The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (36 page)

Yet at the heart of the opponents’ arguments is a genuine concern, namely, the good of society. Opposition to gay marriage take two basic forms: the first is to claim that gay marriage just is wrong and unnatural and so it shouldn’t be allowed. But revulsion, personal disgust, or visceral reactions aren’t moral positions—they are mere reactions, and they’re not solid ground for public policy.
¹⁷
My rights can’t simply depend on your opinion of me or my lifestyle. Unfortunately, just like Mrs. Garrison, people who oppose gay marriage
feel
that it’s wrong and construct arguments after the fact to try and rationalize their ­conclusions. Mrs. Garrison’s arguments are simply a way for her to allow her own jealousy into a public policy debate through the back door (tasteless pun intended). The only consideration worth weighing is the claim that gay marriage might have a negative impact on society, whether through undermining the institution of marriage, harming children, or leading to other consequences like sanctioning polygamy and incestuous marriage.

America’s liberal heritage is rooted in the notion of “negative ­liberty” best expressed in John Stuart Mill’s (1806–1873) harm ­principle: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
¹⁸
Before the government can restrict behavior, Mill thinks, it has to prove that that behavior will cause harm to others. The claim that liberty is freedom from encroachment on my rights and that I have the right to self-determination so long as it harms no one is a foundational principle of American democracy. With respect to natural rights, Thomas Paine (1737–1809) claimed we had “all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.”
¹⁹
And civil rights are those secured through a social contract that guarantees our natural rights. The moral condemnation of the majority isn’t a good reason to limit the rights of a minority. This is the same reasoning the Supreme Court used to prove the unconstitutionality of anti-sodomy laws.
²⁰
And it’s the same reasoning that can demonstrate there’s no compelling reason to deny marriage rights to gays.

There are two popular arguments
for
gay marriage. The first starts with the simple claim that what gays are demanding are the same rights that straights have, and that sexual orientation isn’t an adequate reason to deny a group of individuals these rights. Denying gays the right to marry is, it is argued, discrimination equivalent to that historically suffered by other minority groups like women and African-Americans.

This argument is based, though, on a fundamental misunderstanding. Gay marriage would require the creation of an entirely new category of rights. The civil rights movement was based on the idea that all people should have the same rights, so if men can vote, then women ought to be afforded the right also. But gay marriage is different, since as it stands, nobody has the right to marry a person
of the same sex
. Straight people don’t have that right any more than gay people do. And the right that straights have, to marry one partner of the opposite sex, is shared by gays.
²¹
Mr. Slave could marry Mrs. Garrison. What proponents of gay marriage want is a new right, one to marry a member of the same sex, presumably through the legal redefinition of marriage. To claim that this is an equal rights issue betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at stake, the
redefinition
of marriage rights. This is a civil rights issue, but it is not about equal rights.

The other often-made case for gay marriage is that gay marriage will have the same stabilizing and beneficial effect on society that ­traditional marriage has had: so, if this is a good enough reason to maintain traditional marriage, then there’s an equally good reason to promote gay marriage.
²²
If this argument’s correct, then gay marriage will help stabilize the gay community, promote family values in a community that could benefit from them, provide loving and nurturing homes and families to children who might otherwise not have them, and, in general, benefit society. Mr. Slave and society could only gain by allowing Big Gay Al to marry, and perhaps temper some of Mr. Slave’s otherwise less than desirable proclivities (poor Lemmiwinks!). There has been little research on this matter and ­perhaps all that can be said is this: at worst gay marriage doesn’t hurt society and at best it helps.

The best case
for
gay marriage is that there is no compelling, legitimate case
against
it.
²³
Really, gays shouldn’t have to make the case for themselves; rather, others should have to make a case against them. Mrs. Garrison can’t rely on tradition, holiness, or the good of the ­children to condemn gay marriage. She has to acknowledge that she only wants the ban because she doesn’t want to see Mr. Slave married to anybody but her. But without good reason, her personal feelings don’t count as a good foundation for her argument.

Of course, marriage is not something that’s freely handed out. We put certain restrictions on it. You can only marry one person at a time; they have to be of a certain minimal age and of the opposite sex; and they can’t be a close relative. But marriage is also fairly permissive. Rapists and child molesters can get married, and so can transgendered individuals and even gays, so long as they meet the requirements above.
²⁴
These restrictions and allowances are all justified based on the principle of harm: we can’t deny the right to marry to felons because there’s no compelling reason to exclude them. Arguments about further restricting marriage are based on the desire to regulate harmful practices, so we don’t allow polygamy, incestuous marriage, or under-age marriages. But each of these cases can be made on the facts that demonstrable harm would be caused by allowing them. To allow under-age marriages is to allow the exploitation of children who require protection. To allow incestuous marriages undermines the family structure, since it makes relatives accessible sexual targets and creates insecurity and instability in the family unit. The case against polygamy is similar: it’s harmful to women and has negative repercussions for society.
²⁵
But the case of gay marriage is different.

Many of our rights are negative rights; that is, rights to not be interfered with by others. The only justifiable way government can interfere in our right to self-determination is to prevent harm. So if there is no likely harm, there’s no reason for government to interfere. Applied to gay marriage, this allows us to say that since gay marriage doesn’t carry demonstrable threats to society, in the way some other forms of marriage might, there’s no justifiable reason to ban it.

The reason to support the right of gay marriage is the importance of family. Marriage is about creating families, and although the family has traditionally been a man and a woman raising naturally born children, this isn’t how it has to be. In “Follow That Egg!” Stan and Kyle were frankly much better parents than Stan and Bebe. Cartman broke his egg. Clearly, being straight isn’t enough to be a good parent, just like being gay isn’t enough to make a person unqualified to be a parent. Families are the basic units that allow society to cohere and they provide for child rearing and stability. But nothing in this definition demands that the work must be done by the traditional family held up by those who oppose gay marriage. Adoptions and single-parent families can function well, and would do better with governmental support. Families with gay parents have provided stability in the past, too. Although a cliché, it’s also true that there are many ways to be a family.
²⁶
In fact, there are many greater threats to marriage than gays wanting it, and better ways to bolster the institution than to build anti-gay discrimination into it. As John Kerry (a.k.a. “Giant Douche”) said about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, “If this were truly a defense of marriage act, it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for troubled marriages … treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse [problems] … it would expand the Violence Against Women Act.”
²⁷
Defending marriage is important, but gay people are not the threat.

Despite all this, I don’t think all opponents of gay marriage are ­bigoted. They probably would not endorse Mrs. Garrison’s solution of a “fag drag.” Some have genuine and legitimate concerns about the relationship between gay marriage and family, an institution they believe to be at the heart of society. But if all your arguments fail and you’re left with merely your visceral reaction, moral indignation and nothing else, you’re allowed your opinion but can’t reasonably expect that your personal preference be the guiding principle of public policy, especially at the expense of others.

In “Follow That Egg!” the governor of Colorado comes up with an ingenious solution to the problem of gay marriage. Gays will be able to marry, but it won’t be called “marriage.” Gays will get the new right they want and opponents won’t have the word marriage “tainted” by the inclusion of gays. Gay married couples will instead be called “butt buddies” (and apparently, since nobody cares about dykes, we don’t have to worry about them). Mr. Slave lisps, “We want to be treated equally” (yes, he’s so gay he can lisp a sentence without a single “s” in it). The governor says that this
is
equality, and everybody’s happy, right?

No. This isn’t being treated equally in any relevant sense. Gay marriage is based on rights, but the moral message behind it is about family and acceptance. Gays want marriage rights because they want to be included in society. Jonathan Rauch notes: “One of the main benefits of publicly recognized marriages is that it binds couples together not only in their own eyes, but also in the eyes of society at large.”
²⁸
It’s about social recognition. To use a different word or phrase to set off gay marriage marks it as different and inferior. It doesn’t treat gays as equals but, rather, reaffirms their second-class citizenship. Some people who oppose gay marriage are for civil unions—or “butt buddies”—because they acknowledge the importance of rights, but they don’t want to include gays in their traditions. This is the height of hypocrisy. To classify gays differently is to deny them equal status as members of the community. It’s degrading and humiliating. Marriage as an institution is important, not just because of the rights it affords the members of the marriage, but because of the order it bestows on society through its moral message of ­commitment. This is an aspect of marriage denied civil unions by its very nature as a relationship that’s “not marriage.” Separate but equal is never equal, for the simple reason of the stigma attached to what is set apart. If there’s a case for gay marriage, it is for gay
marriage
and nothing short of full recognition will do. Until Mr. Slave and Big Gay Al are pronounced “man and man,” they’re not married, regardless of whether or not they are butt-buddies.

1
. Currently 20 states and the District of Columbia offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. Only six of these states and DC offer same-sex marriages, although two additional states recognize same-sex marriages issued from out of state. See:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/same-sex-relationship-recognition-laws-state-by-state
, accessed Feb. 23, 2013.

2
. Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative in California that would have amended the Constitution of California so that only marriages between a man and a woman could be recognized by the state. It was passed in the fall of 2008.

3
. See
Perry v. Brown
, 134 Cal. Rptr.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2011).

4
. In order to quote the show accurately I have to use Mrs. Garrison’s own words, but I am offended by her use of the word “Fag.” I agree wholeheartedly with Cartman: “Fag” is a hate word, and it’s insensitive to butt pirates.

5
. Currently straight couples receive over 1100 federal benefits and ­protections that gay couples are not afforded. See:
http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Foundation_Answers_to_ Questions_About_Marriage_Equality_2009.pdf
, 5, accessed Feb. 23, 2013.

6
. Although when put up to state referenda the majority unfortunately, unthinkingly believe
Webster
is authoritative—hence the 30 (with the recent addition of North Carolina) states that have constitutional a­mendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman and an additional 12 with laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. See:
http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_2009(1).pdf
, accessed Feb. 23, 2013.

7
. See Sam Schulman, “Gay Marriage—and Marriage,” in James E. White, ed.,
Contemporary Moral Problems
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2006), 285–293.

8
. See Ronald Dworkin,
Taking Rights Seriously
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), Chapter. 10, “Liberty and Moralism.”

9
. Some have argued that historical data show that the equivalent to gay marriage has existed in the past. For a good summary of this position, see Andrew Sullivan, ed.,
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader
(New York: Vintage Books, 2004), chapter 1, “For the First Time Ever? Same-Sex Marriage in History.”

10
. George W. Bush, “The President Speaks: President George W. Bush, February 24, 2004” in
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
, 343.

11
. Although, as stewards of the institution of marriage, straights don’t have a very successful record.