Tweet
Opponents of lifting bans on access to civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples frequently claim that lifting those bans somehow amounts to “special rights” for same-sex couples. For example, Gary Randall, a retired televangelist from Oregon with a long history of opposing civil rights for Washington’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) residents, makes frequent statements like this:
In fact, what is being sought through the passage of the “redefining marriage” law is not “marriage equality,” it is “special rights.”
Such claims are disingenuous since restricting access to civil marriage licenses to heterosexual couples is the very definition of “special rights.” Presumably, opponents of civil equality like Randall make these disingenuous assertions because they don’t want to admit that they are defending discriminatory laws.
In contrast, Washington’s Catholic bishops have long expressed the opinion that discrimination against same-sex couples seeking access to civil marriage or even second-class domestic partnerships is justified. Their justification revolves around the baseless assertion that heterosexual couples will cease to produce children or will not rear them responsibly if same-sex couples obtain civil marriage licenses.
It wasn’t until this year, however, that Washington’s bishops went the final mile and are, for the first time, openly calling for special rights for heterosexuals. The following statement was first presented in a January 2012 open letter signed by Washington’s four bishops (more on the letter here) and later read verbatim by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain during his testimony before the Washington state Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections Committee.
Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these [heterosexual] married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation.
The thing of it is, the special rights for heterosexuals that Washington’s bishops and other opponents of civil marriage equality are calling for don’t bolster heterosexual couples’ willingness to have children or their ability to responsibly rear their children (if they have any).
The real effect of barring access to civil marriage for same-sex couples is that it undermines family security and stability for same-sex couples and their children. But perhaps most tragically, it sends a direct message to the children of same-sex couples that they aren’t worthy of society’s full embrace.
With those ugly effects, it is perhaps not surprising that most of those who oppose lifting Washington’s ban on access to civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples refuse to admit that they are defending special rights for heterosexuals. What’s shocking is that the bishops do.
Related:
15 Comments
I applaud Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain.
He’s being honest about the intentions of the opposition.
Any strategy needs to focus on THAT.
We have no children. So by Archbishop Sartain’s logic, our heterosexual marriage is second class.
This from the church that tolerates child sexual abuse by priests.
IMO, that’s all you need to know.
Their moral arguments are just a front to obtain political power in contravention to the First Amendment.
You’re not catholic, either. So now your marriage is 3d class!
Maybe we should just give the churches the word “marriage”. Tell ‘em they’re the only ones who can use it. The rest of us will refer to the process by some other word. On the state license, you circle if it’s a marriage or whatever the other word is.
You’d think that if marriage equality was going to destroy society, the living together equality we’ve had for decades would have already done so. After all, the only difference is the paperwork.
Boxturtle (The Catholics got a lot of nerve to comment on ANYTHING related to sex)
They demand their free exercise rights while adamantly opposing non-establishment. They need confine their dictating to their own flock and leave the rest of us out of it. IMHO it isn’t allowing gay folks equal rights that somehow diminish my own, rather it is the denial of rights to the few that compromises all.
Men who do not marry, have little but hearsay to reference.
These guys aren’t at all opposed to “special rights”.
The ability of pedophile priests to molest children with impunity is nothing but a “special right”. The ability of the heirarchy to transfer these pedophile priests from parish to parish so that they avoid law-enforcement investigations is a “special right”. The impunity with which bullies harrass and beat up gay people is a “special right”.
Men who do not marry, have little but hearsay to reference.
The term married already refers to a non-religious declaration of togetherness. Whatever a judge says. The fact remains that the personal commitment holds the two of us together not a commitment to God.
We have tried to use the term “partner” or “mate” in solidarity with the gay & lesbian community. Partner is uncomfortably legal, mate is sadly too primal. So we have returned to married.
Let the religious “togetherness” find a new descriptive.
Married heterosexual couples will still do the sexy-time, even using the rhythm method, and besides there’s enough “next generation” to go around for a few generations.
Jung – “The great problem before us is over-population, not the atom bomb.”
Chomsky – “Consequences are many. It is, however, very important to bear in mind that, unfortunately, none lifts the two dark clouds that hover over all consideration of global order: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, both literally threatening the decent survival of the species.
Quite the contrary. Both threats are ominous, and increasing.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/15/imperial-way-american-decline-noam-chomsky
Jung – “Men are inclined to resent any interference with their way of thinking and their hidebound convictions.”
Ken Livingston – “. . . The world is run by monsters and you have to deal with them. Some of them run countries, some of them run banks, some of them run news corporations.” http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/khan-ken-livingstone-interview
Bush the Younger – Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward “how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?” replied, “History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”
Monsters, and selfish-self-centered-idiots I might add. Living “in the present moment”, now there’s a twist to New Age philosophy for you.
Us neither. If the Bishops want the world to have more children, they should drop celibacy and fuck women instead of little choir boys.
Perhaps the good Bishop has not heard of Mothers’ Day.
You’d think that if marriage equality was going to destroy society, the living together equality we’ve had for decades would have already done so. After all, the only difference is the paperwork.
What living together eqeuality? Here in the great state of Virginia we believe in not only discriminating against same sex couples but also against the slutty sluts who cohabitate and have sexy time without the benefit of paying the state liscensing fees.
Well, I guess the sterile and those who elect not to have children need not apply.
Maybe it’s time to retire the slogan, “Virginia is for Lovers.”
Actually, I grew up Catholic and got my undergraduate degree from Notre Dame. Which makes me as big a disappointment as the 2007 Fighting Irish, which went 3-9.