We're for religious freedom, except when we're not.

A federal judge in Utah has recently held that Utah's law prohiting cohabitation violates a polygamist family's rights to free exercise of religion and due process of law. The National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council are calling the decision "the next step along the path blazed by same-sex marriage advocates...." The NOM and the FRC are in effect opposing that family's freedom of religion.

I thought that opponents of marriage equality were simply trying to protect bakers' and photographers' free exercise of religion. It's almost as though their stated and actual reasons differed somewhat.

My first thought was that LGBT advocates should take every opportunity to point out the chicanery of groups like the NOM and the FRC. Then, however, I remembered how often our advocates have said that free exercise of religion should yield to anti-discrimination laws. We thus have two sides in the debate, both of which think that their preferred outcome should trump the First Amendment's free-exercise clause.

See also: The great big (non-zero-sum) game of life and Same-sex marriage and freedom of association (2)

Redefining marriage?

Opponents of equal marriage rights are ever more desperate for arguments. A currently popular one holds that government should not use its coercive powers to redefine the word "marriage." Am I allowed to have multiple wives and concubines? Does a wife lose her legal identity upon marriage? No? Then it looks as though marriage has already been redefined. Also, it makes no sense to argue that while the word "marriage" is sacred, government has free rein to redefine the word "equal," as in "equal protection of the laws," however it sees fit.

In short, the only way to keep government from redefining marriage is to keep government from defining marriage at all. I believe that that course of action would be ideal, but, as I have said before, I do not want the perfect that is a long way off to be the enemy of the good that is coming to pass.

Same-sex marriage and freedom of association (2)

I have previously noted some philosophical reasons why we should allow marriage equality and freedom of assocation to coexist rather than allow either of them to trump the other. I now want to point out a more practical reason, namely, that by fighting against freedom of association, we are giving the 'phobes an unnecessary PR victory.

People are already pointing to antidiscrimination lawsuits against bakers and the like as evidence that we are not seeking only the right to live our own lives, but also the power to dictate others' lives. We thus feed the myth of individual liberty as a zero-sum game, i.e., one in which our gains are automatically someone else's losses. We also run the risk of looking like hypocrites for demanding freedom of association for ourselves but no one else.

Same-sex marriage and freedom of association

One reason often given for opposing marriage equality is that government should not force caterers, florists, tour-bus operators, and the like to provide services in situations that would violate those service providers' religious or moral beliefs. While I believe in equal rights for same-sex couples, I agree that the service providers should not be forced to violate their beliefs. People do not forfeit their freedom of association by disagreeing with me. Also, competitive pressure provides an obvious remedy; if one bakery refuses to take my money, it thereby hands a competitive advantage to another bakery that will. Finally, I do not see the point of forcing people to take my money if they do not want to do so.  In short, since freedom is not a zero-sum game, we can accommodate both equal protection of the laws for same-sex couples and others' freedom of conscience.

On the other hand, I am still waiting to hear a cogent reason why freedom of association applies only to those who oppose same-sex marriage and not, say, to those who have an equally sincere opposition to remarriage after divorce in the absence of an annulment, or in other words why opponents of same-sex marriage deserve a special privilege.  Cherry-picking fidelity to principle is not fidelity to principle at all.

I like to raise that issue with those Catholics who oppose marriage equality on the ground of freedom of association, especially those who believe in their church's teachings against some forms of marriage that secular law allows. They either throw out a red herring or play the persecution card.

Why can't they disagree peacefully, like sophisticated Europeans?

A little of that Gallic sang froid about which we keep hearing might have helped here:

French MPs come to blows as gay marriage debate ends

Punches were reportedly thrown in the French parliament on Thursday night as MPs wrapped up the long debate on the government’s gay marriage bill.

* * *

Enraged by what they believed was an insulting sneer by one of Justice Minister Christiane Taubira’s advisers while one of their number was speaking, about 20 right-wing MPs rushed onto the floor of parliament shouting “Out! Out!”.

“Punches were thrown,” according to Socialist MP Bernard Roman, while other sources said that one hit a parliamentary official called in to keep order.

Free speech and hate speech, or: The obligatory Michelle Shocked post

Michelle Shocked has the right to be Princess Clara on the subject of same-sex marriage and then to backpedal furiously when called on it. Concert-goers have the right not to support her, as do performance venues in the absence of a contractual obligation to do so.
People have responded to Shocked in ways like this:

Freedom of speech and artistic expression are critically important, but this isn't free speech. This is hate speech.

In fairness, the petition calls for voluntary measures rather than government censorship. Yet in making the distinction between free speech and hate speech as though they were mutually exclusive categories, which, at least in the US, they are not, the author of the petition plays a dangerous game. For one thing, our opponents have become adept at playing the hate-speech card whenever anyone dares to examine their beliefs critically.

We've always defended traditional marriage from Eastasia. (2)

As I have noted before, since the November election, users of the argumentum ad populum against marriage equality have quietly memory-holed that argument. Nonetheless, I did not anticipate the sheer brazenness of Cardinal George, Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, who said in a pastoral letter (emphasis added),

If we ignore in law the natural complementary of man and woman in creation, then the natural family is undermined. Our individual lives become artificial constructs protected by civil “rights” that destroy natural rights. Human dignity and human rights are then reduced to the whims of political majorities.

Yes, because we all know that reducing human rights to the whims of political majorities would be very bad.  We must follow the eternal verities, whatever they are this week.

I could have told you that. Oh, wait: I did.

From William Eskridge and Hans Johnson, "Commentary on marriage grants: Marriage equality’s Cinderella moment" on SCOTUSblog:

The nation has arrived at this moment for marriage equality, essentially, because lesbian and gay couples came out of their closets. Once Americans got to know something about LGBT people and their relationships, the overwhelming anti-gay attitudes of thirty years ago have steadily eroded. When we were growing up, in the small-town South and Midwest, almost everyone said that “homosexuals” were mentally ill and dangerous predators. Indeed, the central anti-gay stereotype was (and remains) the idea that “homosexuality” is anti-family. This is the conceptual basis for the Clinton/Bush-era idea that marriage and family need “defending” against LGBT persons.

I predicted that in law school two decades ago, only to have an ACT UP higher-up give me a lecture on how completely wrong I was and on how that would never work.

Calm down, Princess Clara: My thoughts on the Nevada marriage ruling

As you may know, a federal judge in Nevada has ruled against marriage equality in that state. The opinion shows the intellectual dishonesty that so often characterizes 'phobes. For example, the judge tries to distinguish the case at bar over Loving v. Virginia,, which struck down laws against miscegenation, in the following manner:

Here, there is no indication of any intent to maintain any notion of male or female superiority, but rather, at most, of heterosexual superiority or “heteronormativity” by relegating (mainly) homosexual legal unions to a lesser status. In Loving, the elements of the disability were different as between Caucasians and non-Caucasians, whereas here, the burden on men and women is the same. The distinction might be gender based if only women could marry a person of the same sex, or if only women could marry a transgendered person, or if the restriction included some other asymmetry between the burdens placed on men and the burdens placed on women. But there is no distinction here between men and women, and the intent behind the law is to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

Here the judge puts words into the Loving court's mouths, since he emphasizes an argument that the Loving court explicitly declined to consider:

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

The opinion also includes the following rant, which works best if you imagine that it is being read in a Princess Clara voice:

Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.

We've always defended traditional marriage from Eastasia.

Opponents of marriage equality used to like to say that marriage equality had never passed a popular vote in the United States. After this past Tuesday's election results, people remarked that those opponents had lost that talking point. In another forum, I responded that the opponents would quietly slip that talking point into the nearest memory hole and find another one.

The same week, an anti-marriage-equality pastor, the Rev. Derrick McCoy, associate pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, said of Maryland's Question 6,

Although people do not agree with same-sex marriage, they were deluged with ads about equality, which does not truthfully represent redefining marriage.

So here's the new talking point: Yes, Maryland's voters approved it, but they were hoodwinked. No, you may not ask how Rev. McCoy knows so much about others' inner lives or what "truthfully represent[s]" Question 6 if not equality.

An argument I think advocates of marriage equality should stress (2)

As I noted earlier,

we should decide the scope of secular marriage under secular principles rather than any particular church's interpretation of Scripture. This argument must be a strong one, since whenever I bring it up, the 'phobes immediately change the subject.

Now, it appears that the Second Circuit agrees with me. From the opinion:

But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

Bishop Harry Jackson tucks tail and runs (and in other news, water is wet).

Bishop Harry Jackson, known for bravely crusading against marriage equality in safe fora where no one will ask difficult questions, has backed out of a debate on that topic. His doing so has not exactly helped to overcome his reputation as an intellectual coward who tries to shield his statements from scrutiny as much as he can. One would think that he would fear the marketplace of ideas a little less, especially since the Almighty is supposedly on his side (Luke 21:15), but there you go.

Marriage equality for me, but not for thee

Advocates of "plural marriage" rights draw inspiration from the gay-rights movement, not that the latter approves:

Which is why it was so jarring when, about 20 minutes into the discussion he started dropping terms that were borrowed from another community that hasn't always gotten along with religious right: The gay rights movement.

"We made the decision as a family to come out," he said, at one point.

"All we want is our equal rights," he said, at another.

When finally asked whether he saw parallels between the gay marriage cause and his own, Darger didn't hesitate: "Definitely."

Gay rights advocates want nothing to do with the polygamists, having spent years batting down the right's argument that the freedom to marry could extend in unexpected directions. But to get polygamy decriminalized, Darger said he is modeling his strategy after the successes of that movement (which he supports on Constitutional principle). As part of the effort, he and his family are waging a public awareness campaign to demystify their lifestyle.

Commenters on Reason.com are taking gay activists to task for distancing themselves from advocates of equal rights for polygamous families and for effectively taking a stance of "equality for me, but not for thee." In my mind, those commenters have an excellent point. Absent a principled distinction, equality for me, but not for thee, is not equality at all. Also, as for whether acceptance of same-sex marriage will set us down the slippery slope to acceptance of polygamy, so what if it does?

Thank you for your concern. Now stop "helping" us.

Now our supporters, by proposing government reprisals against Chick-fil-A, have made someone as loathesome as Dan Cathy a martyr for the First Amendment. Since this particular form of politically correct backfire has been going on for decades, you'd think that by now the left would have learned when to stop feeding the right's persecution complex.

Chick-fil-A, Amazon, and marriage

As you're presumably aware by now, the family that owns Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to fight same-sex marriage, while the founder and CEO of Amazon.com has announced that he will donate millions to support it. Activists are cheering the Boston and Chicago politicians who want to make things difficult for Chick-fil-A. I think that the activists should not be so fast to cheer on those politicians.

First, there is the minor matter of the First Amendment. Second, there is the other minor matter of the iron rule, "Me today, you tomorrow." Who says that politicians in conservative communities will not try to take similar reprisals against Amazon, especially when history shows that conservative politicians are just as eager as liberal politicians to use the power of local government to punish thought crimes? While we disagree with what our opponents say, their right to promote their viewpoint is the price that we pay for our right to promote ours.

Discussing same-sex marriage with the fundies

Yesterday, in a discussion of Obama's announcement, someone said to me, "Marriage has always been one man and one woman. Read the Bible." In addition to the toxic level of irony, that person just refused to listen when I tried to tell him what his own holy book actually says. Yes, I do so want you to run my life out of a book that you haven't read or, worse, about which you are willing to lie.

Amendment One in North Carolina

I have no comment on this, so instead, I'll just post a pretty picture that I found on the Internet.

Who has the lowest breakup rate: lesbians, heterosexuals, or gay men?

You know the answer already, right? The infallible dogmas that have been pounded into our heads over the last several decades have answered this question conclusively, right?

Maybe not. According to this:

In the UK, same sex couples can form legally recognized relationships, akin to marriages, and have had this right since the Civil Partnership Act came into effect in December 2005. Just like marriages these unions can be dissolved via a legal process similar to a divorce (which in the UK requires someone to be at fault).

The most recent evidence from the UK Office of National Statistics finds that homosexual couples that joined in 2005 were significantly less likely to have filed for dissolution four years later than heterosexual couples were to have filed for divorce: 2.5% compared to 5.5%.

As Hattersley points out, however, male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female couples: By the end of 2010, 1.6 % of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 % of female partnerships.

As you can see from both the article itself and the comments, everyone with an opinion proposes reasons — some backed by evidence, some not — for the different rates. Most amusingly, one commenter writes,

It is very clear from the social research that men like being taken care of, and do get taken care of in het relationships more than women. Women do more of the work. I suspect gay men are also in it for getting taken care of (what you are oversimplifying as "stability."

That comment makes gay male relationships sound like an Escher print.

Next Maryland poll result: Water is wet.

A poll on Marylanders' attitudes toward same-sex marriage includes the following geographic breakdown:

• Baltimore city residents favor repeal of same-sex marriage with 49 percent opposing the law and 35 percent supporting it
• Montgomery County is the most friendly in the state to same-sex marriage with 58 percent supporting the law
• The Eastern Shore is the least supportive of same-sex marriage, with 72 percent wanting the law repealed

Given the strong correlation between level of education and support for marriage equality, the breakdown should surprise no one.

An argument I think advocates of marriage equality should stress

I've commented here and here on arguments that I wish advocates of marriage equality would stop using, but there's one that I don't think they use often enough. Since opponents of marriage equality tend to use religion as a reason, or at least a pretext, we need to emphasize that at least here in America, as opposed to Iran, our Constitutional rights include freedom from establishment of religion, so that we should decide the scope of secular marriage under secular principles rather than any particular church's interpretation of Scripture. This argument must be a strong one, since whenever I bring it up, the 'phobes immediately change the subject.

In this regard, The Washington Post characterizes the view of anti-marriage-equality pastors thus:

But Thomas and the 77 other Baptist ministers in the association do not see same-sex marriage as a civil rights matter. Rather, they say, it is a question of Scripture, of whether a country based on Judeo-Christian principles will honor what’s written in Romans or decide to make secular decisions about what’s right.

Apart from the seriously question-begging reference to "a country based on Judeo-Christian principles," I agree completely with this framing of the issue, and under the First Amendment, the answer should be clear.

Enlightened self-interest should lead the pastors to the same conclusion. Do they seriously want the government to be the final arbiter of the correct interpretation of "what's written in Romans" or any other part of the Bible? What would they do if the government granted itself that authority and then took a position directly contradictory to theirs?