Dan Among Den

That’s right, I voted against the state constitutional ban on gay marriage because of my background. Now, I could also quote you a number of other reasons that come from a more liberal or secular background. I could even quote you a few that make Republicans such as myself the second coming of Hitler. But those are angry voices, unwilling to look deep. Unfortunately, some of my Republican cohorts speak with the same tone, but from a different side. It is to them that I make this argument.

Thus I present some reasons for a Christian Republican to vote against Proposition 2 on the Texas constitutional ballot:

The amendment is mostly redundant. There is already a state law that forbids the state or a political subdivision from recognizing gay marriage, so in Texas it is already disallowed. As a Republican, I feel in general principal that the fewer the laws, the better. There are exceptions, of course, but all things being equal, fewer laws are better than more laws. The Texas Constitution is a huge document, riddled with amendments, and keeping one more off the pile is a worthy cause in itself.

The amendment does not really provide much more protection against an “activist” judge than the current state law. This protection against judges has been one of the main selling points of this amendment, but the truth is that it does not help much. The only protection it could reasonably provide is that it would keep a state judge from ruling the current marriage law in violation of the current Texas Constitution. Further, the Texas Constitution is so complex, that a determined judge could probably find a conflict between the new amendment and some previously existing clause, allowing him to craft a ruling between the two conflicts. But that’s not likely to happen since the current law is unlikely to be overturned by a state court because the appeals court and state supreme court judges are elected, and as of late, that means they have become stocked with conservatives who are very unlikely to go off the deep end in such stormy political waters. Finally, the amendment does nothing about the more likely legal challenge that a gay marriage ban violates the Federal Constitution. You could claim that marriage is a state matter, not subject to federal regulation, but that logic would allow Texas to keep Hispanics or women out of state office, since those are purely matters of the state of Texas.

The language of the amendment is poorly drafted and overly vague on the matter of civil unions or on a status similar to marriage. Many legal analysts have commented that this will likely forbid “common law” marriages, i.e. a man and a woman living together in a state of marriage, perhaps even church sanctioned, without actually have a marriage license. This may not seem like such a big deal to those of us who did the five minutes of paperwork at the county office years ago, but common law marriage was the norm until the mid-1800’s. To forbid it would mean that no marriage would exist except those sanctioned by the state. My Republican upbringing tells me that this is dangerous, taking something that you could do yesterday on your own but would require state permission tomorrow. Again, having fewer laws is better than having more laws.

In fact, the language on the civil unions is so poorly drafted, that some suggest it could nullify a number of legal agreements unrelated to the specific status of marriage, such as powers of attorney, living wills, even estate trusts. I point out that last item in particular because estate trusts are one of the few remaining instruments for limiting the scope of the estate tax, a.k.a. the “death tax”. If that tax continues, and it is set to do so presently, then this could make life difficult for any of you trying to pass on wealth to the next generation.

Even if you could accept the argument that this amendment will further the goal of banning gay marriage, I cannot accept the argument that banning gay marriage helps promote and stabilize traditional heterosexual marriage. As I have written before, the real threats to marriage are longevity, easy divorce, women’s rights, and the acceptance of single parents. These are things we fought hard for because they give us more options, but ultimately their exercise has cost marriage dearly. If you really are trying to save the state of marital bliss that existed in 1950’s television, that battle was lost a generation ago. This won’t bring it back.

Now, marriage is a wonderful thing. I’ve been married for over fourteen years, and it has been a wonderful source of stability and well-being in my life. It has provided a loving environment in which to raise my children. From the point of view social engineering, of maintaining the great social contract, my marriage has been a very positive step. But if marriage is such a good thing, why is it only for us, the heterosexuals, and not for them? Perhaps you feel that two men or two women would be incapable of having a stable relationship or of providing good role models for their children. It’s OK for you to feel that, but are you sure? Do you actually have any evidence or experience, or is it simple prejudice? As a practical matter, it is not the unknowns that get us into trouble, but the things we are sure of that turn out to be false.

But then you may also feel that their homosexuality, their lifestyle, is not a lifestyle at all. It is sin, you can say, and you know so because it is clearly identified in the Bible. Well, let me just say that while much of the Biblical ban on homosexuality can be read in clear text, it is also some selective reading. It is a verse from here, a verse from there, most of it either the Old Testament or from the wisdom of Paul. Now, while I cannot tell you to freely discard all the teachings of the Old Testament or of Paul, I do think that Christians should follow the words of Christ first and foremost. If I may be permitted a bit of selective quoting myself I will remind you that Christ gave us only one commandment, and that was to love our neighbors as ourselves. He did say many other things, but he made it clear that that was the big guide on how to live our lives. To toss in the Star Trek terms, it is Christ’s Prime Directive. And so, I must ask, if this amendment does nothing to further ban gay marriage and offers no real support for traditional marriage, then what is our motivation for passing it? Is it to express love for our fellow man? I think not. Rather, I think it is meant to spite our neighbors and say, “You are different, and thus you are not my neighbor, so I have no love for you.” It is a chance to cast a stone and feel better about ourselves. I don’t think we really want to do that.

And finally, this is a generational issue far more than it is a Republican or Democrat issue. I’ve seen this in a bits and pieces of polling data. For starters, the gay marriage bans voted on last November enjoyed moderate to strong support among Democrats, with at least 20-65% of Kerry voters coming down against gay marriage in the various states that voted on this issue. My belief, though, is that younger voters are more accepting of gay marriage. While much of my evidence is anecdotal, it is showing up in a few polls. A recent UCLA poll found that 57% of college freshman were in favor of gay marriage compared to only 36% in the general voting population.

This is not the first generational issue, nor will it be the last. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, women’s rights, civil rights… these have all been struggles fought between those clinging to the old traditional ways and those seeing a new and different world. While we firmly see the error of tradition now, these were not evil men and women who resisted the change. They were standing up for a way of life that had lasted for hundreds of years and had achieved great things in the absence of these new ideas. Perhaps the charitable thing to say is that they were right for their times.

And perhaps those who oppose gay marriage so vehemently today are also right for their time, but like all who came before, they too shall grow old and pass into history. The best they can do for posterity is to not make it harder for their children to govern a just society after they’re gone. So, for now, just leave it as it is. The various laws will last a while longer, perhaps even another full generation. That’s all you have to do. After that, it’s up to your children. You did better than your parents. Maybe they’ll do better than you.