and lesbian community when I first became a gay activist in the summer of 1990. The gay white men who funded the gay movement at the time were dying of AIDS, and many of their friends were suffering and dying as well. So education, treatment, and funding for AIDS was a major priority to the gay movement. Not that you'd know it by reading the gay press, but HIV is still a major crisis facing the LGBT community. More than 70 percent of new HIV infections in men happen because of gay sex. One in three African-American gay men is HIV-positive. In some cities it's nearly one in two. But because the specific gay people suffering from HIV these days can't afford to contribute to LGBT organizations, the epidemic has been de-emphasized by the gay movement in favor of issues more important to its middle- and upper-class funders, like marriage. The Web site of the nation's biggest gay political organization, hrc.org, mentions marriage more than five times as often as AIDS. And what about prison issues? In the 1980s and 1990s, the Bromfield Street Educational Foundation worked to help gay and lesbian prisoners, who are certainly among the most vulnerable members of our community. LGBT prisoners face rape, humiliation, and beatings every day of their incarceration. Studies show transgender people are overrepresented in prisons. Why isn't the LGBT movement paying any attention to prisoners any more? The Web sites of the Human Rights Campaign and the Stonewall Democrats, among others, are completely silent about the needs of gay people in prison. Believe me, incarcerated gay men have far more important things to worry about than the "freedom to marry." I could go on. While I don't expect the leadership of the LGBT movement to agree with me that trying to redefine marriage is both wrong and counterproductive, surely we could find a compromise that would allow them to continue to advocate for same-sex marriage while also starting to help the most vulnerable members of our community. I propose that gay and lesbian organizations cut their "marriage budgets" in half, and spend the leftover money and staff time working on issues that affect LGBT people who are poor, sick, of color, immigrants, in prison, and otherwise in dire straits, thereby ignoring the irrelevant fact that such people are unlikely to ever be able to afford to go to $275-a-plate dinners at fancy hotels where people wear tuxedos and bid on lavish trips in silent auctions. I would love to hear a defender of the gay community's current priorities explain what's wrong with my proposal. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 12:43 AM | link
Sunday, May 25, 2008
"Stop!" by the Supremes
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com Advocates for same-sex marriage have frequently argued that restricting marriage to man-woman couples violates the American Constitution. For example, the largest gay-rights group in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, argues on its Web site that "the framers of our Constitution established – and we as a people have repeatedly reaffirmed – the principle of separation of church and state. That principle applies no less to the marriage issue than it does to any other." San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that the federal Constitution authorized him to "marry" thousands of same-sex couples beginning Valentine's Day 2004: "I hope every elected official in the United States takes a look at that Constitution that they swore to uphold.... there's nothing in the Constitution that allows me to discriminate against people." There is even some evidence that the Supreme Court is sympathetic to a federal right to same-sex marriage. In the celebrated Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case in 2003, Judge Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 6-3 majority: "Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." It so happens many people like me who oppose same-sex marriage see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that invalidates the man-woman definition of marriage. Obviously much of the LGBT community disagrees. When there's a society-wide dispute over the meaning of the Constitution, the proper arbiter is the nine experts in robes whose very job is to determine precisely what the federal Constitution does and does not mean. But "marriage equality" advocates don't want that. They're afraid their ideas about the supposed federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage won't be convincing enough. So they have done everything possible to stop well-qualified jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Roberts from ever being able to referee this dispute. They've chosen instead to go the state-by-state route, so that when they finally impose their definition of marriage on the whole nation, we'll be so used to it we'll barely notice. When Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, a gay couple from Orange County, California, filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and declare a federal constitutional right to marry, several LGBT groups including Equality California and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund asked the liberal Ninth Circuit to throw out the gay couple's case. Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, was candid about her group's reasoning: "Our carefully considered view is that it's important to be taking steps in the jurisdictions where we can succeed and have a series of successes ... before calling the ultimate question for the entire country." Who elected Jennifer Pizer queen lesbian? The LGBT movement is profoundly undemocratic. Many groups focused on equality like NOW and the NAACP elect their leaders. But overwhelmingly gay and lesbian groups appoint their leaders, and those appointments generally go to two types of people: major donors, and "affirmative action" slots for categories like transgender people and people of color. When I belonged to the Human Rights Campaign Fund in the early 1990s, every member did get to vote for the board of directors - but there was usually exactly one candidate for each board position! If Pizer's group wants to pursue state cases, that's fine. But blocking the federal claim of a loving gay couple is unacceptable. Hammer has his own theory why organizations supposedly there to help him would stab him in the back instead: "If we win, that sinks all their fundraising - and that destroys all their cases because we'd all be equal in the law across the United States.... they don't want us to win." The couple's attorney, Richard C. Gilbert, said "Our case can’t hurt state cases because state cases are decided under state constitutions.... What other group has said don’t fight, we’ll lose? Even if you lose you can make progress with an issue. Would Lambda Legal had said to Dred Scott, ‘Mr. Scott, you’re a slave, so don’t sue because you’re going to lose?’" Rather than fight state-by-state battles over marriage for the next 20 years, we should get a definitive ruling on the subject from the Supreme Court that we'll all be bound to accept - or to amend the Constitution if we don't like it. I know the court may not rule my way, but I'm still willing to give it a shot. Why won't the "marriage equality" crowd? Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 1:34 AM | link
Monday, May 19, 2008
Bad "Faith" Marriage Arguments
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com When confronted about the real religious-freedom dangers posed by "marriage equality," proponents of same-sex marriage have frequently spouted a very specific kind of nonsense. "Comments" sections all over the Web are full of examples, but people who should know better have made the same argument. For example, Democratic Pennsylvania Representative Daylin Leach said in a press release about same-sex marriage, "no church or synagogue will be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that goes against their beliefs." Religioustolerance.org promises that under marriage equality, "churches will continue to be able to discriminate, on any basis that they feel justified, against couples who seek a same-sex marriage or civil union." Even California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George reassured people in his decision that "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." How stupid do these people think we are? No intelligent defender of the traditional definition of marriage is going around scaring people into believing that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Anyone with even a tiny bit of knowledge of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment knows such a move would be grossly unconstitutional. Even the Human Rights Campaign's top attorney, Lara Schwartz, told me "the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses would prevent the government from requiring a congregation to solemnize a marriage that did not meet with the congregation's requirements." So why have the marriage-redefining legislators in Maryland and California named their bills the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act"? Even Illinois's civil unions bill is called the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." All these bills - plus the New York, Vermont, and Rhode Island same-sex marriage bills and the New Mexico domestic-partners bill - contain "religious freedom" provisions that prohibit nothing that isn't already clearly unconstitutional. Clearly, the religious-freedom language and the misleading titles of these bills are meant to fool people into thinking redefining marriage poses no threat to traditionally religious people. Whereas the real dangers to the freedom of traditionally religious people if we redefine marriage are ignored. For example, HRC's Schwartz has repeatedly refused to say whether "marriage equality" means a traditionally religious public school teacher should fear being fired for telling her students that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. She also won't say whether a business owner should be able to use G-d's definition of marriage instead of the gay community's definition in deciding who gets a "marital discount." If the other side can get away with this "bad faith" approach, I propose we rename the California Marriage Protection Act the "California Wedding Diversity and Marriage Protection Act." We can add a line about how no person's wedding will be prevented, postponed, canceled, or shut down by the government on the basis of the number and gender of the celebrants. Then, when gay-marriage defenders accuse us of trying to discriminate on the basis of gender in who can marry, we can say "Under this act, no person's wedding is ever in danger. People will have the right to have wedding ceremonies for people in any combination they desire." Who cares that no gay-marriage advocate has been warning that the act would ban gay weddings, and that such a ban would be unconstitutional? What matters is scoring rhetorical points, right? Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 12:59 AM | link
Monday, May 12, 2008
Exposing MA-rital fraud
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com I do not believe that in our democracy, anything goes. There are certain maneuvers that while legal, are contrary to the spirit of fair play in a democratic republic. Advocates of "marriage equality" have repeatedly shown that they will try any strategy, no matter how sneaky or dishonest, to achieve their goal of redefining marriage. I'll give just one example. During the campaign for the nation's second-ever statewide non-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, in Massachusetts in 1989, gay and lesbian activists told everyone who asked that the proposed law would never lead to same-sex marriage. In fact, they tried to prove how serious they were by writing into the law the following sentence: "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a ‘homosexual marriage.’" Massachusetts voters and legislators assumed the gay and lesbian community was acting in good faith, and in the interest of fairness, the non-discrimination law passed. One of the major reasons Massachusetts defenders of traditional marriage gave to oppose a redefinition of marriage in their state is that people in Massachusetts believe homosexuality is immoral. What is the Goodridge v. Massachusetts decision's explanation of why they rejected that reasonable rationale? They offered only a single sentence, which I'm quoting directly from the decision: "Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." That's the only reason the court gave, and the most prominent piece of evidence they cited was the non-discrimination law mentioned above that the voters of Massachusetts were disingenuously told would never lead to same-sex marriage. Come to think of it, I do not see why the four justices who approved the Goodridge decision should not be arrested and put on trial for violating Massachusetts law, which clearly states "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate" same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Margaret Hilary Marshall and three other Massachusetts jurists unmistakably construed that very act so as to legitimize and validate same-sex marriage. That was kind of their whole point. Doesn't it undermine our legal system when we fail to punish people who flagrantly violate the law just because they wear robes? I thought the whole point of Watergate was that no one is above the law. Any fair-minded Massachusetts proponent of same-sex marriage who believes in open democracy should reject the Goodridge decision as fundamentally fraudulent, and advocate for a statewide vote on "marriage equality," or at least a brand-new decision. Any new decision must not use as evidence a law everyone agrees was passed with the assurance that it would never lead to same-sex marriage in order to argue that the people of the Bay State support same-sex marriage. If a court had outlawed same-sex marriage with a similarly outrageous and anti-democratic argument, I would be the first to condemn it as illegitimate. To my knowledge not a single gay or lesbian activist (besides me) has ever expressed a similar opinion about Goodridge. Are "marriage equality" advocates so selfish that they feel winning is more important than playing fair? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) pending before Congress similarly contains a provision supported by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) which says ENDA won't undermine the male-female federal definition of marriage. Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation but does not want to see the longstanding definition of marriage change should trust Congressman Frank, who has trumpeted Goodridge, when he says ENDA will not lead to same-sex marriage? If Frank and other marriage equality advocates feel the Massachusetts bait-and-switch was a perfectly acceptable means of achieving their goals (and I see no evidence any of them ever rejected Goodridge), don't people who favor honest lawmaking have no choice but to start rejecting all future measures proposed by such people? Am I missing something? I really want to know. Anyone who can show me flaws in my logic is invited to send a respectful message to my E-mail address listed above. posted by David Benkof at 1:41 AM | link
Thursday, May 08, 2008
What are Minnesota lesbians afraid of?
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com I sent the Minnesota gay lobby OutFront Minnesota four reasonable questions about the effects of "marriage equality" on more traditional people, and I was refused because they said ours is an "antigay" blog - which it's not, or I wouldn't be allowed to post here, and there wouldn't be dozens of redefine-marriage posts in our archive. Then I said fine, have my lesbian editor at the Dallas Voice screen the way I use your answers before I post them. Nope. Finally she said she won't answer me and do not contact her again because I'm not "above-board," whatever that means. It is incredible chutzpah to propose a radical change in society's laws while refusing to answer exactly what that change will entail for people who disagree with you. I think fair-minded people in Minnesota of whatever opinion on marriage should insist that Jo Marsicano tell the truth about what OutFront Minnesota means when it says redefining marriage "would be nothing more than the recognition of reality." Is it nothing more? Is OutFront Minnesota willing to commit to fight any actions that would force those Minnesotans who have what it calls "biased opinions" to espouse the gay community's definition of marriage? Even if the Minnesota gay lobby is intent on persecuting religious people (which I have no idea if they are), they have a responsibility to speak up now, so Americans of all political affiliations, sexual orientations, and opinions on same-sex marriage will know exactly what they're up to. You can contact Jo Marsicano at: Jo Marsicano Communications Director OutFront Minnesota (phone) 612-822-0127 ext. 106 jmarsicano@outfront.org If she changes her mind and comes clean on what her group is planning, I promise to report back here on the blog. UPDATE; I just got an E-mail from a MarriageDebate.com reader named Danny. He said when he called Jo Marsicano she said that OutFront Minnesota doesn't answer "right-wing questions." I looked at her Web site and it says OutFront Minnesota is a "non-partisan organization." I wonder what the Minnesota Log Cabin Republicans and other "right-wing" donors, members, and supporters of her group would feel about her refusing to answer an openly LGBT Republican's questions because he's not sufficiently liberal for her. I also wonder how she thinks she's going to get legislation passed in a state with a Republican governor if she opposes right-wing questions. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 3:15 PM | link
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Marriage equality for incest-lite?
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com The people who want to redefine marriage insist they share our values and aren't trying to change the nature of what marriage means in America. So it is clearly fair game to look carefully at the full range of how gay and lesbian relationships over the last decade or more have worked. Though most straight people have never heard of it, there's a small but not insignificant subculture among gay and bisexual men known as the "Daddy-boy" scene. (Google it for some examples.) These are typically two adult men with a large age difference - which is the erotic point of the relationship. The older man is referred to as "Daddy" by his "boy," sometimes called his "son." While virtually none of these men desires an actual incestuous liaison, gay "sexperts" acknowledge that some of the excitement of these relationships comes from role-playing incest fantasies. I am certainly not suggesting this behavior should be illegal - any more than that of two consenting adults who act out a child molestation "scene." But this form of relationship has no clear counterpart among couples married using the longstanding definition of the word. To my knowledge, there has never been an adult age-diverse "Mommy-boy" couple looking for applause as they march in a mostly straight parade. But the equivalent absolutely happens in the gay community by members of the Daddy-boy subculture. Daddy-boy couples are not stigmatized at all by the gay community, or criticized in editorials in the gay press. It represents an unusual (though not the most unusual) but completely accepted way for two gay men who love each other to arrange their relationship. Now, we're constantly told that adding same-sex couples to the marriage rolls will make very little difference in what marriage means and won't harm any presently married couple. But I think starting to call couples who model their love after incestuous realtionships "married" would would do incredible damage to the institution. I know many decent, basically moral people who disagree with me on same-sex marriage. I would invite them to show good faith in their claim that same-sex marriage won't change the basic nature of what marriage means by agreeing that if and when the definition of marriage ever changes, they will work with me to make sure couples who base their relationship dynamic on incest will not be included. To be clear: I am not saying that "Daddy-boy couples" are a legitimate reason to deny people in more conventional same-sex relationships inclusion in some future definition of marriage. I am saying, however, that because everyone can agree that the subset of the gay community that eroticizes incest would materially hurt the hallowed institution of marriage, we should all make sure that if a redefinition of marriage does occur, it won't include this legal but troubling way of letting people experience the taboo thrill of incest without actually doing it. Labels: homosexuality, incest, Marriage posted by David Benkof at 3:21 AM | link
Monday, May 05, 2008
How SSM leads to "special rights"
I've been corresponding with some people who complained to me that people like myself who want to keep the present definition of marriage are abridging their rights. I've been responding that same-sex marriage advocates are actually the ones limiting people's rights. In Boston, if your church has a deeply held moral belief that children need both a mother and a father, and you want to help parents adopt, you are required to either violate your principles or to stop helping children find loving families. That's what gay "marriage" has wrought in the first state to fall victim to tyrannical judges and selfish gay activists. Virtually everyone agrees that the real victims of the shut-down of the highly praised Catholic adoption service in Boston are poor orphans of color. But as far as I can gather from the gay press and the Web, the gay community literally doesn't care. Being treated as "equal" appears far more important to them than the welfare of abandoned children. If LGBT people want to help gay parents adopt, I'm all for it. Let them set up their own adoption agencies and match kids to parents based on their value system. They could even reject Ozzie and Harriet for all I care. Each group should be allowed to behave consistently with its values as long as they're not hurting anybody. But no - the gay advocates convinced the government to demand that Catholics either embrace gay and lesbian values they think are wrong, or face civil and criminal penalties if they employ Catholic values in their important, heroic work. And gays tend to squeal when people say they want "special rights." But they do. What's more special than being able to arrange for a child's adoption based on your value system - one that happens to be at most one or two generations old, whereas the Catholic Church with its centuries of tradition is forced to violate its principles if it wants to rescue abandoned children. Sounds pretty special to me. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 9:48 AM | link
It's, um, about democracy, stupid
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com I've been having an interesting conversation at the Independent Gay Forum with some advocates of changing the definition of marriage. It quickly became apparent that what they want is to be the only people whose opinions count in deciding the definition of marriage. At first they alleged that I was trying to force them to adopt my beliefs that the Torah comes from G-d and gay sex is immoral and marriage is by definition a man-woman institution. But I explained that they could have any beliefs they wanted, but what I was looking for was simply the ability to express and defend my beliefs and advocate for public policies in line with those beliefs. Here are some of the things people said: "I am however human and don’t appreciate the arrogance of people that use those same stories and other texts in the Torah and Bible to oppress me because I am gay. Use the teachings in your own life but don’t insinuate them into mine." "I have a problem when anyone wants to impose this personal belief on others. So if you don't believe that you should marry a man, or not even have a romantic relationship with a man any more, I fully respect that right. I have trouble understanding why you believe that this belief must be dictated to others." "You may or may not be right regarding same sex marriage. However, using justification from a source thousands of years ago, doesn't and shouldn't fly." I can think of no way to interpret these statements, which are consistent with other things same-sex marriage advocates have said, other than that only pro-same-sex-marriage voices should be heard and counted in this debate. If my religion teaches me that it is unacceptable for a society to allow two men of any religion to try to marry (which it does), the first speaker apparently believes I must not speak out or vote based on my deeply held beliefs, because that would be "insinuating them" into his life. The second speaker objects to my "dictating" my belief that same-sex marriage is wrong to others. And if the speaker is a libertarian and won't dictate his beliefs about whether it's OK to own guns or use heroin or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then I can have a modicum of respect for him (although I'll bet he does try to dictate his beliefs about at least one of those three subjects). But even so, I'm not a libertarian. I believe it is not only legitimate but vital to work for a society that maintains a man-woman definition of marriage. So why can't I speak out about it and lobby and vote based on my beliefs? Are his beliefs the only ones that should be taken into consideration by the society? Does he think this is Stalinist Russia? Then there's the third speaker, who believes he has the right to decide what kinds of justification a person can legitimately use to defend his political beliefs, and what kinds are illegitimate. Let's leave aside the fact that many causes the third speaker probably believes in, such as abolition of slavery, conscientious objection to the Vietnam War, and the civil rights movement were led by people motivated by religious beliefs based on sources from thousands of years ago. This person appears to believe that one can pick a political position based on a Michael Moore movie, or a Doonesbury comic strip, or a Jon Stewart fake news clip, or a Maureen Dowd column. And those people should speak out and lobby and vote based on what they learned in that movie or strip or news clip or column. But people whose beliefs are based on the Torah, for example, should step out of the way and vote against their conscience because speaker #3 feels that particular justification "shouldn't fly." There's a pattern here. Same-sex marriage advocates for the most part act like they don't really believe in democracy. They believe in getting their way by any means necessary, including demanding that people who disagree with them shut up. In Massachusetts, these non-democratic Democrats and gay advocates used all kinds of sneaky maneuvers to prevent a statewide vote on the definition of marriage - because they knew they would lose. The "redefine marriage" crowd kept saying, "Don't put my rights to a vote!" Given that gays in Massachusetts have always had the equal right to marry (under the pre-2004 definition), but did not have the right to redefine marriage until the state Supreme Court did it for them in Goodridge, what they were really saying is "The votes of the people are irrelevant to my basic right to redefine marriage in a way consistent with my minority viewpoint on what marriage is." Well, If that's true, shouldn't I have the right to re-redefine marriage in a way consistent with my majority viewpoint on what marriage is? I would have a lot of respect for a gay activist who said, "Let's debate the definition of marriage openly and fairly. I believe that the more we talk about it, the more people will agree with my opinion that we need a more flexible definition of marriage. And then, let's have a statewide vote next year and let the people decide." Then, if in my state the people voted for a new definition of marriage, I would immediately redirect my energies into seeing that unlike in Massachusetts, my state would never force someone who prefers the "old" definition of marriage to behave as if he accepted the government's new definition. But if the election was fair, I would feel I had to live with the will of the voters. But that's not what's been happening, and in a democratic nation, it's frankly outrageous. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 1:33 AM | link
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Don't vote your conscience on marriage
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com I've been corresponding with a liberal Jewish supporter of same-sex marriage. He recently wrote me that he expects me and all other Orthodox Jews to support "equal civil rights for all citizens" with regard to marriage, even if our religious beliefs cause us not to extend those rights in our religious communities. First off, I do support equal civil rights for all citizens. Gay men and lesbians can and do get married - to members of the opposite sex. I was once gay-identified, and I hope to marry someday. But marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. A gay person cannot marry a same-sex person, just as he cannot marry a tomato. Both kinds of unions are completely alien to the longstanding understanding of what marriage is. Furthermore, my religion teaches me that same-sex marriage is immoral, and calls upon me to fight it. But because my correspondent disagrees, he can demand that I vote against my conscience? I thought this was a democracy. Liberal Jews have often expressed the opinion that prayer has no place in public schools. Well, what if I told one of them that I expect him to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing "equal civil rights for all citizens" to pray in school if they so desire - even if his personal beliefs cause him not to choose to pray in school himself? The two situations are precisely parallel. posted by David Benkof at 4:30 AM | link
Monday, April 21, 2008
What's Next - Jews for Meat Equality?
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com A California organization known as Jews for Marriage Equality has been getting some attention lately, including this article (which does not bother to interview a single Jewish opponent of same-sex marriage) in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. Jews for Marriage Equality makes about as much as sense as Jews for Meat Equality pushing for equal treatment of pork alongside beef, chicken, and lamb as foods approved for Jewish consumption. The evidence from Jewish texts is overwhelming that Judaism opposes - and G-d opposes - same-sex marriage, both between Jews but also in the wider society. (See below.) Nonetheless, Jewish proponents of same-sex marriage tend to reject the notion that a Jew can legitimately oppose same-sex marriage - and they certainly never acknowledge that theirs is a revolutionary position with little precedent in Jewish history and thought. When they do discuss traditional Jewish perspectives on sexuality and marriage, their comments are generally misrepresentations - if not outright lies. For example, the Jews For Marriage Equality brochure states that only "the most liberal" Orthodox Jews will "concede" that gay Jews are, in fact, Jews. This ludicrous statement has no basis in fact. All Orthodox Jews agree that anyone of any sexuality who has a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism according to Jewish law is Jewish. Two years ago, a coalition of eight Bay Area groups sponsored an event at a gay temple in San Francisco called "Smashing the Glass: Jewish Perspectives on Marriage Equality." There were nine speakers, not a single one of whom favors Judaism's longstanding position that marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The event displayed as much chutzpah as an event called "Jewish Perspectives on Circumcision" with speakers who all argue that circumcision is immoral and therefore un-Jewish because it involves the genital mutilation of a child without his consent. Another example is the Web site Gay Marriage: Civil Right or Civil Wrong which wanted someone to explain Orthodox opposition to same-sex marriage. So whom did they ask - a local Chabad rabbi? A representative of some major Orthodox institution? An openly LGBT person like me who believes in and practices Orthodox Judaism? No. They asked Cantor David Berger, the openly gay Reform cantor of New York's main gay synagogue. And virtually everything he said about Orthodoxy was incorrect. It's like asking a radical feminist to explain why the Catholic Church opposes abortion. Or inviting Jesse Jackson to justify why the Republican Party opposes racial preferences. Berger makes five mistakes about Orthodox Judaism in just three paragraphs: 1) He claims that the Torah's prohibition of a specific type of gay sex has "been expanded in traditional Jewish law" into "a general prohibition on homosexuality." Nonsense. I know of no Jewish source or recognized authority who considers not just acts but also same-sex attractions or gay/lesbian orientations to be prohibited. There are many Jews with such attractions and orientations who follow Jewish law and are welcomed and cherished members of the Orthodox community. 2) He claims that the Torah's prohibition on gay relations "applies only to Jews.... Non Jews are neither obligated by this law nor may they be punished for violating it." False. The prohibitions against the act sometimes called "buggery" and against same-sex marriage are "Noahide" commandments. Those are laws that apply to every human being, whether Jewish or not. 3) Berger claims that state-sanctioned marriage "is not a Jewish legal category." Wrong. One of the Noahide laws prohibits adultery. If Judaism considered non-Jews in civil marriages to not really be married, then how could they commit adultery? Of course Orthodox Judaism considers non-Jews married by the state to be actually married. 4) He claims, with no evidence, that Orthodox Jewish families and schools teach "rampant homophobia" to Jewish children. Huh? In the vast majority of Orthodox homes and schools, homosexuality is not discussed at all - positively or negatively. Orthodox children are nowhere systematically taught to fear or hate gay people. True, Orthodox Jews instill the importance of channeling sexuality into the marital (male-female) bond. That is a longstanding Jewish value. But homophobia? No. 5) He rejects the "easy" notion that Orthodox Jews are against same-sex marriage because of the Torah, and writes that "the real answer" relates to "the nature of Orthodox Jewish culture, community, and education." In other words, there can be no genuine Jewish objections to same-sex marriage, only ignorant opinions based on fear or hate. So when we point to verses in the Torah (especially Genesis and Leviticus) and sections of the Talmud (especially Chullin and Kiddushin) that uphold traditional Jewish bedroom and family life, those are only smokescreens for the real reason we don't support Berger's radical stance - our irrational prejudices. One of the many problems with this last argument is that Orthodox Jews who are not homophobic still reject same-sex marriage. I'm one example. Another is the well-known iconoclastic Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has many pro-gay stances. Rabbi Boteach is nonetheless firm in his opposition to both Jewish and civil same-sex marriages. Or take Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who usually votes with the Democrats. He has sponsored gay-rights bills and adopted many gay causes. But as an Orthodox Jew, he opposes same-sex marriage. Does Berger believe Boteach, Lieberman, and me are all homophobic? The fact is, the Talmud criticizes Babylonian society for violating nearly all the Noahide commandments - yet praises it for at least observing three such strictures, one of which forbids same-sex marriages. Orthodox Jews believe that the Talmud, as part of the Oral Law, ultimately comes from G-d. Thus Judaism's position - and G-d's position, we believe - is that same-sex marriages are wrong even for non-Jews. Now, I realize that non-Orthodox people have the right in a free society to disagree. But when they pretend theirs is the only Jewish position, and when they lie about Orthodox Jewish beliefs regarding family and bedroom life, they're not playing fair. Many liberal Jews have decried the "Abortion Counseling Centers" run by pro-life people who discuss all options with pregnant women - except abortion. An evening spotlighting "Jewish Perspectives on Marriage Equality" that includes only voices that are hostile to the centuries-long Jewish position on marriage is just as deceptive. The Web sites, publications, and organizations described above, and similar ones, should include at least one Orthodox person whenever they want honest discussions on Jewish views on sexuality and the family. My E-mail address is above, and there are many other Orthodox people - clergy and lay, straight and gay - who would be qualified to join in. posted by David Benkof at 11:22 PM | link
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Was Canadian same-sex marriage a mistake?
By David Benkof Today's National Post (Canada) contains an op-ed suggesting that same-sex marriage in that nation was a mistake: The most important section is at the beginning: What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil. One of the most frustrating aspects of the same-sex marriage debate in the United States is the accusation among proponents that opponents are "taking away rights." Any honest look at the history of this debate has to acknowledge that traditional people did not seek out this fight. It was the gay community and their allies - and a few judges in Massachusetts - who thrust this debate upon the nation. Given that overwhelming numbers of Americans support the existing definition of marriage (as shown by vote after vote and the fact that proponents have tried to prevent votes in Massachusetts and elsewhere), it should come as no surprise that opponents have mobilized to preserve traditional marriage. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 3:23 PM | link
Monday, April 07, 2008
Civil Bar Mitzvah
Many of my friends who support same-sex marriage don't understand why defenders of traditional marriage can't stick with the old definition solely within their churches and synagogues, while the society as a whole moves forward with a "non-discriminatory" approach that ignores the sex of the individuals to be married. In fact, California's same-sex marriage bills have had the ludicrous title "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act," to emphasize that same-sex marriage in that state would force no faith to perform marriages it does not believe in. Given that the First Amendment clearly obviates the need for any such additional "protection," this Orwellian title is mostly a distraction from the actual harm same-sex marriage causes those of us who oppose changing the man-woman definition of marriage. To show why religious people have every right to be upset about judges and legislatures monkeying around with traditional marriage, consider an analogy: the civil bar mitzvah. In Judaism, a young man becomes responsible to fulfill the commandments that are part of the Jewish people's covenant with God when he turns 13 years old. Now, imagine that the legislators in the state of Massachusetts admire the non-religious aspects of the bar mitzvah, and they decide to implement a civil bar mitzvah. At a civil bar mitzvah, young men and women of any faith - or no faith - read from an ancient text (which could be Biblical, or from Greek Mythology, or from the Epic of Gilgamesh, or from the Indian Upanishads), deliver a speech declaring personal values, enjoy a lavish party, and receive cash and fountain pens galore from friends and family members - and perhaps a scholarship from the state. Now, let's say that because of the Bay State's powerful Tween lobby, Massachusetts sets 10 as the age of civil bar mitzvah. How do you imagine traditional Jews might feel about such an institution? I know I, for one, would be outraged. I recognize that it is probably a compliment that the state admires and wants to emulate a Jewish tradition. But for it to casually redefine an institution that already has a firm definition - one that Orthodox Jews, at least, believe comes from God, is a direct state attack on the integrity of my faith. While I might be resigned to accept such a radical civil redefinition of a central Jewish concept if it came about through a fair vote of the people, I would have a serious problem with a judge or even the legislature trying to redefine a concept - bar mitzvah - that has never been applied to 10- and 11-year olds and never should. I don't imagine I have to lay out the analogy to marriage. Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 11:23 AM | link
Saturday, January 05, 2008
The State Creates Sperm Donors
The new social institution of the anonymous sperm donor is completely the creation of the government. This case from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. In this case, a woman asked a friend to donate sperm to her, on the understanding that he would not be a father to the child: he wouldn't ask for visitation or other parental rights, and she woudl not ask for child support. By the time the child was 5 years old, the mother changed her mind and asked for child support. The PA Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling, and decided that the man did not owe child support. The court ruled that the couple's verbal contract was binding. Bill Duncan posted the case earlier. This case is interesting because the court's argument makes it very clear that couples could not and would not contract for donor sperm unless they were assured that the state would create a separation between the members of the couple. Given that the state already permits anonymous sperm donation, I think this case is properly decided. Contrary to the Court's statement, I can think of several good policy reasons why the "would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives" should be curtailed. Children have a natural right to have a relationship with their fathers. The state has no business separating mothers and fathers from each other, and children from their fathers. We should not assume that every woman has a right to have a baby, just because she wants one. And if a woman wants to "seek the sperm of a man she knows and admires," public policy ought to be to encourage her to marry him, not cook up alternative contracts with him that allow them to deconstruct the parental relationship. I think we should begin having a debate on exactly these questions. Read my entire post at my personal blog. Labels: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Fathers, Marriage posted by Jennifer Roback Morse at 10:56 PM | link
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|