What looks more and more clearly like a political re-alignment is in the works, and fewer and fewer Americans can say they identify with one or the other major political party - indicating that the current party system is doomed. The debate over CA's Prop 8, however, remains an example of the kind of assinine ideology-over-science polarization that has dominated the USA for decades and driven us into this economic rut by allowing politicians to get away with just about anything as long as they were wearing the more favorable party label at the time. Prop 8, for those who live under a rock, was an amendment to the CA State Constitution approved by voters (52%/48%) in 2008 that defines "marriage" as between one man and one woman. Before I express my views on this issue and its political impact, let's examine how this came to pass and what Prop 8 really means.
The Road to Prop 8
1788: First and foremost, neither the Federal nor any State Constitution at its original ratification had much of a definition of marriage to start with. This may be difficult for modern Americans to understand (sarcasm), but in the late 1700s religion and more importantly participation in religious activities was central to an overwhelming amount of Americans. Atheists and non-believers being a tiny minority was only a part of the picture - these elements are still a minority although a significant one in the modern United States. More importantly, religion was a source of identity, of community, and of a variety of social interactions for just about every American, including slaves - in stark opposition to modern America where a supermajority still identifies with one religion or another but regular attendance and participation are becoming minority practices. I won't go into my personal opinions of whether these trends are good or bad; the relevance of mentioning them is that the idea of marriage being separate from religion simply would not have occurred to anyone in the America Thomas Jefferson and John Adams knew. The debate of the time surrounding religious freedom that ultimately inspired the corresponding clause of the First Amendment was the freedom to partake in whichever religion the person pleased and the absence of a state religion - a revolutionary idea as most European countries at the time had state religions. The UK was actually considered among the more progressive by allowing different colonies to practice different religions and sometimes decide their own central religion. (The colony of Maryland actually gets its name for being the only one of the original 13 to practice religious freedom in colonial times.) Hence, for legal purposes, the Founding Fathers saw no point in defining marriage further than indicating that the government would ordain religious authorities indiscriminately to issue marriages and recognize them regardless of who had issued them. Non-religious marriage simply did not occur to them as a possibility, and this was actually a huge victory for liberty over the problems many European States had with only recognizing marriages issued by their official denomination of Christianity.
1960-2000: Although even the most recent states in the Union to ratify constitutions in the middle of the 20th century still did not see the potential need to define marriage any differently from the status quo described above, the rise of secular traditions dominated the second half of the 20th century. Nothing in any of these constitutions or state laws indicated that ONLY religious authorities could be ordained to issue marriage licenses so secular or civil marriages became more and more common, and more importantly many religious establishments grew increasingly liberal and fond of issuing marriage licenses that traditional religious establishments did not approve of, although mid-century this debate was concerned with inter-racial marriages. Homosexual and other sexual minority lobbies and civil rights organizations sprung up in the wake of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s, and the reality of them fighting for legal marriage became more and more apparent.
On the economic side, the impact of Federal and State government regulations has exponentiated on the everyday lives of every American of the last 4 decades of the 20th century, making marriage far more important in terms of property rights and legality than ever before in history. Regardless of what Stalin, Hitler, or Ahmadinejad may have said in their speeches, there have always been homosexuals in every society and even homosexual couples, despite persecution. However, in the late 20th century while homosexual couples could live together more openly as couples enjoying more protections and less of a threat of violence, the welfare state's infusion of the government into every aspect of the economy arguably created a new economic persecution that did not exist in the past.
- Property laws regarding joint ownership and inheritence have become so complexly defined that the inability to marry can cause severe economic complications.
- The closing of borders and requirement of government permission to immigrate has increased the importance of legal marriage for someone that wants to start a family with a foreigner. No recognition of marriage means no spousal immigration rights.
- Laws regarding custody of children have also grown more complex and more standardized. It used to be that if a family wanted to take in a child and the child wanted to live with them, they rarely needed anyone else's permission. Arguably the requirements of the Foster Care system have some redeeming qualities, but the effects on the important of legal marriage are obvious.
- Finally, New Dealism has muscled its way into the regulation of a variety of historically private services such as health care, retirement, banking and loans, various types of insurance, and so forth. The regulations were mostly intended to curb discrimination, but government-set standards that define who qualifies as a dependent beneficiary quickly turn into counter-definitions of who is NOT, so not having the capacity to be defined as a "spouse" has obvious economic setbacks.
My well-known views on the expansion of government and importance of legal status notwithstanding, these are modern realities that would have sounded like science fiction to the Founding Fathers, and even in the beginning of the 20th century did not play remotely the economic importance in our lives that they do now. Whether or not the lobbies admit this, my theory is that for many homosexuals these equal economic protections have become the key issue in the debate rather than politics and social stigmas, but I will get to why this matters shortly.
2000-2008: As mentioned above, traditional social conservatives are now a minority in the United States - don't let their participation in coalitions with other elements such as free enterprise, industrialists, and nationalists fool you - and the reality of marriage licenses being issued to homosexuals in the near future seemed like a natural consequence of the changing social climate circa 2000. Its not that someone would suddenly want to issue one, there are people that have wanted to issue them and said so openly since the 1960s, its that for the first time in American history it would not offend enough people for politicians to clamor against it. Pat Robertson's theory that 9/11 was God's way of punishing Americans for tolerating homosexuality - a manifestation of "hellfire and brimstone raining from the sky" - was (quite accurately IMO) seen by most Americans as a laughable schizophrenic delusion tormenting a man stuck in an outdated worldview, even in the Neo-Con dominated early 2000s. These changing social trends, in my theory, are what led to the various legal attempts to pre-empt the recognition of homosexual marriages by the government before the first license was actually issued.
Social conservative lobbies realized they had to appeal to more people than just the fringe minority that shared Robertson's mass-psychosis, and that they had to appear as the reformers and pioneers because once recognition grew into the status quo, their opposition would be seen as an attempt to counter natural social progress with old-world superstition and ultimately accomplish nothing. The half-attempt to garner support for an Amendment to the Federal Constitution that would define marriage the way Prop 8 does still went nowhere, but many states - including CA - passed legislative and referrendum initiatives that essentially did the same thing, CA's own being Proposition 22. These were sold on a variety of platforms that painted them as "protecting" the institution of marriage. Protecting it from losing its definition completely - in slippery slope scenarios that said a precedent would be set for recognizing polygamy, marriages to children or animals, and so forth; and also protecting it from being taken over by government that could then tell religious institutions how to define their values and could teach children in schools what many religious parents did not agree with. Politically charged and half-honest as these accusations were, they are a huge testament to just how outdated and outnumbered social conservatives are becoming - 20 years earlier the same initiatives could have passed on the "homosexuality is disgusting and sinful" slogan, but in this decade they had to really stretch the implications and keep homophobia out of the spotlight to eek them through the electoral process.
Sexual minority lobbies took a reactionary stance to the passage of this political trend, indicating their own prowess with using both dirty politics and turning defense into an attack. Rather than wilt under the assumption gay marriages would never happen, they fought for - and passed in many states - their own initiatives for domestic partnership unions that share many of the same property rights as married couples, and did not shy away from comparing possible opponents to nazis, apartheid-sympathizers, the Spanish inquisition, and every other "charming" comparison usually reserved for far right lobbyists. Equal rights that did not "tarnish" marriage were easier accepted by voters, and the stage was set to behead the opposition, culminating in SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's coalition of civil ordainees and liberal churches initiating a drive to hand out marriage licenses to homosexual couples with his own fervent support. This coalition was well-aware that their actions were in violation of Proposition 22, and engaged in them precisely to have them legally challenged so that they could bring Proposition 22 into the CA Supreme Court, where most political scientists could have easily predicted it did not stand a chance of being upheld as constitutional.
2008-Present: To many Californians, indeed many Americans, it appeared that the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 22 was a decisive victory for the sexual minority lobbies and that, in time, it would set a precedent that would be followed throughout the United States. Notice that the social conservative lobbies did not even make an attempt for a second run at an Amendment to the Federal Constitution - they knew that in this political climate that simply was not feasible. Proposition 8, instead, was crafted as a proposed amendment to the CA State Constitution; and I was one of the many Californians adamantly opposed to Prop 8 that did not take it seriously assuming that it had no real chance of being approved. The Prop 8 debate was when this issue finally reached national headlines and the level of political ugliness that usually accompanies this. The social conservatives again proved the effectiveness of being on the aggressive end of negative advertising - calling the CA Supreme Court "activist judges", using children in their ads to say they wanted "a mommy and a daddy", saying Prop 8 would destroy traditional marriage, and so forth. The sexual minority lobbies were far more reserved in their tactics - defending the Prop 22 ruling as "equality" and questioning the morality of using children in political ads to deceive Californians. I'm not sure if they underestimated the passing power of Prop 8, but its approval by the voters in a very slim margin that could have easily gone the other way demonstrated that honesty and reservation have no place in politics. If the opponents of Prop 8 pointed out that homosexuals were victims of Hitler's holocaust just like Jews, called its proponents Nazi sympathizers and theocrats, and made a centerpiece out of the involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints complete with all the rumors and stigmas surrounding said church, Prop 8 would likely have been scrapped by the voters, moral implications of said accusations and mudslinging notwithstanding.
The next chapter of history is being written now, in 2010, as the first Federal constitutionality challenge of Prop 8 by its opponents has been ruled in their favor. The legal proceedings are likely to escalate all the way to the Federal Supreme Court which will in all likelihood bury Prop 8 alongside Prop 22, with possible serious political consequences unrelated to gay marriage that I may address in a later post.
Political Analysis
What is to be learned from this history lesson and the all-too-common trend of political issues having less reasonable debate and more polarization and mudslinging as they gain more public attention and become more high-profile? The problem with this debate is that both sides have grown to completely ignore any scientific principle of social theory in favor of their mind-numbing ideologies.
Hellfire and Brimstone
It is probably evident from the contents of this post, if it weren't already, that I am less than fond of religious establishments meddling in politics. I understand that people will have fundamentally different beliefs about the metaphysics of the world that surrounds them, and even if an adult honestly thinks tolerance of homosexuality will cause hellfire and brimstone to rain from the sky, it is not my place to force on them my opinion as a psychologist that they should seek psychotropic medication and heavy counseling.
However, that being said, science has yet to indicate the likelihood of the hellfire and brimstone scenario, and the "mommy and daddy" family argument that seems to be replacing it is just about as credible. 1000s of children in America already grow up with two "parents" of the same gender - either by way of adoption, or one of the adults being bisexual and a biological parent who then forms a long-term homosexual relationship and takes the child with him/her. And that's not even to mention the millions of children who grow up in single-parent households - a battle the socio-cons lost 50 years ago and don't like having mentioned. Having worked for years with children that have no family whatsoever, I really don't see how their lives can be preferable over growing up in a family with two caring adults of the same gender - and this being in competition to the "traditional" family model has 0 factual evidence to support it; children from functional traditional families are not ending up in homosexual families in droves by any research I've seen. However, custody complications for homosexual couples do cost us all dearly, and this is a trend that will not stop regardless of what Mr. Robertson says. Hence, we would do well to address the economic impact of laws that don't take it into consideration.
Other clear and profound trends that illustrate limited access to marriage as a legal institution being detrimental to the economy as a whole are evident as well. scientifically proven as well. Exclusion from the economic privileges of marriage causes perfectly operable property and businesses to be lost to taxation upon the death of one partner, custody battles over children and property that are costly for the legal system and detrimental to the minors involved, obstacles for legal immigration to foreigners who are otherwise perfectly capable of coming to the US and making a positive contribution to the economy, difficulties obtaining healthcare insurance and other group benefits, and so forth. The problem I'm referring to with these exlcusions isn't any kind of spiritual inequality: it is a reality that homosexuals will not stop being homosexual, and these resulting inequalities increase and compound economic inefficiency for which every American ends up paying with a sub-optimal economy and higher taxes to fund services that could easily be provided privately.
Enforced Tolerance
Sexual minority lobbies comparing their opponents to nazis and the Spanish inquistion is equally detrimental to anyone trying to form an informed opinion on the issue as the latters' assinine superstition. Economic equality under the law is scientifically proven as beneficial in terms of an optimal society - but it is very rare to hear this in any ad or rhetoric in support of homosexual marriage. Stuck in a 1960s mindset, these lobbies seem determined to win on a government-mandated tolerance platform akin to affirmative action, a concept as iedological in nature as the belief in hellfire and brimstone raining from the sky, and equally beneficial to Americans as a whole. Sharron Angle was absolutely right when she pointed out that Thomas Jefferson's "separation of Church and State" was intended to protect both, and the explanation of the religious situation in America in 1788 should make this clear. The Founding Fathers rejected the notion of a state religion to avoid any one religious authority from telling others what to believe and practice. The implications of the remnants of said authorities now being a single and rapidly declining coalition notwithstanding; atheism and anti-religionism are just as ideological and equally have no business telling any religious person what to believe.
Hence, religious authorities do have one legitimate argument in their favor, one I have yet to hear in the mainstream media. If marriage is re-defined, the New Deal-infected political climate is likely to bring about law suits and a precedent under which refusing to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple is construed as discrimination and causes them to lose their ordainment. This makes it the legal obligation of religious institutions to perform a ritual that is in disagreement with their faith. Anti-religionists may find closure in this, but it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and despite my own rather negative disposition toward institutionalized religion, I find it frightening. Religious institutions are PRIVATE institutions, and hence a precedent of the government regulating their system of beliefs and rituals means that it can start doing so with other private institutions at the whim of a powerful enough special interest that finds said institutions inconvenient. The obvious counter-argument is that as private institutions they do not deserve the power to instate a legal status such a marriage, and that is exactly where I'm going with this.
The FYG Solution
The bottom line is that, as usual, the debate over homosexual marriage has turned into a contest of very small but very vocal special interests pissing on each other while the entire country ends up doused in their urine. Many religious groups are not ready to accept homosexuality and will continue to think it is sinful and wrong, and regardless of this homosexuals will continue to exist and practice their homosexuality. As long as both groups can agree to abstain from hate crimes and vandalism, I really don't see why they can't exist side by side. Hate crimes and vandalism are ALREADY illegal and a more efficient economy resulting from a compromise would arguably free up law enforcement resources to deal with violent criminals, regardless of motive. The problem is that the average American seems to believe "most" people on either side of this debate are either psychotic social conservatives engaging in the laughably futile crusade to force homosexuals to repent and seek a 'cure', or militant homosexuals on an equally laughable vengeance mission to eradicate religious beliefs that do not approve of their sexuality. This ridiculously unwinnable battle is in actuality fought by small radical minorities on each side of the debate, but the acceptance of these idiots as the "mainstream" leaves all the sensible people on both sides and everywhere in-between with no hope of achieving equal protection under the law or even safety from vigilante violence.
The Jeffersonian idea of legal marriage has clearly grown osbolete by his own separation of church and state reasoning, and in line with that reasoning the most logical solution seems to be to complete his separation of church and state by separating legal and religious marriage. I don't care what the semantics behind this should be, but the state needs to find a way to define legal marriage as identical for all property and custody purposes and exlcude religious authorities from issuing said legal marriages altogether. These have to be marriages and not a separate legal status such as domestic partnerships, however, because marriage is a status that carries over into other sovereignties whereas surrogate statuses only exist in a handful of places in the world. This way, religious authorities can still issue their own, separate religious marriages and rituals to whomever they like and not be forced to accept legal marriages they don't approve of. Traditional married couples could certainly still obtain both.
Both the "hellfire and brimstone" and militant homosexual lobbies are likely to complain, but such a solution will have virtually no costs with the exception of said ignorant whining. In fact, ignoring it is already common practice. Many secularists never obtain any kind of religious marriage and some religious institutions continue to follow the doctrine that these people are not married by their definition; some religious institutions do not even accept divorce as a termination of marriage and hence consider the millions of divorced couples in the US as still married by their definition. On the flip side, many neoliberal organizations continuously claim not to recognize many property rights and judicial decisions they disagree with because in their minds these are inconsistent with definitions of various types of discrimination. When was the last political debate held over THESE inconsistencies? Few people care what any private ideological doctrine thinks of what they do unless they are part of it, and this is all the reasoning required to keep private ideological doctrines out of the business of dictating public policy.
External Validity
The polarization described in this post is a prime example of how small yet vocal special interests use the political arena to steer the entire country into slavery for their benefit, buying both politicians and public opinion through their outspokeness in the media by giving Americans the illusion that they "represent" us while the opposing special interest is some sleazy conspiracy scheme. They are all sleazy, but calling them a conspiracy is a copout - they are merely taking advantage of a well-studied and reasonably predictable political system to accomplish their goals. If Americans don't like it - and we shouldn't - then we need to take responsibility for putting these people in power with our own political behavior such as trusting them and their theatrical appearances in the media. The special interests won't listen so stop trying to convince them they're wrong. Politicians, on the other hand, abandon special interests like rats do a sinking ship when they realize their voter base no longer favors said special interests. THAT is how representative democracy works - whether you use it or let it use you is your choice.
