Channel: Wall Street Journal  Author: MICHAEL JUDGE

(Iowa City, Iowa)  I often tell friends that a part of me is gay, even though I’ve been happily married to my wife for 12 years. What I mean is that in April 2003 I donated a kidney to my older brother David, who is gay. The transplant took place at the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics—and it was, in a very real sense, a miraculous event for our entire family.

So when David called me last Friday excited about the Iowa Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage legal, I wasn’t surprised. “You know what this means, don’t you?” he asked. “It means we can visit those we love when they’re dying in the hospital; it means we’re finally treated like family.”

Most hospitals in America only allow spouses and immediate family members to visit a patient during a medical emergency, when a patient is unconscious or in critical condition after a car accident, heart attack or kidney failure, for example. These are the moments when our spouses are most needed, the moments when life and death decisions are made—and, if necessary, goodbyes are said. My brother, whose kidneys failed when he was in his 30s, understands these moments.

Of course, this is just one example of how Friday’s decision changes the lives of gay and lesbian couples in Iowa. As the court wrote in its unanimous decision, the 12 plaintiffs (six couples) expressed “the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa.” These include: “the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care . . . the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections,” and the denial of “several tax benefits.”

“Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs,” the court continued, “is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage.” In other words, they desire to be recognized as married couples, as a “family” to use my brother’s word.

With Friday’s ruling—which upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman—that desire has become law. As early as April 24, gays and lesbians will be able to exchange vows in civil services.

As for religious attitudes toward same-sex marriage, the court respectfully, and in typically plain-spoken manner, explains that “the sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.”

My brother and I and millions of Iowans are proud of our state at this moment. Others aren’t. There are many (some of them beloved family members) who believe marriage, civil or otherwise, should only be between a man and woman; others aren’t opposed to same-sex marriage but don’t think the courts should mandate it. Indeed, there’s a movement here in Iowa as in other states to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union solely between a man and woman. (Such an amendment couldn’t get on the ballot here until 2012 at the earliest.)

To this, I would simply ask why? Why blemish our constitution and narrow our definition of equal protection when our state has been a leader on such historic civil-rights issues as slavery, interracial marriage, women’s rights, and desegregation?

As the court wrote in its decision: “We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

Here’s to marriage, a “supremely important civil institution.” And here’s to including, not excluding, kind-hearted people like my brother David, who want nothing more than to find the right person, settle down, and one day perhaps get married.

Mr. Judge, a fifth generation Iowan, is a freelance journalist and a contributing editor of The Far Eastern Economic Review.
View the original post

Thank you, Craig, for posting this. A friend had emailed me this article, and after reading it I thought “this would be a good one for the Covenant forum”.

Seek and ye shall find.

This argument provides a very weak argument for same-sex “marriage.”  If one reads it, one sees the following arguments made:

Same-sex couples would get:

1) hospital visitation rights
2) participation in state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections
3) state mandated personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage

That’s the whole argument.  Support same-sex “marriage” so that a specific identity group can get more “stuff” and get government coerced “affirmation.”  Is this what it has come down to?

I would respond as follows:

1) marriage is a very inexact and overly broad tool to remedy problems with hospital visitation rights.  What about the case of the polygamous Mormon whose second wife is in the hospital?  What about the gay couple who doesn’t want to get married, but one of them is in the hospital?

2) why should the state use its coercive power to subsidize, and force citizens to subsidize, the sexual couplings of others.  There MUST be some additional justification to this coercive power by government.  Why should single people be forced to subsidize others’ sexual couplings UNLESS there is a PROVEN benefit to society?

3) why should the state be in the business of using its coercive power to “affirm” people’s choice of sexual couplings?  Aside from the pathetic and narcissistic nature of such an “affirmation”, this is simply NOT the role of the state.

4) in the context of the above points, Judge offers no rationale why the new definition of “marriage” should stop with same-sex “marriage”.  All of the reasons he offers to support same-sex “marriage” can be used to argue for polygamous “marriage.”  Where does it stop?  The only thing distinguishing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex “marriages” and a redefinition to include polygamous “marriage” is that the former group are now favored by the cultural and societal elites, whereas the latter group are still frowned upon by this elite.

5) any acceptance of same-sex “marriage” necessarily severs the link between procreation and marriage.  Under the new definition of marriage, procreation can NOT be considered to be part of the essential definition of marriage.  Under the traditional definition of marriage, procreation WAS part of the essential definition because even if the couple did not procreate, the 1 man+1 woman definition was based on this concept (i.e. assuming that everything worked as it should, and the partners were not too old, children could be produced).  The new definition of marriage definitively severs that link.  That means that the age-old, time-tested institution to bring children into this world, and propagate the next generation has been destroyed.  The norm for the procreation of children now MUST NECESSARILY exist apart from marriage.  Like Western society which has discarded Christian belief but has clung to much of Judeo-Christian culture, and is now casting off that culture, so our society will cling for a time to the culture of traditional marriage, as it ceases to believe in the value of such marriage.  We will see the procreation of children become more of a production mechanism - almost certainly dictated by either the free market or state control.  Children will become more like the new car, new house, new TV, etc. which married couples can obtain. 

In this paper-thin “argument” (I can’t really consider this article to be a proper argument) for same-sex “marriage”, Judge doesn’t wrestle with any of these issues.  I believe that the biggest tragedy in this whole mess will be the long-term harm to children - and our own humanity.  I believe that in time, this will be seen as a mistake, but by then I fear we will have experienced a great deal of social misfortune.

In writing this, I am not saying that there ought not to be some form of formalized legal arrangements for same-sex couples.  I am suggesting that it is social and biological idiocy to suggest that same-sex couplings are the same as heterosexual married couplings.  It would be (in my opinion) the same as if a man successfully sued the government claiming that pregnancy benefits for women were discriminatory and demanding equal treatment for when he adopted a child and for the government to “affirm” that his adoption was exactly the same as a woman’s pregnancy.

I would suggest that rather then this ridiculous politically-correct race to the bizarre, we instead sit down as Western society and map out the benefits of marriage, the reasons why the state is involved, the effects of children, etc., and come up with a regime of relationship recognition that addresses the unique needs of each grouping.

Thanks for this thoughtful post, James.

I was thinking today as I reflected on this article from the WSJ that I really don’t know what the details are of these court rulings.  Are these courts saying that marriage is one and the same for all and that it is illegal now to make the distinctions you are making?  Or are they carving out the area of concerns that you grant in your response and saying that one may not discriminate on the basis of whether one is married to one of the opposite sex?

It seems that the Church has a strong interest in justice, which is where the State historically has a role.  The history of Reform in the Church since long before the Reformation has been that of a flattening of hierarchy and elimination of special access for a particular group to the milk and honey God gives us.  And so it seems to me that there is a legitimate concern here - well grounded in Scripture - that all persons have access to the abundance of the Promised Land.

But, like you, I am greatly concerned about the cure being offered here.  It seems great folly to pretend that we are not able to distinguish between adult partnerships and what we have historically meant by marriage, and that, if we can simply declare them identical, we can make them identical without destroying both.  And that concern does not even consider the confusion this presents for the category the courts seem to put on the sideline as unaffected by this civil law that we call Holy Marriage.

I agree that we would be wise to consider where we want to go and think back from that and consider the best forms for both hetero- and homo- erotic couples that will get us where want to go as a society.

Craig - I work at a law school, so I often get a “sneak peak” to what will be litigated in the future as the next “human rights” cause.  I spotted one speaker sponsored by the student gay rights group who was addressing the issue of equality in terms of the acquisition of children for homosexual couples.  In other words, he was staking out the position that government had the obligation to ensure that homosexual couples had “equal access” to the procreation of children as heterosexual couples.  And, no, he was specifically NOT talking about adoption rights, but rather reproductive rights and technology.

I think that is an argument one has to make if one is to insist that the institution of marriage be transformed to include both groups rather than creating legal structures that are fair but unique for both groups.  And I imagine divorce law - which normally has a presumption of society’s goal of protecting the weaker partner and the child - will now have a different trajectory in states where the choice has been made to create one structure for all as though there is no difference.

Craig: I think that the problem is that while marriage has traditionally been characterized simultaneously as a contract between two parties; a social institution; a sacrament; etc., with each aspect an essential element of the whole, the courts have now severed everything from the definition of marriage save its contractual nature.

Divorce was an earlier step on this trajectory.  When the contract is no longer of value to the parties, it should be canceled.  The divorce decree is simply how to best resolve the issues arising from the contract’s cancellation.  Same-sex “marriage” simply continues this trajectory, and Judge’s article makes that clear.

For some good perspective (though not addressing the same-sex marriage issue itself) see the relevant chapters in God’s Joust, God’s Justice: Law and Religion in Western Tradition, by John Witte, Jr.

I am interested in the assertion that “the courts have now severed everything from the definition of marriage save its contractual nature.”  If in civll law marriage is merely a contract between two parties and is truly stripped of its historic meaning, then how one thinks of these decisions in Iowa and Vermont may need to be reconsidered.  Are you saying that this is a fait accompli, or that this seems to be the inevitable endpoint of this trend?

Craig Uffman - 07 April 2009 04:59 PM

Thanks for this thoughtful post, James.

As a gay person, I found it demeaning and hurtful. That says a lot, as I am not on the forefront of the gay marriage “bandwagon”.

David:  I would be interested in hearing “why”?  Was it the substantive arguments, the tone, something else?  Please be specific.  Thanks.

James, it is evident that you are not approving of gay marriage (or anything resembeling it). That is fine, you have a right to your opinion. As far as this is concerned, it is like I said earlier, I am not on the forefront of this bandwagon myself.

However, from my perspective there was a tone of superiority that I was put off by, but more than that I found it demeaning. This is not an “issue” like gun control, or partisan politics; this issue is about people…living, breathing, people. When you advance these “arguements”, it would be wise to remember that we are talking about individuals and their relationships; not some faceless issue like “higher taxes” or the financial debacle.

In your writing, you compared the relationship I have with my partner as being no better (or different) than that of a polygamous Mormon. You reduce me and my relationship down to being merely a “choice” and of no benefit to society….harmful to children and our humanity. You equate any desire gay people may have for equality as merely seeking “affirmation” and “pathetic and narcissistic”. You see my relationship as nothing more than a “sexual coupling” based some sort of mythical “choice” that I am making.

The mind-set that I saw bleed through your words was one of ‘How dare they think they are as fully human as I am…Who do these people think they are to believe they have rights on the same level as I do. The very words you chose to use lifted the veil from what appeares outwardly to be a legitimate and reasoned arguement to reveal something far less charitable.

Now, did you write this while thinking “Boy, this will sure rub David Thomas the wrong way”? Of course not. I am sure you did not intend this to be personal, but on a certain level, it cannot help but be personal.  After all, it is about my life, and my relationship.

You know, I have always thought that there is no excuse why the church (and our nation) can not find a “way forward” on this issue…I think to myself “we are reasonable people who can sit down, reason together, and reach a compromise”.  Maybe I am just fooling myself. Maybe I am being overly naive.

Maybe I should ask myself why I would want to maintain any connection to those who find it so easy to reduce me and my life down to just a “specific identity group”.

David:  Thanks for your response.  I would urge you to read my arguments very carefully and not assume things that are not there.  Might I respond to some of your concerns:

In your writing, you compared the relationship I have with my partner as being no better (or different) than that of a polygamous Mormon.

Not so.  Judge made the argument that since only spouses get hospital visitation rights, it was a compelling argument to approve same-sex “marriage” to grant same-sex partners’ hospital visitation rights.  My counter-argument to that was “fine, if same-sex marriage is REQUIRED so that same-sex partners get hospital visitation rights, then does not this very same argument then call for OTHER relationships to also be given marriage ‘rights’ so that those partners get hospital visitation rights.”  And the example I gave was that of a polygamous Mormon who had several wives.  I think that were you a Mormon who passionately believed in the rightness of polygamous marriage, and your second “wife” was in the hospital, you’d want the right to visit her, right?  I am not sure how this can be demeaning.  And wouldn’t you think that YOUR complaint would itself be demeaning to a polygamous marriage advocate (realizing that more then just Mormons are polygamous marriage advocates) given the apparent scorn you have for polygamous marriage.

You reduce me and my relationship down to being merely a “choice” and of no benefit to society….harmful to children and our humanity.

All relationships - be they heterosexual or homosexual are “choices” David.  And I am guilty of believing that homosexual “couplings” are not necessarily of benefit to society (i.e., the only value to society of sexual couplings of any sort is their value in propagating the next generation).  I don’t believe (nor do I think I argued) that homosexual relationships are, in and of themselves, harmful to children or society.  My argument is that same-sex “marriage” as a concept is harmful to children and society in that it undermines a core part of traditional marriage - i.e. that of a universal social/religious institution that serves to protect children and propagate society’s next generation.  Big difference.  Here is a similar example: Muslims are not a threat to women’s rights, shariya law is a threat.

You equate any desire gay people may have for equality as merely seeking “affirmation” and “pathetic and narcissistic”.

No, I made no such statement.  Again, look to Judge’s argument.  One of his main arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage” was that it was a sign of governmental “affirmation” of the same-sex relationship.  The term “affirmation” is not mine, but Judge’s and the Iowa Supreme Court’s.  I am a librarian.  Librarians are often not accorded respect.  If my professional association demanded that government use its coercive power to force others to give me some token of respect, I would consider my professional association to be “pathetic and narcissistic.”  It’s not the government’s job to be Big Brother and tell me what I am to think.  Government is not the Neighborhood Mommy.  Note again that I am responding to Judge’s and the Iowa SC’s argument.  To my knowledge, no other minority group wants to use the government’s coercive power to force citizens to “affirm” their sexual choices.

You see my relationship as nothing more than a “sexual coupling” based some sort of mythical “choice” that I am making.

I used the term “sexual coupling”, David, to refer to all sexual relationships - both homo and heterosexual.  The point being, that why should government subsidize SEXUAL couplings over non-sexual arrangements?  That gets to the heart of the question.  Under traditional marriage, the heterosexual coupling was preferred because it was a social institution beneficial to children and to the propagation of society’s next generation.  Under the new definition of marriage, that concept of marriage has been definitively ended.  So my question then is a simple one - if marriage is no longer about a social institution that is beneficial to children and to the propagation of the next generation, but is all about the legal rights and goodies for the partners (be they same-sex or opposite-sex) then what legitimate reason does the state have to coerce its citizens to subsidize it?

Can our church and nation ever move past this issue?  I honestly don’t believe the church can - at least not in any sort of united way.  The nation, perhaps, but it will require what I suggested in my earlier post.  We will need to sit down, and accept the reality that heterosexual married “sexual couplings” (i.e. traditional marriages) are a completely different kettle of fish then homosexual “sexual couplings”, and that there are also valid concerns of other forms of sexual and non-sexual couplings that need to be dealt with.  We need to break down what the benefits of traditional married couples have been.  We need to assess at what point the government ought to be involved in regulating or recognizing couplings.  We need to honestly deal with reality and have both sides desire to work together.

Craig - replying to your post #7 - I consider easy divorce and same-sex marriage part of this trend.  We aren’t there yet, but it IS the inevitable ending point if we continue down the trajectory we are on.

I feel torn:
On the one hand, I know that Shawn and David frequent these forums, and these questions can have sharp (very sharp) edges for them.
On the other, I tend to agree with James.

Is it ever truly possible to voice the kind of opinions James has done without offense? Will not (and maybe rightfully so) the homosexual person hear an attack? Any mention (explicit OR implicit) that homosexuality is not a valid expression of human sexuality will be an attack. Same-sex marriage seems like an impassable mine field.

Charlie:  I acknowledge and realize the truth to what you say.  And to Shawn, David and others who may interpret what I say as a personal attack, I recognize that commenting on these threads holds that risk.  However, I do think that it is critical that we have these conversations.  I do not want to hide behind the shield of polite silence, but rather to engage those whom I disagree with in a respectful manner.  I think that this is the purpose of Covenant - to have these difficult conversations, to be vulnerable, but to always show respect.  I believe that engagement shows respect, even if we fundamentally disagree.

There is a point here, James, that has not been addressed. Your continued use of the word “choice” in this conversation is a sticking point, and as long as you think my sexuality is a “choice”, then you are absulutely right when you wrote that you feel the church can not move past this issue.

The time-worn arguements you provide using analogies to “polygamous marriage” and such are, in my mind, out of place here and only serve to divert the conversation towards the “slippery slope” rationale. By the way, do you know anybody advocating for polygamous marriage rights? Do you know any gay people advocating for this? I don’t. Not that it matters all that much, but it is strange that this “polygamous” stuff is usually only trotted out in reference to gay marriage.

As far as the marriage issue goes, I must admit that I have not firmly made up my mind at this time. The events in Iowa offer me a glimpse into what the future holds, and so naturally, I am happy about that. Personally, I would be just as happy if the courts had decided that a “civil union” (or something else along those lines) would have sufficed as I do not feel that the inclusion of the word “marriage” is a deal breaker.

As far as the church goes, I do not feel that we need to be considering making any changes to how we view marriage at this time. I do not think we need to be thinking about changing the prayer book liturgy on marriage at this time. I do, however, think we need to be discussing ways to address the need for pastoral care for gay and lesbian couples in the church and how the church can offer a blessing on committed, life-long relationships. The arguement some people provide here is “The church offers it’s blessings on animals and houses, so there shouldn’t be a problem blesing a committed, life-long relationship between two people”...I have read many arguements against this line of thought (none of which offered anything beyond “excuses”).

To answer the question about the nation moving past this issue, I can assure you that we will and that your thinking on this subject will be left behind, relegated to the dust bin of history and lumped into the same category with the segregationists and racists that fought hard against the civil rights of black Americans in the 1960’s. Is that fair? No, it is not. I do not think a comparison should be made between the two, but I will say that history will most likely make that comparison.

To answer the question about the church moving past this issue, I agree with you, probably not,but I will add one caveat; the church will move on, but not without loosing some people along the way.

I think Charlie Clauss makes a very good point in his posting above: “Same-sex marriage seems like an impassable mine field”. How profound, and how true that really is. The biggest thing making this seem like an “impassable mine field” is that we have not sat down and done the hard work of discussing sexual orientation first, and reaching consensus on that issue THEN going into the marriage issues…..we have gotten the cart before the horse, and are paying the price for it.

As far as I am concerned, there is really no profit to be made from debating the marriage issue with someone who sees me and my life as being something “chosen” and therefore “changeable”; by doing so, we are wasting time attempting to build something on a faulty foundation.