Privacy, Equality, and Gay Marriage
As usual, I feel pretty much out of step with many of those in the tech. industry. Google announced that they are against California Proposition No. 8. The proposition would prevent same-sex marriages. Google’s position is that this would infringe on people’s personal lives and eliminate the fundamental right of anyone to marry the person they love.
First off, marriage is not a private act. Even if you don’t believe that it was instituted by God, it is at least a governmental institution. I’m really at a loss to understand how something that requires a government issued license is a private act.
Next, nobody has the fundamental right to marry the person they love. What if the person you love doesn’t love you, is already married, is related to you, or a child? Do you still have a right to marry the person you love?
When you don’t understand what marriage is you sound silly, even if you are as smart as the people at Google.
Subscribe via RSS
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
You’re right. Marriage is not a private act. There is strong government involvement. And a government should not discriminate without good reason. (Discriminating against adult/child marriages is right, because there are good reasons, not least of which is that a child cannot legally sign a contract.)
A marriage contract is a three-way agreement, between two people and the state. As the state is a party to the contract, it is bound by the contract, and therefore must offer certain services to the other parties thereof. This includes inheritance and hospital visitation rights. No private contract between two people can bind a third party, such as a hospital. Tell me, why do you want to restrict hospital visitation rights? Why do you want to take rights from gay couples? You need a bloody good reason to do that.
TRiG.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
TRiG thanks for the comment. So you’ve answered why the government discriminates against adult/child marriages except that the reason you give doesn’t explain why the government discriminates against children by not allowing them to sign contracts. Your explanation also doesn’t explain why polygamous and polyamorous marriage should be discriminated against. I believe that the government has an interest in discriminating against these other forms of “marriage” because the government has an interest in the next generation of citizens. I don’t doubt that good people come from non-traditional families, but it is in the best interest of the government to promote the practice that by and large produces the results it desires.
I don’t see how I want to restrict hospital visitation rights. Visitation rights are the policy of a hospital. I have no contract between myself and my parents, but they are allowed to see me in a hospital. If a hospital wants to restrict all my visitors to those that I have a contract with that also includes the state, well I would probably go to another hospital. But I understand your point, I just don’t agree with same-sex marriage as the way to address this single example.
Finally, I would please ask that you clean up your rhetoric. You say, “Why do you want to take rights from gay couples?” I am not seeking to take away any rights, you are seeking to grant rights. And if your strongest argument for same-sex marriage is hospital visitation rights, you need a better reason than that to change a fundamental structure of society.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
In California, yes you most certainly are seeking to take away rights. Stop lying.
Also, it’s silly to argue in favour of every human right. It would take years. Should tall people be allowed to marry? Should redheads be allowed to vote? Should blonds be allowed to adopt children? Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Should gay people be allowed to drive? It’s ridiculous. Instead, the arguments must be made by those who wish to restrict rights, and to date I have yet to see any good arguments. The main one seems to be “My invisible friend doesn’t like it”, and I discount that.
Your claim that heterosexual marriages raise children better than “non-traditional” marriage does not bear scrutiny. Abigail Garner’s book Families Like Mine is an excellent resource for this subject.
So you’re lying about human rights and wrong about benefits to children. What else? Oh, yes. “Your explanation also doesn’t explain why polygamous and polyamorous marriage should be discriminated against.” That’s because it shouldn’t. (Unless you can come up with a good reason, which, given your record to date, I doubt.)
TRiG.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
TRiG, you’re right I wasn’t thinking about California. It is the law of the state which was decided upon by the supreme court of the state. So I do wish to take away the California state right to same-sex marriage.
Based on your statement that “.. the arguments must be made by those who wish to restrict rights…” and your belief that polygamy and polyamory shouldn’t be restricted I get the picture that you are an ultra-libertarian. Meaning, you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm. I really have a hard time grasping this world view because you have to define “harm” in each case which would be the same problem as you point out with having to define every human right.
One last point, in my original comment, I did point out that you can find instances where non-traditional families raise well adjusted children. The book you cite is simply anecdotal evidence of such cases. A book could also be written on single-parent children who loved it. Does that mean that it should become the norm?
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You’re confused. “I believe that the government has an interest in discriminating against these other forms of ‘marriage’”, you say, “because the government has an interest in the next generation of citizens.” So you allow that human rights should be granted by default, and abridged only when necessary. You need a reason to discriminate, not a reason not to. Here you present a theoretical reason, which does not in fact stand up in practice. I have presented anecdotal evidence that you’re wrong. You’re presented no evidence at all that you’re right. (Actually, Ms Garner’s book also references proper scientific studies.)
I call you confused because, after presenting this attempt at a reasoned argument, you then go on to suggest that argument of this kind is not actually necessary, and that we can and sometimes should restrict people’s rights with no reason at all. You claim correctly that I believe “you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm”, and you suggest that you do not share this belief.
We’ll never get anywhere in this debate until we can clear up what we’re actually debating. Who has to make a case here? I maintain that rights should be restricted only with good reason, and that it is up to you to provide those reasons. We can then debate the accuracy of the reasons presented. But now you seem to be shifting the goal, implying that you don’t need to make a case, but can abridge people’s rights on a whim.
Finally, this entire discussion is about Proposition 8 in California, and Google’s socially responsible take on the same, so what you said is somewhat disingenuous. “I wasn’t thinking about California.” Hmm. Remove the last two words from that sentence and you might be more accurate.
Thanks for your admission, by the way, that you want to remove people’s human rights. It’s nice to be clear who the bad guys are.
TRiG.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
(That said, Families Like Mine is not primarily intended as a scientific resource, but it is brilliantly well written and impeccably researched.)
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Just because I didn’t like to studies doesn’t mean there is not evidence that children are better off in traditional marriages. There are plenty of studies that show that children are better of with both parents than with single-parents. I don’t have the time to find links to them and I’m sure you can discredit them. I will say that I did find some study that supports your position. It was interesting how “better” was defined.
I just don’t see where I say that rights should be restricted without reason. I gave my reasons for not accepting same-sex marriage. I say it “harms” society. You don’t believe it harms society. We disagree, but I still have a reason for the right to be restricted.
So accordingly, the debate should be on whether or not same-sex marriage is harmful to society. I believe it is, you believe it isn’t. I’ve read studies that show that it is harmful you’ve read studies that it isn’t.
If you go back to the OP, I was talking about Google’s contention that this was a matter of privacy and equality. You admitted first that marriage is not a private act. My mistake was in forgetting that the CA supreme court had overturned Prop. 22. You can make whatever leap you want to name call.
I know I’ll never convince you, but the right to marry a person of the same-sex is not a human right. I wish to restrict people’s right to marry whoever they want because I believe it will harm society.
Look, I’m going to give you the final say because I’ve said everything about this that I want. As you may have noticed, this blog is about how my religious beliefs affect my daily life. I have not brought this into this discussion as that was not the point. However, as this will be my comment on this topic I will say this. I cannot in good conscience condone something that is wrong. I believe that homosexuality is a sin just as lying, stealing, murdering, hating, lusting and all the other things that I do are sins. I believe that Jesus Christ died for those sins. I wish all people to know this, straight, gay, whatever. By condoning this I would be depriving people of what they need to know.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“The debate should be on whether or not same-sex marriage is harmful to society.”
Good. At least we’re arguing the same thing. When you suggested earlier that you disagreed with the statement you should be able to do anything unless someone shows that it causes harm, you had me worried.
I thought I had some time to compose a more complete comment, but a friend has just come in and is dragging me off, so I’ll come back to this later.
TRiG.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.