Cliff LyonBrave Young Bountiful Man Reflects Deep Injury to Entire Generation
Kevin Owens is, in his own words,
married to my High School sweetheart…member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints….of a gentle disposition and I try to treat others kindly and honestly.
I’m posting his comment below for the benefit of civil discourse (as I am told it is the best way to build consensus) and also as a cultural record of this time and place.
Here’s what he wrote yesterday:
I do not believe that public policy should be based on narrow religious beliefs. The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws. My faith in God does not prohibit me from feeling empathy for others or considering their points of view.
Glenden - I didn’t know that’s what the fist meant. Once again, that stuff came before my time. I am growing up in a post-racist generation. The world seems to me like it always had civil rights for people of all races. Obviously, this colors my world view.
Legalizing same sex marriage does ask something of heterosexuals–it asks that we legitimize homosexuality as a respectable institution, and that we support that legitimacy through tax policy and other laws. I don’t want to do this because: A.) I feel like a homosexual relationship is less valuable to society than a heterosexual relationship; and B.) I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation. These are both guesses, and if science proves me wrong, I will be happy to change my position and support gay marriage.
I would like to make the important clarification that I don’t believe homosexual people are less valuable to society than heterosexual people.
There are a lot of things in here that make me crazy.
1. The idea that Keven feels like giving gay couples the same rights as he, is somehow forcing him to endorse someone else’s sex life. My response to this to ask the person to imagine their grandparents having sex and to ask why then we should not ban THAT?
2. The hypocrisy about raising children. It is a fact that Mormons and Christians know as much about divorce as everyone else and how devastating it is for kids. But I’ve never once heard either group suggest restricting the right to divorce for the benefit of raising kids.
3. “everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws.” This is not Kevin’s fault. Speaking as a long time resident of Utah, I’ve noticed that Mormons tend to get righteous on issues of law based on the notion that laws are supposed to reflect our cultural self-image. Paul Mero being the water boy for this idea by re-packaging a social engineering agenda, with the dexterity of a gymnast I might add, into something less laughable, for the benefit of Utah law makers.
Something bad happened in our country with the onset of Bush disease; the republicans started proposing messaging laws and the media jumped all over it. It always went something like; if you are against this law A, you are against XYZ, even though law A could never BE a law. Many democrats caved into this crap too (hence Blue Dogs/Matheson et. al.).
But what is also did was it trained a whole generation of kids like Kevin (and the new ‘values voters’) to believe that one “FEELINGS” were sufficient justification for making laws. Sure its great that the public discourse surrounding ideas increased, but at whose expense and at what cost to the country?
One cost is the rights of our gay children, siblings, parents and friends. Prop 8 became a referendum on how people feel about homosexuality or how loyal to the doctrine one could be instead of how people feel about equality, progress, and civil society.
I’ve got to get off this thing before I go nuts. Please, my dear friend Kevin. Do not be offended by this. Its not about you personally, its about a million Kevins. Thank you for being brave enough to hold yourself out transparently, so that we can see better ourselves and our society through you, and with any luck, begin to steer a better course for your future and your kids.
Its the least we can do having screwed up so royally.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Very magnanimous of you Cliff…calling someone an idiot and then thanking them for the poor example so we can all learn from it. You’re all heart.
This isn’t about you personally, Cliff. It’s about the three or four Cliffs out there…who have the audacity to claim that gay marriage is only about two people in love, and then chastise some innocent guy (i.e. straw man) for making laws based on “feelings.”
BTW, I fully support repealing “no-fault” divorce laws in Utah. Will you join me?
November 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Kevin,
For (as you say) the benefit of civil discourse and also as a cultural record of this time and place, would you please supply a few things in aid of the effort to build consensus on the shared public meaning of marriage — according to the viewpoint you hold?
Maybe you have already discussed these topics and could just provide links to the best sources that accurately describe what you have in mind?
I’d be interested in understanding the principled basis for your own opinion, yea or nay gay marriage.
Respectfully
Chairm Ohn
November 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Paul,
Be fair, I didn’t call Kevin an idiot, quite the contrary.
It no longer surprises anyone that any divergence from the ‘company line’ should be met with hyperbole.
It is little wonder that the right-wing is all but impotent anymore. You’ve over spent whatever capital Rovian politics lent you. Time to reconsider tactics lest you slink into total irrelevance.
Your life as it was, is over. But I’m here for you if you are willing to change and find your ‘mensch.’
November 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Cliff,
First of all, thank you for using a polite tone. It means a lot to me.
1. Why does the government have policies which endorse specific sexual behaviors (e.g., heterosexual marriage), and condemns others (e.g., underage sex)? Is it simply a codification of existing, wide-spread cultural mores, or is it a means of social engineering?
If it is simply a way to conveniently regulate the way people are already living, then it makes sense to also regulate same-sex marriage, since that’s happening.
If it is aimed at social engineering, then same-sex marriage may not make as much sense. If the purpose of sex laws is to promote good behavior and good families in society, then those sexual behaviors and family organizations which the law favors are getting the government’s endorsement.
My assertion that same-sex marriage involves a government endorsement of homosexual behavior is based on this premise. I assume the marriage laws we have exist because the government wants to support marriage for the good of society. If not, then why do we have those laws?
As I said before, I don’t mind the thought of my grandparents having sex. My opinion on marriage law is not about feelings of personal repulsion. It’s about having strong families and raising good children.
2. I have suggested restricting the right to divorce. I don’t think no-fault divorce is a good idea. I believe we need to do a lot of things to help support the family, for the good of children, including restricting divorce, free public education (including post-secondary), welfare policies like WIC and reduced school lunch, and prohibiting same-sex marriage.
My position is not hypocritical. I support public policies which are good for children. My opposition to same-sex marriage is not a double standard. You have assumed too much.
Of course, lately we have all been talking about Proposition 8, which deals with same-sex marriage. So, that’s been the emphasis of our conversations on marriage and family. So I can see why you think that’s the only pro-family legislation we support.
Paul Mero has also suggested repealing no-fault divorce laws.
3. When I said “everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws,” I didn’t mean it in support of popular mob rule. My point was exactly the opposite–that we need to consider the views of minorities. I think you misread that.
4. “Feelings” are not sufficient justification for making laws. Laws should be considered carefully, looking at all the possible implications of the law, looking at scientific research, and considering the views of the People.
Has this due dilligence been done by those promoting same-sex marriage, or are they promoting it merely based on the “feelings” of GLBT folk? What will be the effects of same-sex marriage? What will be the unintended consequences? How will it affect America’s families?
Unfortunately, this kind of policy discourse didn’t happen much with Proposition 8. It was a very emotional “us” versus “them” fight. It was not a good way to introduce a new public policy, and neither was In re Marriage Cases. As Justice Corrigan stated in the minority opinion on that ruling:
The same-sex marriage campaign should go through the due process of law, originating in the legislative branch.
My own support of laws which define marriage as exclusively heterosexual is not based on feelings for or against gays, or for or against homosexuality. It is based on the idea that homosexual marriage is bad for children.
Charim,
I’m going to address your questions in a different post. This stuff takes a long time to type.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Charim,
1. The legal institution of marriage is a recognition of a specific interpersonal relationship. The social institution of marriage is much broader in scope, which includes religious unions, “common law”-type marriages, and other relationships. Instead of recognizing every sexual relationship in society, the legal institution of marriage only recognizes those for which legal recognition is necessary.
The legal basis for recognizing marriages are based on a few things. First, the need to regulate family for the sake of children (e.g., adoption, child abuse, parental rights.) Second, for the regulation of family property (e.g., inheritance, social security benefits, tax filing status.) Third, for the regulation of the relationship itself (e.g., adultery, divorce, bigamy.)
The legal requirements of marriage differ based on which legal purpose the marriage serves. Traditionally, these roles were rolled together for convenience, which was fine as long as most families were of the traditional nuclear variety. I will address the requirements for each role here:
a. To qualify for a child-producing role: The couple should have the potential to produce and/or raise children, with some restrictions. The couple should be basically fit for reproduction and/or parenting.
In Utah, we have a law which specifically prohibits a class of marriage from this role: one of first cousins who are of childbearing age. We also remove this role from parents who abuse their children (by taking them away), and we don’t allow people to adopt if they are unmarried and cohabitating (78-30-1).
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”
b. For the property-role, the only requirement should be that a party desires to have a long-term financial union and willfully enters into it.
c. For the sexual relationship itself, the only requirement should be that the couple desires to have a sexual relationship and both members willfully commit themselves to it for a long term. If the state can come up with a compelling reason, such as not allowing an adult to have sex with a child because it can really mess up the child, further restrictions may be appropriate.
2. The best arguments I can come up with for either side are:
a.) Gay marriage is about equality. Sexuality is a fundamental human right, which the government cannot infringe on. Everyone deserves the right to marry who they wish, regardless of sexual orientation. The ban on same-sex marriage amounts to unfair discrimination of gays and lesbians, making them second-class citizens. Sex is seperate from reproduction.
b.) Traditional marriage is not anti-gay, it’s pro-family. The child-rearing family is the fundamental building block of society, and heterosexual marriage is the basis of that family. Because homosexual couples cannot biologically reproduce, they should be excluded from the definition of marriage. Gays can have most of the benefits of marriage through civil unions, therefore the same-sex debate has nothing to do with equal rights. Heterosexual marriage promotes the advancement of the species.
3. We need some kind of civil union structure which conveys some of the benefits of marriage. This won’t stop the culture war, but I think it is the best compromise possible. With a democratic president and congress, we might actually get something like this passed.
4. The truly significant part of the marriage discussion is the evolving nature of the family. The traditional, nuclear family with a mother and father is dying out. Divorce, cohabitation, homosexuality, hypersexuality, promiscuity, absentee fathers, and childlessness are all contributing to a massive social change in attitudes towards marriage and family.
As the biological family diminishes in social importance, government involvement must increase to compensate. Without the family support network, people have to rely more on public institutions. This trend reduces self-sufficiency and independence.
Gay marriage itself is only a small part of this. Whether it passes or not, I don’t expect it to change our direction much (which is towards Brave New World style views on family.) The only way to stop this trend is through massive efforts to save the family, of which laws like Proposition 8 are a part.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Kevin,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I will address them in parts as time permits.
Your # 1. When you characterize laws against underage sex as condeming certain behavior, you seriously distort the basis for those laws.
The laws against underage sex are designed to protect children.
This is not social engineering.
Your language also raises the spectre of anti-sodomy laws which as you know have been repealed in all but the most backwater areas of the US.
So that leaves your argument equating state sanctioned hetero-sexual marriage with social engineering. That is a very novel interpretation which most assuredly holds no water.
Thank for asking that question. I cannot tell you how much I respect that. The promulagation of laws surround marriage and co-habitation is significant, facinating, and complex.
Most importantly, it is ever-changing.
I recommend reading this paper.</strong>
But Kevin, here’s the point. Any fair reading of the history of marriage will reveal that like it or not, we are going to have federally sanctioned same-sex marriage.
Nothing the Church or Paul Mero can do will stop progress. For The Religious Right, this issue is a final desperate attempt by old white men to rally the sheeple.
I’m particularly sad that our beloved LDS Church has taken such a stand on this and brought such embarasment to so many highly educated modern Utahns.
Ask yourself this question Kevin; are yourpart of the future, or will you fight to retain the darkest parts of the past?
November 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Kevin,
Could you please expand on this thought?
Personally, it seems to me homosexual marriage would be good for children . . . the children of gay couples.
Be careful Kevin, in my opinion, regardless of everything else you have posted in this thread, your entire case for banning same-sex marriage rests on this point. If you cannot prove a compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to same-sex couples then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Kevin,
Here is a comment I posted in response to you on the other thread as well. For simplicity I suggest we keep the conversation going only on this thread.
When you say gays can “live in their own way” what exactly does that mean? What if they want to live “married”? There is no compelling state interest in denying them the freedom to do so. When you say you are “only” suggesting that we not legally sanction same-sex marriages you do realize that what you are “only” suggesting is restricting the rights, freedoms and equality of an entire segment of our population, right?
If the sole purpose for the government in sanctioning heterosexual marriages was to support the best environment to raise future generations and you could prove that the best environment was solely heterosexual marriages, then, and only then, would you be on the verge of having a valid argument. As it stands, you have yet to provide even a valid premise for the state to sanction heterosexual unions while excluding same-sex unions. Therefore any conclusions based on your feelings and beliefs concerning the premise are invalid (from a legal standpoint) as well. One last question, how can science prove anything, good or bad, about same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage isn’t allowed?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Kevin,
Since Don suggested consolidating these discussions on this thread, I’m responding here to your earlier response to me.
You misunderstood my question. I’ll restate: How will granting same-sex marriages change how children are being raised now or in the future? You are using the argument that same-sex marriage should be illegal because it’s a not a good environment for raising children. Let me answer my own question. Granting same-sex marriages will not change in any way, for better or for worse, the way children are being raised now or in the future. Children will continue to be raised in every possible different type of family group.
And Kevin, your leap to Rick Santorum’s “Man on Dog” logic puts you dangerously close to wingnuttery (I’ll be kind and not say more).
As for legalizing polygamy, now that I think about it, why not, as long as it is among consenting adults? Adults being the operative word.
Incidentally, I wonder why the Mormon church doesn’t mount a campaign and raise $20 million to shut down the illegal practice of polygamy in Utah.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Okay, Kevin, now we’re getting somewhere. You’re a “slippery slopist” (or “slippery slopologist” if you prefer … yes I just made them both up. ;) )
Sorry buddy but that BS just doesn’t stick. Polygamy, bestiality, etc. are their own entities. They can make their own arguments for the right to marry if they so wish, but legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on those arguments whatsoever.
Thank you for at least admitting that you understand that what is at stake here is the freedom, rights and equality of gay people. You’ve compared limiting the rights of gay people to limiting the rights of criminals or underage children. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are inherently criminal and/or unfit to exercise their own freedom of conscience? (That’s a rhetorical question, Kevin. I don’t think that’s what you are suggesting, although that is the context in which you present your argument.) I believe that what you are suggesting is that gay marriage is somehow inherently harmful to children and therefore gay people should be restricted from marriage (as well as raising children, I assume). What you haven’t done is provide any rational reason why you believe this way and why your belief should be codified as law.
Again, and this is very important Kevin, could you please provide some basis for your belief that “homosexual marriage is bad for children” and therefore gay couples should be denied the legal right to marry? Please, do not resort again to the strawman tactic of propping up polygamy or “man on dog” marriages as proof of a compelling state interest to deny gay couples the right to marry. Let’s deal with gay couples, okay Kevin? What is the state’s interest in denying them the right to marry?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Don, the irony (maybe ignorance) of your comment to this young man…
“If you cannot prove a compelling state interest in denying the right to marry to same-sex couples then you don’t have a leg to stand on.”
…is that proving the compelling state interest is an affirmative exercise. The burden of proof is on you, and gay rights supporters, to prove the compelling state interest: what is the benefit to society of gay marriage? (BTW, not the benefit to gays personally, but to society?)
Becky, the answer to your question lies in the complementarity between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship (absent in same-sex relationships)…the best structure for raising children.
And Don and others…your side is responsible for the “slippery slope” argument. So to cast off this burden from your shoulders, answer this question: if love alone makes a marriage, what would/should be the limitations on legal marriage? If “consenting adults” is the only limitation then all sorts of combinations of people should be allowed to get married.
What you seem blinded to is that this sort of redefining of marriage evaporates the compelling state interest in legal marriage. Again, the slippery slope is on you to disprove by answering the question about limitations, if any, on legal marriage. And, if you do have your standard of limitations, why?…why would you prohibit any two consenting adults from marrying?
November 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
back to your same old tired circular argument, Paul: “the best structure for raising children.” Have you ever settled for the second best way of doing something?
November 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Paul M.,
Like Kevin, you are ignoring the premise of my question. If children are already being raised by same-sex couples, how will same-sex marriage change that? My point is, it is a useless argument to say children are better off in a different situation than the one they happen to be in. You will never change that whether or not there is same sex marriage–no matter how many times you say it. Children will continue to be raised in all kinds of family arrangements.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Sorry Becky…my eyeballs high-center on certain things! You’re correct, once in that circumstance you could do anything and it won’t change the status quo with the children. And yes, children are raised in plenty of different family arrangements…almost all of them created by a variety of government policies that differ from state to state.
The question is, for me anyway, do we then simply codify structural dysfunction? That is, we know all sorts of different situations exist, but does that mean we simply throw up our hands and say, what the heck…there is a compelling state interest in everything and anything?
November 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
To Obama TP…answer: not on purpose.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Then that’s where we diverge, Paul. What you call structural dysfunction, I call loving, committed relationships and a matter of equal rights for all citizens under the law.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Becky, well at least we agree on where we disagree!
November 18th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Yes, and we both think we are right and the other wrong. I won’t change your mind, I’m sure, though I will continue to try.
I’d like to refer you to a most eloquent comment submitted to OneUtah by Marv who frames the discussion so well.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Paul,
The burden of proof is on those wishing to restrict the right to marry from gay couples. If there is no compelling state interest to do so then the state must stand on the side of equality.
I realize you will disagree with me on this point. I won’t argue it further with you for it would be pointless. I guess it’s true what you like to say, we simply have differing worldviews when it comes to protecting and furthering freedom, personal liberty and equality. Your worldview says “Show me how good you can be and then I’ll consider treating you equally.” Mine says “Equality first and foremost. Rights shall only be restricted when a dire threat to society or infringement upon others’ rights compels us to do so.” Same-sex marriage does not come close to meeting either of those requirements.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Paul,
Kevin at least has the intellectual honesty to admit that we are talking about restricting the rights, freedoms and equality of gay people when we deny them equal access to the right to marry. Now, if only he could come up with a compelling reason for us to continue to do so . . .
November 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Don, yeah we just disagree, but I do appreciate your civil tone in these last responses.
And, if you are characterizing young Kevin correctly, my repsonse would be: he’s wrong. There is no restriction, just a requirement to show that gay marriage actually benefis society. Equal protection just doesn’t apply in marriage law unless all other standards are met…for instance, marriage laws do not permit family members from marrying.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“Equal protection just doesn’t apply in marriage law unless all other standards are met…for instance, marriage laws do not permit family members from marrying.”
Paul, you’re going to have to expand on that a bit. I’m not even sure exactly what you are saying (maybe you’re being purposefully vague?). My initial take is that you are saying all marriage laws, including those based on race, do not deserve scrutiny under equal protection clauses in the law. That can’t be right . . . can it? What do you mean by “… unless all other standards are met”? Your initial example of restricting family members from marrying isn’t making your point clear, at least not to me.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Cliff said “Ask yourself this question Kevin; are yourpart[sic] of the future, or will you fight to retain the darkest parts of the past?”
Is there no darkness in the future? You forget that the rising AND setting of the sun are both forthcoming. Would you accelerate the one so much that the next comes equally quickly?
I believe in progress, but I also believe that it must come gradually. At present our culture is shifting gears. As has always happened, the impetus behind the gears is pushing so hard without any knowledge that they are not powerful enough to move a whole society by themselves. Homosexuals need support, and if that takes time, so be it. 1865-1964 was a long wait before rights were legally guaranteed to blacks, and society is still catching up to concepts of racial equality today.
Besides, one definition of “progress” is “motion.” One can both move toward AND away from slavery. Let me say something that is going to burn many people’s eyes as they read it: giving one person more freedom can take away freedom from another person. Think about it, Cliff, and let me know what you think.
Kevin’s arguments, although not complete, hold some water. I would like to state that as a matter of biological practicality, it is unwise to support a mutation (if homosexuality is, in fact, genetic) or a recessive trait that is not biologically viable on a species level. A species cannot survive on a reproductive methodology that requires artificial insemination. I won’t bring up the other means of same-sex couple reproduction, as I think that most people on this website would agree that loveless sexual relationships simply for the sake of reproduction are abhorrent (although I imagine that, over time, they will cease to be abhorrent in our culture’s eyes).
Furthermore, the inclusion of unmarked genetic traits via mass adoption or artificial insemination in a population spreads negative recessive genes without any means of safeguarding against inbreeding. In a society that already preserves such genes with symptom-treating medicine, enabling traits that would normally result in the death of an individual organism to proliferate and spread, the inclusion of even more of this equilibrium-disrupting behavior could prove detrimental.
The arguments regarding the raising of children in different environment are interesting, but there are many holes. Becky argues that we can’t change the existence of children being raised in homosexual homes, so laws regarding them are meaningless. The simple answer to that is that, yes, they do exist, and yes, they will exist, but that doesn’t mean we should validate them legally, or fail to comment on their value to society. Murderers exist as well, Becky, and we will never change that, yet human societies have successfully legislated on them for millennia. Political nihilism won’t work for any issue, let alone one that questions an intrinsic interpersonal unit of society.
As much as we might want to argue that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, such is simply not the case. They are different in their basic format. The first is an aspect of love, with no biological function. The second is an aspect of love and procreation, with a distinct biological function. Perhaps the former is a more pure expression of interpersonal love. Perhaps the second is a more complex expression of both love and reproductive attraction. I’m not sure, and any comments on this are welcome. I’d like to know what you have to say about this perception.
In any case, marriage is not a human right–it is a universal privilege granted by government as an expression of what is and isn’t a socially acceptable sexual relationship dynamic. It is most certainly the business of a society to express its acceptance of behavior by reducing any social validation of that behavior that might be granted by law. As for tax benefits, insurance, and visitation: what is everyone’s problem? Why should married people get tax benefits in the first place? And why shouldn’t anyone be able to say who they want to give visitation rights to? These are not marriage dilemmas. These are stupid dilemmas, easily fixed by some common sense.
A simple solution is to rid marriage of government entanglement altogether, and make it an aspect of religions and other social organizations. Parental unions would then be more fundamental as an entity of species proliferation, and the responsibilities of parents and the rights of children would become far more important than this inane squabble about what word we use for people having frequent monogamous sex.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Please Dwight Sheldon Adams,
Do not address me until you have unsheathed your sword for its inaugural plunge.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Cliff:
Is your last comment some form of ambiguous stupidity, or are you asking me to attack you directly? I’m not speaking only to you. There are a great many reasonable people on this site with whom I would like to exchange perspectives.
If you really wish to have a fight, consider this my “inaugural plunge”: you are a grunting skunk of a human, incapable of even the most basic kindness, for even your politeness is merely the sheathing of your sword while you prepare a dagger behind your back. I hope Kevin is not fooled by any civility on your part, as it is defined by the same operational adjective as every other aspect of your being: it is false.
That said, I hope you and I can have a fruitful discussion. And please don’t be offended. That last paragraph is an assessment, not an insult, given primarily (at your request) to assuage any tensions you felt at a reduction in our linguistic arms race. I hope it can suffice for a long while before you feel the need to go at it again, and I sincerely hope that you will completely disprove every word of it.
Dwight Sheldon Adams