What is a family? Is there an absolute definition of family? Why is this important to the way we live? Many people who are in favor of the recently overturned California Proposition 8 site many reasons for their opposition to same-sex marriage, one of the most stubborn reason is fear of re-definition. In an opinion piece by bishop Harry R Jackson Jr., he talks about the religious, family and discriminatory aspects of Prop 8. Personally, I found the arguments so ignorant, I almost didn't respond to it. However, seeing as many people still cling on to their bibles to determine what's right and wrong, I feel it necessary to address what he wrote.
As quoted from his recent piece, "redefining marriage redefines family. Changing the concept of family will change both the definition and the pattern of parenting” The article goes on to explain the difficulty children raised without their biological fathers face, and calls to action bipartisan support in protecting marriage.
I looked up 'family' on dictionary.com and there are 15 different definitions of the word, just which definition are they trying to protect? At it's broadest "a group of related things or people". At it's strictest "the spouse and children of one person". I looked for something similar to "one married man and woman and their biological children". I found no such definition. After Googling 'definition of family', I finally found what I was looking for ... From "brainyquote.com"- hardly a credible site for definitions.
What I fail to understand is how come people are willing to fight tooth and nail to protect the definition of a word that can also be defined as "a group of products or product models made by the same manufacturer or producer" or "a unit of the mafia or Cosa Nostra operating in one area under a local leader"?
Assuming we are using the stricter of my two main definitions, my next question is how does redefining marriage redefine family when it's obvious that you don't actually need members of the opposite sex to constitute a family? To try and help me with that, I looked up 'marriage' on dictionary.com. I found 10 definitions, the most relevant one in two parts, defining first straight marriage, than gay marriage. Knowing further searching may not come up with credible sources, I looked up America's official definition "The Definition Of Marriage Act"
Section 3 of DOMA states: "The word 'marriage' means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife"
Very straightforward, indeed. One problem though; Just as Prop 8, which defined marriage as "a legal union between a man and a woman", is in question of its constitutionality, so is DOMA.
On July 8, 2010, a federal judge found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Both cases are likely headed to the Supreme Court. Which means any absolute definition is up in the air at the moment.
With that in mind, how does redefining definitions of anything change what that thing is? I always thought it was the thing itself that dictated the definition, not the other way around. A 'phone' used to be a shortened word for 'phonetics' or 'sound'. It was later adapted into the word "telephone" which is an apparatus used to communicate electronically. Still for short, we call it a 'phone', nobody fights to protect the original definition of phone. Now with smart phones that can do more than just communicate electronically, it's likely the word 'phone' will once again be redefined.
Back to the article, assuming redefining marriage somehow changes the concept of family, how does it change it in the negative? There have been tons of different types of families from traditional, to foster families, to single parents, orphan homes, you name it. I think what's important is that children live in a safe home with guardians who love them and look out for their best interests.
The article also states "if the American family loses the presence of the birth dad in the home, there will be huge consequences to the growth and stability of the next generation of the children in that family."
It's obvious that the author is clearly out of touch. About half of all marriages end in divorce, including my own parents and my own marriage. That said, when it comes to custody battles, unless for good reason, most states will side with the mother. Yet this article doesn't call for joint custody. It does call for lower divorce rates through counseling and interventions, yet it doesn’t call for responsible decision making on marriage in the first place. Some people are just not compatible and intervention and counseling can't fix all broken marriages. On top of that, I can name two people off the top of my head who have become successful in their careers and in fatherhood, despite being raised without a father, Rapper Marshall Mathers, and President Barack Obama. I think what matters are not who raises them, but how they are raised.
If we look at history, we see that marriage used to have a completely different meaning. In biblical times, a father had to give his blessing in order for his daughter to marry. Once married, the wife was the property of the husband. They could not divorce, and she was expected to bear sons. If she wasn't able to bear sons, then the husband was allowed to have concubines which he could lay with in order to produce a son.
In more recent times within the US, blessings are not required, divorce was allowed, though the wife is no longer considered property of the husband, she still retained little rights. She was no longer obligated to bear children, and polygamy is illegal. However, slave marriages were not binding, gay and interracial marriage was banned, and the wife's role is no longer limited to house wife or mother. The thing called ‘Marriage’ changed over time, with that, so did the definition. Then, in almost the same way Perry v Schwarzenegger may lift the ban on gay marriage, Loving V. Virginia struck down interracial marriage.
What these people are trying to protect has already changed, many times. Problems have arisen from some of these changes, especially divorce. However, I believe many positives have come out of these changes. As a more open and tolerant society, we have opened up opportunities like never before and kept the American Dream alive. The definition of marriage, the definition of family, has changed overtime, but the over all concept of people coming together to raise the next generation and live life to it's fullest always has and hopefully always will live on..
The biggest thing that came to my attention from the articles was the following: "The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right -- the right to vote -- stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people."
That's a lot of assumptions, let's start with the fun one first.
Judge Vaughn Walker's Wikipedia page says nothing about his sexual orientation, neither does CNN. However, Fox News has been flinging it around and MSNBC says his sexual orientation never played a role in his decision, thus doesn’t matter. The rumors come from a San Francisco Chronical column that claims his sexuality is an "open secret" among those who know him, though it offers no names and no facts, just speculation. It's as flaccid as the speculation as to whether or not Elana Kagan is a lesbian because she's unmarried and plays baseball.
If in fact Judge Walker is gay, I can hardly see any proof that he is "openly gay", however, let's assume for a minute that he is just "gay".
Let's also look into his past:
1982: Represented the US Olympic Committee in a lawsuit forcing the "Gay Olympics" to change it's name to the "Gay Games". Once he won the case, he pursued legal fees from the Gay Game's founder while he was dying of AIDS.
1987: Nominated to federal district court by Ronald Reagan, but never confirmed because of his perceived insensitivity to gays and the poor.
1989: Re-nominated by George H. W. Bush and confirmed.
1999: Ruled against claims that pro-gay comments by teachers violated religious rights.
2005: Ruled against two Oakland City employees who argued that their managers removing fliers promoting "natural family, marriage and family values” violated their first amendment rights.
2010: Ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.
Now let's consider Walker's Prop 8 ruling. It's 136 pages long and focuses on the Prop 8 proponent’s lack of evidence that allowing gay marriage would harm society, as well as strict scrutiny of Prop 8's constitutionality. For those who do not know, in a case regarding constitutional law, 'strict scrutiny' is the highest level of constitutional adherence and is used when it is determined that a fundamental right, such as marriage, is being abridged. Without compelling state interest, a fundamental right cannot be limited.
Everyone agrees that marriage is a fundamental right. Prop 8's proponents argued that procreation was the compelling state interest behind Prop 8. That rational fails on two counts. California is running about a $19 Billion deficit and has an unemployment rate of 12.3%. I wonder if adding more babies is really in the best interest of the state. The second reason comes in a quote:
"What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '(t)he liberty protected by the Constitution,'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." -Justice Scalia, Lawrence V. Texas, dissenting.
After reading the ruling and considering his history, it's evident that Judge Walker's sexuality never came into play in his decision and his goal was not to impose his views on the state, like the people supporting the law would have you think.
On that note, it seems hypocritical to claim that he "misread history and the constitution to impose his views on the state's people" when the whole point of Prop 8 was not to protect the essence of family, or the definition of marriage, like we discussed earlier, but to impose religious views onto a state. As also discussed, the rationale behind Prop 8 according to Proponents was to encourage procreation, what else encourages procreation?
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply"- King James Bible, Genesis 1:28
Like any Bible quote, many people take this statement seriously. It’s as serious as the Bible quote used to justify the discrimination of homosexuals:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”- Leviticus 20:13
Or the abolition of eating certain types of seafood:
“Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you”- Leviticus 11:12
Oh wait, who follows that one? No one? Why? I don’t know… It’s in The Bible, right?
Bishop Harry R Jackson Jr. also claims Judge Walker misread history. This history begins at page 60 of the ruling and begins with the fact that "marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter". It goes on to 1850 when California first became a state. Then it tells about African American marriages before and after emancipation, up to Perez V. Sharp, which eliminated racial barriers in California.
Judge walker then moves onto coverture, which was the notion of a women's identity being established by her husband. Although it has been a historical fact that wives have been treated as property of the husband, that institution no longer is practiced in the United States.
He moves onto traditional roles of husbands and wives. Husbands have been seen as the family provider, while wives were seen as suited for raising children. Over time it's been easier for men and women to redefine their roles through no fault divorces.
In the 1970s, same sex couples in California tried to marry, this led to an amendment to the marriage statute that prohibited the act. In 2008, the California Supreme court struck down those laws including the recently passed Prop 22. The response was Prop 8.
Judge Walker then explains how California has changed racial and gender barriers over time, and despite the arguments at the time on the changes, they have not degraded the institution of marriage. He also explains that the importance of gender to marriage is no longer relevant because both genders are now seen as equals.
If we apply the wisdom of history to this, it's easy to see that society has been evolving to social acceptance towards homosexuals. With that said Judge Walker's interpretation of history seems to follow that trend. Is it a dangerous one? Seeing as homosexuals are allowed to marry in other countries, with no negative effects, I don't see how it is.
But either way, some argue that this has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but about voting rights. California voters voted to enact Prop 8, and whether others agree or not, to overturn the vote is to strip Californians of their voting rights. Then again, when have we as Americans ever had the right to vote for laws that go against the United States Constitution? Rights are not negotiable, and not subject to votes. The right to marry is fundamental, and to take the right to marry away from a group of people, minority or not, violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
You can vote to raise or lower taxes, you can vote to criminalize or decriminalize certain substances, you can vote to fund or defund programs, vote for representatives of your district, community, city, county, parish, and how to run the state overall, but what should never be up for a vote, legally as well as morally, is whether or not we choose to treat other human beings as… just that, human beings. This country was founded on the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if we curtail the rights of others in that pursuit, how easy would it be to curtail our own pursuits?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/index.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/fa/family163674.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Vaughn_Walker
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
