Stearmer

Weight Loss, Politics and Life in General

Getting Myself Into Trouble

I knew I was going to get it over posting anything let alone joining. The main point was one of caution to the marriage amendment groups. Because I think we can swing too far to the other side as well. My statement “how do we justify laws that discriminate against someone’s freedom of choice”, was meant as critique of the conservative position. So now I will try and explain my position better since I did not do a very good job. And frankly ran out of room. I doubt it will make everyone happy who happens to read it, but since it posted out there to world now I’d better try. Although I’m likely to get myself into more of a bind. Oh well. I’ll post this to my blog (www.stearmer.com/blog) and this will probably lead to a more interesting discussion than weight loss.

For those who missed it on my facebook page here is the discussion that started to happen.

Matt was recruited by Spencer Pope to the cause Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman. Matt says, “This is for certain one of the most complicated issues of our day. On one side you have secularism vs religion. In a secular world how do you justify the marriage amendment without making it a religious argument. It is very hard indeed. From the religious side, how do we justify laws that ‘discriminate’ against someone’s freedom of choice. These are hard questions. In a book called Parity of the Sexes, Sylviane Agacinski (a French Feminist) argues that humanity is made up of both men and women. The dual nature of the sexes is essential to our identity. We cannot grow up in society having been influenced only by one sex. And yes, later in life we will meet both sexes – of course. But the whole template and concept of what “others” are like will be effected by our perception of those different from us at the earliest stages of development. The first “other” we recognize is the difference between the sexes. This progressive French feminist was intuitive enough to find a “secular” reason, for what we believe to be morally right. It has nothing to do with their choice, they can chose what they want, but it does recognize societal needs that trump individual circumstances. They must have their rights and protections under the law. That is more than fair. But we must also protect society, and children and give ourselves that best foundation from which we can build a successful nation”

To which I received this response.

Wow.

“…recognize societal needs that trump individual circumstances.”

So, single parents should have their kids taken away, or just be assigned a new mate within 90 days of the loss of the old one? (Oh, 90 days sounds so heartless. Give’em six months at least)
Also, a fallacy of relying on parity as a justification is the assumption that …  Read Morea same-sex couple live in a vacuum, devoid of interaction with the opposite sex.

Let me first try to clarify my position better, then I will move to the question at hand.

Look, it’s a mess. I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t want any laws that mess with anything that has been done, happened, or happens to any one in the future. Life can suck and the percentage of couples - singles, heterosexual, same sex etc. – that obtain an ideal relationship is ridiculously low (meaning provide an ideal home for kids and love each other in this sense).

Government has little to no business defining moral issues. I think that is the place for religion in our society. Civil right and human rights, the govt has every business getting involved in. So the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness kind of a thing. No killing, stealing, how you can sell things, if you can sell thing (drugs for instance) etc. They certainly play a huge role in life and society.

It starts to get messy when what some consider moral issues start to get moved into the public sphere. This is where gay rights becomes such a lightning rod . As you know some religious groups feel it is a sin. So to them it is a moral issue and they want to legislate to enforce a particular moral code. I think that is wrong – that removes agency. However, we do need laws that protect society as a whole and we still have the responsibility to try to encourage people to live moral lives. 

On the converse side I think that there are groups that want to “equalize” society and laws so much that any group that does not allow them full access (whether it be a religion, club, school, social services agency, etc) can come under legal action to force them to comply with governmental edicts. Just as there has been discrimination against gays and lesbians, we are starting to see groups or individuals who do not want to recognize/marry homosexual couples, or allow them to adopt, being sued, prosecuted,  or forced to close. To me this is also not right.

I’m willing to concede the rights of civil unions, hetero or homo, from a tax and legal perspective if the other side is willing to accept that they have the right to civil union – but not the right to pick who will do it or where it will be performed or to expect that everyone will think it is great and only say good things about it (meaning, no pastors should be prosecuted for hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality). To me that seems fair, does it not? We both get the legal protections we want – and both are still allowed their freedom of conscience and to act according to their beliefs, even to try ot persuade others to their belief system but not to force a belief system (on either side) through legislation.

So in answer to your question above I for one I do not believe if a person gets divorced they should lose their kids. Of course they should be able to keep their kids. If a man or a woman discovers they are gay of course they should not lose parental rights. To me that would be ridiculous. I know the gay and lesbian activist groups are worried that could happen. For all I know it might have happened in the past already. They should be protected from that.

Can we agree then that if you get that legal protection that is already set forth in civil union law, that a church/pastor/group that does not want to perform a same sex couple marriage, or to deny membership to their congregation, or to decline to allow adoption from their private agencies, also has the right to refuse to acknowledge homosexual lifestyles and unions, within their stewardship, without fear of litigation? I think that I would fully support a law that lets any couple obtain the rights of being together (and I do not care what you call it), but at the same time protects any individual or private organization from recognizing/performing it (here I am thinking about religion specifically).

This type of a legal scenario does not allow anyone to be discriminated against from a civil rights standpoint and it does not force the state upon religion.  This is of particular concern for parents with regards to what is being promoted in schools.  Moral issues should not be forced into a school curriculum without parent input and permission.  I would no more allow a book on heterosexual couples living together (in sin as it were), or medicinal marajuana use, or abortion, to come home without my consent, than I would a book about homosexuality and homosexual unions.  This is government interference of parental roles.  Just because something is legal (abortion, pre-martial sex, birth control, etc.) does not mean it is a subject schools should be addressing without parental input and consent.   Societal/moral issues, including books on death, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc. are things a parent can access if they feel like they need other resources in order to address a moral concept in their home – of course, this is what public libraries are for. If federal or state governments want to push education in a certain areas, they can fund public education campaigns.

Now, I should probably describe the Sylviane Agacinski quote better. In her book she is all for gay rights, but has a concern about face of humanity that is presented to children. As a feminist, I think that we need to recognize that humanity is both male and female. Now, what those males and females do with their lives is up to them. Some will marry and some will not, some will be gay and some will not, some will have kids and some will not. Etc. Her arguments suggest to me that what happens to the individual after they grow up is up to them. The concern that she raises is that from a humanity stand point we need to define it (humanity)as man and woman.

She also points out to the numerous studies that have shown that the first “other” type person that we recognize is the opposite sex. How we learn to treat the “other” becomes a template for how we will treat all “others” in the future. I think that most marriages fail at helping children grow up well adjusted. Too often there is abuse within the home that is severely damaging to the child (whether it is between spouses or parent and child). Marriage has become a failed institution in so many ways when you look at it from a 50% divorce rate perspective and that 25% of all homes in some states like New Mexico have domestic violence issues.

Marriage between a man and a women does not come even remotely close to guaranteeing that the children will be raised in an ideal environment.

And I am sure that there are gay and lesbian couples that can and do stay committed to each other their whole lives who could raise a child in a loving home without abuse. And I think that would be more admirable than the child living under an abusive heterosexual marriage.

That being said, I think that a marriage between a man and a women where they work in perfect harmony with each other and then raise children together is the ideal for the children. They grow up in a world without hierarchy. They are protected by both a woman and a man. They are loved by both. In that world I think that the children have the best chance now of operating in the world effectively, and changing the power structure of the world. They learn to not dominate. They learn to love. They learn to negotiate with everyone that is different from them. Just because the ideal of a father and mother in a good marriage and good family situation can be difficult to obtain does not mean that we should just abandon our quest for the ideal.  It is the ideal for a reason and it needs to be defended and protected.

If the child psychologists are right, and the brain has imprinted patterns on it so firmly that before we even enter school our personalities are well formed, then I think that it is ok for me to hold a position that raising a child in a gay marriage would not be the ultimate ideal.

Now, let me quickly clarify that belief and legal issues are different things. Even if all of the above is true, do I think that gays and lesbians should have their children taken away – no. Should a private adoption agency be required to adopt children to a gay and lesbian couple – no. Can a state agency prevent the adoption to a gay and lesbian couple – personally I do not think that they should – but, I would not think the world would come to an end if they did allow it.

I hope this helps explain my position a little better. I’m likely not going to make friends on either side of the issue, but this middle ground approach seems like it both extends all the rights an individual has, protects organizations from discrimination based on their beliefs and allows individuals freedom of conscience.

I’d be interested in your opinion on the issue. Let’s discuss.

Be Health – Enjoy Life!

Matthew Stearmer

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. Stearmer. All rights reserved

• Home
• About
• Resources
• Weight Loss News Letter
• Weight Loss Reality Check