The text of bill H.3133 as it appeared on the SC voting ballot on November 7, 2006:
Must Article XVII of the Constitution of this State be amended by adding Section 15 so as to provide that in this State and its political subdivisions, a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized; that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create, recognize, or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated; that this amendment shall not impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State; and that this amendment shall not prohibit or limit the ability of parties other than the State or its political subdivisions from entering into contracts or other legal instruments?Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes', and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No.'
One of the most interesting elements of conservatives is that their politics are generally founded on fear. This fear is then generally supported by a Western theology (predominantly a fundamentalist form of Christianity here in America). This mixture of religion and politics, while not necessarily a threat to secular government, does have influence on American culture and thus on American voting habits.
In fact, in contemporary vernacular, we now have value voters. The term value voters is a piece of jargon-- a nice euphemism-- that gives an individual the initial warm and fuzzy feeling usually associated with morality, but we quickly see the negative ramifications of such a term when used in politics because it negatively affects both individuals and the collective.
Value voters were asked to vote Yes! to the above amendment.
THE DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE
Conservatives argue that, somehow, by allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry, the sacredness of traditional marriage will diminish. Others say that marriage is specifically for the bearing and protecting of children, and they argue that a two-parent household run by a married different-sex couple is the ideal, the epitome that all other relationships should model. (By logical extension, one could argue conservatives see other varying relationships as not only less than ideal but downright detrimental to society.)
Conservatives have become somewhat good at enveloping their disgust for homosexuality in both political and religious arguments. (Regarding same-sex marriage, we saw the Republicans employ Orwellian language in their Defense of Marriage Act, implying marriage could become victimized.) They say marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. By utilizing biblical standards as norms in an attempt to refuse marital privileges to the gay communityparticularly the secular and religious benefits of marriagethe right is pushing its own personal, not-so-private prejudices forward.
By voting based on these prejudices, like the banning of same-sex marriage, American law has lost its part of its supposed objective nature. American law is designed to protect all American people regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, and the like, not dictate whether two consenting adults can partake in social and religious matrimony and enjoy all the benefits therein. Clearly, if a man can do something a woman cannot do (marry a woman), then equality has been lost between the sexes.
Interestingly enough, the right doesnt necessarily see itself as infringing on anothers so-called rights. After all, to them, marriage is not a right given to Americans since it isnt explicitly stated within the Constitution; it is a privilege, and as such, limited to only a select people. [However, in 1978, the Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals" in the case Zablocki v. Redhail. The court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy' in the U.S. Constitution." (cite)]
This also means that the definition of marriage can change at any timeit is at the whim of the collective, in the hands and hearts of the people.
When we get to the heart of why we should refuse people the right to marry someone of the same sex (i.e, change the traditional, implied definition of marriage), we are confronted with a sheer disgust for the homosexual lifestyle. Arguments against gay marriage are generally steeped in logical fallacies, biased statistics, propaganda, said personal prejudice, but most of all: religion, which is an umbrella for all these elements of conservative logic.
RELIGIOUS POLITICS
Christianity and its role in conservative politics will be addressed here because the general arguments against same-sex marriagemarriage defined in this article as both religious and secularare rooted in religion more so than politics. Not all conservatives are Christians, and vice versa, but the majority of conservative politics has religious roots.
We must delve into the frame that catalyzes an observers perception. That frame is what George Lakoff calls the strict father model.
The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions:The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good. (Lakoff 7)
In America, this frame, in this psychology, generally stems from Christian scripture.
Christians are taught that there is a natural hierarchyideas of superioritywith men being subject to God and women subject to men, and slaves subject to their masters (1 Corinthians 11:312, 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 6:59).
They are also taught that Christians are not of this world (John 17:1417) which builds a sense of community, structure, a moral framework; it also sets boundaries and goals. It forms a cultural identity and frames politics.
The universal, absolute morality inherent in Christianity is relative to ones reading and interpretation of the scriptures, which in turn generates a narrative and perception about who and what God is. (There is also dissent within Christian groups regarding what is a proper interpretation and the process at which one arrives at his/her interpretationeach is subject to criticism.)
The idea of people being inherently corrupt is a theological concept (generally believed by those who ascribe to Calvinism or its derivations) called total depravity.
The doctrine that fallen man is completely touched by sin and that he is completely a sinner. He is not as bad as he could be, but in all areas of his being, body, soul, spirit, mind, emotions, etc., he is touched by sin. In that sense he is totally depraved. Because man is depraved, nothing good can come out of him (Rom. 3:10-12) and God must account the righteousness of Christ to him. This righteousness is obtainable only through faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. (http://www.carm.org/)
All these concepts are then synthesized. In other words, this idea of God and Gods plan is then codified and set as a universal standard through which all laws and morals should have their roots. Thus, when one is not living a moral life (morality being based on the readings of scripture), then one is bad. There is only right, and there is only wrong. There is a normal and a perverse. There is divinity, there is depravity. (Mathematically, there is always the variable x, and the negated x is always y where x = Gods nature and y = the Christian concept of sin.)
It stands to Christian reason then that anything deviating from scriptural law inherently: (1) violates the natural hierarchy (Gods planned order of things); (2) dismisses the precepts needed to become a Christian (thus the deviationin this case, homosexuality is othered by the Christian community, and this constructs another part of the Christian identity); (3) violates Gods moral decrees for His human creations (in a voluntary manner); and (4) proves the depravity inherent in humanity, but specifically, those who hear the scriptures and voluntarily refuse to heed them, which, consequently, is only ever interpreted as a person denying the divinity of God for the pleasures of the flesh. In the conservative frame, there could never be another explanation for someone "refusing God."
All of these ideas become ingrained into conservative politics. There is an authority figure (the strict father) who commands and who must be obeyed (unless his actions are contradictory to what God has decreed to moral authorities). Since most people are inherently depraved, they lack self-disciple and have low self-control. Therefore, these people must be punished if and when they commit crime, and they are to be judged by their peers.
For example, those who are disciplined keep the economy going. They are moral. They are the money makers, they are the American ideal. They have what every person wants: control, poise, and material possessions because they have earned them. God has blessed them to set an example for what every disciplined, righteous person can achieve if humanity followed God's law.
The family view has evolved into a political view.
Homosexuality, but particularly the gay male, is seen as a physical and religious threat to all of the above.
THE THREAT OF THE GAY MALE
One blatantly obvious element of the marriage debate that I have encountered when discussing same-sex marriage to those to oppose the idea is a fear of male-male rape. In fact, Id wager most males (whether they are self-claimed homophobes) are quite fearful of rape. There are quite a few heterosexual men who think the gay male is always, at the very least, a potential threat.
Any form of male victimization is seen as a deconstruction of the masculine gender role. As Patrick Carnes states in his book Victims No Longer, a book written for men who are survivors of rape, incest, and other forms of sexual abuse, Since men are not supposed to be victims, abuse (and particularly sexual abuse) becomes a process of demasculinizing (or emasculation) (41).
This parallels the same views held by right-wing conservatives who do not want same-sex couples to have the privilege of marriage. After all, thinking in a conservative, heteronormative, and strict father model framework, there must be a masculine and feminine role in a relationship (with the male being masculine and the female being feminine). With two men, why would one choose to be emasculated? They cannot understand that choice since it isnt framed to fit their worldview. Clearly, it logically follows within the conservative frame that homosexuals are: promiscuous (they enjoy male-male sex and want it whenever they can get it); perverted (they have no regard for another mans feelings, which also catalyzes the fears that gays want to convert and/or rape straights); and in need of rehabilitation (as seen the Christian attempts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality, again, based on the assumption that ones sexual orientation is based upon a conscious decision).
(And I think the logic can be extended to prove that the progressing cultural acceptance of lesbianism is a result of males not feeling threatened by two females, thus seeing lesbianism as more exotic, erotic, and desired. This is why I am specifically omitting lesbianism throughout this document.)
The Bible is incredibly strict with regard to gender roles. Aside from the aforementioned verses from Peter, Corinthians, and Romans, the Kosher laws of the Torah also impact a Christians way of thinking. Leviticus 18:22 (often cited as proving Gods condemnation of homosexuality) is really a basis for gender roles and a condemnation for homogenital activity (just as heterosexual fornication is often condemned since, Biblically, sex was designed to take place only within marriage). It had nothing to do with sexual orientation and certainly nothing to do with marriage.
When a person uses the term perversion regarding homosexuality, religion as a way to appeal to voters, and/or some statement attempting to explain that same-sex marriage is a threat to (the sanctity of) different-sex marriage, one can immediately assume that he/she speaks to a specific underlying psychology (or a "fictional narrative"). The goal then of Christianity in a collective sense would be to shape this synthesized, mass fictional narrative into a more homophobic construct which one on hand "protects and energizes" this certain Christian identity, but on the other negatively affects the linguistic, cultural, religious, and political identity of an entire nation.
Giving same-sex couples the rights, privileges, benefits, rituals, and social honor that accompany both secular and religious marriage will change the way people think about marriage. More so, it will change our very language.
THE LANGUAGE OF VOTERS
People do not necessarily vote in their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values. They vote for who they identify with. They may identify with their self-interest. That can happen. It is not that people never care about their self-interest. But they vote their identity. And if their identity fits their self-interest, they will vote for that. It is important to understand this point. It is a serious mistake to assume that people are simply always voting in their self-interest. (Lakoff 19)
Most people vote based upon their self-perceived identity. Those with a strict father model and/or dominant heteronormative model simply will not comprehend that giving marital benefits to same-sex couples is socially beneficial. However, overall, the issue of gay rights is exponentially gaining momentum throughout America, as witnessed in some conservative states. Even though the amendments didnt pass in several of these supposed conservative states, most were defeated by only a narrow margin, which indicates that voters are slowly changing their minds.
The genius art of combining religion and politics is that it gives a person a methodology for pushing these personal prejudices into law, and the conflicting nature of marriage being both religious and secular certainly complicates things.
Throughout this complicated process, in no way does anyone want religious freedoms infringed upon. All religious leaders have the authority to decide who will be married in their church, synagogue, mosque, or any other place of worship. The government cannot meddle in religious affairs, nor can it dictate what religious leaders preach to their congregations (aside from legal limitations).
There is no threat to religious practice or the institution of different-sex marriage if same-sex marriage were to be allowed in America.
It is important for same-sex couples to have the civil liberties granted by a secular marriage. We all remember separate but equal offers nothing more than legal discrimination, and those couples who have formed civil unions are still missing over 1,400 benefits that married couples enjoy. The responsibility and respect that is derived from marriage (socially and religiously) will never cause different-sex marriages to become less important in the eyes of the populace. In fact, Id wager that the only way different-sex marriage could ever seem less desirable to heterosexuals is if the institution caves in on itself due to internal fragmentation.
All voters are "value voters," and as such, we want America to reflect those values of equality, freedom, loyalty, love, and nurturance. That all starts with our right to pursue happiness.
Kelly Gorski is a communications editor for a national organization. She is also a former Language Arts teacher and pregnancy options counselor. She can be reached at kellygorski@gmail.com.
