Voting on 8: A Study in American Individualism?
Months ago a man came to my door with a flier in hand and asked for my support on Proposition 8. I kindly took the flier and then informed the man that I had yet to make up my mind. I felt at the time a certain ambiguity that I have seen others express: I don’t want to encourage a lifestyle that I think harmful, but I don’t want to impose my own framework on someone else. For weeks I carried this burden, wrestling over what it would mean to vote “yes.” I struggled with the idea that if I were to vote in such a manner, I would need to be wiling to say so in front of friends who are gay, friends who support gay-marriage, and friends who would likely think worse of both me and my faith were they to hear that my yes vote was so motivated.
I wrestled with the issue for some time, always commenting when asked: “I haven’t decided yet.” But last week I began to recognize something at play in my decision making, a certain mentality that had been operating implicitly all along: good old American individualism.
Behind that demeanor within me that refuses to limit others rights is a sense that each is responsible for his or her own decision. I must allow those around me the freedom to make decisions because, after all, they alone will be responsible for those decisions. I cannot impose my beliefs on someone else – to do so would be both hubristic and myopic.
But last week I began to wonder about how much of that mentality is biblically based and how much of it comes from elsewhere. I wonder if perhaps I need to let a little more “corporate solidarity” into my viewpoint. Am I not, in some ways, to view myself as my brother’s keeper? If my brother or sister sins and I knowingly say nothing, am I not accountable to both he/she and to God? Ought I not to take some blame for the sins of my nation? If people are hungry and not being fed, if people are hurting and not being healed, if people are naked and not being clothed, am I not to blame? Can the same not be said if people are hating others and I say nothing? Or people are worshipping Baal and I keep my mouth shut?
I don’t know that I can vote “no” on Prop 8 because, as much as I’d like to trumpet the freedoms of the individual, I can’t escape the feeling that a “no” vote will make it just a little more acceptable, a little more appealing, for someone to choose a lifestyle that will cause them harm. And even if only fractionally so – I don’t know that I can rightfully take such an action. If my nation could vote to make a sinful practice of mine only slightly less appealing, would I not (in the long run) wish that they had done so?
Now, I admit I still struggle. In particular, I wonder if a “yes” vote is equally wrong in that it might cause a brother or sister to hate. But ultimately, the question that irks me is this: On the final day, if I stand before the throne with a brother or sister who practiced homosexuality, for which vote do I want to be accountable to him or her?
Tags: election, gay marriage, individualism, Proposition 8
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
November 4, 2008 at 3:27 am
there is very deep issue here at hand in terms of marriage. This problem will in no way be solved in this election. The door for conflict has been blown wide open, and the issue will go on to weig more important things in our country.
We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.
If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.
It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.
This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.
Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.
They are absolute anarchists.
Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.
So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.
Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.
Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.
All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.
The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.
That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.
We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.
Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.
to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”
November 5, 2008 at 6:13 am
Although I don’t know if I agree (in any way) the person who left the comment above this one, I did find your post fascinating.
We talked about this issue a lot last week, and tons of good points were brought up for both sides of the issue. I must say, however, that you make very interesting points that I hadn’t really thought of before.
But I do have a question for you. Would voting “no” on Proposition 8 really either a) make you irresponsible for your brother or b) stop your brother/sister from being gay? If we agree here that the homosexuality and/or the homosexual relationship itself is the sin, then does outlawing gay marriage really take away that sin? I agree with you that we are responsible for our brothers and sisters (again a point that I had never really considered), but perhaps that responsibility can be exhibited in a more…well…responsible way?
I feel like voting is so unpersonal–it doesn’t discuss the issue with homosexuals, it doesn’t hear them out and then lovingly disagree, it doesn’t seek to show them love or Christ while at the same time disgreeing with them. Maybe we ARE responsible for our brothers and sisters, and maybe we SHOULD be doing something to affect change in their life, but I just don’t know if voting is the right way to go about it.
Then again, I don’t know if it’s NOT, either. You present a good dilemma–you’ve made me think!