Proposition 8--A Call for Compromise

The homosexual community desires the institution of "marriage" to regulate their unions. Contrarily, the conservative elements of our society, including the religious right, oppose extending to homosexuals this governmental formality. They argue that "marriage" should be reserved for monogamous, heterosexual couples; and fearing they are losing ground, they have sought legal reforms like the passage of Proposition 8 in California to stem the tide of the gay rights movement. This has set off a firestorm.

Before I wade into it, in the interest of full disclosure, let me acknowledge that I am decidedly a screaming heterosexual--somewhat partial to this word's latter part especially when paired with a joyous bit of conjugal crooning. Moreover, I am embarrassed to say (yes, frankly my natural orientation, my instincts and religious upbringing made it very psychologically distressing) that when not dreaming about heavenly messengers and Nirvana, I have had in my long life a rare homo erotic dream, as well as a few other non traditional ones, all from which I was relieved to wake up; I have also had several homosexual acquaintances, relatives and friends; a few more rabid homophobic cohorts, and I was once gay but that was about 157 lives ago when I just happened to be reincarnated as a Chichlid into a watery community that did not frown upon changing sexuality (and thereby orientation) but in fact encouraged it as a matter of survival (Google it). In short, I feel I am almost as qualified as anyone else to address this topic.

Now, before you suggest that I am making light of this very serious polemic, let me also state that I understand that traditionally marriage was a hallowed religious institution that governed the union of a woman and a man so that they could be bound together by love and mutual respect for the purpose (as suggested by some) of raising up children to pay taxes (and tithes), supply soldiers and heirs, and to render up the occasional wench or two for the Kings' sons and his royal knights. On the other hand, I am likewise fully aware that homophobia was also (and in some places still is) an insidious sentiment that has been encouraged by religious institutions that have tried to ensure the disunion of the human body from its frame. For these very reasons, while I am exceedingly partial to the former, (given that it worked for me when I grew up and my aunt swears I am a descendant of royal French lineage), I am decidedly against the latter--as I am all hatred and bigotry--and I therefore opine that perhaps, as we did with affirmative action, we need to go as far as practicable in the opposite direction. Similarly, let me also not hesitate to add that I am just as decidedly against vandalizing LDS churches or other similar forms of violent expression because of this faith's zealous support for Proposition 8.

As a compromise in the battle to expand the concept of marriage to include homosexual unions, some suggest that they should be granted the right to "civil unions." This concept is not wholly foreign to the law. Currently government allows groups of people, gay, straight or otherwise, to join together for common purposes to form corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, etc (from Exxon to Playboy to RJ Reynolds, from Enron to Dr. Johns, and from McDonald's to Nevada's brothels). Even though they don't bring children into the world (at least not by definition), these business entities engage in all kinds of questionable and reprehensible acts (some that cause sufficient harm to be sanctioned by law and some that do not) and they are yet allowed great privileges and protections under the law which govern their formation, organizational structure, existence, and their dissolution.

The legal formalities establishing these business entities were created to bring order and civility to the many relationships that were being formed in the business world. For much the same reasons, "civil marriage" and "civil divorce" have been promulgated to establish order and consistency in the mechanisms that join men and women together to form a common household. Outside of "civil marriage," heterosexual couples may also marry in religious ceremonies that sometimes have additional moral restrictions and regulatory components not provided by law. For instance, some religions proscribe divorce. Hence, to comply with their sectarian vows, adherents to those religions are free, as their own consciences dictate, to eschew divorce and endure their difficult marriages. As we know, some religions allow homosexual unions and some vehemently do not. As citizens of the United States, we may embrace these different religious groups or shun them. It's a choice that should be celebrated by both sides of this issue. Of course, these religious "marriages" are not endowed with the legal benefits of a "civil marriage." And herein lies the controversy.

Under our Constitution, our law should, to the degree practicable, be blind to race, religion, color, disability, sex and even sexual orientation. Consequently, the differences between religious marital practices should not be propagated in our legal formulations. So what is the best remedy to harmonize the law so that it is both even handed and palatable to these disparate groups? Rather then getting bogged down in endless and irreconcilable discussions on nurture versus nature, the divine or traditional origins of marriage versus more humanistic or evolutionary beliefs, there are some constants at play in this controversy and some basic principles upon which question should be answered.

First, no amount of religious indoctrination nor legislation will change the reality that for reasons beyond some of our complete understanding (I will never claim to completely understand what it is to be a women or a homosexual, etc.), a small percentage of humanity will have homosexual unions. Second, before an activity or lifestyle is deemed to be sufficiently harmful to be proscribed by law, the harm it causes must amount to something more than just a religious based fear or an offense to religious beliefs and values. For instance, it is a specious argument that homosexuality will become so popular it will lead to our extinction as a species. (In fact, I suspect that this insipid argument was really born of the wishful thinking of house mice, gray whales, green peace advocates and Satyrs). Third, since Homosexual unions do not cause harm, they should not be proscribed nor limited by civil law.

Given these realities, the question becomes, if homosexual behavior should not be sanctioned by civil law, should it be allowed the same conventions as heterosexual couples in "marriage"? Again, the conservative and religious right argue that if homosexuals are granted civil marriages, it will decimate the traditional institution of marriage and weaken its strength, endurance and prevalence and lead to the deterioration of the basic, traditional family. Whether or not this argument has any merit, why does the homosexual community insist on appropriating for itself an institution that has been created and perpetuated by its historical oppressors? Why not allow the religious right the benefit of reserving the nomenclature of "marriage" for monogamous heterosexual couples?

On the other hand, as indicated above, instead of the laxity of free-wheeling, unregulated consensual unions, homosexual couples desire the order, institutionalized commitment and normalcy of "marriage," to regulate their unions. Furthermore, many gay rights advocates argue that they don't want something separate from "marriage." They suggest that accepting a compromise like "civil unions" would equate to segregation and would therefore, just like racial segregation, never really be "separate but equal." This argument is not wholly without merit. Under such a scheme, just as racial bias was institutionalized under the Jim Crow laws, homosexuals may simply find the historical prejudice against them being codified in the same manner. Nevertheless, for both sides of this issue, wouldn't some semblance of the institution of marriage be better than the status quo?

The needs of both parties could be satisfied as follows. First, the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all. The institution of "marriage," that originated in religion should be relinquished back to religion. Let religious institutions do with it what ever they will. Instead, just as government has created regulations to establish different types of business entities to create order and normalcy in the business community, government should not license "marriages" but should only grant civil unions. These "civil unions" should be governed by current marital and divorce laws, or the government could create several different types of civil unions. This would thereby allow consenting adults, whether homosexual, heterosexual or asexual unions of convenience--just as people do for their businesses--the same right to choose the order and structure of the particular "civil union" they desire for their relationships. This would put gay unions on equal governmental footing with heterosexual "marriages." It would further allow the religious right to define "marriage" as each religious group sees fit.

This could possibly have a civilizing effect upon the unregulated unions of the gay culture that the religious right so drastically detests and fears. Maybe, heterosexual couples should take pride and find solace in the fact that due to the positive examples they have set displaying the benefits of "marriage," they have caused the homosexual community to desire those same benefits of community-acknowledged love, commitment and belonging. Isn't this a good thing? So why not open those benefits to all consenting adults and stem the round of "Propositions" that will surely befall us in the future with the waste of millions of dollars and tons of love-sapping emotional energy? Couldn't that money and emotional energy be better spent concentrating on devoting ourselves to those we have voluntarily chosen as our partners? Instead of disenfranchising a small minority from an institution it longs for, wouldn't the religious right be better off concentrating on setting such a stellar example of its position that it will become a clarion call for others to voluntarily embrace?

Loren Lambert

Copyright November 26, 2008