Proposition 8, Tolerance, and Discrimination

I have read about and discussed California's Proposition 8 quite a bit in the past few months, it being of much interest to me (since I live in Hercules, a little town in the northeastern part of the SF bay area). Along the way, I have noticed a disturbing trend: anybody who states their support of Proposition 8, even if that is all that they say, is almost immediately labeled by somebody as a bigot and as intolerant. The California Supreme Court even used discrimination as the underlying justification for striking down Proposition 22. There have been extreme instances of this type of labeling, but for this discussion we'll consider them outliers, and instead focus on the common response in a general fashion.

Tolerance

First things come first; we need a definition, instead of a label or epithet. Here are Webster's definitions for tolerance:

1. The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance.
2. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

The first thing to notice is that tolerance has two fundamental parts: allowing freedom of choice, and being patient with others. Other dictionary definitions also have a strong component of respect, but I would posit this is a manifestation of the "allowing freedom of choice" aspect, in that you respect others' right to a different opinion or way of being. Just as you demand that right for yourself, and you would not want to be ridiculed for your opinion, you must provide like respect for others' views.

However, there has been an abuse of the concept of tolerance in that it has been extended to imply more than what it means. Usually, the extension takes the form of something along these lines:

If you don't agree with my opinion, then you are close-minded and too conservative. You are intolerant, because you think that what I am doing or what I say is immoral or wrong.

Now, what I wrote above was a blunt depiction of what some people imply when they call others intolerant. That was deliberate, to demonstrate a point; usually they express their view of what tolerance means in more subtle ways, but nonetheless the implications are there.

The problem, however, is fairly obvious: tolerance does not mean that one has to accept another party's opinion, or even admit or imply that their own opinion could be wrong. That is not part of tolerance at all; you can be very tolerant of others' views and very respectful, and in fact even be a very staunch supporter of others' right to have their own opinion or way of life without ever conceding that your own opinions might be wrong.

To be open-minded, however, is different from tolerance. Open-mindedness implies that you admit that you are searching for corrections and additions to your knowledge and opinions. But again, it requires only a very soft admission that you could be wrong. You can be open-minded and a critical thinker, and have an opinion presented to you, inspect it, and finally reject it without compromising your 'open-minded' status.

To be intolerant, then, is to disrespect others' right to their own opinion and way of thinking or acting. But remember: intolerance of certain items is a moral requirement: we should be intolerant of murder, rape, incest, abuse, racism, etc. That is the right thing to do. But we should be tolerant of opinions, freedom of speech, religious views, sexual orientation, and so forth.

Application to Proposition 8 Detractors

And now we come back to the disturbing trend I noted earlier. Those who decry Proposition 8 supporters as being intolerant usually do so simply for it being stated that the supporters will vote to defend traditional marriage (and an anciently-established societal norm). This brings the detractors' cry of intolerance into focus for what it is: they themselves show intolerance by belittling an opinion different than their own. They essentially use the moral pressure of being viewed as intolerant to motivate Proposition 8 supporters to back off from supporting the amendment. Boiled down, this is basic disrespect and manipulation, and thus squarely lands the detractors in the realm of hypocrisy. They quickly call Proposition 8 supporters intolerant, when they themselves demonstrate by that very statement that they are at least partially intolerant. The claim that they are seeking so-called "equality" does not help their case; that justification is only a misdirected attempt at hiding the fact that they will not tolerate the presence of another opinion.

On the flip side, there is no room for supporters of Proposition 8 to demonstrate intolerance. Respect for others' right to an opinion is not only important, but it is a direct manifestation of one's love of liberty and freedom. The right to choose an opinion and to vote accordingly is a right that should be defended even to the loss of one's life. There is no room for intolerance, and I sincerely ask that those on both sides of the debate try to internalize this principle. All involved should discuss, vote, and decide; but they should not intimidate or attempt to manipulate others' right to their own decision. Your future freedom depends on respectfully allowing others to have an opinion that differs from your own.

Discrimination

Once again we'll start with a definition, this time from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

The concept of discrimination is fairly straightforward, as long as you recognize that it has two (wildly different) flavors. The first is good in that it is the ability to see details and differences. As a synonym for discernment, it is a positive trait in that a discriminating person cannot be duped. They understand that small details can have a great effect on the net value or meaning of something.

The second flavor is nearly the opposite of the first. It is to make generalizations (often that are erroneous) of a class, and assume that individual members of the class are all subject to the conclusions of that generalization. Think of it as ignoring details and differences, and assuming uniformity. This version of discrimination has rightly earned a negative connotation. I would add that an acceptable additional restriction for our discussion is that the class is a class out of necessity; e.g. members of the class are lumped together because of an inherent trait, one that they can't choose to have or to not have. Discrimination against an individual due to something they verifiably can't change (such as race) is worse than discrimination against an individual for something they can change.

Application

Proposition 22 was struck down by the CA Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision that hinged upon discrimination. For more information on the process of judicial review, please see my earlier post On Judicial Review, and Rule by the People. Also, see More on Judicial Review for some additional insights into the In RE Marriage Cases decision and judicial activism in general. Essentially, the consenting judges claimed that the CA Constitution does not contain any provision allowing laws that discriminate against any group of people. That's a fair enough statement, but the problem is that this was applied based on an assumption that restricting marriage to be only between a man and a woman is discriminatory.

So let's take a step back, and look at marriage. At first blush, it would seem that this restriction perhaps could be discriminatory. But, if you examine the issue further you will find that this is not the case. If we use homosexuals as the class, then here are the questions we have to ask to determine if marriage as a heterosexual-only institution is discriminatory:

• Do homosexuals constitute a class that can have (possibly erroneous) generalizations made about them?
• Can they individually choose to be a member of this class, and choose to remove themselves from the class (e.g. is it an inherent trait, like race)?
  
• Is the marriage issue ignoring individual merit or detail (e.g. does marriage fit easily for at least some homosexuals)? Or, instead, is the generalization of man-woman marriage actually correct?
  

Class Status

The first question is easy to answer: yes, homosexuals undoubtedly constitute an undeniable class. They represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% of the US population, and they have common traits.

Can they Choose?

The second question is more complicated. There appear to be two camps within the homosexual community. Some contend they are born the way they are, that their homosexuality is intrinsic. They feel they cannot change it. The other camp believes that they have chosen their sexual orientation and they are not interested in finding a genetic link or anything of the sort (or else someone might come up with some gene-therapy-type 'cure' for homosexuality).

Personally, I think the answer lies in between the two camps. Every human being has weaknesses and temptations, and many of those are evident in such a way as to indicate that the seeds of the weakness were with them at birth. However, just because we are born with weaknesses, that does not mean we have to succumb to them. I am a very strong believer in the power of human choice: that we can choose what we do, what we say, and thus for all intents and purposes what kind of person we are. We are certainly not robots who are programmed such that we just can't help but, ahem, perform sexual acts of any variation. I cannot stress this enough: we can choose our actions.

Thus, my own answer to the second question: homosexuals have a choice, even if it is a very difficult one. They are not forced to be what they claim they are, nor are they forced to do what homosexuals do. The temptation may be intrinsic, but acting upon it is most certainly not.

Generalization, and Marriage

The final question requires establishing yet again a definition. What is marriage, anyway? What is its purpose? Here are the first few (relevant) definitions listed for marriage, this time coming from the Random House dictionary:

1. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

To understand it better, I will propose a few points as integral to marriage, and then some comments about each. Here is the first:

Throughout the entire history of mankind, it has been between a man and a woman, logically due to a biological basis required to conceive and perpetuate human life.

Artificial insemination is, in programmer parlance, a hack in that it is what you try when the accepted conventional method fails. This cannot be the sole method for cases with a 100% certainty that the conventional methods of procreation won't work (e.g. lesbian couples).

Throughout history, marriage has been administered and regulated by spiritual/religious leaders.

It is only in the last 150 years or so that licenses of any kind have been required; and, even in the US before about 1920 or so they were only required for interracial marriages. Yes, I'm totally serious. Marriage is not only a societal construct, but it is closely related to religion. Sometimes those spiritual leaders were also the civic leaders, but the norm was that they had spiritual or religious charge over the people they officiated in marrying together.

Marriage is not just about love and devotion. There are many other important traits to marriage.

The traits that are necessary are love, devotion (faithfulness), sexuality, patience, sacrifice, using complementary differences to accomplish what one could not accomplish alone, commitment, and humility. There are arguably more. Marriages lacking any one of these things tend to be unhappy and rocky. Marriages lacking some of these things at first, such as arranged marriages, can over time gain these traits and become very successful; so the lack of a trait or two does not mean the marriage is not allowable. Nor does the presence of one or two of these traits mean marriage is allowable.

Marriage is ultimately about family, which means it's really about having and raising kids.

Yes, there are married couples that choose not to have kids, but they are sincerely missing the point. There are those who cannot have kids due to infertility, but there is still some possibility they can get pregnant. Case in point: we have some family friends who tried for years to have a baby, and were not successful. They subsequently adopted two kids, at different times. Around the time the second child had his first birthday the wife turned up pregnant, which was obviously a total surprise (and a very happy one, I might add). Using infertile couples as justification for homosexual marriage is extremely tenuous.

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. This is closely related to the spiritual aspect of marriage, and the fact that it is not really (or originally) a civic right.

The state has only begun to regulate marriage en masse in the last century or so, usually for monetization like paying for a license, and for tax tracking and regulation. Neither of these are necessary for marriage or integral to it. To claim that marriage is a right is like saying it is a right that a couple be able to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met, and the opportunity presents itself, they might just have six boys in a row. But, it would be absurd to demand that marriage be provided as a right, just as it is absurd for a couple to demand to have six boys in a row. If the conditions are met then the privilege may be taken; but if not, then that unfortunately means the person is not (or perhaps should not) be getting married.

There are potentially more integral aspects of marriage, but these will suffice. Yes, it is somewhat of a complicated contraption, but it is fairly straightforward and intuitive.

So, would it be an unfair generalization to say that a same-sex relationship could not fulfill the definition of marriage? The answer hinges on whether even some of the relationships could fulfill the conditions to call it marriage. If even some of them could, then that opens up the possibility that all of them could, and it certainly would be unfair and discriminatory to exclude them from the legally-allowed benefits of marriage.

It is obvious that it depends on how one defines marriage. To me (and most of mankind, even spanning mankind's history), all the above points I listed are obvious, logical parts of what marriage is. Same-sex marriage advocates often try to boil marriage down to one thing: "we love each other, so we should be allowed to get married." As stated above: love, devotion, sexuality, etc. are only part of the equation, and they by themselves are not justification to have parties included in the realm of marriage.

So, what is missing? First, the biological component. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner. Period. It is impossible. Lesbians can claim the option of artificial insemination, but that rings hollow: it's not their partner's sperm, and it is a hack, where the real process is not even possible. Adoption is also covering up the original problem, and rings hollow (not to mention that study after study, not just case studies, show children do much better in a nuclear family with a father and a mother). Any slowdown in social research reports affirming the benefits of father-mother-children relationships is due largely to political pressure, and the fact that the research is already out there showing the obvious conclusion.

Second, most spiritual and religious leaders are often at the far opposite end of the spectrum from homosexuality. Thus, homosexuals have chosen the civic route to try to enter the marriage fray. With a legal definition and civic allowance only, that cheapens the very nature of marriage, ignoring its roots and purpose.

Third: having and raising children. Due to the biological incompatibility, their children cannot come from their partner (or else the child cannot be their own biological child; one partner definitely gets cut out). This takes away a fundamental right for a child to have a mother and a father. And yes, this is a right, because all children must have paternal and maternal DNA to be conceived, and those who conceived the child have a responsibility to the child. Parents who give their baby up for adoption can usually choose the adoptive parents, and they are doing what is best for the child, thus fulfilling their responsibility in a tangible way. Also, it is quite evident that children have more trouble on average when they are not given the opportunity to grow up in a nuclear family. Circumstances vary, and children's reactions vary, but by and large this result is quite evident. Homosexual couples cannot provide both a mother and a father, by definition. Strike three.

In consideration of these definitions, it cannot be deemed discriminatory to say that same-sex relationships should be excluded from marriage. By their very nature, homosexual relationships do not fit into what marriage is. Therefore a generalization that every one of them cannot be made into marriage is a true statement, nor is it ignoring details or the merit of the individual relationships. In other words, the generalization is completely true. Thus there is no discrimination, and the CA Supreme Court's decision was invalid, as it was based upon invalid definitions of either discrimination or marriage, or both.

Final Thoughts

Due to the foregoing discussion, marriage simply does not make sense for same-sex relationships. It would need an expanded and changed definition before that could be the case. However, a society does not suddenly start changing the definition of an institution that is thousands of years old without that change justly being described as Orwellian. If a society changes the language to suit political or minority pursuits like this, it helps wedge a door open that will lead to degradation of the language (and thus the clarity of our thoughts in general), and of common sense. Evidently, control over language yields considerable control over moral issues.

A final definition note: the word bigot and related terms are often used in connection with discrimination (and anecdotally Proposition 8), but remember that it is tightly related to the word discrimination. As such, if no discrimination is taking place, the proponent cannot be rightfully considered a bigot on the subject.

Unfortunately for many devoted same-sex couples, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. I do not wish to belittle their relationships, as I am sure they are as sincere in their relationships as they can be, as am I. They have protections under domestic partner laws in California that give them all of the state-derived legal benefits of marriage without needing to change the definition of marriage. I see no harm in keeping it this way, and I question the motives of those who seem to think that preserving the definition of traditional marriage is discriminatory. I would ask, what are they really after? Marriage is not necessary to prove love and devotion or make a commitment. If that is all they are after, then they already have what they want.