Friday, May 18, 2012

My take on the subject at hand

Gay marriage has always been a very difficult topic for me.  This is rooted in my philosophical and political views, which have been heavily influenced by stories of the Book or Mormon, the early members of the church, and even modern spiritual giants that I look up to.  I consider myself a very strong libertarian, having decided long ago that the duopoly of our farcical excuse for a political system really only represents two sides of the exact same destructive coin.

As a libertarian, my strongly rooted belief is that we as a people have the right and the liberty to live our lives however we want as long as we don't infringe on that same right for other people.  While that single phrase instantly sums up the central point of libertarianism, the exact application of the idea is of course all but impossible to bring around to universal appeal, even among libertarians.  It comes down to the shades of grey that we associate with the concepts of "liberty", "infringement", etc.

To give a single example, many states have a law that requires motorcyclists to wear a helmet.  In my mind that is a perfect example of a law that directly contradicts libertarian thought, because wether or not I wear a helmet has little to no impact on the liberty or personal safety of other people.  Sure, I will be handing my life into the hands of every driver who passes me in the street and exposing my daughter to the risk of growing up without a father, but my firm belief is that I have the liberty to make this decision on my own rather than have somebody else make that decision for me.

Next in line on a continuum here might be seatbelt laws - there is not a lot of risk to others if I choose not to wear my seatbelt, but if I get in an accident then my not wearing a seatbelt it is definitely a risk to the others in my car.

While on the seatbelt topic, what about the law requiring me to put my child in a car seat?  Is the law requiring me to do so infringing on my liberty, or is my choice to leave a child out of a car seat infringing on the liberty and personal safety of my daughter?

Now that we are on the parenting topic, how much does the government get to mandate about how I raise my child?  Can I take her out of public school and deprive her of the "normal" social experience of suburban America and the government-mandated education system, or is that going to cause her lasting harm that I cannot be allowed to inflict?  Can I hit my child as a parent?  If the answer is yes, what is the difference between a light spanking and a fist to the side of the head?  Is there some measure of foot-pounds of force that CPS will use to determine when I have crossed the line?

I can't really answer all of my own questions in the preceding paragraphs - I don't think the answers about how much governmental control is permissible are very clear cut, and it becomes very hard to draw a line even for me with my own opinions; trying to draw that line for an entire country full of people seems ridiculous.  Nonetheless, that is where the debate on gay marriage centers in my mind.

I do NOT see gay marriage as a debate on morality, as a debate on the definition of marriage, or a debate on anything other than the question of how much influence the legal system can have on our own lives.  If I decide that I want to ride my motorcycle around without a helmet, I think I should be able to do so.  If somebody wants to beat their kids to within an inch of their lives, I believe that the government has a right and a duty to stop them from causing permanent harm to their children.  If somebody wants to rob a bank, I believe that the government has the duty and obligation to stop that infringement on the rights and liberties of other people.  I am not an anarchist that believes everything goes, but I am not a totalitarian who believes that George Orwell had the right idea either.  So - where in this continuum does the governments ability to decide who I marry fit in?

For me the answer is still "I don't know for sure", but I have to confess that I lean towards the side of saying that the government has no business dictating who I marry.

How many members of the LDS church believe that plural marriage should be legal?  I think most of us believe that the government overstepped their bounds when they dictated that plural marriage was not allowed, especially since God explicitly authorizes it time and time again throughout history and had authorized it at the time that it was outlawed in the 1800's.  If this is the case, what is the difference between each of the following "definitions" of marriage?:
  1. Marriage between a man and a woman
  2. Marriage between a woman and multiple men
  3. Marriage between a man and multiple women
  4. Marriage between a man and a man
  5. Marriage between a man and multiple women, some of them under the age of 12
Interestingly, each time somebody promotes one of these definitions at the expense of one or more of the others, it usually centers around a particular religious perspective (or lack thereof).  If we interpret the separation of church and state to mean that our religious beliefs and the personal choices of how we live our lives should be separate from the mandates we put on others, then I think that most of the reason or motive for legally defining marriage one way or the other disappears.  To return to my earlier point, my opinion is that the debate is not (or shouldn't be) "Which of the above definitions is correct, and which one is not?"; instead the real question is (or at least should be) "Who is allowed to determine which of the above definitions is correct, and force those determinations upon me?"

Let me flip the argument on its head, in what might be seen as an unfair comparison: purely as an intellectual exercise, what if one day the government determined that marriage between a man and a woman was legally invalid, and that all entities would be required to recognize that fact?  We would all consider it an infringement on our rights, and we would all be out picketing and demanding change and doing whatever else we would deem necessary to turn it around.  We would claim persecution, we would lobby to change the law so we could live the way we wanted, and we would do whatever we felt necessary to live according to our beliefs.

If we claim that we can dictate how somebody lives because of our religious perspectives, what stops somebody else from doing the same with a different set of religious beliefs?  This is about infringing liberty, not about following a particular belief set - our ability to practice our beliefs is defined by our adherence to the principals of liberty, not the other way around; religion and defining marriage and everything else just gets pulled in to justify or explain ones placement of the line defining what a government is allowed to do in our lives and what they are not allowed to do.  If we believe that it was wrong for people to use religious motives to outlaw polygamous marriage 150 years ago, why is it OK for us to outlaw homosexual marriage today because of our religious beliefs?

To be perfectly clear, I believe that marriage was ordained of God, and that it is between man and woman.  I believe that people who contradict that ordination are in violation of Gods law, and will be held accountable for it.  However, just as I would not want somebody to legally define marriage in a way contrary to my beliefs, so I do not think it is my right to legally define it according to my beliefs if they contradict somebody else's or if they infringe on their liberty.

I believe that religion has no place in defining what I am legally allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do.  I believe that I, just like the rest of Gods children on this earth, have certain inalienable rights - among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I also believe in the rights of others to worship how, where, or what they may.  I think that this extends beyond which building we all enter into each Sunday, and defines all aspects our our worship or lack thereof.  Otherwise we have to acknowledge a middle-eastern style supposed theocracy, just one that happens to subscribe to our beliefs rather than those of the Muslim religion.

To conclude this long, rambling, and probably incoherent post: someday the church may come out and officially state that to be in good standing with the church we must not only oppose the idea of homosexual marriage on a personal and spiritual level, but that we must oppose it on a secular, legal level as well.  If and when that day comes then I will follow Gods will, and do what I am asked to do.  I may have some struggles then just as I do now with what I see as some conflicting ideologies, but there are many mighty men who have gone before me with similar struggles.

My ideas expressed here might not be shared or even understood by all who will read it, but I find this a very conflicting topic and have not been able to find any easy answers.  Some of my deepest beliefs and my most dearly held values seem to be pitted directly against each other, and I am still working to define  harmony between them.  For now, this post represents my views and the perspectives that I understand from Gods teachings.  While I realize that I may receive clarity at some time in the future that will influence a change in this perspective, I see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of our country, the purpose of our government, and one of the central points in Gods plan of happiness.  Allowing the government to dictate how I live or who I marry contradicts that belief, and I do not want to impose that contradiction on anybody else any more than I want to have it imposed on me.

5 comments:

  1. I think I agree with you on many of your thoughts. I think that I do disagree a little bit on your some of the reasoning with government dictating who you can or can't marry. I believe strongly that government has no place in determining who you associate with be it casual or intimate associations, nor would it have any business with purely religious unions. However marriage also includes a civil contract and because of that contract the government is involved as government is charged with enforcing laws related to contracts and it recognizes those who enter into that contract and treats them differently.

    I agree definitely with the ends, I am not opposed to homosexuals being allowed to unite in a civil contract with equivalencies to marriage, however given our legal system (precedents etc.) the taking of a marriage contract built for years around male/female unions and redirecting it without consideration of differences is not really the most appropriate way. It may be for example that the government should consider different taxation rules for a male/male union than a male/female union because there are fundamental differences, potential for procreation being the most evident. I think there is also room for concern when you take what is essentially a dual contract religious/civil and try to change the civil without consideration of the religious.

    Thomas Sowell whom I mentioned and linked to in one of my posts has libertarian leanings from what I gather and I think his reasoning helped me to come to terms with some conflicts similar to those you mention.

    Thanks for sharing thoughts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good points - I didn't stray into the topics you raise in the interest of simplicity :-)

      If we look at a "marriage" or a "civil union" as simply a legal contract, then my libertarian perspective pushes me towards thinking that we should be able to enter into that contract with whoever we please. As you rightly point out, especially in the US marriage really is a dual-contract, one religious and one civil.

      I confess it is all complicated - once you start defining the legal benefits of this contract of marriage, it gets more hazy. Gay couples don't have children, while their heterosexual counterparts are able to procreate and further national prosperity with the economic contributions of their offspring. On the other hand, there are heterosexual people with kids that commit crime and are otherwise detrimental to our society, while there are gay couples who adopt or otherwise integrate children into better living conditions than they would have had otherwise.

      Returning to the root premise of libertarianism, I don't think that marriage should hold any particular legal benefit to its participants. If it merely legally defines a relationship, then the issue is much more simple in my mind. Once you start talking about tax benefits etc., then you have to start weighing the effect each person or couple has, and justify the legal benefits administered. The parents of Bill Gates and Marie Curie should probably be weighed differently than the parents of Charles Manson or Bernie Madoff, but balancing this is of course impossible.

      Anyway - great points, and it certainly shows how complicated the issue really is!

      Delete
  2. Yes, I knew it would get complicated. This argument can stray in almost any direction and can make one ask the most complex or most basic questions about government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Warning: Read this comment in it's entirety before you freak out.) I'm glad I have friends like you guys that have put a lot of thought into this topic. This has been a difficult topic for me for the last 15 years, mostly because of my personal struggles with same-gender attraction. I know, you'd have never guessed it. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I admitted to Melanie about the crush I had on Ked in High School. I didn't think I'd ever admit it to you guys, but... just kidding! :) Gotcha! I saw the opportunity and had to take it.

    So, because we're all friends and you're all very familiar with the gospel, I'm going to take the extreme gospel stance on this one and just put it out there.

    I agree that this would be a complicated and difficult topic IF it weren't for a few items:

    1) Modern-day Prophets - who are more than just leaders of another church, they speak the word of God, not just to members of the church but with authority to preach the gospel to all the world. Their guidance trumps all secular philosophies and worldly perspectives.

    2) The proclamation to the world - "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children." With this in mind read the last two Paragraphs: "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of Society."

    3) The letter from the first presidency that was read in sacrament meetings just before the caucus meetings encouraging members to get involved in our nations political process etc.. The letter was concluded with the phrase "it's time to unleash the power of the priesthood." Putting all issues asside, this at least demonstrates that there are times where the Lord sees a need for the influence of church members and gospel values in our government. ...whether or not it is well received.

    I don't know or understand everything about the issues we are faced with today, but I know the Lord does. He knows what path we are heading down as a nation. I have hope that the standards of the church will continue to be in harmony with the law of the land, but if not, we will follow the Lord. The darker the world gets, the brighter the church will shine. Our nation may fall someday, but I don't want to help it arrive at that point more speedily.

    Conclusion: You never have to appologize or wonder if you are doing the right thing if you follow the prophet.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.