I don't know how social conservative I am anymore. I am still pro-life. I am still pro-guns. I also support the death penalty. But my support of amnesty and my views on marriage--which have become more moderate--may put me at odds with many social conservatives. I have taken the more apathetic Chris Christie approach to the issue. "It will be decided this June," or something along those lines, is what he said. And I agree. If the high court finds it unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from marrying, I wouldn't really doubt it. We are, in fact, 'discriminating' against them. I wouldn't rate it as bad as prohibiting interracial marriage, but I could get the discrimination argument. And we need a good reason to do so. I have always been a fan of the procreation argument--it is still the best argument on this issue--but I don't think it is a "compelling" reason. It is merely better than what the other side has to offer. I think this is not a Federal issue. But it can be a constitutional issue. And the Supreme Court could change my mind on the issue.
Also, I don't really care. Sure, some harms will come from gay marriage. Of the literature I have read, the effects of gay marriage were negative in the Netherlands. However, we must compare it to the harm done by prohibition. I think the harms tend to be exaggerated, but harms nonetheless exist. They are discriminated against which, naturally, leads stigma. But we also need to have laws--like the religious freedom laws attacked by the media--passed in conjunction with gay marriage. In Canada, Massachusetts, and elsewhere homosexuality is taught as normal, and oftentimes preferable, to heterosexuality in schools. When a parent objects they get punished, and in extreme circumstances, jailed. So I think laws which specifically allow children to opt out of those classes are a good compromise. I am not saying that it would happen on a national level, but in some jurisdictions it is bound to happen, and we would need laws to protect the religious community who remains in opposition to homosexuality. I suppose school vouchers could also remedy this problem if you oppose religious freedom laws.
Now, of course, I do not want stigma to exist against homosexuals. And legalizing their marriage would likely help them to some degree. But I think the effects would be negligible when it comes to suicide rates. In the Netherlands, for example, homosexuals are still victimized and rejected by their parents and peers, which leads to suicide. Since stigmatization causes suicide, and legalizing SSM would reduce stigmatization, suicide rates would decline. But the Netherlands is one of the most accepting societies in the world and they still have discrimination. So legalizing marriage would not have a dramatic effect. The study found that programs which promote the acceptance of homosexuality best reduce suicide rates--not marriage legalization. Though, as noted, those with *religious* beliefs should be allowed to opt-out, and those classes must refrain from promoting homosexuality as normal. I would say that it is 'normal', but I think you can promote acceptance (and the belief that is normal will come naturally if you promote acceptance) without saying that it is normal. I personally feel that it is normal, and that they should be accepted, but I think outright preaching that would cause a lot of unrest among religious communities and cause more harm than good. And according to this study, homosexuals have higher rates of mental disorder in the Netherlands. Will SSM help? Sure. Will it cure the problem? No.
So we must weigh two things. (1) SSM will *modestly* harm the institution of marriage, and (2) SSM will *modestly* reduce stigmatization. With empirical harms pretty much even, we must weigh in morality. And this is where the Supreme Court comes in. They do not create morality, but they can make an argument for it. So I am fully willing to change my opinion on their decision alone--if I find their reasoning sound. Instead of being in the Santorum opposition camp, I am more in the Christie "I don't care, it isn't my body, let the courts decide" camp. I may not be an extreme social conservative anymore, but I still think the name of the blog represents (more or less) my views on society.
Also, I don't really care. Sure, some harms will come from gay marriage. Of the literature I have read, the effects of gay marriage were negative in the Netherlands. However, we must compare it to the harm done by prohibition. I think the harms tend to be exaggerated, but harms nonetheless exist. They are discriminated against which, naturally, leads stigma. But we also need to have laws--like the religious freedom laws attacked by the media--passed in conjunction with gay marriage. In Canada, Massachusetts, and elsewhere homosexuality is taught as normal, and oftentimes preferable, to heterosexuality in schools. When a parent objects they get punished, and in extreme circumstances, jailed. So I think laws which specifically allow children to opt out of those classes are a good compromise. I am not saying that it would happen on a national level, but in some jurisdictions it is bound to happen, and we would need laws to protect the religious community who remains in opposition to homosexuality. I suppose school vouchers could also remedy this problem if you oppose religious freedom laws.
Now, of course, I do not want stigma to exist against homosexuals. And legalizing their marriage would likely help them to some degree. But I think the effects would be negligible when it comes to suicide rates. In the Netherlands, for example, homosexuals are still victimized and rejected by their parents and peers, which leads to suicide. Since stigmatization causes suicide, and legalizing SSM would reduce stigmatization, suicide rates would decline. But the Netherlands is one of the most accepting societies in the world and they still have discrimination. So legalizing marriage would not have a dramatic effect. The study found that programs which promote the acceptance of homosexuality best reduce suicide rates--not marriage legalization. Though, as noted, those with *religious* beliefs should be allowed to opt-out, and those classes must refrain from promoting homosexuality as normal. I would say that it is 'normal', but I think you can promote acceptance (and the belief that is normal will come naturally if you promote acceptance) without saying that it is normal. I personally feel that it is normal, and that they should be accepted, but I think outright preaching that would cause a lot of unrest among religious communities and cause more harm than good. And according to this study, homosexuals have higher rates of mental disorder in the Netherlands. Will SSM help? Sure. Will it cure the problem? No.
So we must weigh two things. (1) SSM will *modestly* harm the institution of marriage, and (2) SSM will *modestly* reduce stigmatization. With empirical harms pretty much even, we must weigh in morality. And this is where the Supreme Court comes in. They do not create morality, but they can make an argument for it. So I am fully willing to change my opinion on their decision alone--if I find their reasoning sound. Instead of being in the Santorum opposition camp, I am more in the Christie "I don't care, it isn't my body, let the courts decide" camp. I may not be an extreme social conservative anymore, but I still think the name of the blog represents (more or less) my views on society.
No comments:
Post a Comment